Myth and religion: historical and substantial aspects of comparison

The authors view justification of situation according to which the radical identification or on the contrary opposition of the myth and religion is incorrect is carried out in the article. It is shown that the myth and religion have the general historical prerequisites and therefore they have substantial similarity. So, the myth and religion use figurativeness and metaphoricalness in the course of expression of sense, they contain ideas of sacral and perform similar social functions. Both the religion, and the myth form ideas of metareality which acts as addition and a link of the phenomena of daily reality. But similarity ascertaining does not exclude allocation and essential distinctions. Originally the myth and religion represent syncretic unity, but at a certain stage of human evolution will be transformed to the autonomous phenomena capable both to supplement each other, and to be in the denial relation. Their specifics are distinctly shown that they in their own way consider communication between the produced metareality and the daily world, and also they use the special ways of substantial self-expression. So, if combination of metareality and the phenomena of actual existence in inseparable unity is characteristic of the myth, then the religion differentiates them in autonomous and in something life forms oppositional to each other. This division is reached because of most expressed ability of religion to a transtsendention which in the myth remains in an undeveloped state. In turn it means that religions from each other as if does not differ, ideas of transcendental sacral are their cornerstone. For the myth existence of this component is optional, but invariable is only a figurative and symbolical way of its substantial self-expression and the embodiment of mythological plots in daily occurrence events. That is why the myth, substituting relationships of cause and effect associative and metaphorical, is present at quality of a source of social manipulations or superstitions in all spheres of public life. In the same cases when the religion incorporates the myth, she subordinates its figurativeness and metaphorical-ness to the problems of evident expression of transcendental sacrality, thereby carrying out audit of the myth up to radical change of its initial sense. It is possible to draw a conclusion that the myth and religion form rather autonomous phenomena of culture, in some characteristics considerably differing from each other. The evident and figurative picture of the world of mythological consciousness is almost deprived transcendental and, respectively, sacral measurement. On the contrary, the religion designs special area of sacred, transcendental reality, and using for this purpose a discourse of mythology or doing without it.

Keywords

Authors

References