I made a post in response to a report that a movie was based on a lie which did not seem to bother the makers of the movie. In fact, they have insisted the movie is nevertheless telling the truth about an individual even while misrepresenting details about the facts of that individual's life. I have expanded on the response I posted on Facebook in this post.
Original post: I am known to be fond of pointing out that the ancient Greeks generally accepted that there were two ways of knowing things, two epistemologies. One was logos, the logic upon which we base science today. The other was mythos, an emotional or spiritual reality which may not coincide with empirical facts; it might even be absolutely contrary to them, but it contains an inner truth.
Nevertheless, I really do get irritated at movies that are "documentaries" or "based on a true story". This is because they are usually absolute arrant nonsense. The phrases are too often just excuses to tell whatever lies are convenient or comfortable for the individual making a profit off of them.
>...Montañez never actually invented the Flamin’ Hot Cheeto. Instead, he simply rose through the corporate ranks and created other snacks instead.
... “We never set out to tell the history of the Cheeto,” she said. “We are telling Richard Montañez’s story, and we’re telling his truth.”<
This is not mythos. This is not telling a deeper or spiritual reality or truth. This is lying.
Addenda:
The definition of logos from the Collins dictionary: "reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech"
The definition of mythos from the Collins dictionary: "the complex of attitudes, beliefs, etc. most characteristic of a particular group or society"
Please note that in general that mythos is related to an entire society not a particular individual. Thus, the falsehood contained in the movie "documentary" cited above and in other movies (such as the Autobiography of Malcolm X) can be argued to fit into mythos in that they affect the way a subdivision of American society perceives themselves, but they can also be argued to not be mythos but simple falsehoods because they specifically addressed the lives of specific individuals and make statements that are demonstratively not accurate.
Obviously, I stand with the second interpretation.
It is interesting that mythos and logos can be in contradiction to each other, but can also be identical. My two favorite examples are American attitudes toward gun laws and American beliefs regarding George Washington.
I have pointed out repeatedly that gun laws in America today are the loosest and least restrictive that they have ever been in the entire history of the United States. I will not repeat those arguments here since anyone who has followed my posts will already be familiar with them. This reality is in direct contradiction to the common belief in which it is generally "known" that in historical times, virtually everyone carried guns virtually everywhere so that they could frequently have gun fights right out in the open street. This is a mythos because while it may or may not affect specific individual, it is a cultural perception of truth that has a great import in the current American self image and legal activities. (I will add that, much to the shock of the people to whom I have explained this, the gunfight at the OK Corral was about the Earps trying to disarm the Clanton and the McLaury brothers in accordance with gun control laws that were enforced within the city.)
In other words, mythos and logos are in absolute and mutually exclusive contradiction to each other in this case.
What about George Washington? While there are contradictions between the two epistemologies, there are also areas in which they are identical. I'd like to look at those in some depth.
#1. Washington praying while kneeling in the snow at Valley Forge.
This is one of the most beloved images of Washington and has been painted, and praised, and cited endlessly. There is no evidence of that event actually happening. It was first reported by the infamous Bishop Weems who wrote a book on the life of Washington intended to inspire children and was therefore full of nonsense and ridiculous stories like the cherry tree silliness we were all taught as children. Conveniently, Weems didn't publish his book until after Washington was safely dead and couldn't criticize his inventions.
One of the men claiming to have been the sole witness of this event did not live in Valley Forge and yet claimed that he just happened to be there in the middle of a very hard winter when travel in the best of times was difficult, that he rushed home to tell the wonderful story to his wife (whom he did not marry until years later)… You get the picture.
What we do know about Washington's religion is unclear. He was never outspoken about his beliefs. He did refer to Providence a great deal, but he didn't specify what he meant by Providence. He was a very private man in this regard.
He was an Anglican until after the revolution when he stayed a member of the church which changed itself into the Episcopal Church, associations with England no longer being considered desirable. He served his church, but often skipped services and absolutely refused to take communion much to the distress of his pastor. He was also on record as believing that religion was a good thing for binding a country together, but he never specified what religion or religions. In other words, we have no idea what he actually believed.
Conclusion: The mythos of this is absolutely critical to the concept of America as a Christian nation. That this is completely baseless as evidenced by statements made by founding fathers and early treaties is irrelevant. It remains a mythological truth for millions of Americans desperate to believe that America was founded just for them and their particular religious sect. In terms of logos the story is clearly false.
#2. Washington really didn't want to be president and while he could have been president for life, refused to serve a third term.
Here we have logos and mythos in complete agreement. Washington was tired. He had desperately striven to become commander-in-chief of the American forces during the Revolution but the war went on a lot longer than anticipated. He was weary. He was old. He wanted to retire and have a peaceful life at home. However, the nation was in a terrible state. As always happens with revolutions, once the thing has been won you have to decide what to do with your success. Having Washington serve as the first president would solve many problems and give the nation a precious period of stability. Washington was almost universally beloved and he could provide what no one else could. He did his duty and ran for president.
And when he was finished with his first two terms, he was even more tired than ever and also older than ever. He really did want to go home.
Conclusion: here mythos and logos happen to be identical. There's no contradiction contained in that. Remember that logos is simply empirical objective fact, while mythos is the spiritual or emotional truths that a people or a nation or a society feel necessary to their understanding of themselves.
Now I'm tired. I'm also older than I was when I began writing this. So although there is a lot more to say on the subject, for today I'm done with it.
Final note: it is interesting how many "sole witnesses" to the event of Washington kneeling in the snow in Valley Forge are to be found. Maybe Washington spent entire days and even weeks kneeling in the snow which might have caused some frostbite. Or, perhaps, all the witnesses didn't notice the crowd of them standing around because they were so focused on Washington.
