>>> But if it is just stories what does it matter?
>> Because stories are never "just stories"; this is what I'm trying to
tell you. Do you think that something is less important just because
it did not physically happen at a particular moment in history?
Not at all.
is not the only level of truth. Myth exists on a different level of
truth, and some would argue a higher one at that. That is why the
Cattle Raid of Cooley means more to some than the Battle of Hastings.
Or, to take an example you might find more congenial, there is a reason
why Hamlet is a more compelling and influential figure than any "real"
prince of Denmark ever was, even in today's culture. The play "Hamlet"
embodies a good deal of wisdom and insight found valuable in the
English-speaking world. It isn't "just a story".
That all makes sense. I agree. I don't know why 'Hamlet' would be more
'congenial' an example for me, but I do take your point.
>>> If King Arthur is just made up in someone's head, why shouldn't
>>> you make up your own King Arthur stories.
>> No reason, but there is also no reason why anyone would want to
listen to them.
Funny and true. :-)
>> The tradition proceeds more from evolution than from innovation.
Whatever is new has to fit in with the old in order to be part of any
So, what Malory wrote, for example, is really just an elaboration of an
ancient tale or even a true story? Or is it just not part of a 'real
>>> I'm sorry, Neil. I don't understand what that means. What is positivism?
>> The idea that "truth" can only be found in empirical verifiable
facts or in tautological linguistic prepositions.
I must be stupid, but now I have a whole phrase I don't understand.
'empirical verifiable facts' is okay, but what is a tautological linguistic
preposition? Sorry to persist with this, but I'd really like to know.