Okay, fueled by Russia’s (or possibly Poland’s) greatest gift [wikipedia.org ] to the western world, and a comment from this [goats.com] discussion, I've a question to pose.

What truly creates the difference between history and myth (or legend)?

I mean, ten thousand years from now, if the context of comic books and world religion disappeared, how could anyone determine which is more real: Clark Kent or Jesus Christ.

The only reason anyone who is born today knows about either of them is the same: Someone took the time to write it down.
   
Where do we draw that line between hypothetical past and historical fact? Honestly, we have about the same amount of proof that Zeus existed as we do that George Washington was ever around: a few books, some artists [usf.edu] renderings [whitehouse.gov], a few connections to geographic locations that many of us have probably never actually been to (never been to Virginia myself, or Athens while we’re on the subject).

Why are we likely to believe one more than the other?

Discuss.

Hmm...none of the links seem to have worked...

Oh well, you're all smart people and can probably figure it out.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17196):

Possibly because they all look like this:

http://www.goats.com/forums/flame/1202/%92http://e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/%94http://www.whitehouse.gov/ history/presidents/gw1.html%94

Seems to be a single quote or somithngi nit he mix. Weird.

Also being that there tend to be two non-goats urls in the links, it's hard to tell which you intended to use.

In Response to themysticalone (#17197):

Clearly I'm on crack. And Mozilla copied link location incorrectly. There still seems to be a quote before your http://, which causes it to append to the current url.

Oh, and I can't proofread, either.

In Response to themysticalone (#17198):

Hmm...

Well, honestly, I'm working completely on autopilot right now...but I've been writing html links without thinking about it much for the past seven years...

But then again...right now, I'm only vaguely sure that I'm actually typing this and not just considering typing it in the future....so there's about a 50-50 chance I F'd this one up....

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17199):

No more Vodka for you!

You pose a very interesting question, and I suppose, aside from claims that there will be a second Coming in the near future, the answer would be that there probably isn't a whole lot separating the two. Well, except for, you know, the colorful pictures in one and the fire & brimstone in the other. I'm reminded of two things when reading your post.

First is the episode of South Park where the mormons move in and become friends with Stan's family. When they're told the story of Mormonism, they learn that some guy went and stuck his head in a magic hat and used a special decoder wheel to read off holy transcripts from golden plates. That's an especially good episode in my opinion, funny as hell and has a point to it:

"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls." - Gary the Mormon

The second thing... well, 2+2=?

That's a fairly easy reference.

What truly creates the difference between history and myth (or legend)?

A reasonable definition of the words helps.

History : That which we believe actually happened before out own time.

Myth : A story of cultural or religious significance. Normally, one which teaches either how to live, or why the world is as it is.

Legend : A story which we believe did not literally occur, but which people within some cultural group tend to know anyway.

Thus King Arthur is a legend, since he has little cultural or religious significance. To those sad bastards who like to think they're druids, he might be a myth.

The Bible is mythical, since its stories are definitely of both cultural and religious significance. And also has some historical basis.

Now the definition is broad enough that you can include plenty of relativily modern stories in multiple categories. George Washington is historical fact - and despite your claims, we have far more proof of his existence than of Zeus's - yet he is also the subject of legends (cutting down the cherry tree). And Washington (and even better Jefferson) are definitely mythic figures. Many Americans view their constitution in a way that appears religious to outsiders.

Post too long already. Further comments as discussion warrants - I could go on all day...

Cheers,
Graham

What truly creates the difference between history and myth (or legend)?

I do.

I mean, ten thousand years from now, if the context of comic books and world religion disappeared, how could anyone determine which is more real: Clark Kent or Jesus Christ[?]

Well, since there's no archaeological evidence that either man exists, the likelihood is much stronger that both would be ruled figments of our imagination.

On the subject at large, the Gospels are one of the only parts of the New Testament not written in an allegorical fashion. They actually purport to be witness accounts of a period of time. Where the rest of the books (Revelations, Letters to whomever) were intended as allegories and written in a context which is, now, much harder to determine, the four Gospels are supposed to be genuine accounts, and the manner in which they were written attests to that fact.

Of course, using that as a basis for 'historical accuracy,' you could point out that while the Gospels and the Superman stories both diverge, the Gospels do so under the understanding that they are contemporary (and incomplete), rather than being posthumous revisions.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#17213):

Arg. I meant to log in, I really did...

