It is often said that if you don’t know your past, you don’t have a future. When people want to identify with their past, mythology is a study that many would begin with. What is myth then and how do we interpret the origins of mythology? Although the definition of myth is inexplicable, a number of prolific writers on myth have suggested various theories to explain the origins of myth. One of them is Mircea Eliade, a Romanian historian of religion. His theory is mostly based on religion experience and has proved influential even till today. In his view, myth is “seen as a tale satisfying the yearning of human beings for a fundamental orientation rooted in the religious aura of a sacred timelessness” (Morford, Lenardon, and Sham 6). In short,
…show more content…
His theory proposes that “myths are nature myths, all referring to meteorological and cosmological phenomena” (Morford, Lenardon, and Sham 7). Indeed, the myth of Cronus and Rhea and the birth of Zeus tells us how Zeus, the supreme god who controls “the sky and other parts of the natural order” came about. Regardless of how it explains the myth in cosmological way, the very same myth has shifts many readers’ focuses to the shocking scene as to how the great Cronus ate his own children! This is against natural phenomena because parents would not swallow their own beloved children. It is within human nature to give love and care for their children. Though I may concede that Muller’s theory does apply to a certain extent to the myth of Cronus and Rhea and the birth of Zeus, I still insist that his theory fails to be fully applied onto the myth because readers’ center of attention has shifted.
The upshot of all this is that Mircea Eliade’s theory overlooks what I consider an important point about the intricacy of myth and religion when humans are entwined into this topic. Suppose we hold firmly on Eliade’s theory, we are likely to focus too hard on associating the myth with Eliade’s theory and fail to see the other important pieces of information in the myth. If so, do we truly know our past
His theory proposes that “myths are nature myths, all referring to meteorological and cosmological phenomena” (Morford, Lenardon, and Sham 7). Indeed, the myth of Cronus and Rhea and the birth of Zeus tells us how Zeus, the supreme god who controls “the sky and other parts of the natural order” came about. Regardless of how it explains the myth in cosmological way, the very same myth has shifts many readers’ focuses to the shocking scene as to how the great Cronus ate his own children! This is against natural phenomena because parents would not swallow their own beloved children. It is within human nature to give love and care for their children. Though I may concede that Muller’s theory does apply to a certain extent to the myth of Cronus and Rhea and the birth of Zeus, I still insist that his theory fails to be fully applied onto the myth because readers’ center of attention has shifted.
The upshot of all this is that Mircea Eliade’s theory overlooks what I consider an important point about the intricacy of myth and religion when humans are entwined into this topic. Suppose we hold firmly on Eliade’s theory, we are likely to focus too hard on associating the myth with Eliade’s theory and fail to see the other important pieces of information in the myth. If so, do we truly know our past