As for Freud, the guy was a quack. I honestly wonder how he had such an influence for so long when much of his work has been discredited along the way. Even his notion of the subconscious was later found to be incorrect. — Darkneos

Thank you. Freud was a great man, but I think his focus was too narrow. Still, I think I prefer him to Jung, who it seems to me may not have had enough evidence to conclude that virtually the entire cultural history of our species was packed away somewhere in our brains, unknown to us but available to pop out when appropriate. — Ciceronianus the White

The only legal right to free speech here in the U.S. arises from the fact the law prohibits government from restricting speech in most, but not all, cases. When people complain that their right to free speech is being restricted by anyone but the government, through laws or government agents, they refer to a right which isn't a legal right. — Ciceronianus the White

oldtimer: education was always meant to benefit the ruling elite. It is only when civilizations went from agricultural to industrial that the elite realized that the lower class/farmers needed to be educated so they could run complex equipment...and the rest is history — archaios

Yes. I agree totally. And one of my great frustrations is that the warfare state, as some libertarian blogs might call it, is deeply bipartisan. Joe Biden represents the warfare state. Trump, by the way, ran in opposition to it; and to date has not started any new wars and has kept John Bolton from starting one with Iran. Just to toss in a little politics. — fishfry

People who take education seriously advocate for school vouchers and basically demolishing the publi schools and the teachers unions that have destroyed them. — fishfry

Of course we are all humans, and so have certain characteristics and needs in common. That commonality has consequences as it means that that there are certain things we do similarly. It seems dubious, though, to infer from that a murky collective body of archetypes, symbols and instincts which supposedly are part of the inherent structure of our brains. It's rather like inferring, as some have, that the fact that pyramids were constructed in Egypt and by the Mayans and Aztecs shows that ancient Egyptians found their way to the Americas, or that refugees from Atlantis traveled to Africa and Central America, or better yet that aliens taught us to make them. It makes far more sense, I think, to recognize that when people at a certain level of civilization wanted to build tall structures without the benefit of metals like iron and steel, they would rapidly understand that in order to do so in a manner which would avoid the structure falling over the base of the structure should be broad, and should become successively less broad the taller it was built.

Similarly, rather than speculating that there is such a thing as a collective unconsciousness with its mystic and mythical overtones buried in our minds, it would seem to me more reasonable simply to recognize that we're living organisms having certain characteristics existing and trying to live in an environment of which we're a part. There are certain things we must do as a result. One of those things is thinking, at least when we encounter a problem or situation we wish to resolve. Interacting with the rest of the world, we have similar experiences. Those experiences create habits, customs, language, laws, etc. We're better off studying those empirically than conjuring up Wise Old Man, or Mother, or Father, or Trickster, etc. in an effort to attribute them to some inherited unconscious. — Ciceronianus the White

You asked me about my thoughts on the world as we know it becoming part of the mythical past. I would say that I do wonder whether we are at endpoint of civilisation or a new beginning. I will say that I created a thread on whether we were on the verge of cultural collapse, which was last active 19 days ago. I don't know if you are aware of this thread and you might be able to contribute to this discussion.

I will also say that I managed to download the book Thinking Fast and Slow, so hopefully I will manage to read it at some point while I am in the limbo land of England's second lockdown. — Jack Cummins

and the veritable catch-all of the "collective unconscious" makes me leery of his conclusions. — Ciceronianus the White


I completely understand how you could feel that way just from a surface understanding.

When I combine it with the understanding of a 'bridge' between instinct, induction, abduction, deduction, the interplay that takes place in a species specific semiosphere, and how this epigenetically feeds back down to the organism, a collective unconscious makes perfect sense to me. — Mapping the Medium

I will try not to drown in the deep seas of the unconscious mind which I wish to explore. — Jack Cummins


You can't drown in "the deep seas of the unconscious mind" because YOU are the deep sea. This isn't Freud. My theory is that "I" exist in the unconscious. Not Freud's SUBconscious sea of unutterable wishes, but my sea of enormous back-office operations where I exist outside the view of my front-office public relations staff, spies (observed sensory input), and all the public stuff. The front office (consciousness) isn't writing this. The public relations people are watching this as it goes up on the screen. The big Composition Group in the back office is putting the ideas together and sending it out to a transmission desk where fingers are instructed to hit the right keys. — Bitter Crank

If I must say something on Freud and the Oedipus complex it's that the whole idea makes sense, at whatever level it does, even if not to everybody. This is either a sign of Freud's genius or evidence that all is not well, if one isn't, even in the slightest sense, "adventurous". — TheMadFool

Yes, Freud got penis envy wrong; it's a problem for us guys--we all have one, but envy others. We at least make comparisons whenever we get the chance. Even guys with enormous penises aren't always satisfied; as one well endowed guy confessed, "they attract too much attention". — Bitter Crank

I will bear in mind the possibility of links but I am not a big fan of them and rarely open them on other people's threads.

Really, my quest is about the territory of the imagination. I visited the Freud museum in Hampstead several years ago and that inspired me looking at Freud's desk and the statues he had of mythological figures. I think his journey was about mythical dimensions.

I will probably see what happens on this thread in the next couple of days but want to exist a bit in the physical world before London's second lockdown begins. I don't want to only exist in a room using my phone and do feel a bit overwhelmed by the prospect of lockdown because it seems that life as we know it is becoming part of the mythical past. — Jack Cummins

The term hysteria comes from the Greek word hysterika, meaning Uterus. In ancient Greece it was believed that a wandering and discontented Uterus was blamed for that dreaded female ailment of excessive emotion, hysteria. The disease's symptoms were believed to be dictated by where in the body the offending organ roamed. It was not religious belief but a social belief. https://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/hysteria.html — academic.mu.edu

The main thing I would say is that I don't believe that any tutor or professor could get away with calling a female student 'a castrating bitch' although you say he was your favourite so perhaps it was humour. Nevertheless, I think if it was said to many women who I know they would put in a letter of complaint. The professor might get disciplined or even dismissed for misconduct.

That is not to say that prejudice in all its forms has gone away. If anything, in this time of political correctness, prejudices are often expressed less directly but people may still feel the subtle effects of prejudice which is less overt and Freud's understanding of unconscious is a useful for thinking about the unspoken elements of interaction.

I started this discussion, not really with an intent to focus on Freud's to focus on his discussion of sexuality but of course this aspect of his writing cannot be side-stepped.

Personally I want to be reserved about discussing my own sexuality on this site because it is a public forum openly showing on the internet. I was surprised to find recently that when I googled my name all my posts and my picture were showing. I don't want to take the paranoid position but I am applying for jobs so I want to be a bit cautious. I know that I could create a pen name but I do not plan to at this stage because I have disclosed some personal information but it would be hard to find unless someone really wanted to read and read to find it. But I know that I have the option of creating a pen name and have even joked on another thread that I would choose Dr Dream. But for the time being I would rather reserve Dr Dream for a character in fiction projects.

Anyway, perhaps Freud's ideas on sexuality will be the way forward for this thread discussion. So far only a couple of people apart from you have commented on this thread so far, so I am hoping it does not die before it has even reached puberty. And, it may be a good thing if there was more discussion of sex on this site as it such a central part of life. — Jack Cummins

How to solve the Mind-Brain Mystery with Eastern Philosophy

Oriental philosophy emphasizes phenomenological aspects of consciousness while Western philosophy emphasizes functional aspects.

Freud proposed that the mind was made up of the ego, id, and superego before the methods of behaviorism became popular. The study of behaviorism tried to resolve this by looking at the responses to a given stimulus. This was, however, a very limited scope with which to try and reconcile the subtle nuances of the mind.

The common sense and intuitive reasoning focus in folk psychology can be closely compared to Oriental philosophy but is thought to be outdated by some Western psychologists.

The German zoologist Richard Semon wrestled with the unsolved problem of memory over a hundred years ago when he first formulated the engram concept. This history of continuous attempts to produce a valid formula with which to study the human mind led to the necessity of a field of science that could study all aspects of cognition.

This was to be cognitive science which is the interdisciplinary study of the mind. Cognitive science incorporates philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence along with robotics and neuroscience to give a more complete science with which to study the human mind and the brain.

https://medium.com/philosophy-caf%C3%A9/eastern-philosophy-and-the-mind-brain-connection-a44f9322cc0d

The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge, dating back at least to Plato, is that knowledge is justified true belief. That is to say that it is not enough merely to believe something to be the case, and it is not even enough for that belief to turn out to be true, but for someone to know something they must also have a justification for their belief, a reason to believe it, because it would not constitute knowledge to simply guess at an answer to a question (or otherwise come to believe it for insufficient reason) and just by luck turn out to be right. — Pfhorrest

Edmund Gettier has since proposed that even justified true belief is not enough to constitute knowledge, to the extent that reasons to believe something can sometimes be imperfect, can suggest beliefs that nevertheless turn out to be false, yet we nevertheless want to say that someone can still be justified in believing something for such reasons. Because if justification can be imperfect, someone could be justified in believing something that, despite that justification, might nevertheless turn out to actually be false, and in such cases we would not want to say that it counts as knowledge to be misled by imperfect justifications to believe something that could nevertheless have still been false but, by an unrelated coincidence, does happen to also be true, just not for the reasons justifying the belief.

Freud was entirely dismissive of Christianity. His essays such as Totem and Taboo and The Future of an Illusion attempt to depict Christianity as a result of a kind of collective neurosis. He was throughout his life an outspoken and uncompromising atheist. Generally speaking Freud’s philosophy, such as it was, was tied to his overwhelming desire to establish himself as a scientist; his dismissive attitude of the idea of the spiritual was one of the main factors in Jung’s splitting from Freud. — Wayfarer

I can see Freud's weakness but enjoy reading his writings, so I dare'nt think how some may psychoanalyse me. Actually, I discovered a Primer in Freudian psychology in the library of my Roman Catholic school library, so his ideas were a liberating factor for me during adolescence.

I also did a course in art psychotherapy and this brought Freudian ideas to life. I think Freud's ideas are extremely important for psychotherapy as questions of religion and sexuality seem to figure strongly in mental illness, especially in psychotic breakdowns.

The ideas of Melanie Klein are interesting too from a psychoanalytic point of view. In particular, the ideas of splitting, projective identification, in addition to the concepts of the depressive and paranoid position.

While I was doing the art psychotherapy course I undertook personal therapy. My therapist was trained in Jungian psychotherapy. However, the therapy did incorporate some elements based on Freud's ideas. It included 50 minute sessions and four many of my sessions I lay on a couch. I found lying on the couch in therapy very wierd. I definitely think the therapy affected me permanently, mainly making me view life experiences differently and making me a bit more aware of my own blind spots. — Jack Cummins

Sigmund Freud’s views on women stirred controversy during his own lifetime and continue to evoke considerable debate today. "Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own," he wrote in a 1925 paper entitled "The Psychical Consequences of the Anatomic Distinction Between the Sexes." — https://www.verywellmind.com/how-sigmund-freud-viewed-women-2795859

Nietzsche's apparent misogyny is part of his overall strategy to demonstrate that our attitudes toward sex-gender are thoroughly cultural, are often destructive of our own potential as individuals and as a species, and may be changed. — Wikipedia

Yes, I do agree ultimately. I do not consider myself as popular, but as a bit of an outsider.

If anything it is about survival. We live in a world of dog eat dog and a I have my own share of bullying and trying to resuscitate myself.

I would certainly not advocate a philosophy which elevates the popular. I do wish to advocate for many diverse and rejected philosophers. I believe that those most rejected can become the cornerstone as a Bob Marley track suggested and I would hate to think if Bob Marley was seen as below the level of the thinking of the philosophers, as in the most fundamental way he advocated the rights of all, beyond race, gender and all categories of exclusion.

One final remark, I am aware that Jung was attribute with racism against Jews and he had a certain amount of sexism too. This can be seen as a criticism of his work but is it to the point where his views should be rejected entirely?

The point I would make here is that I found meaningful in the writings of Ouspensky and passed a book onto him to a friend. I was dumbfounded when I discovered that my friend, who is gay, had latched onto a remark about homosexuality which I had barely noticed, and been thrown into an abyss of despair.

So, what I am saying is that the ideas of Freud, Jung and others have to be thrown into the cauldron of fire, juxtaposed with the relics of the Christian past as a way for a synthesis. This is a difficult endeavor with no easy answers and so returning to my thread discussion I would say simply that the ideas are a stepping stone for philosophical debate. — Jack Cummins

According to Freud psychoanalytic theory, the id is the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories, the super-ego operates as a moral conscience, and the ego is the realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego. — Simply Psychology

I am a bit surprised to hear that you are are checking for signs of dementia because my imaginary picture of you was an extremely young person, probably with a degree in psychology as so many people have nowadays. I imagined you as a force to take the world by storm.

This is not in any way a criticism as I am in Bedford drinking wine in Bedford in a venue calle Coffee With Art, reading a paper book called History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation by Joel Kovel. It is based on Hegel's philosophy but draws upon psychoanalysis and the whole spirit of authenticity.

I encourage you in your philosophical quest rather than too much worry about dementia until necessarily. Dementia is a label in itself. In the meantime I think philosophy needs a wake up call from the smart thinkers and at the present time your thinking is smart and offers a valuable contribution to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I think that Joseph Campbell is a long lost prophet but possibly too obscure for many on this site to understand.

