So I've just started to read Arabian Nights. So far it's been quite interesting. It's one of those classics that you think you know all about until you actually sit down and read it. My use of wikipedia has increased significantly since I've started it because, frankly, I know next to nothing about Islamic folklore.
The book itself has reminded me of something I've questioned a lot recently: the historical accuracy of everything. I'm a critic. Myth is so often based in some place or thing that actually existed. It seems like it takes a lot of twisting and turning and in the end you come out with a great, but highly unlikely, story.
Oddly, the myth of Ali Baba is likely entwined in another myth: that the story was in the original Arabian Nights. Critics today think that a French translator added the story in later.The myth of Oedipus the king makes me think twice. Most people hear of the Thebian plays at some point in their lives, but it is little discussed that there are many, many more documents recording the myth prior to Sophocles with many other parts to the story. This leaves me thinking that Oedipus probably did exist and the story has been twisted.
And here's where I shoot myself in the foot. For, as we all know, it's ok to question mythology as long as it's not the mythology of the majority.
The story of Lot's wife has always bothered me.
I caught this loophole a while back:
"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt." - Genesis 19:26
So.. if Lot's wife is behind him how could he possibly know that she turned into a pillar of salt. Odd.
But what I find really interesting is that there is a place named Mount Sodom where the the story would've taken place that is absolutely covered in salt formations. You can see them here. These flats lead me (and many others) to believe that the flats came first, a traveller found them, and then the story was made up off of an already existing character-Lot- that was in Jewish mythology.
In this picture you can see the landmark that I would guess sprung the specifics of her turning into the salt pillar. It's actually been named "Lot's Wife."
History seems to call for an acceptance of ideas where one cannot find absolute proof (which is impossible with everything I guess) with a little bit of cynicism about everything.
So call me a heretic, but I think it's a good idea to take most of history with a grain of salt. (Not a pillar.)
2 comments:
Maybe he turned around to see what was taking her so long?
Critical analysis is a good thing. Better a critic than a gullible believer of every whim and fantasy out there.
Faith is a good thing, too. There's no historical proof of resurrection. For that matter, there's no historical proof of God. Is God a concept created to fit already existing problems, myths, or unexplainable occurrences?
Too much salt often obscures the flavor.
There's actually a phrase relating to the belief in a god for reasons of explaining natural occurances; it's "believing in the god of gaps."
If you want to get technical there's no complete proof of anything.
Everything is subject to doubt.
No one can do so much as prove their own existence inside or outside of their own mind. One would have to be able to experience all scenarios and all types of being (human and below and beyond) in order to prove such a statement.
Everything one accepts one can only accept upon faith. There is no solid and defining proof of anything.
Everything is theory. And somethings are theory within theory.
One can find tons of evidence regarding any topic but can only prove their theory so far usually within many other theories.
However, the lack of complete evidence for any subject does not disprove that said subject cannot be seen as a Truth. Neither does it prove said subject.
In other words, I'm with the absurdists: Truth may exist but it is impossible for humans to conclusively be able to prove such Truth.
And this brings me to Pascal's wager:
"Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."
And, yes, this post is, you guessed it, entirely theory. (excessive use of commas.)
Post a Comment