شناخت در فلسفۀ اساطیر در رابطه با صورت‌های طبیعی و ذهنی

1. Introduction

1. Cassirer was the first person who really advanced the project of extracting a comprehensive epistemology of myths. He as a Neo- Kantian incorporate myth into time and spatial-numerical formats and into Kant's predicate limits; In this regard, he identifies three areas of expression:

• affirmative proposition

The proposition contains a subject and predicate. In natural mode, the subject has “causal linking” with a predicate, and in formal mode, their linking is based on the reason called “reason of synthesizing” or based on accident called “pure proposition”. The affirmative proposition is the only proposition had reality and reality doesn’t relate to negative judgment.

The natural affirmative proposition includes the necessity of linking subject and predicate. It seems that this form of a proposition is the oldest mode of “expression mode”: it means the oldest “vocabulary form” that has converted reality to parole.

Subjunctive proposition

It is the proposition that includes “positive successor and anterior” that express causality on the whole. This form of proposition has the most function in the “structure of myth language”. It’s not surprising, because human is familiar with this expression method due to emotion; Rain after thunder, warming after sunrise, etc.

The subjunctive can express inclusion in this way that even successor completely causes anterior that is not different from the affirmative proposition, therefore they are convertible to each other (E. Cassirer, 1925: 224).

• Deductive propositions

This is the conclusion of several “affirmative propositions” but finally, “proposition” remains as the conclusion that in fact subject and predicate been medial proposition between them, come together and the intermediate is removed. A deductive proposition is recognized as a certainty because it’s all made by the mind, so the result was a certainty.

• Methodology

2.1 According to E. Cassirer’s achievements in myth phenomenology and L. Strauss’s structuralist method, we discuss the feasibility of comparison of ancient people and ourselves.

2.2 Mythical way of awareness to object The way of myth awareness is an immediate awareness, but the structure of this type of awareness is different from “immediate-emotion” awareness. In the other word, if myth awareness of an object is completely immediate or emotional, there is no opportunity for mixing and making common mythical forms (Eliade. M; 1974:120), so, immediate awareness at the same time, from an individual point of view, metaphor is received and nature of the relation of person to nature is different from what is definite today because awareness can receive immediately, but with different aims (D. Hume, trans. Enayat,45-56). Therefore, here the first principle is made that is named “the mythical relationship of individual awareness with nature (Lundberg. P 1942: 120- 125).

2. What drives one to "justify mythical awareness?

Reductive view tends to say “fear and anxiety” make this way of awareness justify; this is true but it’s not the all story, because it seems myth with all its pervasiveness couldn’t answer

factors of fear and weakness of human; So, what the other factors are there? The answer is that all people think of God, whether they accept or deny it (Strauss. L, 1980:156-157).

So, the mythical object is the same as a transcendent object that attracts human awareness toward Its absence; why the absence?

Because it is present, there is no differentiation between a nation’s myth and even one nation because the object is obvious.

The fact that all these secrets were in the nature of the ancients and that they had no reason for that order or even the purpose of their existence and life, has left them wondering how nature is "self-organizing"?

3. Conclusion

According to what has been said so far, in terms of its natural function in the daily life of the ancient people and in terms of its form researched more, myth is worth thinking, because people every time try to make the word understandable; the principled way in that time was recourse to archetypes and causal expression secretly. So there is no difference between expressed proposition in one myth and today’s logic expression neither in case form nor structurally, at least in the formal level.

In fact, these symbols are experience templates and like categories make objects expressible and perceptible. We find it in categories like Contradiction, unity, and causality. It’s not necessary that these experience templates are reasonable, but it’s necessary to organize our perception in a way to get away from the ignorance and go toward “causal expression to heal our fundamental fear that may be a threat to life.

We have two principle way for researching myth; 1- researching natural forms explained condition of The formation of "human life" around these myths; 2- researching mental forms shown The totality of myths and the kinships between different myths and the relative ways of their formation.

Keywords: myths, nature, phenomenon, mind, God

References

1. Hume, History of the Natural Religion, translated by H. Enayat (5’s edition) Kharazmi publication, Tehran.

Cassirer, E., & Gordon, P. E. (2020). V.2 The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Three Volume Set (1st ed.). Routledge.

 Eliade. M (1974) “Traite d’histoire des Religions” Payotheque, P : 110-250.

Lundberg. P (1942) “La Typologie Baptismal dans l’ancienne Eglis” Uppsala and Leipzig.

Strauss. L (1980) “totemisme Aujourd’hui” Puf (Press Universitstaires de Frence).