Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- estudos:sallis:sallis-1996-mythos [26/01/2026 06:20] – mccastro
+++ estudos:sallis:sallis-1996-mythos [09/02/2026 20:16] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== mythos (1996) ======
+//Data: 2025-03-11 21:35//
+(Sallis1996)
+The second dimension of Platonic dialogue is that of mythos. It is presumably through its mythical dimension that a dialogue has something corresponding to the feet of a living being, that it has within itself a link to the earth, a bond to something intrinsically opaque, a bond to an element of darkness in contrast to that which is capable of being taken up into the light of logos. However, the contrast must not, in advance, be too rigidly drawn: a mythos is itself something spoken, and the contrast is, to that degree, a contrast within logos itself, or, perhaps more fundamentally, a contrast which is to be understood as determined from out of a prior domain in which logos and mythos are the same.((See Martin Heidegger, Was Heisst Denken? (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1954), pp. 6-7.)) Whatever the final character of the contrast may be, what is of utmost importance initially is that mythos not be taken, in advance, as merely an inferior kind of logos, as a meagre substitute for something else intrinsically more desireable, as a mere compromise between knowledge and the logos appropriate to it, on the one hand, and sheer ignorance and its inevitable silence, on the other hand. The contrast between logos and mythos is not a contrast between a perfected and an imperfect discourse.((See especially the way in which the question of the place of myth in the dialogues has been thematized and developed (in special reference to the problem of self-knowledge) by Edward G. Ballard, Socratic Ignorance: An Essay on Platonic Self-Knowledge (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), pp. 159-168.))
+{{tag>Sallis}}