My understanding is that Campbell was never well-regarded by the relevant academics and that time hasn’t helped his reputation any.
This reminds me, by the by, of my own “conversion” experience: a book by the name of the Lucifer Principle by a one Howard Bloom. I read it at a young age and was dazzled by the basic idea of evolution, which had been taught to me in school and was never disputed by my church, but never with such power: I finally Got It; that from random processes patterns always emerge and are implicit, humans are just a complex pattern operating on the basis of laws mostly beyond our comprehension, &c.
Years later, I re-read it, expecting to re-unite with the wonder of my past and… was struck by how stupid it was. The arguments were moronic, the facts were wrong half the time, and so on. But I owe it a debt for making me a materialist, even if I would have dismissed it after perusing it at the library today.
No, it’s a good heuristic. It’s good enough reason for the lay to accept anthropogenic global warming, the Holocaust, and the fact that HIV causes AIDS, to gesture at obvious examples.
Obviously not everyone can use that heuristic. Like any other, it will be wrong sometimes. But it’s good enough for Bayesian updating.
Oh I’m not saying that Campbell was well-regarded by his peers in academia—I’m not a scholar in that field by any means and don’t know anything about that. I was just saying that it woke me up to see that a developing mind can learn useful values and ideals from any kind of epic story. IOW a religion isn’t necessary for our morals to take shape.
I’m pretty sure I understand what Campbell was doing, and given that it was something totally cool and fundamentally opposed to what academia is about, this just shows that they could identify what he was. Ditto Tolkein and Lewis.
Basically, these are people who are intentionally creating a misleading conception of history in order to shape the identities of children who encounter it towards identifying with mankind as a whole rather than with some smaller group, NOT people who are trying to explain how things are to their readers, framed neutrally.
My understanding is that Campbell was never well-regarded by the relevant academics and that time hasn’t helped his reputation any.
This reminds me, by the by, of my own “conversion” experience: a book by the name of the Lucifer Principle by a one Howard Bloom. I read it at a young age and was dazzled by the basic idea of evolution, which had been taught to me in school and was never disputed by my church, but never with such power: I finally Got It; that from random processes patterns always emerge and are implicit, humans are just a complex pattern operating on the basis of laws mostly beyond our comprehension, &c.
Years later, I re-read it, expecting to re-unite with the wonder of my past and… was struck by how stupid it was. The arguments were moronic, the facts were wrong half the time, and so on. But I owe it a debt for making me a materialist, even if I would have dismissed it after perusing it at the library today.
Arrgh!! Totally meaningless!
No, it’s a good heuristic. It’s good enough reason for the lay to accept anthropogenic global warming, the Holocaust, and the fact that HIV causes AIDS, to gesture at obvious examples.
Obviously not everyone can use that heuristic. Like any other, it will be wrong sometimes. But it’s good enough for Bayesian updating.
(So perhaps “Arrgh!! Sometimes overrated!”)
Oh I’m not saying that Campbell was well-regarded by his peers in academia—I’m not a scholar in that field by any means and don’t know anything about that. I was just saying that it woke me up to see that a developing mind can learn useful values and ideals from any kind of epic story. IOW a religion isn’t necessary for our morals to take shape.
I’m pretty sure I understand what Campbell was doing, and given that it was something totally cool and fundamentally opposed to what academia is about, this just shows that they could identify what he was. Ditto Tolkein and Lewis.
Basically, these are people who are intentionally creating a misleading conception of history in order to shape the identities of children who encounter it towards identifying with mankind as a whole rather than with some smaller group, NOT people who are trying to explain how things are to their readers, framed neutrally.