Talk:Joseph Campbell/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How much room is there for criticism of Campbell's technique in Hero with a Thousand Faces? I personally found the book full of unsubstantiated assertion (despite the nigh-comical profusion of footnotes), questionable conclusions and a lot of "curve fitting" of his purported data into his predecided conclusion. I'm sure I can find others who agree. Would a section critical of his theories and approach be apropos or not?
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Before we begin adjusting data curves to any interpretation of the themes of mythology, what's wrong with this sentence: '...became fascinated with Native American culture when his father took him to see the Metropolitan Museum in New York.' Perhaps someone more interested in Campbell would be willing to read some biographical notes and make a sensible entry. User:Wetman
- There is plenty of room for criticism (see Michael Moore for an example). The key is to keep point of view out of it. So, you could state how the "curve fitting" is used to prove Campbell's point, but then note a weakness in the method. I gave the extreme example of Moore because there have been so many people that either claim he is a golden god here to enlighten the masses or the spawn of Satan here to line his pockets with the dollars of the ignorant. You can see how the article boiled down to a good example of point/counter-point.
- Personally, I feel Campbell generalized far too much. When you generalize, it is easy to make a point, but you are ignoring the counter-points. Kainaw 19:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- In my opinion, as it stands there is very little in the way of discussion of Campbell's work and conclusions in the article and we'd need that in there before we start adding the criticisms of his work. This is something I might add if I get time. Though in general I have a lot of time for Campbell's work (and feel that those who criticise his 'generalist' approach don't fully understand the fundamental ideas behind his work (IMO!!)), I think a balanced article would need to include such criticisms. 209.94.128.82
firstfox 15:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Data first. I've been listening to some Campbell lectures lately, and it seems to me his ideas/concepts are quite abstract and easy to misinterpret. So before criticizing his ideas/methods it would be necessary to clearly document and get some consensus on what those ideas/methods are in the first place (IMO).
Shouldn't The Campbellian View of Mythology be merged here? It seems to cover the same subject and there's room enough here. JoaoRicardo 21:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that some criticism (and defense of those criticisms) needs to be added. Personally, I find Campbell to be a complete crackpot and ceased to be impressed by his ideas after high school, and I don't think the article should give the impression that Campbell's ideas are universally accepted or that they have to critics.