| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 116.47 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O mito constitui um dos eixos fundamentais da reflexão e obra de Raimon Panikkar. Tal facto tem de ser considerado num contexto mais amplo de recuperação do mito e de debate em torno da desmitologização. Panikkar, todavia, aborda o tema de uma forma original, forma essa que passa: (1) pela proposta de uma noção sui generis de mito como horizonte de sentido e inteligibilidade; (2) pelo contraponto que estabelece entre mythos e logos, elemento essencial na sua denúncia do monismo lógico dominante na cultura ocidental; (3) pela proximidade conatural entre mito e símbolo; e (4) pela verificação de uma mobilidade e plasticidade próprias do mito, que faz com que se fale de «transmitização» e «remitização» em vez de desmitologização. No presente artigo procuro expor estes quatro tópicos do pensamento de Panikkar sobre o mito.
Myth is one of the cornerstones of Raimon Panikkar’s thought. This dimension should be considered in the broader context of rehabilitation of myth and of the debate around demythologisation. Panikkar actually approaches the issue in quite an original way: (1) by proposing a sui generis notion of myth as horizon of sense and intelligibility; (2) by highlighting the difference between mythos and logos, an essential element in Panikkar’s critique of the logical monism that dominates Western culture; (3) by pointing out the deep connection between myth and symbol; and (4) by recognising the existence of a mobility and plasticity in myth, which makes him talk about “transmythisation” and “remythisation” instead of demythologisation. In this paper, I try to present these four aspects of Panikkar’s understanding of myth.
Myth is one of the cornerstones of Raimon Panikkar’s thought. This dimension should be considered in the broader context of rehabilitation of myth and of the debate around demythologisation. Panikkar actually approaches the issue in quite an original way: (1) by proposing a sui generis notion of myth as horizon of sense and intelligibility; (2) by highlighting the difference between mythos and logos, an essential element in Panikkar’s critique of the logical monism that dominates Western culture; (3) by pointing out the deep connection between myth and symbol; and (4) by recognising the existence of a mobility and plasticity in myth, which makes him talk about “transmythisation” and “remythisation” instead of demythologisation. In this paper, I try to present these four aspects of Panikkar’s understanding of myth.
Description
Keywords
Panikkar Mito Remitização Transmitização Desmitologização Símbolo Myth Remythisation Transmythisation Demythologisation Symbol
Citation
PALMA, Alexandre – Mito e remitização em Raimon Panikkar. Didaskalia. Lisboa. ISSN 0253-1674. 45:2 (2015) 203-219.
Publisher
Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Faculdade de Teologia