this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
-5 points (33.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48799 readers
356 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but here it goes...

Because the Hero's Journey is junk science. Joseph Campbell who created the "Hero's Journey" was an arch-reactionary who had intended to present an alternative to the literature of his day which he disdained. He longed for a return to the "wisdom of the past" and his book "The Hero with a thousand faces" was positioned as presenting this wisdom, arranged around Freudian and Jungian theories, particularly the debunked "collective unconscious"; as well as the ideas of reactionary philosopher Spengler and ethnologist Frobenius (particular Frobenius' idea of "paideuma").

What the book actually is, is a mashup of quotes from various myths and legends, deprived of their cultural context and strung together along the lines of Campbell's preconceived beliefs. These myths and legends are never considered in their entirety, nor did Campbell dwell on the culture that produced them. From a standpoint of anthropology, it is a profoundly unscientific book and upon publication it was largely dismissed as such by Campbell's peers.

In the "American Anthropologist" Stephen Porter Dunn wrote:

Campbell's book is in a sense a throwback to an earlier heroic age of anthropology, when the air was dark with flying hypotheses and comparisons rained down like acorns in autumn. Reading it, the case-hardened social scientist derives the same sort of nostalgic, half-shamed pleasure as the ordinary adult would from reading G.A. Henty or Robin Hood to his children. Campbell uses the traditional equipment and methods of a literary critic, for whom comparison and analogy are tantamount to proof and fact. He writes in a curiously archaic style - full of rhetorical questions, exclamations of wonder and delight, and expostulations directed at the reader [...]

Accordingly, The Hero's Journey always mattered more to literary applications than as a genuine human artefact. Still the importance of the The Hero's Journey as a storytelling concept only came after the success of "Star Wars", when Hollywood discovered it as a template for blockbuster movies. Though Hollywood largely discarded most of Campbell (for good reason) in favor of the simplified version as presented by Christopher Vogler (for example: The 12 steps of the Hero's Journey are Vogler's version, Campbell used 17) who did not care much about the Hero's Journey allegedly universal applicableness, than in its usefulness as a tool set.

Lots of people are still heavily invested in painting the Hero's Journey as a universally shared principle of storytelling. To those people I recommend Robert Ellwood's "The Politics of Myth", which traces the development of Campbell's thinking and the development of the Hero's Journey.

[โ€“] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

As a huge fan of Campbell's work, I want to hate you with the hate of 10K suns! And yet, reality is reality. Science is what it is IMO, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. (oof)

That said, however, I wonder if the alleged 'takedowns' of Campbell's work aren't a bit invested upon the desire to believe. And one thing that I know for sure, however wrong Joe could arguably be about this or that, he was also absolutely correct upon a bunch of other stuff. About our Naked Ape chronic desire to believe, and the way we all tend to invent shockingly similar mythos. In order to meet the needs of our chronic insecurity, that is, and we are absolutely LOADED with such insecurities.

So as I see it, you can tear down Campbell's work upon this or that angle, and yet it would be a fool's errand to try to erase his main point, and he has many of those, after all...