Customer Reviews: Read 17 more reviews...
 Excellent October 30, 2008
I think all writings by Joseph Campbell are noteworthy to say the least, but I am particularly fond of this Masks of God series. I plan to re-read it several times.
 The Masks of God Series: Brilliant & Comprehensive October 23, 2008
As a practical atheist with a spiritual streak, I began to muse about the evolutionary origins of religion many years ago. (It appears that (1) war and (2) religion have been the greatest selective factors in human evolution over the last several thousand years.)
Joseph Campbell answered my question about the evolutionary roots of religion quite successfully, and I am very grateful to have found his work. He is a brilliant thinker with a clear mind, and I believe that he is often mis-understood, particularly by those who cling to the historical validity of religious dogma, and in this category I include Bill Moyers, who certainly did us a service by publishing his wonderful video interviews, but whose cautiously conservative comments and questions are often ludicrous as he attempts to avoid stepping on the toes of religious conservatives.
The 4 volumes are really one book, divided only for size considerations, so read them all to get the big picture. One of the great values of the book for me is that, in appreciating the big picture of the evolution of world religion, the peculiar little questions of dogma and belief (virgin birth or not, etc.) are dissolved, rather than resolved, by the awareness that all existing religions today are syncretic collections of recycled mythological elements from previous versions of those religions over the last several thousand years, which do not require any dogmatic consistency to do their work in the world.
Obviously this is not a book for religious believers, who will be terminally offended before they ever finish - if they understand the book, of course. Campbell has no sympathy for the historical concretism of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic camp, and dissects their origins ruthlessly to the extent that was possible in his time, given the state of the progress of biblical and archeological scholarship then existing.
Finally, this is a great book for anyone who is tired of the petty arguments between the Intelligent Design folks and the pure atheists like Richard Dawkins, et al, who can think of nothing better to do than shout "It is true!" "No, it's not!" at each other. They are both suffering from misplaced concrete thinking.
 A Deserved Three Stars January 6, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
I've read or skimmed all the reviews here. Except for the hardcore Christians, all make valid points. The people who love Primitive Mythology are devotees of Campbell who find spiritual guidance in his work. And good for them. If you're one these, then knock yourself out and buy this book. Fundamentalist Christians, you're wasting your time. Anthropologists and biologists, you're wasting your time too; this book has little or no scientific value. Primitive Mythology relies heavily on science that is about 50 years old. As another reviewer has pointed out, there have since been tremendous advances in psychology, cognitive science, and evolutionary biology.
However, fiction writers such as myself will find the book somewhat interesting. The value of Campbell's work is entirely literary. It provides powerful storytelling tools. One only has to look at the success of Star Wars and The Matrix for proof of this. But Primitive Mythology should be used only as a supplemental text because, on top of wading through Campbell's convoluted writing style, one has to wade through a lot of obsolete science to get to the good stuff. Like how Campbell constructs a narrative explaining how the mythology of agricultural and hunting societies might have come into being and their respective differences. This is interesting because it provides insight into how environmental factors can influence and dictate the structure of a story.
At its worst, Campbell's work is a collection of dated, useless information. At its best Campbell's work is a meditation on the power and meaning of the art of story telling. Outside of New Age spiritualism, this is it's value. Primitive Mythology is not Campbell at his best. But it's not Campbell at is worst either.
Before reading Primitive Mythology, I read The Power of Myth, Myths to Live By, and The Hero with a Thousand faces. I've watched the Power of Myth and Mythos and listened to a several lectures that were available for download on the Joseph Campbell Foundation website. I've been studying Campbell's work for several years now, so I feel capable of writing an informed review of Primitive Mythology, in spite of the fact that I've read 300 of the 470 pages of the book so far. I'm not sure I'm going to finish it.
This is not about mythology, it is about philosophy January 5, 2008
1 out of 7 found this review helpful
I read the book cover to cover, taking notes as I read and also refering to Campbell's endnotes to learn about his sources.
Campbell presents his study of mythology as "a unitary mythological science" (p 464) but it can only be regarded as science in the broadest sense of the term: a field of study. His book is more properly a work of philosophy and he is arguing for a specific worldview, which he invites the reader to adopt.
Campbell wishes to show that there is an "ultimate unity of all religions" (p 463) that is demonstrable through the study of (1) psychology, (2) history of religions, (3) ethnology, and (4) comparative literature/mythology. He moves back and forth between these fields constantly, which at times makes the book challenging to read. Nevertheless, there are many interesting accounts that he has strung together from a broad selection of sources. So the breadth of this effort is admirable and often entertaining, though sometimes disturbing (e.g., accounts of human sacrifice).
Important influences for Campbell include psychologists Freud and Jung, philosophers Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and the poets Joyce and Shelley. But readers should also note that Campbell was a student of Sanskrit and that Indian religion/philosophy plays an important role in his worldview, as he evidences in his conclusion.
Campbell may rightly be described as a psychological mystic and romantic. He admires mythology not because he believes the myths are true but because he believes myths play an important function in human experience and existence, they release the mind from the necessary traps of pleasure, pursuit of power, and duty. The goal is to gain rapturous insight, which for Campbell means recognizing the ultimate unity of all these things and the pleasure gained from that insight.
I picked up Campbell's book because I was interested in reading some primitive mythology. I especially wanted to learn more about primitive art work, since art is a hobby of mine. I would not recommend Campbell's book for investigating primitive mythology and art. He's really not focused on those topics but on explaining his worldview that all mythology is really a unity.
