>>9897164It just isn't as simple as that. The arrival of empiricism and scientific modes of thinking forced a false dialectic of things being either "real" and "story". The joke being that science itself is a story here, but I digress.
No wonder these two retarded categories couldn't deal with the earlier conceptions of the ancient myths and meta-narratives people had.
One could say for instance that, if the creation, among with certain other stories in the bible aren't "real", in the naive realist sense of thoroughly debunked hard empiricism, they're actually even more "real", since they refer to event ontologically higher and prior to the material world itself. It's a way for men to understand in the most coherent way possible, the transcendental events that allowed for crude matter to even exist.
This way the events don't need to be "real" in a crude empirical sense.
