|
That
Campbell Fellow
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.
"In a "Fire in the Mind," an idolatrous
biography of Joseph Campbell by the brothers
Stephen and Robin Larsen, we learn that while he
was still an undergraduate at Columbia University
in 1924, Campbell found reading Thomas Aquinas'
"Summa Contra Gentiles" tough going, but before the
semester started he got through "420 pages of this
profound Aquinas person."
That Campbell found Aquinas uncongenial does not
surprise me, as I was an undergraduate at Columbia
before Campbell arrived, and while he was there a
member of the faculty. In my judgment, his
education there was formed by admiration for the
wrong authors and the wrong books: by Sir James
Frazer's "Golden Bough," by James Stephens's "Crock
of Gold", by William Graham Sumner's "Folkways",
not by the study of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine,
Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and William
James. His knowledge and understanding of
philosophy and psychology were derived from his
reading of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Freud,
Schopenhauer, and Jung--all sources of the gravest
modern errors.
As a consequence, I have little interest in the
details of Campbell's life and find the Larsens'
fabulous account of the "supernatural events"
attendant upon his death appalling. It might have
been enlightening, though, to learn how his being
reared as a Roman Catholic and being mistaught its
articles of faith and its theology led to his
rejection of that religion in the late
Twenties.
The authors merely tell us that "although the
cognitive and emotional gap between his inner
convictions and Church doctrine was growing ever
wider, never to close again, he had continued to
attend Mass and had even done altar service in
Paris."
From what Campbell himself wrote on the subject,
I can only conclude that his understanding of the
Christian creed and its theology was puerile. In
that field he was an ignoramus.
The best example of this is found in "The Inner
Reaches of Outer Space", the book he wrote just
before he died in 1987. In that book he clearly and
explicitly states his views about the relations of
mythology to religion. All his other books merely
insinuate his subversive dismissal of all--all, not
some--religions as misconstrued mythologies.
Readers will find a few traces of these views in
this biography. On page 414, we find Campbell
quoted as saying: "Clearly, Christianity is opposed
fundamentally and intrinsically to everything that
I am working and living for."
On page 429, Campbell is reported as having
difficulty reconciling the basic mythologies of
Christianity, and particularly Catholicism, with
science. One wonders why mythologies, which are
only poetically true, need to be reconciled with
science. One might add that Aquinas thought that
the dogmas of his religion have factual, not
poetical, truth and necessarily have to be
reconcilable with everything that was then known in
philosophy and in science.
I set forth my criticisms of this view in a book
published in 1990, "Truth in Religion." That effort
was initially motivated by my negative response to
the celebrated Moyers-Campbell TV programs,
entitled "The Power of Myth." My old friend Bill
Moyers seemed to me to have been as taken in by
Campbell as are his biographers. He did not
critically challenge the extraordinary
"misstatements" made by Campbell about Christian
beliefs.
Campbell did understand that while myths have
poetical truth, the kind of truth all made-up
stories have, they do not have the factual and
logical truth to be found in historical narratives
and in bodies of scientific knowledge. He must
therefore have understood the difference between
poetical and logical truth, being himself a social
scientist. He must have understood the criteria by
which the truth of generalizations in sociology or
cultural anthropology can be tested, proved, and
disproved, criteria he would not himself apply to
poetical narratives or mythologies. Hence his
statement that all religions are misconstrued
mythologies asserts that, although they may have
poetical truth, they are "all factually and
logically false."
It may be true that some religions are
misconstrued mythologies having poetical but not
factual or logical truth. But Campbell held that
this is the case with "all" religions. That is an
unqualified generalization on his part, and he
asserted it as a social scientist--a cultural
anthropologist.
How did Campbell support the truth of his
scientific generalization? By logical argument? No.
By evidence which, in the strict logical sense, has
probative force? No. How then? By purely rhetorical
means, ill-concealed innuendo intended to
discredit, not disprove, religious beliefs.
The subtitle of "The Inner Reaches of Outer
Space" is "Metaphor as Myth and as Religion." Every
metaphor can be transformed into a simile, which
asserts what something is "like", not what it is.
Myths are full of metaphors, for metaphors are
essential ingredients in poetry. Aquinas explains
why the divinely inspired language of Sacred
Scripture is also full of metaphors (Summa
Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 9). To say
this is only to say that there "is some similarity"
between a mythological text and a religious text;
it is not to say that all religions are factually
false, nothing but poetically true mythologies.
Finally, we come in a "Fire in the Mind" to the
phrase "Follow your bliss," which sums up
Campbell's basic preachment about how one should
live one's life, supposedly distilled from all the
"wisdom" he found in the world's mythologies.
That phrase, despite the great air of mystery
and sophistication with which Campbell uttered it,
expresses the most simple-minded hedonism: "Do
whatever you want to do if it gives you pleasure."
This may be the "wisdom" of the New Age, but it
represents the lowest debasement of
twentieth-century culture.
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|