Views: 9
Campbells Myths to Live by: Essay 2 The Emergence of Mankind
Campbell begins by maintaining that mythology and its various themes have played an important shaping role insofar as man’s Being-in-the-world is concerned. He elaborates upon this point by claiming that physical anthropology concerns itself with physical traits, tools, weapons and the art of man, noting that posture, brain size, teeth etc are important areas of research. Archaeology, a related science, devotes itself to excavations of ancient dwelling sites and buildings, and perhaps also carvings and inscriptions, attempting to draw conclusions as to how man succeeds in organising his life economically, socially and perhaps in terms of religion if these inscriptions or carvings appear to refer to deities. These sciences (perhaps also including social anthropology) are all concerned with the hylomorphic basic term “forms of life”, which Wittgenstein referred to in his later work, “Philosophical Investigations”. These investigations acknowledged both the scope and limitation of psychological reflections by claiming, for example that the discipline of Psychology, suffers from “conceptual confusion”. This was a complex criticism.
In the work “Articles on Aristotle 4: Psychology and Aesthetics” (Ed Barnes, J, et al.,London, Duckworth, 2003, Page VII) it is stated in the Preface that insofar as the scope and limitations of the concept of Psuché (Psychology) are concerned, the scope of the term firstly, applies to the general biological account of Psuché, secondly, the term is also located in the domain of Theoretical reasoning and metaphysics, thirdly, the term has application in the domain of practical reasoning as manifested in the disciplines of ethics and politics, fourthly, psuché is also the theme of the productive sciences, particularly the arts and Rhetoric. The discipline of Psychology, on this account is clearly trans-scientific (spanning several different categories of science), and this may be the reason why we encounter the phenomenon of conceptual confusion especially considering its a priori transcendental significance. This creates a significant problem: Has Psychology been mistakenly characterised as a discipline given the broad domains it ranges over?
This problem came into sharp focus in 1870 when an attempt was made to create a discipline resting on the definition, “The Science of Consciousness”, and a reductionist method aimed at replacing a categorical attitude with hypotheticals. On this view, theories became less related to categorical truth and more related to a “modelling” process based upon dialectical reasoning in which a thesis arrived at is confronted with an antithesis and both must be submitted to a synthesis. This dialectical process, for Hegel, had an end in “the absolute” but it is not, however, clear that the scientist envisages such an end. Dialectical reasoning is a kind of hypothetical reasoning that, in spite of its hypothetical character, appeals to the truth at the stage of a synthesis, but it does not define this assumption categorically. This, for Kant, would have been a prime example of a category mistake and it may be an example of the conceptual confusion referred to by Wittgenstein.
Psychology up to 1870 largely acknowledged its trans-scientific character remaining as it did principally in the context of Philosophy. Wundt and the Structuralists attempted as part of its reductionist policy, to reduce the whole enterprise to an investigation of sensations and feelings in experimental contexts. Later this would be questioned on the basis that consciousness could not as such be observed, and the focus would turn to a truncated idea of behaviour. William James also questioned the idea of consciousness insofar as it was conceived of as a kind of substance or entity. His work “Principles of Psychology” defined Psychology as “The Science of Mental Life: its phenomena and conditions” which at first sight appears compatible with both hylomorphic and Kantian Critical accounts of psuché but upon closer examination reveals itself to be an antirational empirical/pragmatic account. James admits in this work that there is an important distinction between what he refers to as the “judging subject” that thinks, and the empirical me, but in the context of this discussion he denies any status of transcendence for the Kantian “I think”. James also claims that there is not one unified self but rather a manifold of selves. He claims further that:
“The central part of the me is the feeling of the body and of the adjustments in the head; and in the feeling of the body should be included that of the general emotional tones and tendencies for at bottom these are but the habits in which organic activities and sensibilities run.” (Principles, Page 371)
James further claims that the relation between the “I think” and the empirical me is a “loosely construed thing”. This claim, of course questions not only Kantian Metaphysics but also the assumptions of Aristotelian hylomorphism which argues that the “what” of the experiences of the empirical me (its sensations, feelings, images, emotions, etc) relates conceptually to the “I” of the thinking soul which in turn relates essentially to the external world in forms different to those forms of sensation and feeling.
Freud’s first major publication “Studies in Hysteria”, which contained a number of separate studies, occurred circa three to five years after the publication of James’s Principles of Psychology. This is of course a landmark that establishes clinical studies as an important method of the new school of psychoanalysis. These essays also focus more on the unconscious mind than consciousness, the concern of many contemporary theoreticians.