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#17213):

Well, since there's no archaeological evidence that either man exists

Depends on whether you count written records. We have plenty of evidence that Jesus did, in fact, exist.

[The Gospels] actually purport to be witness accounts of a period of time.

No they don't. None of the Gospels claim to have been (or indeed were) written at the time, or even by people who were witnesses to the events. They were summaries of the accounts written long after the events.

For contempary accounts you need to go to the various Letters.

Of course, in the context of a two thousand year old worldwide religion vanishing without trace, the most likely question would be "what are these humans?"

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#17206):

A reasonable definition of the words helps

Very well thought out reply, but I think you've answered the letter of my question and not the spirit of it. So, I will revise it with a second question.

What truly creates the difference between history and myth (or legend)?:

What do we use to determine the difference between them and why?

and despite your claims, we have far more proof of his existence than of Zeus's

Fair enough. There is more evidence, but why is it better evidence?

What do we have? Documents of his terms in office: Paper.

Birth records: Paper.

First hand accounts of meeting the man: Paper.

Portraits or statues: artists' conceptions with no real proof they are of an actual living person.

There is no photographic, video, or DNA evidence. Nobody alive ever met him or even knew anyone who did at any point in their lives. Even if we have a tomb or bones that say in big bold letters: GW...still it's only those letter we have for proof.

So my question I guess is, why do we choose to believe some documents as fact and not others? Because they were written more recently? Because there are more of them? Or because somebody told us to when we were very young?

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17225):

What do we use to determine the difference between them and why?

Which "we"?

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17225):

I think he was getting at that we have archeological evidence, but of course, as the spirit of your post has mentioned, that is somewhat subjective.

We have items which we believe may have been used by him, and we have descriptions of these items in texts which are so accurate that it could be assumed that they are indeed the items menioned. I believe we also have multiple texts which account for events and/or persons in such similar ways that it would be assumed that they are all correct. That doesn't necessarily mean they are correct, but if we attack every piece of history and require solid, concrete evidence then we'd be left with a very, very short history.

For example, pictures, videos, and recordings can all be doctored, so there is no guarantee that anything we see or hear is actually what happened. If we ignored books on the basis that they may be fake (or inaccurate) then at the modern age, we must also ignore videos, pictures, and recordings. Which means our society is more or less Oceania, and if you can't remember observing it yourself, then it didn't happen.

This then creates the problem that you may lose confidence in your memory, as you wouldn't be able to rely on records for aiding it. Then all it takes is telling you, no, that's not what you remember, we've been at war with Eurasian all along.

The point I'm getting at, is that for something to be history, and thus real, we must accept it as being such. If we reject it, then obviously it is fiction (or we are wrong, but whether we are right or not actually doesn't make much of a difference). As an example, many people accept the Christian bible as fact. I do not, so to me it is fiction. It is not history to me, but to some it is. There are plenty of reasons why some people accept some things as fact and others as not, and usually there is some sort of reliable basis for these decisions, but not always. You can use carbon dating to determine the approximate age of an item, and thus say since it existed, it proves the truth of a certain book (see Shroud of Turin), but that is quite a leap in logic. Carbon dating will only tell you the approximate age of an item (and that might even be wrong!). It can't tell you who used the item or for what purpose. It could have been made for the exact purpose of deceiving you thousands of years later. No one knows.

There seems to be a sort of un-defined standard for what constitutes as proof and what does not (occaisionally varying from individual to individual). If you are incredibly strict about what you do not believe, then you risk becoming nihilistic, but if you are too loose about it, then you risk being gullible.

Um, yeah, that's it, for now.

In Response to zamphir (#17228):

Which "we"?

Good point.

I guess I was refering to the average member of our societital majority who without question will accept some events marked as "history" but will question over events.

But if you like, you can make it a personal question, or discuss some other group of individuals with related habits. It's a free forum.

In Response to Phobos (#17230):

The point I'm getting at, is that for something to be history, and thus real, we must accept it as being such.

Right! So, it requires a certain amount of faith. I'm just fascinated that some people will blindly accept some facts, but not others.

I would wager there are people who frequent this very forum, who will question the existance of Jesus, or the validity of the Book of Mormon, or the Torah based on a lack of physical evidence, but that these same people will easily accept the presence of a "Historical Figure" without ever asking for more proof than 'it was written in a book I read in high school'.

