Thread 24839781

Is it possible for humans to live without any myths, narratives, or fictions?

>>24839781 (OP)
>Can the intellegent lead the masses using rationality and empiricism rather than myth making
No i dont think so. I think that was part of the liberal secular project. At least postwar UN global order. But in 2 generations its completely died out and the world has welcomed narratives, superstitions and myths back into their epistemology with open arms.
The name of the game is critical pedagogy, this is the underlying epistemology that guides our world today

>>24839781 (OP)
>without myths
Depends on how flexible you are with the definition. The myth of the revolutionary hero, proudly proclaimed by tankies, communists, Kaczynski-fans and many more is de facto a myth of our time, but not one articulated in any mythological literary genre.
>without narratives
No, personal identity is a narrative and we cannot function without an identity almost whatsoever.
>without fictions
Probably not. Raising a child without fiction would mean that you have to raise it without majority of pretend-play. And playing pretend seems to be incredibly important for a healthy child's psychological and social development, otherwise they don't fully procedurally grasp how roles work.

>>24839781 (OP)
We've been religious since the Paleolithic era so probably not

>>24839781 (OP)
>Baby names
why is that in the fiction section?

>>24839819
didn't the last one get talked about in Huizinga's "Homo Ludens"?

>>24839781 (OP)
You're living a myth, a narrative, a fiction.

>>24840293
The man, the myth, the legend.

>>24839781 (OP)
No.

>>24840406
Partly truth, partly fiction. A walking contradiction.

>>24839781 (OP)
If I got this right, I think we tried. And it simply has caused societies to collapse.

>>24840411
If reality is fundamentally and solely material then is progress real?

>>24839781 (OP)
Ask Camoo

>>24839781 (OP)
I would argue that the ur-fiction is pure thought. thought is a reflection of the world we use to understand it in different lenses. Compartmentalized images and sensations in our mind that we use to recognize things in the exterior world.

you do not physically record every single thing about a frog, that would require literally putting the frog into your mind, instead you hold on to particularly noteworthy elements you recognize in it, its color, its shape, and its actions maybe, creating a fiction of the frog in your mind to use for later scheme building/integration.

>>24839822
Your evidence?
>dude a rock standing up clearly they were monotheists
>nooo a cave painting of many animals show they were polytheistic
>ackchully this fat assed woman statue showed they worshipped the mother goddess gaia
Why is prehistory so full of fags who take their headcanon as fact? All we actually know is they painted caves, made some statues, liked putting trees and rocks in circles. “Ritual” is the nervous tic of the paleoanthropology scene. If you can’t explain a thing having a purpose (to you), it’s ritual. It’s religious. It’s mysticism.

>>24840411
A lot of these are strawman arguments.
What's with this board falling for Facebook boomer slop like this? Nobody thinks this shit is Powerful except for middle-aged wagies with as many DUIs as kids they don't see.
It's pure cope for the intellectually lazy.

>>24841462
NTA and not a Spiritualism larper, but you're misunderstanding how much rigor is invested into archaeological finds and anthropological research before anyone concludes that something served Ritualistic purposes. There's a ton of weird unexplained shit that's been uncovered, they don't just jump to "it's a ritual or a religious practice" without having a reason to do so.

It's also really easy to fall into the fallacy of thinking hominids from before we developed Agriculture or Writing are "less intelligent" than us in meaningful ways. We're the same species; early Humans had hopes and dreams and cultures as complex as ours. They just lived in a completely different world, and cared about different things on the day-to-day.

>>24839781 (OP)
Lmao, I remember when edgy internet atheists were putting bibles in the fiction section of bookstores in like 2010, and posting it online for brownie points. Millenials lmao.

>>24841466
So? You gonna make a point or something?

>>24841499
I did.
Poor old loser needs me to speak in more direct terms? A little too dim to connect the dots between clauses? Need me to fuck your wife too while I'm at it?
Do your own homework, retard. Throw your phone in a river.