James actually met Freud on his visit to the USA, and it is recorded that whilst he had a respect for Freuds work, he felt that it was too dogmatic given his own pluralistic approach to Psychological issues. In “Studies in Hysteria, we see clearly that Freud is beginning to distance himself from all forms of materialistic/empirical approaches by arguing for the thesis of psychogenesis (the cause of mental illness originates in the mind), which was already beginning to form after his visit to Charcot in Paris. Charcot, we know was a spokesperson for the thesis of somatogenesis (the cause of mental illness resides in the body and brain).
Freud relates hysteria to psychological trauma that has not had the possibility of everyday “abreaction” (conscious “working through” of the trauma), turning affected representations into normal memories). We must recall here that Freudian theory was not primarily a theoretical account, but rather was embedded in the productive science of medicine in which the primary aim was that of an instrumental “cure” or “treatment”. The practical science of ethics was also a secondary concern given the fact that psychoanalysis was hailed as a “moral” form of treatment to be seen as an alternative to the mass incarceration of hysterical women in mental institutions that was occurring in most major European countries.
In contrast to this approach James’s focus was more theoretical and his “method” therefore was more eclectic, embracing empirical research from all over Europe. This empiricism would very quickly transform itself into a form of pragmatism, defining truth instrumentally, and situating it in the realm of a practical reason which viewed ethical matters instrumentally. In fact, although Freuds focus was mainly on treatment based on a respect for the dignity of his patients, there were of course theoretical aspects to his theorising which he addressed more specifically in his later work when the relation of psychoanalysis to Philosophy became more apparent. On the Philosophical view of Freud’s work, it must be characterised as “trans-scientific”, and if this is the case then it is best judged on philosophical criteria provided by both Aristotle and Kant.
Campbell also, in this essay, refers to demographical facts such as the dispersion of peoples in primitive times. He claims that there was a “centrifugal movement of peoples” away from centres of population. This, on Campbells view accounted for the differences between the mythologies of the world, but this state of affairs is now changing with the globalisation processes of travel and communication which, he argues, creates a need to transcend differences between mythologies and religions by focussing on what he terms “common themes”.(Page 24).In the context of this discussion Campbell notes that until relatively recently there was almost universal support for social order and its institutions, but what we are now witnessing is a changing attitude which he claims is related to a concern for the safety and the development of the individual as “ an end and entity in himself.” It is not entirely clear what Campbell means with this expression because there is both a popular and a philosophical interpretation of his claim.
The popular interpretation points to the fact that man’s inherent selfishness and narcissism which, having been subject to control up to modern times, has suddenly in recent times been unleashed in our modern civilisations. Campbells position here might be that the diminishing effect of the influence of mythology and religion has caused a loss of control, entailing perhaps that it was mythology and religion that had been responsible for this social control. This, of course, is a position that puts into question the Ancient Greek philosophical proclamations that reason must take control of the appetitive and spiritual parts of the soul. Campbells position also runs counter to the Enlightenment proclamation: “dare to use your reason!”
The Philosophical idea of man as an end-in itself for Kant, of course, relates to the categorical imperative and the practical idea of freedom which urges us to treat everybody as ends-in-themselves, because of their dignity as human beings, which in turn is attributed to the species exactly because man is able in accordance with areté (doing and saying the right thing in the right way at the right time) to subject his feelings, emotions, affects to the moral law and the principle of the Golden Mean. For Kant, Religion within the bounds of Reason was the optimum stabiliser of activity in the arena of the social, but Kant also understood the importance of existing institutions such as The Law, Universities, as well as those which he proposed himself, namely, The International Court of Justice and the United Nations. These latter two institutions were the result of the globalisation process Campbell referred to earlier : a process which Kant insists is proceeding in accordance with a “hidden plan”. This “hidden plan” is motivated primarily by man recognising that he is a free and responsible agent with the duty to strive for the Good in accordance with the dictates of his understanding and reason.
Doing one’s duty, Kant insists, will lead to eudaimonia(a good spirited flourishing life and also to a Cosmopolitan Kingdom of Ends. This is an interesting moment in History, in which a leading Enlightenment Philosopher proposes the ideas that man is a dignified end-in -itself, and also that the practical idea of freedom is just as important for the future of humanity as the theoretical ideas of God and soul. This is the Philosophical explanation/justification for the shift in man’s attitude toward authority Campbell spoke about. It is a shift from away from the Metaphysics of Nature and its forms of reasoning about Psuché and towards the Metaphysics of Morals and its form of reasoning about mans “Being-in-the-world. Freud elaborates upon this theme of man’s relation to authority by pointing out that there are aspects of authority that cause man’s discontentment with his civilisation, and that our allegiance to religion has justifiably diminished over time given many of its pathological features.
