Mircea Eliade on Religion
Mircea Eliade On Religion
Several people find Mircea Eliade’s view on religion similar to Emile Durkheim’s, but in truth, it is similar to Tylor and Frazer’s. One of Eliade’s major works was The Sacred and the Profane. In his writings he explains that his understanding of religion are two concepts: the sacred and the profane. The profane consists of things that are ordinary, random, and unimportant, while the sacred is the opposite. The sacred “is the sphere of supernatural, of things extraordinary, memorable, and momentous” (Pals 199). When Durkheim mentioned the sacred and the profane, he was concerned about society and its needs. In Eliade’s view, the concern of religion is with the supernatural. To Eliade, the profane doesn’t hold as much meaning as the sacred. He describes profane as vanishing and fragile, while the sacred as eternal and full of substance. He does not try to explain away religion and reject all reductionist efforts. Eliade only focuses on “timeless forms.” He says they reoccur in religions all over the world, but he ignores their specific context and dismisses them as irrelevant. He also ties religion to archaic people whom he defines as, “those who have lived in the world of nature,” (Pals 198) or those who have hunted, fished, and farmed routinely. Archaic people want to live life in the model of the divine because they have a deep longing for paradise, and to be close to God. Also, Eliade is an admirer of how myths tell the stories of not only gods but also on the struggles of life. He says that humanity is forming a new belief system in which the belief is of whether or not there really is a God. Eliade states that because of this theory, we must learn to live without the sacred. Eliade certainly has an interesting approach on religion.
Eliade certainly had an interesting approach to religion He almost made it important to clarify that there are two different planes of life, the profane which is the ordinary and often chaotic part of
Several people find Mircea Eliade’s view on religion similar to Emile Durkheim’s, but in truth, it is similar to Tylor and Frazer’s. One of Eliade’s major works was The Sacred and the Profane. In his writings he explains that his understanding of religion are two concepts: the sacred and the profane. The profane consists of things that are ordinary, random, and unimportant, while the sacred is the opposite. The sacred “is the sphere of supernatural, of things extraordinary, memorable, and momentous” (Pals 199). When Durkheim mentioned the sacred and the profane, he was concerned about society and its needs. In Eliade’s view, the concern of religion is with the supernatural. To Eliade, the profane doesn’t hold as much meaning as the sacred. He describes profane as vanishing and fragile, while the sacred as eternal and full of substance. He does not try to explain away religion and reject all reductionist efforts. Eliade only focuses on “timeless forms.” He says they reoccur in religions all over the world, but he ignores their specific context and dismisses them as irrelevant. He also ties religion to archaic people whom he defines as, “those who have lived in the world of nature,” (Pals 198) or those who have hunted, fished, and farmed routinely. Archaic people want to live life in the model of the divine because they have a deep longing for paradise, and to be close to God. Also, Eliade is an admirer of how myths tell the stories of not only gods but also on the struggles of life. He says that humanity is forming a new belief system in which the belief is of whether or not there really is a God. Eliade states that because of this theory, we must learn to live without the sacred. Eliade certainly has an interesting approach on religion.
Eliade certainly had an interesting approach to religion He almost made it important to clarify that there are two different planes of life, the profane which is the ordinary and often chaotic part of