Abstract

My examination of their use of myth finds one point made more freqently than any other: myth is not simply an episode of man's psychic past but rather is a clue to the present, if properly interpreted and understood. With this realization, Eliade, Schelling, and Ricoeur are explicit concerning myth's relation to philosophy: philosophy did grow out of myth as philological investigations have shown, but that transition is not irreversible, at least in the sense that a caveat similar to the one issued Lot's wife must be heeded. ;Myth's eloquence nourishes the philosophies of Eliade, Schelling, and Ricoeur, each of which proposes a broadened conception of the tasks and resources available to philosophical reflection. Eliade's new humanism seeks a more complete anthropology, one which recognizes man to be homo religiosus. Schelling's positive philosophy seeks to move beyond its moribund, idealist predecessors which could not bridge the "ugly, broad ditch" separating them from existence. Ricoeur calls for a "global anthropology", which like Eliade's new humanism finds man to be fallen but also yearning for paradise, and which like Schelling's positive philosophy realizes that abstract thought can speak only of concepts, not of realities. ;Eliade, Schelling, and Ricoeur find the mythic discourse on evil most significant. Eliade's homo religiosus is terrified of history; in myth, which chronicles the primordial, constitutive events, the passion accompanying this terror--the nostalgia for paradise--is satisfied. Schelling speaks of the "odyssey of Spirit"; man fell through a primordial act of free-will, and this proves essential to God's developing self-consciousness; myth both records the fact of the fall and portends its overcoming. Ricoeur finds man to be fragile, due to a basic non-coincidence within himself, of which myths and symbols of evil speak eloquently. ;In bridging the historico-cultural gulf separating the "modern" from the "pre-modern," Eliade introduces homo religiosus. This Eliadean protagonist inhabits the pre-modern world as well as the modern, permitting the meaning myth had to remain intelligible. Schelling's leading idea is the theogonic development of deity, in which man plays an essential role. Mythology is necessary to this process; its meaning is preserved there, available for subsequent reflection. Ricoeur seeks to refurbish the doctrine of anamnesis, arguing that latter-day, modern man is able to "recollect" the meaning of myth, especially the myths of evil. ;In separate chapters, beginning with Eliade, turning to Schelling and then to Ricoeur, I examine how each understands myth and how their particular philosophical projects require and justify the turn to myth. ;Each adopts a non-reductive methodology in investigating myth, allowing that "myth means what it says"; as a consequence, each seeks to understand myth as it was understood by the believer. This is possible only if the historical and cultural gulf separating the philosopher from primitive and archaic man can be bridged. All three claim to do so, and all three argue that the mythic discourse about man and world is philosophically significant. Within the context provided by each thinker's project, I examine these two crucial claims. ;The relation between myth and philosophy is examined as it figures in the thought of Mircea Eliade, F. W. J. Schelling, and Paul Ricoeur. Each adopts the perspective that his philosophy requires the understanding of man and world provided by archaic and primitive myths, those tales told, believed, and ritually re-enacted. Ricoeur's apt phrase that "myth is food for thought" speaks for Eliade and Schelling as well. Philosophy nourished by myth is the focus of this dissertation