The Dialectic of Myth by Alexei Losev

This excerpt from 'The Dialectic of Myth' book written by Russian philosopher Al
exei Losev (1893-1988 A.D.) was translated in 1995 by Alexander Braun.
Descartes - the founder of the new European rationalism and mechanism, and there
fore also positivism. Not the kitchen talk of the XVIIIth century materialists,
but Descartes is of course the original founder of philosophical positivism. And
so it happens that a specific mythology underlies this positivism. Descartes be
gins his philosophy with general doubt. He is doubting even regarding God, isn't
He also misleading. And where does he finds support for his philosophy, its alr
eady doubtless foundation? He finds it in the [I], in the subject, in thought, i
n consciousness, in the [ego], in [cogito]1. Why is it so? Why things are less r
eal? Why God is less real, even though Descartes himself says that it is the cle
arest and most obvious, and simplest idea? Why is not something else, yet? Only
because such is his own unconscious dogmatic doctrine, such is his own mythology
, such is a whole individualistic and subjective mythology, which lays in the fo
undation of new European culture and philosophy. Descartes - mythologist, even w
ith all of his rationalism, mechanism, and positivism. More then that, these las
t characteristics are only explained by his mythology; and feed upon it only11.
Another example. Kant is absolutely right in his teachings, that in order to per
ceive spacious things, one should approach them already in possession of represe
ntation of space. Indeed, in a thing, we are finding different layers of its con
cretise rendering: we have its real body, volume, weight, etc., we have its shap
e, idea, sense. Logically, the idea is, of course, comes before matter, that is
because first you have an idea and then you realise it on this or another materi
al. Sense antecede appearance. Out of this completely primitive and absolutely t
rue ascertainment, Plato and Hegel made a conclusion, that sense, understanding
- are objective, that in the objective world order logically different moments o
f idea and thing are interlaced into indissoluble real connection. So, what does
Kant makes out of this? From this Kant concludes his doctrine about the subject
ivity of all forms of cognition, space, time, categories. His arguments authoris
ed him only to certify logical precedence of forms and senses - fluctuating thin
gs. But in truth, any [formality], decoration, any attempt to find a purport (of
) and sense are certainly subjective for him. That is why turned out to be this,
that was not in need of prove, and what was his initial dogmatic doctrine and m
ythology. Rationally - subjectivistic and separately - individualistic mythology
celebrating in Kants' philosophy, and well may be, its finest victory. So and e
arly Fihte, the original union of any comprehension, before the division on prac
tical and theoretical scientific studies, for some reason interpret not as a Who
le, the way Plotin did, but as I111. Here is also mythology, which is not proved
by anything, nothing can prove it, and doesn't have to be proved by anything. A
nd nothing is surprising. And so it is always like this, that, what is possible
to prove and conclude is based on what is impossible to prove and self - obvious
; and mythology only then a mythology, if it doesn't get proved, if it can't be
and doesn't have to be proved - Thus, under these philosophical constructions, w
hich in new philosophy were called upon to understand scientific experience, hid
ing a quite defined mythology.
Not less mythological is a science, not only [primitive], but any. Newton based
his mechanics on the hypothesis of homogeneous and infinite space. World doesn't
have limits, i.e. doesn't have a shape. For me this means, that world is - shap
eless. World is an absolutely homogeneous space. For me this means, that world i
s - absolutely flat, expressionless, and with no relief. Such world reflects imm
ense boredom. Add to this picture an absolute darkness and an inhuman coldness o
f the interplanetary space. What is it other than a black hole, not even a grave
and not even a bath house with spiders, because both are nevertheless more inte
resting and warmer, and nevertheless correspond with something human. It is clea
r, that this is not conclusion of science, but of mythology, which science excep
ts as a dogmatic doctrine and dogma. Not only pupils, but all respected scientis
ts seem not to mention the fact, that the world of their physics and astronomy i
s a rather boring, sometimes disgusting, some other time simply maddening mirage
, an optical illusion, that same hole, which we can also love and honor. Some sa
y that hole-makers still exist in a dense forests of Siberian wilderness1. But I
, let the Heaven forgive my sins, still can't figure this out: how is it that th
e Earth can be moving? I have read the course / manuals, textbooks, at some poin
t I wanted to be an astronomer myself, I even married an astronomer. But still,
up to now, I can't convince myself, that the Earth is moving and no sky exists.
