Mircea Eliade, a philosopher and a well known historian of religion, is the author of the book "Cosmos and History." The book is about Eliade's belief on cyclical and linear history, the myth of eternal return, the regeneration of time and the misfortunes in history. The book in itself is littered with examples in an attempt to explain the theories that he presented and its relevance to our era. This is somewhat dragging for people who are not interested with theories but the book in itself is meant to be an academic perusal.
Although there are a lot of instances where Eliade tend to intellectualize, I still agree with him on some of the premise that he mentioned. The discussion on "archetypes and repetition" that human actions are sometimes derived from the imitations of the actions of sacred or mystic archetypes is in fact undeniable. An archetype being a model or the pattern through which man adopts a particular event is a clear example of Eliade's philosophizing. Contemporary historians and even psychologists with the likes of Carl Jung, a noted Swiss Psychiatrist made use of the so-called archetypes (although not to be confused with Eliade's archetype) to define and interpret the behavior of a person. These are dominant, imagos, mythological or primordial characters that people tend to imitate just as the book focused on some of these characters to define Eliade's theory.
The premise that a person's act or a historical event is patterned after some mythical character or events which the gods have done in their life is being done over and over that they become rituals is indeed a fact. The common rituals that are being practiced all through out the world are derived from mythical events. The Halloween, for example, is a worldwide tradition but its origin dates back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in) that is pagan in origin; the belief on Easter Sunday is a commemoration of Christ's resurrection two days after his crucifixion; the ritual of Easter egg hunt can actually be traced on the belief that the universe comes from a primordial egg in intself being a symbol of the start of a new life, just as new life started as the chick emerges from it; the belief on the throwing of rice to newly weds is basically a symbol of fertility with rice being an ancient fertility ritual.
It is good to point out that the archeytpes and the imitation of the lives of great men of the past is still an undeniable truth. It is not only exclusive for historians but also for writers, film makers and politicians. William Shakespeare, a famous English writer, is known for making use of archetypes and from borrowing historical artifacts and making use of it as the setting for his works. The story of Pocahontas popularized by a film in the late '90s is actually based on a historical figure. But it has been reconstructed in accordance with the norms of a myth and thus made Pocahontas, later Rebecca Rolfe of the British Isles, a heroine. In the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos gave birth to a new society or "Bagong Lipunan" by making use of a folklore and with the two of them leading the nation like it's the birth of a new society. Ang Bagong Lipunan.
What is so striking about Eliade's theory is that people can be powerless in the face of history. And that every man by himself is a victim. We regard history as the events unfold and we confront those events. But the truth is only those that are unique can really be regarded as history. Those events that are not cyclical in nature like Great War, famine and destruction. But suffering is indeed a normal experience. We all are succumbed to the idea of believing in a cycle. After the end is a beginning. A new beginning. That is where Eliade's work comes in. Calamity, as always, brings with it the indispensable ingredient of grief. Yet, we question grief as an invention of the bereaved, as a handy device to cover our own guilt. In our grief, we call out the dead in the hopes of reviving them in the precious shelters of memory.
We should question the efficacy of everything. That is what I have learned from Eliade. Why the good die young? Why things happen even if we did not desire for it? I believe that we cannot avoid it. But if we come to think of it, things will get a little worse and then afterwards, it will get better. The fangs of history is also a reminder of the misfortunes that humankind wrought upon itself. It is also a testimony to the endurance of the human spirit. To exist then, is not only to live, but also to survive.
Eliade's work is telling us that the ultimate reality is we are all powerless. We have to believe otherwise that life is a cycle and events will unfold right before our eyes. We have to regard history whether it is a misfortune or a great event as an archetype. We have to believe in the linear conception of time and this is an ultimate reality. That the regeneration of the world will offer us a new beginning. A fresh start.
__________
sources:
Eliade, M. (1974). The myth of the eternal return or, cosmos and history. (W H. Trask, Trans.). New York: Princeton University. (Originally published in 1949).
Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies, theories and interpretations.
NY: The Teaching Co.
Mircea Eliade. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from http://www.wikipedia.com.eliade
1 comment:
Technically, the blog was well written.
The subject chosen was in fact a hard one -- Mircea Eliade's Myth of Eternal Return.
The statement which I found very interesting in this blog was... the ultimate reality is we are all powerless...I do not agree on that statement. But regardless of my personal belief, I do acknowledge that the writer cited several accounts which lead him to conclude that history is an archetype.
Post a Comment