What's the bottom line? Is there a bottom line?

tim wood

It's a familiar, and ultimately fatal, criticism of Freudian analysis that criticism of Freudian analysis is taken by Freudian analysts and their apologists as pathology - that maybe they can cure! Not least of the problems with such a defensive posture is that it blocks even Freudians from constructive self-criticism. And this problem with Freudianism turned out to be incurable. The only curative, and that which finally happened, is that with sufficient distance and disengagement, the larger community just moved on. With some similarity to a disease that kills all of its hosts.

Freudianism, here, stands as example/model for a more general problem: the triumph of belief over and against evidence, facts, truth, reality, reason, rationality.

We all have met people, even here on this site, that believe in in the unbelievable, adduce evidence that is not evidence, rely on "facts" that are not facts, truth that isn't true, unreal realities, etc., and anything else like that can be added.

In many cases it is pathology. That is, if chased long, far, and hard enough, the nonsense becomes manifest in lots of ways, many hazardous. And there is no real accounting for pathology. With much effort it can be mapped, but not really understood, because it is essentially craziness/insanity. Characteristic is always there is somewhere within an inner contradiction that chaffs until it bursts through. Also, notwithstanding superficial beneficence, it always reveals itself as evil in its heart of hearts.

But is all such belief pathological? Is some - any - of it a good or in the service of a good? Is there an ultimate yardstick, measure, bottom line by which I may judge that guy over there a nutcase, him and his worth leaving to the professionals?

Most religion imo is just this kind of pathology. Smiles and goodwill on the outside, but all teeth and viciousness when pressed. Pro-life adherents, and unfortunately in reaction, some pro-choicers; gun-nuts. Racists. And so on. Does it devolve to "nature, red in tooth and claw"? Do we wait for a generation to die out, its victims with it? Or in identified cases do we the people of reason, rationality, evidence, facts, truth yield to other criteria (that at the moment I cannot give name to) that fall under mere belief? Or is all ungrounded belief necessarily ultimately evil*.

*I offer a provisional definition, up for negotiation as needed, of evil as that which does harm, or does more harm than good. This definition is inadequate, but I'll leave to be worked on by any who find need to improve it.

Valentinus

↪tim wood

But is all such belief pathological? Is some - any - of it a good or in the service of a good? Is there an ultimate yardstick, measure, bottom line by which I may judge that guy over there a nutcase, him and his worth leaving to the professionals? — tim wood

Before anyone would have to make a judgment or decision about some one else's condition, there would have to be some period of time where they are perceived. Freud's and other psychologist's descriptions of pathology are systems of observation. The different points of view that separated Freud and Jung, for example, were expressed as contrary theories of development but were also divergent responses to the people they interacted with.

I think the bottom line is that people suffer and we try to make sense of what is going on. The attempt will always be problematic because it happens in an environment where judgments happen. That environment is not strictly the creation of psychologists.

jellyfish

Or is all ungrounded belief necessarily ultimately evil*. — tim wood

Hmmm.

What is existence for? What does all of our rationality aim at ?

Do 'we rational ones' have a good plan, tend to agree? Who's in the club?

NOS4A2

↪tim wood

Belief or reason does not automatically lead to good or evil, one or the other. We know of many bright intellectuals who turned to despotism and tyranny. Take Robespierre. He criticized the death penalty and inequality, yet instituted the reign of terror. Any man, believer or not, no matter what’s in his mind or heart, can be just and therefor good.

tim wood

Any man, believer or not, no matter what’s in his mind or heart, can be just and therefor good. — NOS4A2

Can be, but only in respect of that part of him that is good and not bad. The bad man does good accidentally or incidentally. Being bad, he doesn't know how to be good.

As to belief not grounded in these: evidence, facts, truth, reality, reason, rationality, what would the belief be grounded in? And if it's in the opposite of these, then it's opposed to them. I argue that inevitably leads to harm somehow, someway - ungrounded belief, then, is not harmless. Can such people do good? Sure, no one said they were in all ways bad.

We - most of us - have dealt with such people. Generally, they are people who have surrendered to their beliefs, and when those beliefs collide with reason, facts, reality, etc., i.e., the world, the believer denies the world.

My question becomes, is there any rule by which those collisions can be mediated? It's a wide question. At the extremes, of course, reason, often through law, imposes limits and restrictions. And that because very few rights are absolute. Government, then, either gets its way with reason on its side, or loses with reason on the other side (in the US, on many issues). But that all goes to law and the machinery of the the law.

Do 'we rational ones' have a good plan, tend to agree? Who's in the club? — jellyfish

In the club are the rational ones. And ideally we reconcile using reason. Against the unreasoning or the unreasonable, it seems that ultimately, it's force that's needed. A problem with that, among the many, is that unless the force is applied, the transgression against reason may very well prevail.

That environment is not strictly the creation of psychologists. — Valentinus

I was just using Freud as an example, not focusing on issues in psychology.

jellyfish

In the club are the rational ones. And ideally we reconcile using reason. Against the unreasoning or the unreasonable, it seems that ultimately, it's force that's needed. A problem with that, among the many, is that unless the force is applied, the transgression against reason may very well prevail. — tim wood

That does sound reasonable. My concern on this issue is that most of us identify with reason. Even if all the 'religious' or unreasonable people were put away, would we not still have conflict?

I'm also concerned that human beings aren't essentially prudent. Notes From Underground is a great picture of human complexity.

There seems to be a background fantasy of the end of history, where everyone is rational and woke. But we knights of reason would lose our dragon and our purpose there. There is no joy in the tavern as on the road thereto ?

Wayfarer

Most religion imo is just this kind of pathology. — tim wood

I think reading between the lines, your problem is that part of you wants to believe in God, but your rational intellect can’t figure out what it would mean to do so, so you’re striking out against it.

I studied a lot of Freud’s essays as an undergrad. He was brilliant but utterly committed to scientific rationalism. I remember some of his aphorisms, like ‘the task of psychoanalysis is to convert hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness’. I remember thinking at the time, nothing more than that?

This is why Jung broke with Freud. Jung was by no stretch conventionally religious (I don’t know if you’ve read his autobiography with the scatalogical dream about the Church.) But he really was a modern gnostic, who understood the role of spirituality in the formation of the individual.

He said

I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their followers, and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook. — Jung

I think there’s a problem which I describe as ‘Westernitis’. It’s a deep-seated complex about religion, science and meaning, growing out of Enlightenment rationalism and the scientific worldview. It was originally caused by institutional Christianity itself, which put enormous emphasis on right belief, and there were wars fought over what that meant. It’s caused a shadow in the Western psyche, which manifests as a pathological hatred of religion. And yes, you do see a lot of it.

tim wood

That does sound reasonable. My concern on this issue is that most of us identify with reason. Even if all the 'religious' or unreasonable people were put away, would we not still have conflict?

I'm also concerned that human beings aren't essentially prudent. Notes From Underground is a great picture of human complexity.

There seems to be a background fantasy of the end of history, where everyone is rational and woke. But we knights of reason would lose our dragon and our purpose there. There is no joy in the tavern as on the road thereto ? — jellyfish

I wonder. Of the world's main political systems, federal republics, socialist, communism, whatever else, if any is demonstrably more "reasonable" than the rest. Of course I'm biased. As to the rest, you may very well be right!

jellyfish

↪tim wood

Great response. I really don't know. I take the freedom (such as it is) of the US system for granted. My suspicion is that we're all a little mad, and that maybe life would be dreary without that madness.

jellyfish

I remember some of his aphorisms, like ‘the task of psychoanalysis is to convert hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness’. I remember thinking at the time, nothing more than that? — Wayfarer

I read that line as deadpan humor. Freud and Jung talked for 18 (?) hours when they first met. To me this suggests that Freud loved ideas, loved his system. Since he was a creator and inspired by Romantic thinkers, I'd lump him in with the artists. I'm guessing he knew intense joy.

tim wood

I think reading between the lines, your problem is that part of you wants to believe in God, but your rational intellect can’t figure out what it would mean to do so, so you’re striking out against it. — Wayfarer

I'll answer both personally, and attempt to answer it in some general sense. I do have such a belief. But in nothing at all supernatural. Because for the supernatural to be, for God to be - other than as a regulative idea - means it is no longer supernatural, or God. That is, in my belief, God cannot be.

As a (human - not my private) idea, I do not expect miracles. I understand (as best I can) that I occupy a place in an evolving universe. With respect to many, my place is privileged and lucky. Though, for example, my car is a years-old Corolla, still I move at speeds, in comfort, and at convenience Julius Caesar, or any of the other Caesars, could not have imagined. Nor hungry nor thirsty, clothed and sheltered. And soon enough the Sun will nova and the earth will for a while be inside of the sun's expanded radius. And so on.

If forced to call myself something, it would be ethical Christian. Maybe if I someday read Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, Kant, I'll find a home. I grew up breathing Christian air, but I doubt if on the basis of my beliefs any Christian Church would claim me as one of their own - and if they did, I'd have to consider Groucho Marx's rule about clubs. As to Jung and Freud, their day is past and the good of them, if any, will endure in some form.

It’s caused a shadow in the Western psyche, which manifests as a pathological hatred of religion. — Wayfarer

I'd say an essentially ignorant impatience with and dismissal of the fantastic elements, without replacement - or capitulation to those elements, with all the harm that does. .

Wayfarer

Freud and Jung talked for 18 (?) hours when they first met. To me this suggests that Freud loved ideas, loved his system. Since he was a creator and inspired by Romantic thinkers, I'd lump him in with the artists. I'm guessing he knew intense joy. — jellyfish

There was a famous episode where Jung broke with Freud for once and for all.

First few paragraphs of a review of a biography of Jung:

CARL JUNG'S relationship with Sigmund Freud was probably doomed from the start. They met in Vienna on March 3, 1907, after having corresponded for a year. Freud sought a gentile to champion his ''Jewish science.'' Jung yearned for an influential father figure; Freud anointed Jung ''his scientific 'son and heir.' '' In 1910 [at their last meeting] Freud made a request: ''Promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. . . . We must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.'' Against what?, asked Jung. ''Against the black tide of mud . . . of occultism.''

What did Jung's face look like at that moment? After all, not only did Jung have growing misgivings about Freud's theories of sexual repression, his past was a veritable cornucopia of occultism: as a child, he participated in family séances run by his cousin; his mother, a delusional hysteric with a split personality, believed their house was haunted by ghosts; and Jung's dissertation (''On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena'') was sympathetic to the paranormal. By 1913, the Freud-Jung friendship was over. ''The rest is silence,'' Jung wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/books/in-the-jung-archives.html

Chalk and cheese. Mind you, Freud, for all his fame, has been more or less relegated to history by the very science that he was so desperate to advance. And the 'Black tide of mud', an expression which I think signifies a kind of terror, included anything vaguely 'spiritual'; he was the hardest of hardcore materialists. Freud, Marx and Darwin are amongst the three greatest influences on 20th century thinking, all the more difficult to appreciate because we're used to looking through the spectacles they provided us, not at them.

I do have such a belief. But in nothing at all supernatural. Because for the supernatural to be, for God to be - other than as a regulative idea - means it is no longer supernatural, or God. That is, in my belief, God cannot be. — tim wood

I think I understand your point here, but please bear with me. First, the very word 'supernatural' can only be defined in terms of what it isn't - and what it isn't, is anything the natural sciences can't consider. Isn't it? The Latin 'supernatural' and the Greek 'metaphysical' are basically synonyms, and for Enlightenment rationalism, both are partitioned off from sensible discourse; matters of faith, or private belief, if of any import at all.

But, all that said, there's a kernel of an important point in what you've said. If you have a glance at these three paragraphs, which I might have mentioned previously, they make a very similar point; 'things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to be, whereas anything which, ‘through the excellence of its nature’ (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to be. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be; He is ‘nothingness through excellence’ (nihil per excellentiam). I think it's close in spirit to what you're saying.

Tzeentch

We all have met people, even here on this site, that believe in in the unbelievable, adduce evidence that is not evidence, rely on "facts" that are not facts, truth that isn't true, unreal realities, etc., and anything else like that can be added. — tim wood

As opposed to the true truths and real realities that you yourself believe in?

Come on. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

tim wood

As opposed to the true truths and real realities that you yourself believe in? — Tzeentch

"Unbelievable" does not mean that in which I do not believe. The expression for that would be, "I do not believe in...". Instead, "unbelievable" is about the thing referred to. Similarly with the rest of the list. Being able to make that distinction is an elementary aspect of any thinking.

Unless you're such a person whose stance is that nothing is, except as it is believed by you, and not otherwise - belief-in and only belief-in being the sine qua non of (any) being at all.

As it happens, that is exactly how and only how gods exist: in as much and as so far as they're believed in. This is recognized, acknowledged, and understood in the fundamental prayer of Christians, which starts out, "We believe..."

tim wood

According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be; He is ‘nothingness through excellence’ (nihil per excellentiam). I think it's close in spirit to what you're saying. — Wayfarer

Actually, no. The only way I find any God at all is within my ideas, my thinking. In as much as my thinking is informed by other thinking, or, to be precise, the history of other thinking; and, insofar as such thinking has never yet been completely perfect, then all we - I - do is approach As there is, nearly as I can tell, no possible such thing as a final answer, the approach must always be incomplete, though at times enough for present need. The idea you adduce, then, is a gee-whiz construct of the application of logic to language to ideas, in the attempt to reify them. Along the lines, but admittedly more sophisticated and satisfying, of proving the moon is made of green cheese.

