The Myth of the Eternal Return

What is the difference between sacred and profane time? What is the practical value of this distinction, and what other distinctions does it relate to (for example, purification versus regeneration)?

In what sense is Judeo-Christian theology a stopgap between archaic ontology and modern philosophy? In what sense does it remain anti-historical?

What is the ontological nature of faith? How does faith differ from the religious experience of most modern-day Christians, even if Christianity is a religion founded on faith? Why is faith a difficult perspective to achieve?

According to Eliade, what is Hegel’s criticism of “primitive”—read archaic—ontological belief? How does Eliade respond? Whose view is more compelling and why?

Eliade makes much of the distinction between the act of re-creation in which time is born anew and the mere restoration of a purifying ritual. Why? How does it reinforce his interpretation of the radical difference of archaic ontology?

Choose one of Eliade’s examples of an archaic rite and explain how it exemplifies the idea of eternal return.

At the end of the final chapter, Eliade writes that there is a fundamental existential choice between despair and faith. He claims that the archaic ontology cannot be overcome without accepting a faith-based relationship to the divine. Otherwise, despair ensues. What is his argument? Do you agree? Why or why not?

What is the practical value of Eliade’s essay? Do you agree with him that archaic mythology can be “instructive” in the modern day? Why or why not?