Talk:Euhemerus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
|
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality
User: Wetman has largely rewritten this article, originally from the 1911 Britannica. Judging from the changes, the problem with the original is that it didn't sneer at Euhemerus and his followers enough. The article is now a rather POV history of euhemerism, with excessive emphasis on the bleeding obvious: that Euhemerus's book was fiction, euhemerism is only a theory, and the shocking idea that the early Christians were hostile to paganism.
I was particularly taken aback by the following statement:
Thus few students of comparative religion would now agree with the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that "all theories of religion which give prominence to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead are to a certain extent Euhemeristic."
Which is something of a misrepresentation of the original article:
All theories of religion which give prominence to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead are to a certain extent Euhemeristic. But as the sole explanation of the origin of the idea of gods it is not accepted by students of comparative religion.
144.138.194.37 14:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
- "Sneering"? Why? We don't even have any text of Euhemerus to sneer at? Euhemerism is a reductive explication of myth. An axiom derived from the definition of "euhemerist." I do disapprove of "it" without a clear antecedent, as in the anonymous example above. Wetman 17:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand this dispute. Nor do I understand the "Thus few students of comparative religion would now agree with the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica" statement. The "thus" seems a non sequitur to me. isn't "theories of religion which give prominence to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead" pretty much synonymous to "Euhemerism"? dab (ᛏ) 14:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. "Thus" is not required. Can you reword my clumsy phrasing to show what— we all agree— "Euhemerism" means? --Wetman 16:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To Dbachmann: What don't you understand about the dispute? It was Wetman who rewrote the passage you quote to disagree with the statement, "theories of religion which give prominence...", which you find a reasonable definition of euhemerism (and now he apparently agrees with you). In my opinion he did this to justify his rewriting the article in line with his own bias, which he admits to above: I do disapprove of "it". He also removed the dispute message from the article without justifying it. 144.138.194.63 13:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just fix the text to satisfy your own standards won't you. We'd fence with you, but we're out of toothpicks. And log in.--Wetman 18:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The part at the end of the introduction stating: ""Euhemerism" is sometimes used to mean naive reductionisms by modern secular thinkers, who 'mis-understand religious people and behavior by attributing to them only those motives (economic, psychological, utilitarian) which the secular thinkers comprehend.'" violates neutrality and needs to be revised. A lot. GeddyIsGodYYZ 13:19, 16 Nov 2006
[edit] split?
I think it is time to split the biographical Euhemerus article from the concept of Euhemerism. dab (ᛏ) 17:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Seconded. --Ghirlandajo 17:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Greek name
Does "Euhemerus" mean "Good day" in Greek?
[edit] Latter Day Saints
I fail to see how the elevation of Adam to an angel in the belief system of the Latter Day Saints qualifies as euhemerism. It doesn't sound like they are *explaining* a myth as originating in some historical event; rather, they believe both that Adam was a historical figure and that he *literally* became an angel. At least that's the way I read it; some who may be more familiar with LDS beliefs might disagree. 24.159.255.29 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.