Tzeentch

"Unbelievable" does not mean that in which I do not believe. The expression for that would be, "I do not believe in...". Instead, "unbelievable" is about the thing referred to. Similarly with the rest of the list. Being able to make that distinction is an elementary aspect of any thinking. — tim wood

Isn't calling something unbelievable akin to saying one doesn't believe in it?

Maybe I misunderstand what your point.

Unless you're such a person whose stance is that nothing is, except as it is believed by you, and not otherwise - belief-in and only belief-in being the sine qua non of (any) being at all.

As it happens, that is exactly how and only how gods exist: in as much and as so far as they're believed in. This is recognized, acknowledged, and understood in the fundamental prayer of Christians, which starts out, "We believe..." — tim wood

I'm not religious, if that is what you are hinting at.

tim wood

Isn't calling something unbelievable akin to saying one doesn't believe in it? — Tzeentch

Fourth cousin six times removed? Or an example: I can say I do not believe that 2+2=4, and that would be a comment about me. Or I can say that 2+2=37 is unbelievable, and that would be a comment about the proposition. With respect to religion, it's not always easy to tell which kind of proposition is being proposed. To aid with making the determination is one reason for the reversion to evidence, facts, reason, rationality, truth, etc. If it is not believable, then all that's left is that someone believes it.

And that alone can lead to a good. More often, unfortunately, it doesn't.

Tzeentch

Fourth cousin six times removed? — tim wood

What?

I can say I do not believe that 2+2=4, and that would be a comment about me. Or I can say that 2+2=37 is unbelievable, and that would be a comment about the proposition. — tim wood

Sure, but isn't the sentiment underlying the second proposition that one doesn't believe 2+2=37?

If it is not believable, then all that's left is that someone believes it. — tim wood

Isn't the question whether something is believable or not based on one's subjective judgement?

tim wood

Isn't the question whether something is believable or not based on one's subjective judgement? — Tzeentch

Which, if that is the case, then does it follow that if someone believes it then it must be so? My assumption is that the agent is in the world and is thinking/speaking about the world. If he or she isn't (perhaps being asleep, hallucinating, in a coma, or dead), then perhaps so.

Tzeentch

Which, if that is the case, then does it follow that if someone believes it then it must be so? — tim wood

No.

But a difficulty arises when we seek to prove or disprove it, though disproving is generally easier than proving.

I guess what I'm getting at is that one shouldn't speak too condescendingly about another's beliefs, considering we all hold beliefs, and beliefs merely conceal ignorance.

tim wood

I guess what I'm getting at is that one shouldn't speak too condescendingly about another's beliefs, considering we all hold beliefs, and beliefs merely conceal ignorance. — Tzeentch

Beliefs as beliefs, not at all. Beliefs as knowledge, that's a problem. I agree we all hold beliefs, but most of us also know a thing or two or three. Beliefs merely conceal ignorance? No. Beliefs can be the road to knowledge of things that cannot otherwise be known. Nothing mystical here, just channeling Kant.

Deleted User

I don't even understand what you're asking. Can you just ask a clear, "bottom line" question?

Valentinus

I was just using Freud as an example, not focusing on issues in psychology. — tim wood

It is confusing to set that comment against another one you made:

"But is all such belief pathological? Is some - any - of it a good or in the service of a good? Is there an ultimate yardstick, measure, bottom line by which I may judge that guy over there a nutcase, him and his worth leaving to the professionals?"

It is confusing from the point of view that Freud was a professional. Someone hired to address problems. It is one thing to argue that he got all his ideas wrong but to cast all those ideas as objects outside of all common rational experience is odd. The theory he formulated was an attempt to understand what was happening in front of him.

It is also confusing because you seem to be equating attempts to understand people with problems as judgments upon them. While it is true that these activities have a history of being conflated in many ways, one virtue of the appearance of psychological science and language is the opportunity to separate what in the past was all mixed up with each other.

jellyfish

The only way I find any God at all is within my ideas, my thinking. — tim wood

This is where I'm at too. With philosophy comes a self-consciousness that makes traditional religious belief more difficult. God as he exists for me is tautologically an object of my thinking and feeling.

