If we could identify all truth about the world with (one portion of) logos, we would instantly lose all sense of why it was significant or important to do so. It would simply be a fact, certainly not worthy of reverence and even devoid of significance. Idem aliter: if the sciences disappeared tomorrow, or died in a blaze like some great civilization, would there be any scientific lament over their loss? Isn’t it pure gibberish to speak of “scientific lament”? Isn’t it as ridiculous as trying to imagine a scientifically created monument?

(Comte – the first partisan of what’s now called “scientism” – is interesting to consider in relation to all this. We have the blueprints that he drew for temples of reason to be set up to honor the “saints” of science and reason. Such temples never caught on since, as I’m arguing here, they are radically incompatible with the fundamental claim of Positivism, which of itself has no ability to see that truth is venerable or even significant, only at best adaptive or useful.)

Mythos cannot be dismissed as a mere way of identifying with a group or as an awareness that gives us no truth about the world, as opposed to the “hard facts” and “evidence” of logos. It is not what contemporary people call subjective when they mean false. To reduce all truth to logos would be like trying to understand the area of a triangle by reducing the height to the base.

%d bloggers like this: