- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Your question contains an erroneous premise. “Rational perception” (the wording from the original version of the question) has not at all supplanted the myth, myths permeate the entire thinking of modern man. Even relatively recent events today become the basis for mythological plots, for example, the Second World War in many countries has become overgrown with heroic myths that have much more in common with the texts of some Homer than with historical science. It is worth noting that earlier there was a question about why mythology is always in demand: thequestion.ru
In general, it seems that both religion and mythology continue to exist because they perform different social functions, and these functions are different from those of science or philosophy.
Probably not “perception” after all, but generally accepted interpretations of the so-called “reality”.
Let's also clarify: we can't say that the myth (let's assume that we understand this word the same way) was irrational. Mythology has its own rationality (it is the rationality of myth that many people were engaged in in the 20th century, Claude Levi-Strauss is famous for example).
In addition, the forms of rationality itself changed very much. So, for example, the rationality of Thomas Aquinas (and he is logical, rational!) It differs sharply from Descartes ' rationality.
Religious forms also changed: there is a huge distance between the way of life and beliefs of early Christians and modern Catholics.
So it was not “mythology” that changed to ” rationalism, “nor” religion ” that remained intact.
The “reality” was changing, the ideas about it and the ways to get along with it.
The history of our interpretations of reality (including scientific interpretations and religious beliefs) has gone through a dramatic crisis that is not complete and is unlikely to be completed in the near future.
Some markers of this crisis can be found in the names of Kant, Nietzsche, and M in the 20th century.Foucault (you can choose other names, the list is not complete). The essence of the crisis – very roughly, too roughly-can be expressed by the question ” what is the rationality of rationality itself?”.
In the end, the answer to your question, if I understand it correctly at all, is this:
The reality in which a person lived was changing. It was changed by a person, changing their ideas about it. And the person himself changed along with his ideas.
And it won't end, hopefully, ever.