'He' is, however, the object, in my opinion. The atheistic philosopher, it seems to me, just wants to become God. The philosopher wants knowledge, power, tranquility, self-sufficingness, coherence --all the stuff we have associated with God.

In art we often have God as a bearded king. To me our images of God are human for a reason. That's the only God we can care about and imagine caring about us. Humanism /enlightenment is the moment when the son (our species) takes over for the father (its essence projected).

As we discussed earlier, however, humanism is entangled with a corrosive reason and has its own problems.

jellyfish

one shouldn't speak too condescendingly about another's beliefs, considering we all hold beliefs — Tzeentch

I agree with you, basically. One things that occurs to me is that a community is more or less formed by unquestioned and even unquestionable beliefs and habits. So there's a limit to open-mindedness. We have no choice but to consider some people mad or be mad ourselves.

As philosophers, I think we are more dangerously open-minded than non-philosophers. We try to think and maybe even live on the frontier of the respectable and the sane. (This describes only one kind of philosopher, I guess. Others want to further make explicit and justify the culture's way of being, beliefs, etc.)

christian2017

↪tim wood

If a person converted to the correct religion, and then only had 10 days to live, i would argue you would be quite impressed with that religion's particular set of beliefs. Thus you would be impressed with religion or a set of beliefs.

Most people including myself, if given a little extended period of time on this earth will make serious mistakes or do wicked things.

Do you think atheists conduct themselves any better according to what you consider to be right and wrong?

Deleted User

I'm guessing he knew intense joy. — jellyfish

That's true: you're guessing.

Freud was famously moody and writes in the prelude of Civilization and Its Discontents that he has never had an oceanic moment.

Valentinus

↪Wayfarer

Good observations regarding the points of view separating Freud and Jung.

Perhaps it would not be remiss to note that what they agreed upon is how "unconscious" elements are a major player in how conscious stuff comes about or not. They approached that element as phenomena, not as a possible interpretation of it.

tim wood

If a person converted to the correct religion, and then only had 10 days to live, i would argue you would be quite impressed with that religion's particular set of beliefs. Thus you would be impressed with religion or a set of beliefs. — christian2017

I suppose when you wrote these two sentences, you had something in mind that made sense, which sense you thought you were expressing. Unfortunately that sense didn't make it to your text. I have no idea what you mean or what your point is, here. Try again?

Most people including myself, if given a little extended period of time on this earth will make serious mistakes or do wicked things. — christian2017

Stupid, ill-advised, sure, goes with the territory of being born ignorant. Serious mistakes or wickedness, speak for yourself. Or do you mean if "we" live extra time - whatever means - then "we" will make a point of being wicked?

Do you think atheists conduct themselves any better according to what you consider to be right and wrong? — christian2017

Better than what or who? In what circumstance? Do I think some people would be better off, have better lives, do better things, if they traded some of their rules for some of mine? You bet I do! But I am not conscious of any rule I have that's original with me; the rules, then, in question, already generally available.

jellyfish

That's true: you're guessing. — ZzzoneiroCosm

He did a mountain of cocaine. It's better than coffee.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/payngv/a-brief-history-of-freuds-love-affair-with-cocaine

That doesn't mean the old man didn't ever get sad. I just find it implausible that he wasn't having a blast with all the coke he wanted while he worked. He was another wild soul who believed he solved the riddles of existence. To me that's 'the' 'spiritual' pleasure. It goes well with stimulants.

tim wood

The atheistic philosopher, it seems to me, just wants to become God. — jellyfish

Perhaps. To my way of thinking, he recognizes that all he'll know is bounded by what he can know. He cannot know what he cannot know. Therefore, whatever God he has, is his own. That makes him God. Makes each his or her own God. Most of us divinities understand that our imperfect Godhood is just a short distance of approaching, and the goal unattainable, except in terms of the approaching - us modest gods, anyway.

Anyone knows a way out of that, please post here and I'll read it.

Humanism /enlightenment is the moment when the son (our species) takes over for the father (its essence projected). — jellyfish

Nice! It seems likely, though, that the "taking over" is continual and ongoing. And to my way of thinking, what can be projected as humanity's essence will always remain in advance of the "taking over." Being God, then, is a total quality management task. And if we ever get there, which I think intrinsically impossible, if humanity ever gets there, then they will be God.

That leaves sci-fi questions such as, is humanity the best vehicle for getting to God?

What's the bottom line? Is there a bottom line?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions