Myth, Meaning, Chaos & Order
The total character of the world is in all eternity chaos1
Nietzsche’s striking statement expresses his view that every attempt to capture reality under concepts is ultimately doomed to fail. The immense complexity of nature, in a state of constant change, is bound to elude human reason forever. Nature is chaos and can never be ordered.
Nietzsche’s perspective stands in stark contrast with the image of nature painted by modern science, according to which everything operates in an orderly and law-like fashion, and where representing reality is the name of the game.
Here, we’ll look at the notions of chaos and order (no mention of Jordan Peterson – promise). We discuss the role of myth in coping with the chaos of nature, and we consider the claim that science has made myth redundant. As we will see, both science and myth can play a role in building a worldview.
The tension between chaos and order has captivated humanity for thousands of years. Some of the most ancient texts ever found have been creation myths – stories that contemplate how humans and the cosmos came to be. Creation myths from all around the world show striking similarities; they tend to take chaos as their starting point. In the beginning there is chaos and nothing else. Out of chaos, the cosmos is formed. As gods start to appear, order arises. Ultimately, humans are created.
One example of a myth that follows this pattern is the ancient Babylonian epic Enuma Elish. Its first version is thought to have been composed around the tenth century BCE.2 In the beginning there were Tiamat and Apsu. Tiamat is first described as sea water and symbolises primordial chaos. Apsu, the begetter, is described as fresh water. When Tiamat andApsu mixed, the gods and the cosmos were created. When a conflict ensued between Apsu and the gods, Apsu conspired to kill them. However, before he could do so, the deity Enki put him to sleep. When word of this reached Tiamat, who had now turned into a dragon, it sought to take revenge. But the god Marduk, son of Enki, killed Tiamat with his arrows, saving the gods from the wrath of Tiamat – or chaos. Marduk became the ruler of the gods and brought order to the world. Humankind is then created to serve him in his task.3 Humanity thereby plays a role in maintaining order in the cosmos.
The creation myths following a similar structure range from Egyptian mythology4 to Chinese mythology5 and Hesiod’s Theogony6 in ancient Greece. Most of these myths agree that chaos is creative but also immensely destructive. The risk of relapse into chaos is ever looming large.
It is often said that the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece, around the 6th century BCE, spelled the death of myth. Through reason, natural philosophers were able to predict natural phenomena, and so the threatening chaos of nature gradually became less of an issue. No longer at the mercy of the gods, humans started to replace mythical explanation with rational explanation. The seedlings planted by the Greeks, or so the narrative goes, came to full fruition with the advent of modern science when the orderly laws of nature were finally unveiled. Mythical stories about the chaotic destructiveness of nature were no longer needed; nature could now be manipulated to serve our needs.7
The question is whether this narrative is correct. It is not at all clear that the ancient Greeks themselves considered reason to be in opposition to myth.8 It seems, rather, that the notion of reason replacing myth comes up around the time of the scientific revolution, roughly four centuries ago.9 People looked back at history and chose ancient Greece as a starting point for a new narrative, according to which Europe slowly came to embrace science and reason as pillars of truth.
Now, it does seem to be true that a crucial shift in thinking took place at the outset of the scientific revolution, which can be described as “the separation of the knowing subject from the known object.”10 The idea arose that explaining nature would be much easier if the human subject was removed from the equation. Nature, as such, became a separate object to be known.
The successes of science in that period inspired enormous confidence. Descartes’ words capture the attitude perfectly:
Knowing the power and the actions of … the stars, the heavens and all the other bodies in our environment as clearly as we know the various crafts of our artisans, we could … make ourselves the masters and possessors of nature.11
Nature came to be seen much like a machine – systematic, orderly, lawful. Mastering nature was no longer a privilege reserved solely for god(s) – armed with new scientific knowledge, humans could now take the reins.12
An opposition was born between two ways of explaining nature: the mythical and the theoretical. Whereas the mythical centres on the subject insofar as it tries to make sense of our place in the world, the theoretical strives to exclude the subject in order to explain nature as objectively as possible. While myths show a sensitivity to the existential anxieties humans experience when faced with the chaos of nature, theoretical explanation treats the elimination of subjective concerns as a triumph.
The merits of theoretical objectivity must be acknowledged – the predictive power of science, combined with its technological applications, have completely revolutionised the world we live in. But that does not necessarily mean that myth has been made redundant. Granted, insofar as myths try to explain the natural world, competing with science is a lost cause. But that is not all that myth does.
While defining myth is a difficult task, it is enough to say here that it is a kind of narrative, usually relying on characters and imagery, to address some aspect of the human condition, typically with the result of imbuing it with meaning. As pointed out in last week’s post, this is an area where science may fall short.
Myths focus on expressing various experiences rather than representing reality. Whether a myth is true or false in a theoretical sense is therefore to some degree irrelevant, as long as it manages to convey some element of personal or shared experience. This is why myths can seem unreasonable or untrue without this necessarily being a big issue – the human experience is seldom solely logical.
Turning back to the notion of the West progressing from myth to reason, it is very much the question whether myth really has been left behind. Theoretical explanation of nature has displaced mythical explanation, but does that mean myth has disappeared?
The short answer? No.
If myths are stories that shape human significance, then the narrative that the ancient Greeks left myth behind, thereby laying the foundations for European superiority through science and rationality, is itself a myth. The attempt to transcend myth ultimately created a new myth. Science does not destroy myth in its progression from myth to reason, but, on the contrary, gives rise to a myth of progress and truth.
Harari’s words are right on the mark:
In order to change an existing imagined order [i.e. myth], we must first believe in an alternative imagined order (…). There is no way out of the imagined order. When we break down our prison walls and run towards freedom, we are in fact running into a more spacious exercise yard of a bigger prison.13
For Harari, there is no getting beyond myth. Myths are how we relate to the world and each other; without it, we stand in utter chaos. The aim of theory to explain nature freed from the subject has had successes, but can ultimately only bring us back to the primordial chaos our very first myths sought to overcome. We are creatures of meaning, and so to try to rob ourselves of that which provides it – myth – is a fatal error.
The ambition of science to explain reality is a noble one. The narrative that science and reason have rendered myth irrelevant, however, is certainly misguided. Concepts can help us explain nature, but the need to be at home in the world will always be pressing. The problem, then, is not so much science itself but rather the idea that myth and science are at odds. Science deeply informs our worldviews, but the stories of myth provide a backdrop of meaning that every worldview urgently needs. To keep the chaos of nature at bay, it is not enough to find laws in it - we have to make sense of how we belong to nature. The devastation brought to our planet by treating it as an object to be exploited has put this need at the forefront of our concerns. Perhaps a green myth, informed by science and grounded in reason, is the only way forward.
Nietzsche, KSA III, 468
Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 229
Ibid., 233-274
Baines & Dorman, Ancient Egyptian Religion
Zhuangzi, Essential Writings, 54
Hesiod, Theogony, 116-124
Wilhelm Nestle’s From Mythos to Logos is the locus classicus
In fact, Chiara Bottici suggests, in her persuasive work A Philosophy of Political Myth that they are rather complimentary
See Buxton, From myth to reason?
Vernant, Mythe et pensée chez les grecs, 5
Descartes, Discourses on Method, 24
There is a parallel here between myth and science insofar as both strive for some control over nature. The attitude of no longer needing divine assistance, however, seems to be limited to the modern mind.
Harari, Sapiens, 133
I don't think the philosopher's statement so radical. If we consider chaos an inherent feature of physics, in the thermodynamic sense, there is no conflict---would be little we could do about it in any case.