Something about some pendulums and some deviation of something somewhere, someth
ing about some parallaxes... Unconvincing. Simply not very solid somehow. Here i
s a question about the whole Earth, and you are reeling some pendulums. But most
importantly, all of this is uncomfortable somehow, kind of evil, and cruel, and
is not one's own intimate familiarity. One moment I was on Earth under the sky
so dear and familiar to me, listening about the Universe, [ya je ne podvijetsya]
111... The next moment, suddenly, there is nothing, no Earth, no sky, no [ya je
ne podvijetsya]2. They drove everything out to Hell, into some kind of emptiness
, even swore in foul language afterwards. [Here - where your motherland is, -dev
il-may-care, spit and smear it all over!] Reading an astronomy textbook makes me
feel that someone is driving me out of my own home with a stick and even ready
to spit into my face. But why?111
Thus, Newtonian mechanics is based on mythology of nihilism. To this quite corre
sponds the specifically new European doctrine of infinite progress of the societ
y and culture. In Europe it was often preached, that, one epoch has a sense not
by itself, but only as a preparation and fertilizer for another epoch, and that
this other epoch doesn't have sense by itself, but it is also - manure and soil
for the third epoch and etc. As a result, it turns out to be, that no epoch has
an independent sense and that the meaning of a certain epoch, as well as of all
possible epochs, is moved aside farther and farther away, to the infinite times.
It is clear, that such nonsense should be called the mythology of social nihili
sm, no matter which [scientific] arguments it is surrounded with. To this we als
o have to attribute the doctrine of universal social equalization, that also car
ries within itself all the signs of mythologically - social nihilism. Quite myth
ological is the theory of infinitely divisible matter. Matter, some say, consist
s of atoms. But what is atom? If it is materialistic, then it has a shape and vo
lume, for example, cubical or circular3. But a cube has its side and diagonal of
a certain length, and a circle has certain length radius. The side, and the dia
gonal, and the radius can be divided, for example in half, and, therefore, the a
tom is divisible, and besides, infinitely divisible. If the atom is not divisibl
e, then it means, that is has no spacial form, and in that case I refuse to unde
rstand, what is this atom of matter, which is not materialistic. Thus, either th
ere is no atoms as particles of matter, or they are infinitely divisible. But in
the last case of the atom, strictly speaking, it doesn't exist as well, for wha
t is the atom-<<indivisible>>, which is divisible infinitely? This is not the at
om, but infinitely thin, with nought in its range, dust scattered and dispersed
into infinity of matter. Thus, in both cases atomism is a mistake, only possible
thanks to the blind mythology of nihilism. To any sensible person it is clear,
that a tree is a tree, and not some invisible and almost not existing dust of go
d knows what, and that a stone is a stone, and not some kind of mirage or fog of
who knows what. But for all that, atomistical metaphysics was always popular in
a new age up to the last days. This can only be explained by mythological dogma
tic doctrine of new Western science and philosophy.
Thus: science doesn't come into being from the myth, nor science exist without m
yth, science is always mythological.
3. However here we have to eliminate two misunderstandings. - First of all, scie
nce, we say, is always mythological. This doesn't mean, that science and mytholo
gy - identical. If mythology-scientists want to bring mythology to science (prim
itive), then I would never, whatever case shell be, bring science to mythology.
But what is that science, which is indeed not mythological? This - is absolutely
abstract science as a system of logical and numerical regularities. This - is s
cience-in-itself, science by itself, pure science. It never exists like this. Re
alistically existing science is one way or another mythological. Pure abstract s
cience is - not mythological. Newtonian mechanics is not mythological if taken i
n its pure form. But real operation with Newtonian mechanics led to understand,
that the idea of homogeneous space, laying in its base, turned out to be the onl
y significant idea. And this is the dogmatic doctrine and the mythology. Euclide
an geometry is not mythological by itself. But a believe, that realistically the
re is simply no other types of space exist, other then the space of Euclidean ge
ometry, is already a mythology, since the provisions of this geometry don't say
anything about the real space and forms of all other possible types of spaces, b
ut only about one specific space; and it is unknown, if this is the only one, if
it corresponds or not to any experience and so on. The science by itself is not
mythological. But, I will repeat, this - is an abstract, nowhere applicable sci
ence. As soon as we start to talk about the realistic science, i.e., the science
which is characteristic to one or another specific historical epoch, we already
deal with an application of pure, abstract science; and right here, we can act
one way or another. And we are submitted here under the exclusive control of myt
hology. - Thus, any realistic science is mythological, but the science by itself
has no relation to mythology.
Secondly, someone can raise an objection to what I said: how is it that science
can be mythological, and how is it that modern science can be based on the mytho
logy, when the goal and dream of any science had almost always been to overthrow
mythology? To this I should give the following answer. When the [science] destr
oying the [myth], then this only means, that one mythology is fighting with anot
her mythology. Before people believed in shape-shifting or, rather, - had an exp
erience of shape-shifting. Then the [science] came alone and [destroyed] this be
lieve in shape-shifting. But how did science destroy shape-shifting? It did with
help of mechanistic Weltanschauung and teaching about homogeneous space. Indeed
, our physics and mechanics don't have such categories, which could explain the
shape-shifting. Our physics and mechanics operate with the different world; and
this is a world of the homogeneous space, in which there are mechanisms, and are
mechanically moving. By replacing shape-shifting with such mechanism, the <<sci
ence>> triumphed its victory over shape-shifting. But now we are witnessing the
resurrection of the new or, rather very old, ancient teaching about space. This
introduced an oportunity to think, how the same body, when changing its place an
d motion, is also changing its shape, and how (under the condition that the body
is moving with the speed of light) the volume of such body comes to be equal to
nil, by the famous Lorentz equation, which connects speed and volume. In other
words, Newtonian mechanics didn't want to mention anything about shape-shifting
and wanted to kill it, therefore inventing such equations, into which shape-shif
ting couldn't fit. These equations by themselves, abstractly speaking, are irrep
roachable, and in them there is no mythology. But scientists by no means use onl
y that one, which consists in these equations. They use them in such ways, that
simply leaves no space for the other forms of space and according mathematical e
quations. In this lies the essence of the mythology of European (natural) scienc
e, - in the creed of one favorite space; and because of this, it always seemed t
o him (the scientist), that it had [refuted] the shape-shifting. The principle o
f relativity, talking about heterogeneous space and building equations concernin
g the transition from one type of space to another, again makes shape-shifting c
onceivable as well as a miracle in general, and only incompetence in the subject
and ignorance in science as whole can refuse the scientific value to at least m
athematical side of this theory1. Thus, mechanics and physics of new Europe stru
ggled with old mythology, but only by means of its own mythology; [science] didn
't refute the myth, but only the new myth crushed the old mythology, that simple
, and - nothing more. The pure science has nothing to do with this. It is applic
able to any mythology, - of course, as more or less private principle. If in rea
l science could refute the myths related to shape-shifting, then the scientific
enough theory of relativity would have been impossible. And now we see, how by n
o means scientific passions rose around the theory of relativity. This - is a ce
nturies old dispute of two mythologies. And it was no coincidence, that during t
he last conference of physicists in Moscow1, they came to the conclusion, that t
he choice between Einstein and Newton is a question of believe, and not a scient
ific knowledge by itself. Some want to scatter the universe into a cold and blac
k monster, into immense and immeasurable nothing; the others, on the other hand,
want to gather the universe into certain ultimate and expressive face with reli
ef folds and features, with live and smart energies (though most of the time nei
ther of them completely understand and realise their intimate intuitions, which
make them reason this and not the other way).
Thus, science as it is can not destroy myth, no matter which side it would take.
Science only realises and makes a certain rational, for example, logical or num
erical plan.
4. After sketching these short thoughts about the relationship of mythology and
science, we now see their complete antithesis. The scientific functions of spiri
t are too digressed to lay in the foundation of mythology. For a mythological co
nsciousness, there is absolutely no scientific experience. It can't be convinced
of anything. On the islands of Nikobar, a wind originated illness occurs every
year, against which the rite of [tanangla] is performed by the natives. Every ye
ar this illness happens, and every time this rite is performed. Ignoring the fac
t of its obvious uselessness, nothing can convince this natives not to perform i
t. If even a minimum of [scientific] consciousness and [scientific] experience w
ere functioning here, then they would have soon realise the uselessness of this
rite. But it is clear, that their mythology doesn't have any scientific meaning,
and is not in any way <<science>> for them. That is why it is [scientifically]
irrefutable. Besides its [scientific] importance, this mythico - magical act can
carry many other meanings, which Levi-Brulu, who adduces this act as an example
of the senselessness of mythology, couldn't even dream about11. For example, th
is rite might not have at all any utilitarian-medical goals. It may possibly be,
that the North-East monsoon itself is not regarded as cruel and harmful commenc
ement. It is possible to imagine, that the natives live through it by enduring i
t as an act of just punishment or wise leadershipcoming from the side of deity a
nd that they not at all want to avoid this punishment, but want to except it wit
h worthy reverence; and, it well may be, that this rite has just such meaning. A
nd who realy knows what kind of meaning can have this rite, if to stand on the g
rounds of real mythology? Researchers, such as Levi-Brulu, for whom the mytholog
y is always awfully bad thing, and the science is always awfully good thing, wou
ld never understand anything in rites, similar to [tanangla].
References:
* 1, 11, 111 - References in the book.
* 2 - [yaje ne podvijetsya] - This is a weird sentence that I neither could
translate nor interpret. The meaning of 'ya' is 'I am', 'je' means 'so' in this
case, like, 'Ya je tebe skazal' is 'I told you so', 'ne' is 'not' and 'po-dvijet
-sya' is 'to be moving', translating as 'I am so not to be moving'. I am so not
getting it.
* 3 - "cubical or circular" - A. Losev uses word circular, however I think t
hat the word spherical would better reflect characteristics of shape and volume
when compared with a cube, for example, cube, pyramid, sphere (3D) and square, t
riangle, circle (2D).
<Photo 2><Photo 3><Photo 4><Photo 5><Photo 6><Photo 6>