The Dialectic of Myth by Alexei Losev
This excerpt from 'The Dialectic of Myth' book written by Russian philosopher Alexei Losev (1893-1988 A.D.) was translated in 1995 by Alexander Braun.
Descartes - the founder of the new European rationalism and mechanism, and therefore also positivism. Not the kitchen talk of the XVIIIth century materialists, but Descartes is of course the original founder of philosophical positivism. And so it happens that a specific mythology underlies this positivism. Descartes begins his philosophy with general doubt. He is doubting even regarding God, isn't He also misleading. And where does he finds support for his philosophy, its already doubtless foundation? He finds it in the [I], in the subject, in thought, in consciousness, in the [ego], in [cogito]1. Why is it so? Why things are less real? Why God is less real, even though Descartes himself says that it is the clearest and most obvious, and simplest idea? Why is not something else, yet? Only because such is his own unconscious dogmatic doctrine, such is his own mythology, such is a whole individualistic and subjective mythology, which lays in the foundation of new European culture and philosophy. Descartes - mythologist, even with all of his rationalism, mechanism, and positivism. More then that, these last characteristics are only explained by his mythology; and feed upon it only11. Another example. Kant is absolutely right in his teachings, that in order to perceive spacious things, one should approach them already in possession of representation of space. Indeed, in a thing, we are finding different layers of its concretise rendering: we have its real body, volume, weight, etc., we have its shape, idea, sense. Logically, the idea is, of course, comes before matter, that is because first you have an idea and then you realise it on this or another material. Sense antecede appearance. Out of this completely primitive and absolutely true ascertainment, Plato and Hegel made a conclusion, that sense, understanding - are objective, that in the objective world order logically different moments of idea and thing are interlaced into indissoluble real connection. So, what does Kant makes out of this? From this Kant concludes his doctrine about the subjectivity of all forms of cognition, space, time, categories. His arguments authorised him only to certify logical precedence of forms and senses - fluctuating things. But in truth, any [formality], decoration, any attempt to find a purport (of) and sense are certainly subjective for him. That is why turned out to be this, that was not in need of prove, and what was his initial dogmatic doctrine and mythology. Rationally - subjectivistic and separately - individualistic mythology celebrating in Kants' philosophy, and well may be, its finest victory. So and early Fihte, the original union of any comprehension, before the division on practical and theoretical scientific studies, for some reason interpret not as a Whole, the way Plotin did, but as I111. Here is also mythology, which is not proved by anything, nothing can prove it, and doesn't have to be proved by anything. And nothing is surprising. And so it is always like this, that, what is possible to prove and conclude is based on what is impossible to prove and self - obvious; and mythology only then a mythology, if it doesn't get proved, if it can't be and doesn't have to be proved - Thus, under these philosophical constructions, which in new philosophy were called upon to understand scientific experience, hiding a quite defined mythology.
Not less mythological is a science, not only [primitive], but any. Newton based his mechanics on the hypothesis of homogeneous and infinite space. World doesn't have limits, i.e. doesn't have a shape. For me this means, that world is - shapeless. World is an absolutely homogeneous space. For me this means, that world is - absolutely flat, expressionless, and with no relief. Such world reflects immense boredom. Add to this picture an absolute darkness and an inhuman coldness of the interplanetary space. What is it other than a black hole, not even a grave and not even a bath house with spiders, because both are nevertheless more interesting and warmer, and nevertheless correspond with something human. It is clear, that this is not conclusion of science, but of mythology, which science excepts as a dogmatic doctrine and dogma. Not only pupils, but all respected scientists seem not to mention the fact, that the world of their physics and astronomy is a rather boring, sometimes disgusting, some other time simply maddening mirage, an optical illusion, that same hole, which we can also love and honor. Some say that hole-makers still exist in a dense forests of Siberian wilderness1. But I, let the Heaven forgive my sins, still can't figure this out: how is it that the Earth can be moving? I have read the course / manuals, textbooks, at some point I wanted to be an astronomer myself, I even married an astronomer. But still, up to now, I can't convince myself, that the Earth is moving and no sky exists. Something about some pendulums and some deviation of something somewhere, something about some parallaxes... Unconvincing. Simply not very solid somehow. Here is a question about the whole Earth, and you are reeling some pendulums. But most importantly, all of this is uncomfortable somehow, kind of evil, and cruel, and is not one's own intimate familiarity. One moment I was on Earth under the sky so dear and familiar to me, listening about the Universe, [ya je ne podvijetsya]111... The next moment, suddenly, there is nothing, no Earth, no sky, no [ya je ne podvijetsya]2. They drove everything out to Hell, into some kind of emptiness, even swore in foul language afterwards. [Here - where your motherland is, -devil-may-care, spit and smear it all over!] Reading an astronomy textbook makes me feel that someone is driving me out of my own home with a stick and even ready to spit into my face. But why?111
Thus, Newtonian mechanics is based on mythology of nihilism. To this quite corresponds the specifically new European doctrine of infinite progress of the society and culture. In Europe it was often preached, that, one epoch has a sense not by itself, but only as a preparation and fertilizer for another epoch, and that this other epoch doesn't have sense by itself, but it is also - manure and soil for the third epoch and etc. As a result, it turns out to be, that no epoch has an independent sense and that the meaning of a certain epoch, as well as of all possible epochs, is moved aside farther and farther away, to the infinite times. It is clear, that such nonsense should be called the mythology of social nihilism, no matter which [scientific] arguments it is surrounded with. To this we also have to attribute the doctrine of universal social equalization, that also carries within itself all the signs of mythologically - social nihilism. Quite mythological is the theory of infinitely divisible matter. Matter, some say, consists of atoms. But what is atom? If it is materialistic, then it has a shape and volume, for example, cubical or circular3. But a cube has its side and diagonal of a certain length, and a circle has certain length radius. The side, and the diagonal, and the radius can be divided, for example in half, and, therefore, the atom is divisible, and besides, infinitely divisible. If the atom is not divisible, then it means, that is has no spacial form, and in that case I refuse to understand, what is this atom of matter, which is not materialistic. Thus, either there is no atoms as particles of matter, or they are infinitely divisible. But in the last case of the atom, strictly speaking, it doesn't exist as well, for what is the atom-, which is divisible infinitely? This is not the atom, but infinitely thin, with nought in its range, dust scattered and dispersed into infinity of matter. Thus, in both cases atomism is a mistake, only possible thanks to the blind mythology of nihilism. To any sensible person it is clear, that a tree is a tree, and not some invisible and almost not existing dust of god knows what, and that a stone is a stone, and not some kind of mirage or fog of who knows what. But for all that, atomistical metaphysics was always popular in a new age up to the last days. This can only be explained by mythological dogmatic doctrine of new Western science and philosophy.
Thus: science doesn't come into being from the myth, nor science exist without myth, science is always mythological.
3. However here we have to eliminate two misunderstandings. - First of all, science, we say, is always mythological. This doesn't mean, that science and mythology - identical. If mythology-scientists want to bring mythology to science (primitive), then I would never, whatever case shell be, bring science to mythology. But what is that science, which is indeed not mythological? This - is absolutely abstract science as a system of logical and numerical regularities. This - is science-in-itself, science by itself, pure science. It never exists like this. Realistically existing science is one way or another mythological. Pure abstract science is - not mythological. Newtonian mechanics is not mythological if taken in its pure form. But real operation with Newtonian mechanics led to understand, that the idea of homogeneous space, laying in its base, turned out to be the only significant idea. And this is the dogmatic doctrine and the mythology. Euclidean geometry is not mythological by itself. But a believe, that realistically there is simply no other types of space exist, other then the space of Euclidean geometry, is already a mythology, since the provisions of this geometry don't say anything about the real space and forms of all other possible types of spaces, but only about one specific space; and it is unknown, if this is the only one, if it corresponds or not to any experience and so on. The science by itself is not mythological. But, I will repeat, this - is an abstract, nowhere applicable science. As soon as we start to talk about the realistic science, i.e., the science which is characteristic to one or another specific historical epoch, we already deal with an application of pure, abstract science; and right here, we can act one way or another. And we are submitted here under the exclusive control of mythology. - Thus, any realistic science is mythological, but the science by itself has no relation to mythology.
