Or is it still worth reading? Psychoanalysis puts me off.
>>1384391
>Psychoanalysis puts me off.
why tho
>>1384419
I am looking for something more scientific.
>>1384391
That looks like the most retarded thing I have ever seen.
>>1384445
So essentially, you're looking for something dissected and reduced to materialism.
I thought it was a food book. Beware that this is the transcript of an interview Joseph Campbell did with Bill Moyers for public tv back in the 1980s; if you don't like interview formats, you won't like this.
I wouldn't call it psychoanalysis, except maybe in the loosest Jungian sense. This is kind of a meme answer, but it felt very humanist to me; the stories humans have told through the millennia have had profound impacts on our culture and daily lives, and that the universal themes in these stories can unite us.
>>1385126
>*good book
>>1384445
a scientific book on myth? what would that even look like?
Breaking the Spell has some good sceience and game theory influenced explorations of the mechanisms that could giver rise to myths, but nothing like a science of the structure or symbolism of mythology.
You might like Jordan Peterson
>>1385138
What? People continually use myths as a starting point to identify the leaders of long lost cultures and civilisations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
The study of myth is extremely scientific when you understand how people wrote thousands of years ago (even today) reflected their society/goals and dreams.
Myths are all we have as an insight into these long lost cultures.
Thanks for the contributions.
>>1385025
Will give it a try.
>>1385126
Am thinking of giving it a try anyway: can always skip parts that seem wrong with the current knowledge of, say, psychology.
>>1385138
>what would that even look like?
Anthropological, psychological, evolutionary, philosophical explanations for mythology + maybe insights from neuroscience and so forth and all combined into one.
>Breaking the spell
Will give it a try.
>Jordon Peterson
Seems what I am looking for, though again psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is discredited largely by contemporary psychology, hence why I find it offputting.
>>1385111
Wouldn't call it materialism. Dissected could be true.
Literary analysis would be okay too. I somewhat liked "Tricksters make this world". But it is not exactly what I am looking for.
Myth and Reality - Mircea Eliade
But if you are looking for some dissection, just opt for any boring uni textbook on the subject
>it's 2016 and still nobody knows Girard
>>1386484
>Uni textbook
Good idea.
>Girard
Checking that.
I liked Big Gods by Ara Norenzayan but it did not touch mythological narratives only religious rituals and effects of believing in all-seeing omnipotent Gods.
I read Karen Armstrong a short history of myth, and liked it but it seems to be utter bullshit.
>>1386489
Seems interesting thanks anon.
To all: I also have "Why religion is natural and science not", which I have yet to read. I think it will be a bit of a hit of miss.
>>1386546
The book you'll want to read is Violence and the Sacred. Followed by Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World if you're so inclined.
>>1386566
Got it!
>>1386479
Dude, it hasn't been discredited.
at least any more than the other schools of psychology.
if you want science than just masturbate over some neurons or some shit.
if you're looking for meaning you're gonna have to make that leap beyond empiricism.
The elites discredit psychoanalysis becuase they don't want the general public to be liberated for the mechanism from which they control them.
Its a complelety viable area of study, and hold many insight to control. Which is pretty much why psychoanalysis was founded, so people can move beyond their impetious desires so they can live a more happy and fullfilling life.
Shit dude , I forget what the name of that one insititute is but theres one that uses psychoanalysis and behaviourism in social control experiments.
There journals and published materials are insanely expensive and I have yet to see scans of them anywhere.
>>1386614
>if you want science than just masturbate over some neurons or some shit.
I'm not like those STEMlords who think everything can be reduced (reductionism) to neurons and shit and in the extreme think that social science is not a science.
I also avoid Daniel Dennet, whom someone mentioned here. I find him a bore and clueless. Whom I think sorta fits the masturbation over neutrons as he seems to think everything has to be logical and rational and so forth.
But anyway that is personal. Same with psychoanalysis. Though unlike Dennet I have seen psychoanalysis getting bashed in psychology.
>>1384391
That book has very little if any to do with psychoanalysis.
It's not psychoanalysis. Really great book, definitely read it.
If you're really interested read through these:
>>1386614
>I know nothing about social science.
It shows.
OP you want to look into anthropology. Claude Levi-Strauss wrote the most influential work on myths in that field. Myths were a very dominant topic in cultural anthropology of the early 20th century, so there is a wide range of literature.
General rule of thumbs for books on social phenomena: if it was written by a historian or philosopher, dismiss it.
>>1386687
I think it was because when I read the very first of it in the library it mentioned Carl Jung. But yea, I think of giving it a try anyway.
>>1386722
Will take a look at them. Saved.
>>1386728
I've heard of Claude Levi-Strauss and will take a look.
I do think now that a generalist text book might be the best idea to give me an overview and specialize afterwards.
>>1385025
After you read Frazer and Campbell you'll be ready for this gem.
>>1385073
Why because of the layout or the mandala or because it says "Power of.." like those nutter "power of pray" books you see in the supermarket checkout?
>>1387329
is the edition with the white cover better than the one with the yellow cover?
>>1387672
Yellow cover is best edition
>>1387721
how so?
>>1387736
Because it's the edition I own and read :^)
>>1387746
so whats good about your edition
>>1384391
All of Campbell's stuff is fantastic and there are no substitutes.
