[Starboy]

Quote by: lsbskins1 "Well yes, but it is a conclusion to one of the questions that you claim can only be answered by Mythos that is actually answered by Logos. Unless of course I still do not know what you mean by Mythos and Logos." No, existentialism basically says"The world is dark and ugly. Deal with it by accepting that it is dark and ugly and that there is beauty and meaning in the human struggle." There is no logos answer. There is no answer at all. It embraces and accepts that there is no "logical" way to answer these questions. There is only acceptace, which is a form of faith, which is a form of Mythos answer.

I do not want to get into definitions of existentialism. In any case it is not important to this discussion. There are a variety of possible answers to those questions that you claim can only be answered by "Mythos" and existentialism is one of those answers and it is not as if millennia of "logic" has not been applied to those answers. Existentialism is no exception to this. And it is not as if many of the answers to those questions that you claim only can be addressed by "Mythos" [whatever that is] have not been the result of rational thought or "Logos" if you will. You are trying to make a distinction that does not appear to be there. It is not as if all the possible answers to the "Mythos" questions just pop out of thin air with no reason or "Logos" at all. Many of those answers were the result of a great deal of reason or "Logos".

"Okay, so you are saying that there are question that may only be answered by what you call Mythos and there are questions than may only be answered by Logos, and perhaps, who knows based on your exposition, there are questions that can be answered by both mythos and logos and then there are questions that can't be answered by either. Is this the scheme you are trying to describe?" What I am saying is that man needs both kinds of answers. There is limited overlap, but some overlap. I can look to logos to inform me as to the historical accuracy of some of the "factual claims" contained within our existing traditions ( ie, it can disprove to a certain extent but it can not ultimately answer). That is why I talked about the fact that they are complimentary and contratictory. People have opperating, concurrently, desires in both areas. Those who lean towards the logical end of the spectrum are looking constanly to poke logical holes in the constructs of the spiritual answers that are out there. People who lean more to the spritual end tend to be too dismissive of the importance of logic to man because their answers rest on faith. I am not about debunking either side, I am about trying to establish a more comfotable ballance. But in order to come anywhere close to that, we have to agree that both areas have their own legitimacy. If you are an honest logical thinker, you have to admit that the existence of a "God" can not be disproven any more than it can be proven. It is an unknown, and very likely unknowable. That is precisely why "Mythos" is essential to man. Man needs to feel a sense of purpose. Man needs to feel that there is ultimate justice, even when all forms of logic and sensory perception tell him that this might not be. Man can not logically overcome this contratiction. Man needs "Mythos" to provide comfort. What man needs, he will attempt to supply for himself. I will conceed that in the end, this comfort may be unattainable. It may be because man is too limited to truely comprehend the "God" that exists, or "God" may not exist at all. It does not really matter. What matters is that man desires that comfort and logos alone can not get us there. And, I would argue that that comfort is as essential to man as food and shelter are.

You seem to saying that "Logos" addresses reason and that "Mythos" addresses emotion. You seem to be saying that "Mythos" is required to provide comfort and that for some reason logos can't provide that comfort.

So, what is the point in rejecting an aspect of mans nature that is essential to his well being? That goes for BOTH sides.

You have a giant presumption buried in your argument. That is that emotion and reason can't agree with one another. I agree that for many of the supernaturalists emotion and reason are in conflict. But they are in conflict not because that is their natural state. They are in conflict because holding supernatural beliefs places them in conflict. Yes the supernatural beliefs satisfy the many emotional needs of people but for those that can reason it falls very short. Of course one could come away from this by saying that there is no way for reason or emotion to agree or you could examine what life would be like if you tossed out the supernatural presumption. I can tell you that when you do that the emotional and the rational do not have to disagree with one another. It does open another can of worms but that is a different discussion.

Starboy