Secondly, someone can raise an objection to what I said: how is it that science can be mythological, and how is it that modern science can be based on the mythology, when the goal and dream of any science had almost always been to overthrow mythology? To this I should give the following answer. When the [science] destroying the [myth], then this only means, that one mythology is fighting with another mythology. Before people believed in shape-shifting or, rather, - had an experience of shape-shifting. Then the [science] came alone and [destroyed] this believe in shape-shifting. But how did science destroy shape-shifting? It did with help of mechanistic Weltanschauung and teaching about homogeneous space. Indeed, our physics and mechanics don't have such categories, which could explain the shape-shifting. Our physics and mechanics operate with the different world; and this is a world of the homogeneous space, in which there are mechanisms, and are mechanically moving. By replacing shape-shifting with such mechanism, the triumphed its victory over shape-shifting. But now we are witnessing the resurrection of the new or, rather very old, ancient teaching about space. This introduced an oportunity to think, how the same body, when changing its place and motion, is also changing its shape, and how (under the condition that the body is moving with the speed of light) the volume of such body comes to be equal to nil, by the famous Lorentz equation, which connects speed and volume. In other words, Newtonian mechanics didn't want to mention anything about shape-shifting and wanted to kill it, therefore inventing such equations, into which shape-shifting couldn't fit. These equations by themselves, abstractly speaking, are irreproachable, and in them there is no mythology. But scientists by no means use only that one, which consists in these equations. They use them in such ways, that simply leaves no space for the other forms of space and according mathematical equations. In this lies the essence of the mythology of European (natural) science, - in the creed of one favorite space; and because of this, it always seemed to him (the scientist), that it had [refuted] the shape-shifting. The principle of relativity, talking about heterogeneous space and building equations concerning the transition from one type of space to another, again makes shape-shifting conceivable as well as a miracle in general, and only incompetence in the subject and ignorance in science as whole can refuse the scientific value to at least mathematical side of this theory1. Thus, mechanics and physics of new Europe struggled with old mythology, but only by means of its own mythology; [science] didn't refute the myth, but only the new myth crushed the old mythology, that simple, and - nothing more. The pure science has nothing to do with this. It is applicable to any mythology, - of course, as more or less private principle. If in real science could refute the myths related to shape-shifting, then the scientific enough theory of relativity would have been impossible. And now we see, how by no means scientific passions rose around the theory of relativity. This - is a centuries old dispute of two mythologies. And it was no coincidence, that during the last conference of physicists in Moscow1, they came to the conclusion, that the choice between Einstein and Newton is a question of believe, and not a scientific knowledge by itself. Some want to scatter the universe into a cold and black monster, into immense and immeasurable nothing; the others, on the other hand, want to gather the universe into certain ultimate and expressive face with relief folds and features, with live and smart energies (though most of the time neither of them completely understand and realise their intimate intuitions, which make them reason this and not the other way).
Thus, science as it is can not destroy myth, no matter which side it would take. Science only realises and makes a certain rational, for example, logical or numerical plan.
4. After sketching these short thoughts about the relationship of mythology and science, we now see their complete antithesis. The scientific functions of spirit are too digressed to lay in the foundation of mythology. For a mythological consciousness, there is absolutely no scientific experience. It can't be convinced of anything. On the islands of Nikobar, a wind originated illness occurs every year, against which the rite of [tanangla] is performed by the natives. Every year this illness happens, and every time this rite is performed. Ignoring the fact of its obvious uselessness, nothing can convince this natives not to perform it. If even a minimum of [scientific] consciousness and [scientific] experience were functioning here, then they would have soon realise the uselessness of this rite. But it is clear, that their mythology doesn't have any scientific meaning, and is not in any way for them. That is why it is [scientifically] irrefutable. Besides its [scientific] importance, this mythico - magical act can carry many other meanings, which Levi-Brulu, who adduces this act as an example of the senselessness of mythology, couldn't even dream about11. For example, this rite might not have at all any utilitarian-medical goals. It may possibly be, that the North-East monsoon itself is not regarded as cruel and harmful commencement. It is possible to imagine, that the natives live through it by enduring it as an act of just punishment or wise leadershipcoming from the side of deity and that they not at all want to avoid this punishment, but want to except it with worthy reverence; and, it well may be, that this rite has just such meaning. And who realy knows what kind of meaning can have this rite, if to stand on the grounds of real mythology? Researchers, such as Levi-Brulu, for whom the mythology is always awfully bad thing, and the science is always awfully good thing, would never understand anything in rites, similar to [tanangla].
References:
* 1, 11, 111 - References in the book.
* 2 - [yaje ne podvijetsya] - This is a weird sentence that I neither could translate nor interpret. The meaning of 'ya' is 'I am', 'je' means 'so' in this case, like, 'Ya je tebe skazal' is 'I told you so', 'ne' is 'not' and 'po-dvijet-sya' is 'to be moving', translating as 'I am so not to be moving'. I am so not getting it.
* 3 - "cubical or circular" - A. Losev uses word circular, however I think that the word spherical would better reflect characteristics of shape and volume when compared with a cube, for example, cube, pyramid, sphere (3D) and square, triangle, circle (2D).