Sure we have archiological evidence, but I bet none of you has actually seen it or questioned it.

I don't think I actually have a point here, the whole subject of blind faith just fascinates me though, and I wanted to hear some alternative view points.

I understand that it's necessary, otherwise we'd spend all our time questioning, and none of it doing. But what separates that which is easy to believe and that which is not, in each of us?

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17236):

Good point.

I thought so.

I guess I was refering to the average member of our societital majority who without question will accept some events marked as "history" but will question over events.

Which society?

I don't think you can define a societal majority without defining a societal standard for what they consider "history" and what they consider "mythology".

In other words, to address your question, you have to localize it to a particular society. If not, by default what you are really talking about is your own personal society - i.e. your own personal opinion.

And the kind of stuff you're talking about is much more individualized than you think it is.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17225):

Very well thought out reply, but I think you've answered the letter of my question and not the spirit of it

I think a slight re-phrasing will show that my answer is closer to the spirit than you think.

What do we use to determine the difference between [history, myth, and legend] and why?

History is what we believe actually happened. Legend is what we believe didn't. Myth is what we believe is important.

There are no firm answers, only what we find convincing when we examine the evidence. If you ever study history you find how little is actually certain. Elsewhere in this thread I'm happily throwing around comments as statements of facts that should really be qualified by "I find the evidence for blah convincing".

why do we choose to believe some documents as fact and not others?

Because we do. I'm afraid that's all it comes down to. Eventually, you have to decide whether *you* find the amount of evidence compelling.

But none of this has much to do with myths. Myths are what guide your belief system, your moral compass. You can be convinced that a myth is (historically speaking) total bollocks, but it can still inform your life choices.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17237):

Right! So, it requires a certain amount of faith.

Damn it, I was trying to avoid using that term. But I admit, almost everything requires some... faith. For example, how do I know I'm here, typing this? Because I can see it? Hear it, smell it, taste it, touch it? [Insert first Matrix analogy here, but not the others because they sucked]. I can't personally prove that evolution exists either, although in my opinion, the evidence is pretty strong for it. It just makes more sense than an omnipotent god to me.

My problem isn't with religion, it's more with religious people. I don't care what anyone believes as long as they keep it to themselves and it doesn't affect me. You could worship a pebble, and if it made you a good person, I'd applaud you. I just don't want to hear how I'm going to a rock pit because I didn't believe in the pebble, or that the pebble hates fags. [bbc.co.uk] I don't even want to hear about the good things, that the pebble loves me or that I should trust in the pebble because it will save my soul. I think I'm a pretty good person, and if that pisses off the pebble, well, then so be it.

In Response to Phobos (#17246):

"Fag enabler". Hee hee.

I don't know why, but that sign really amuses me.

Google helped me retrieve something similar to what this thread's title called to mind:

Jesus Superman Line-item [bway.net]

In Response to zamphir (#17239):

I guess what I was really interested in was the opinions of the memeber of this society, composed of those users who log on, read messages, and write replies in this particular forum.

That's why I asked the question here.

I was hoping somebody would have thoughts on this subject with examples drawn from their own personal lives or lives they may have observed.

I know I sure as hell do it all the time...I'm not really sure why.

I'm am very aware it is a very individualized issue, almost everything is.

Forget all the shit about societal majorities.

Have you ever noticed yourself completely accepting something with no real proof, but then found yourself adamantly opposed to something else becaues you had no real proof?

Have you ever witnessed this in others?

Why do you think we do this?

Anybody?

In Response to albionsoft (#17241):

Because we do.

That's all I could come up with, too.

Kind of pisses me off...I don't like questions with answers like "because we do"...

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17270):

Yes sir, Mr. Durden. I get the same feeling all the time.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#17269):

I guess what I was really interested in was the opinions of the memeber of this society, composed of those users who log on, read messages, and write replies in this particular forum.

AHH. That society.

Well, I stand by what I said earlier.

As the societal majority, I decide what we consider to be myth, legend and history.

Except that it's Jon's party, so really he does.

Toothgnip for President!

In Response to Phobos (#17246):

It is a question of fact, whether the perceptions of the senses be produced by external objects, resembling them: how shall this question be determined? By experience surely; as all other questions of a like nature. But here experience is, and must be entirely silent. The mind has never anything present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connexion with objects The supposition of such a connexion is, therefore, without any foundation in reasoning.

- David Hume