>>24841480
To be fair, that phase didn't last for me long. Atheism isn't particularly interesting or arcane so I graduated to greener pastures. I'd rather be an obscurantist and confuse people with my beliefs than just state basic facts which enables me to catch people off guard. Empirical science is mundane.

>>24841513
Glad I got you to respond. Thats the reaction I wanted, and I got it. Thanks for being a good sport.

>>24839781 (OP)
Only the best humans.

>>24841471
>rigor
Unlike you I’ve actually gotten a history degree and had teachers moaning over the amount of dumb shit that gets funding. Never their own dumb shit of course (lel). A guy was writing his dissertation on what animals thought. No not animal cognition. No not animals in history. No not animals analyzed by biology. His personal made up story about what animals thought about being domesticated.
They definitely jump to ritual use in the absence of any practical explanation. Talk to archaeologists and they’ll admit it’s the free square of their bingo board.

>the fallacy of thinking hominids are “less intelligent”
I didn’t commit any fallacy, I stuck to what we can physically prove instead of LARP about.
>early humans had hopes and dreams as complex as ours
Your evidence? It’s like you don’t even understand what you’re doing.

>>24840411
>You're alive to witness the NRx discourse being dilluted into this kind of braindead Indian-tier content
LOL

>>24841548
>Unlike you I’ve actually gotten a history degree
Unlike you I have a STEM degree, you bleating pseud. I don't care what silly anecdote happened when you were getting your participatory degree.

My evidence is a dash of Occam's Razor paired with the archaeological remnants of more recent civilizations. We can only prove so far that written language is about 6000 years old. Humans didn't magically become capable of abstraction some time in the last 10,000 years, it's been part of our brain structure the whole time we've been Homo Sapiens. Evolution is unfathomably slow.

>>24839781 (OP)
>Is it possible for humans to live without any myths, narratives, or fictions?
I do, and it sucks.

>>24841583
>I
Not there yet buddy.

>>24841590
kek, fair enough

>>24841577
>I have a STEM degree
>My evidence is a dash of Occam's Razor
Got it out of a cereal box? I'm not even convinced you finished highschool since that's your big trump card.

>We can only prove so far that written language is about 6000 years old.
Good, now you're learning.

> Humans didn't magically become capable of abstraction some time in the last 10,000 years, it's been part of our brain structure the whole time we've been Homo Sapiens. Evolution is unfathomably slow.
We can't even say what part of the brain unlocks levels of abstraction in living humans. We have a span ranging from no ability whatsoever to very advanced ability and none of that shows up in a brain scan. Even if it did, we have no intact brains of prehistory to work with if we did a comparison.

Since that was your big gambit to justify a bunch of unprovable bullshit assertions (again your STEM degree is an invention or made with crayons) maybe you should stop and think about the problem of actually /proving/ a thing versus inventing fanfic.

>>24841626
>being this assmad that someone else's degree outranks yours
You don't need intact brains to study. It's a completely sound inference, because evolution is a glacially slow process.
Homo Sapiens as a species has the capacity for abstract reasoning, built into the structure of our brains. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a person from 25000 BC or 3300 AD, they're the same species. Everything we know about biology, both in the Evolutionary context and more generally, indicates as much.
Ergo,
>early Humans had hopes and dreams and cultures as complex as ours

It would do you well to read up on the Philosophy of Science. Nothing I've said is a reach.

>>24839781 (OP)
No. In fact most of us are living out a myth right now. The archetypes are constantly pulling our strings.

stories existed before humans

>>24839781 (OP)
Gonna say no.
As long as there are two people alive at least one of them is going to be spouting bullshit and that's all fiction is.

>>24839781 (OP)
Humans will always create stories for fun. Even if we completely eradicated all myths, narratives, and fictions today, more would simply take their place. Even if they’re just campfire stories and stuff at first.