Campbell's method, to my eye, has serious short comings. He suffers from what has been called, "parallelomania." This is the tendency to relate things together even when they are not related. Campbell often stretches for points of comparison between the myths of difference cultures, based on some symbolic aspect in a myth or ritual (e.g., a common animal; see also pp 112--116). He then argues that somehow these myths and rituals are related to one another in the distant past, a proposal that is completely untestible. The book is riddled with this sort of parallelomania and poor evaluation of why the specific communities held to a myth or ritual. With Campbell, everything gets generalized, which fits his broader goal.
People who hold traditional religious beliefs should take special note that Campbell's worldview is hostile toward them. In the first place, he is clearly a materialist (p 28) so he does not believe in spiritual realities. Second, Campbell is hostile to any religious orthodoxy. He writes, "Every student of comparative mythology knows that when the orthodox mind talks and writes of God the nations go asunder" (p 463). Ironically, Campbell has introduced a new orthodoxy and he does nothing to solve the logical contradiction he creates by doing so. Third, Campbell has a thoroughly human centered worldview, which looks down upon those who do not share his beliefs. He regards traditional religionist as shallow (p 472) and ends by asserting, "The human mind . . . is the ultimate mythogenetic zone---the creator and destroyer, the slave and yet the master, of all the gods" (p 472).
Ultimately, Campbell's worldview is ego-centric and pleasure seeking. He tries to disguise this fact by distinguishing between the pursuit of pleasure and the pleasure one takes in beauty (aesthetics). But in the end, this is only a difference in the object pursued and not the goal of pleasure (p 469).
ee-whatischristianity.blogspot
 A Sloppy and Dogmatic Look into Humanity's Past November 2, 2007
2 out of 38 found this review helpful
In order to clarify for young and naive readers what Campbell has done in this book and where his thinking leads, it ought to be renamed "A Look at Humanity's Past through the Eyes of an Atheist-Darwinist." Campbell evinced great contempt for the Book of Genesis, considering those who take its words seriously, or at least as possibly valid, as immature bumpkins. Grownups, according to Campbell, turn their backs on Genesis, and believe in "science" instead. Campbell wrote that science "makes the babel of the Bible seem a toyland dream of the dear childhood of our brain." As an Atheist-Darwinist, Campbell ignored or dismissed all evidence he came across that tended to validate the events and the time-frame described in Genesis.
Let me give an example. In THE MASKS OF GOD: OCCIDENTAL MYTHOLOGY, he features an illustration of a Sumerian seal from 1500 BC, whereon are pictured a man, a woman, a tree, and a serpent. We think immediately of Eden. But Campbell writes that this "cannot possibly be" the representation of a lost Sumerian version of what happened in Eden. Why not? Because, he writes, there is no "sign of divine wrath or danger to be found. There is no theme of guilt connected with the garden. The boon of the knowledge of life is there, in the sanctuary of the world, to be culled. And it is yielded willingly to any mortal, male or female, who reaches for it with the proper will and readiness to receive."
But this is exactly why it is Eden. This is the view of the events in the garden taken by Kain (Cain) and those who embraced his way. They defied and ultimately dispensed with the angry God, so He and His wrath are not going to show up here. There is no guilt because there is no sin; there is no sin, or falling short of the ideal, because, according to the line of Kain, Adam and Eve did the right thing in taking the fruit. In Genesis 3:14, Yahweh condemned the serpent to crawl on its torso and eat soil. On the Sumerian seal, the serpent rises to a height above the seated humans. Why? Those who hold to the belief system of Kain revere the wisdom of the friendly serpent who freely offers the fruit of the tree of knowledge, enlightening the two progenitors of all humanity so that they and their offspring might be as gods, knowing good and evil.
How do we explain the fact that Campbell misses something so obvious and so basic to the study of what he calls mythology? He must ignore any and all evidence and insights which contradict his atheism or his whole system falls apart. Note that Campbell does not refer to the Eden connection as improbable or unlikely, but as impossible, as something that, in his words, "cannot possibly be." As a Darwinist academic, his atheistic standpoint demands that the Book of Genesis be treated as a fable, and that all ancient art and literature that tends to validate the events of Genesis, be treated as myth. If it means he must wrench away art from its historical significance and pry truth from its moorings, so be it.
Scores of authors have followed in the dark and murky paths carved out by Campbell and have thus been drawn into wasteful pseudo-intellectual excursions of their own. LADY OF THE BEASTS Lady of the Beasts: The Goddess and Her Sacred Animals by Buffie Johnson is one book among many which shows how the teachings of Campbell have limited and befogged many writers. In her book, Johnson features seventy pages devoted to the serpent in the ancient world. Over and over, she stresses the importance of the serpent. Over and over, she points to the connection between a woman, a tree, and a serpent; but she cannot see the Genesis connection. That is because her standpoint is based on that of Campbell and other atheist-Darwinists.
Buffie Johnson features an illustration of the same Sumerian seal Campbell pictures in his book on Greek myth, and which I have discussed, above. Here is what she writes about it in her book: "Although there are similarities, the possibility that this could be an early version of the Adam and Eve story has been DENIED by archaeologists" [emphasis mine].
Note that she does not say that archaeologists have disproved it, or refuted it, but have denied it. All Darwinists (I like to call them what they believe they are: Slime-Snake-Monkey People) must deny the possibility of an Eden, and deny every bit of evidence that suggests or points to a Creator; likewise, they must deny all the evidence which points to the inextricably related idea that the Book of Genesis is a true account of human origins. Their denials are a matter of atheistic dogma, not of true science or logic.
Campbell's work is sloppy and dogmatic, and it hides the truth rather than revealing it. Greek art itself tends to confirm the existence of the people and events described in Genesis. For the evidence please see my books, Noah in Ancient Greek Art and The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble .
|