I chose Freud as a pioneer because I think that he engaged with so many debates at the heart of philosophy, including religion and sexuality. — Jack Cummins

I do not disagree and think that Freud and Jung drew upon the ideas of their time, but point to them as exponents of ideas about the unconscious. I certainly would not wish to dismiss those who paved the way for their work. — Jack Cummins

Philosophy of the Unconscious: Speculative Results According to the Induction Method of the Physical Sciences (German: Philosophie des Unbewussten) is an 1869 book by the philosopher Eduard von Hartmann.[1] The culmination of the speculations and findings of German romantic philosophy in the first two-thirds of the 19th century, Philosophy of the Unconscious became famous.[2] By 1882, it had appeared in nine editions.[3] A three volume English translation appeared in 1884.[4] The English translation is more than 1100 pages long.[5] The work influenced Sigmund Freud's and Carl Jung's theories of the unconscious.[4][6] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_the_Unconscious

Carl Jung and Freud
Many believe Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung defined the world of psychology. Both had differing theories, but made equal impacts on people's perception of the human mind. ... Freud acted as a mentor and father figure towards Jung, and Jung acted as an energetic new prospect to the movement towards Freud.Jun 23, 2016

Freud vs. Jung | In Your Dreams - Sites at Penn State — Peen State

have not read Cicero but take your point about possible undertaking of training in thinking.

I think that the book you refer to is part of the genre of smart thinking. I do not dismiss this tradition as well as other systems of improving thinking ability including NLP and cognitive behavioral therapy. I wish to engage with this tradition as much as possible.

My own thoughts are I am wary of the smart thinking genre if it is seen as a means of thinking as the supreme thinking tool. I think it can be used alongside philosophy rather than as a quick shortcut and replacement for philosophy as an art and discipline for developing thinking ability. — Jack Cummins

I do not see why you think it is the case that the thinking processes will result in us arriving at the same conclusions. — Jack Cummins

I understand the processes by which we eventually conclude but anyone who created us obviously had the ability to ensure that these processes led to the same conclusion. This is not the case which causes huge problems. Giving us the ability to reach different conclusions causes more problems than it solves. Is the final way to the same thought conclusions via this messy thought differences that plague the world right now? — david plumb

Technically, Christianity is about retiring the Old Testament and heh christening a new one. Kinda like "yeah it happened but we don't really do that so much now" .. take that how you please. — Outlander

True, Christians do judge. Not sure you can judge Jesus exists or not as judgement is more about decisions than believing truth or untruth. Christianity is unique- Jesus was crucified, He also died and rose to Heaven, He was a Jew and never founded the Christianity movement and he understood existentialism extremely well. — david plumb

Just something to think about.. Judgement of sin divorced from its original context means nothing. Sin has to do with not following some of the commandments in the Books of the Law (Torah). Anything outside of this is some reconstruction done by various Romanizing forces that took the little Jesus Movement and reworked it into the Greco-Roman world where ancestral laws of a specific tribe of people didn't matter. — schopenhauer1

What a brilliant idea Athena .. maybe soon we'll be able to make bombs that can blow up entire continents instead of just regional areas. I mean, according to Darwinism if you're smaller or weaker or less intelligent than myself, I just about have a duty to consume, eat, kill, or otherwise "assert my superiority over you" and if I do so, that's just helping the human race. To not do so is to leave us all handicapped.

There's no reason you can't have both. — Outlander

For example, I noticed that the English word 'commandment' is heard by most British and American readers as if it were an order that should be obeyed. In Arabic it is heard as an important advice given by a loving father to his beloved sons. After all, love cannot be commanded; otherwise it can be called anything but true love. — KerimF

Suppose you could call it (not the religion but how the human brain works) "mob mentality". If you're outside of the mob, you're bad. Lol. — Outlander

The Old Testament is full of references to the extermination of heathens, like:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.

"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded," Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.

Don't walk like a Gentile (heathen):

Ephesians 4:17-19
"So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness." — Ciceronianus the White

↪Athena
I don't know about Christianity but for judgement we need sound moral criteria and that's exactly what's missing or is highly controversial at the moment. — TheMadFool

That said, on the topic generally, we make judgments all the time about people, events, things. It's part of what we do. The trick is to do so intelligently. Christianity holds that judgment is required, however, as a matter of doctrine; judgment of humanity in general, and of people, according to doctrine. — Ciceronianus the White

Or maybe if we're in a bad place join them? Or if we're all ok, just socialize and get along cooperatively? — tim wood

I don't know about Christianity but for judgement we need sound moral criteria and that's exactly what's missing or is highly controversial at the moment. — TheMadFool