The above philosophical accounts of our relation to authority take for granted that human psuché possesses a repertoire of powers of which the emotions and passions are but two powers of sensibility, which is subject to control by the powers of understanding/judgement/reason. The powers of sensibility are of course easily moved by certain kinds of narratives which we can find in Mythological texts, and Campbell claims in relation to the “common themes” which different mythologies manifes,t that God, the trees of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, the flood, virgin births, the resurrection etc are “common images”. Cambell points out that these are not historical images but rather “themes of the imagination” (Page 26):
“these holy tales and their images are messages to the conscious mind from quarters of the spirt unknown to normal daylight consciousness.”(Page 26)
Adam, we are told, “sinned” when he chose the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil over the fruits from the tree of life and immortality. Kant would have described this state of affairs in more positive terms and rejected the judgement that we were witnessing the “fall” of man, preferring instead to speak of the positive exercise of freedom to choose in future to live one’s life in accordance with the knowledge of good and evil. This choice was not something that ought to have been punished but rather celebrated. In these mythological narratives we often encounter symbolism and Campbell addresses this theme by referring to the Christian image of Christ, “the crucified redeemer”(Page 29), claiming that this image is a symbol of immortality partly in virtue of the fact that the Cross is made of wood which in its turn symbolises the tree of life, which, of course, is a much older and more obscure symbol whose full meaning has yet to be interpreted.
Campbells explanation of the Fall and the distance created between man and God is an interesting consequence in that it appeals to the pair of opposites, good and evil, which Campbell argues we need to “pass between” (Page 29). He elaborates upon this point by referring to the gender differences between Adam and Eve, as well as the differences between man the sinner who as fallen from Grace and a wrathful God whose anger can be terrifying. On both Aristotelian and Kantian accounts, the idea of “the Good” is not an extreme to “pass between” as part of the synthesising process which embodies the truth between two inappropriate extremes. The idea of the Good is rather an ideal principle arrived at via Philosophical reflection, and a reflective process involving the principle of the Golden Mean. It is this principle that we use to define evil, not a mere negation of evil. This form of reasoning applies also to the idea of God which refers to a creator which leaves a trace of himself via his breath of life into man. God is the transcendent, he who is who he is:
“I am all that is, has been and will be and no mortal has ever lifted the veil from my face.”
Kants Critique of Judgement
On one Philosophical account of modern man, reason has ceased to play the part in man’s life that it once played but there is nevertheless a “hidden plan” which allows him to strive for “The Good” via a good will and faith in God and Religion within the bounds of mere reason.
Campbell explores the relationship between different religions further and compares Buddhism and Christianity and claims:
“The symbolic images of the two traditions are thus fully equivalent” Page 30)
The above claim belies the fact that there is no God for the Buddhists.
Campbell engages with physical anthropology and its portrayal of Neanderthal man. Discoveries of burial sites indicate perhaps a belief in the afterlife since artefacts have been found alongside the bones of the Neanderthals. There is also evidence that Campbell does not evoke, of the Neanderthals coming into contact with a superior being whose fate it will be to inherit the earth. Palaeolithic paintings and Venus-carvings are testaments to the superiority of the race of modern man. Campbell makes an interesting remark concerning the role of women for these relatively modern ancestors of ours. Women he claims symbolised the earth which in its turn was termed “Mother Nature” (the giver of life). The father in this communal constellation symbolised the authority in society (Page 37), initiating children into the social order—an order in which the bond between man is a mystical one—an image-related bond strengthened by mystical song and dance.
Campbell ends this essay by pointing out that where geographical conditions vary greatly, such as jungle scenarios, where the horizon is seldom seen, the psychology of these jungle dwellers is very different to those inhabitants of more temperate climate zones. In jungle communities the primary source of nourishment was cultivation, an activity which the women managed very efficiently. In such an environment of rotting vegetation the idea of death was more related to the mother as a giver of life and in such communities both animal and human sacrifice was a common practice. Here we encounter a state of nature which could be described in terms of being “nasty, brutish, and short” unless of course one occupies a privileged position in society. Frazer’s work “The Golden Bough” also manifest some of this brutality in relation to the environment of Northern Forests where a Priest-King reigns waiting to be murdered by his successor— a mythology and psychology which is very different to that which we encounter in the mythology of Ancient Greece.