Joseph Campbell is awful

Trisskar wrote:
And every single one of them follows the Heros Journey format. And nearly all of them are in the "New" ages save one or two of which are the rare cases i spoke of

No they dont. While some may have elements of it many do not. LOL what are you calling "new" ages? How are the heros journey ages before many of these? In fact many of the heroine stories are way before more commonly known hero stories.

Awesome topic. I enjoyed Campbell and really dislike Watts, but my personal reactions to them are moot. The reason i feel neither of them deserve a central place in the IP (which is related to why i chose not to pursue the IP for my own develpment) is that at the end of going through all that they offer id say the best assessment of their work is "SO WHAT?!"

People need to know how to take proper care of themselves (in all the ways this can imply) and how to develop and maintain healthy relationships with their families, lovers, friends, coworkers, neighbors, and communities. We need help deciding what to do with our lives, in the practical sense. We have to know how to develop our sense of self respect, how to choose our careers or roles in life, how to cultivate courage so we can choose to do the right thing when there are immediate personal consequences for it. How to stand up for ourselves when we're faced when someone pushes us around and how to interact with people without taking everything as a personal insult. And a thousand other, real life difficulties that I feel that JC and Watts fail to offer any (or lets say "enough") direct practical insight into.

---

steamboat28 wrote: Campbell's not awful, he's just wrong. Just like Freud and Darwin were wildly mistaken, but what they got right still laid foundations for the next waves of research.

I dont wish to derail this topic but i cant help but reply to this.... ive never encountered anyone (who was scientifically credible) who said Darwin was "wildly mistaken". Could you elaborate on this or point me in the right direction? My understanding is that evolution, adaptation, and natural and sexual selection are still the bedrock explanations for the development and diversity of earth based life?

OB1Shinobi wrote:

steamboat28 wrote: Campbell's not awful, he's just wrong. Just like Freud and Darwin were wildly mistaken, but what they got right still laid foundations for the next waves of research.

I dont wish to derail this topic but i cant help but reply to this.... ive never encountered anyone (who was scientifically credible) who said Darwin was "wildly mistaken". Could you elaborate on this or point me in the right direction? My understanding is that evolution, adaptation, and natural and sexual selection are still the bedrock explanations for the development and diversity of earth based life?

Oh Im so glad you said it because I was dying to but found the restraint somewhere, somehow!! lol. I am curious as well!

I'm going to come back to this with a more detailed reply, as this prompted a lot more discussion than I anticipated (which is delightful), but I'd just like to note that the tone of the thread is starting to get a little.., combative; and I left my lightsaber at home. Kindness and butterflies folks, kindness and butterflies.

OBI1Shinobi - That is being an adult. I definitely see a need for it, but teaching "Life101" wasn't what I was looking for when I came here....

PaschalVehicle wrote: I'm going to come back to this with a more detailed reply, as this prompted a lot more discussion than I anticipated (which is delightful), but I'd just like to note that the tone of the thread is starting to get a little.., combative; and I left my lightsaber at home. Kindness and butterflies folks, kindness and butterflies.

Dont let Debra discourage you. Unlike a Christian church this is a place of open and honest discussion where you have every right to criticize anything you feel is in error as much as you like. I did not consider your comments a rant but an introduction to a potentially very interesting discussion!