Abstract

Keum’s book makes a significant intervention into the discourse on myth which continues to view myth predominantly as illusory, false, and morally wrong. In introducing an alternative tradition of literary myth, she effectively calls this view into question. The political and normative ramifications of literary myth remain somewhat underexplored, however. In my reflections, I ask how the book defines ‘political myth’. I suggest that a more detailed comparison between the Sorelian and the literary conception of myth would be useful. In particular, it would help to clarify the normative gap between the book’s stronger claims of myth’s significance for reason and its weaker calls for vigilance and pluralism. I close by encouraging an analytic of political myth that goes beyond philosophical pedagogy.