• Brett
    3k
    There seems to be a near universal feeling among people that we may have made a mess of things, socially and environmentally, and that we’re involved in a headlong rush towards destruction, slowly eroding the standard of living, ideas of morality, family and who we are.

    The differences and expectations of countries and cultures only adds to the difficulty on where we should make changes. Each country has their own take on how to deal with their problems. The United Nations issues statements and policies, but they seem irrelevant or disconnected to daily life.

    There appears to be no unified force to decide what to do. Politics, business, petty self interests and fear continue to win out. Very few people are prepared to put their faith in one man, a sort of warrior king, to lead us through the darkness. And if there was such a person we would paralyse the possibility with endless discussions about ‘hard men’ and dictators. And then there are the endless discussions about what is right, who is wrong, what a word or sentence really means. No one knows what to do. Who do we protect, how well should we expect to live, can we sustain this lifestyle, where should the money go, Capitalism or Socialism, Democracy or servitude?

    The one universal fear, or subject of conversation, is Climate Change. But there’s disagreement, contention over data and statistics, or complete denial. Most people would not have done any careful reading of scientific reports, and most would not understand the deeper issues behind those reports. But it appears most believe it to be a genuine threat.

    It doesn’t matter if it actually exists or not, as an idea it exists and we are compelled to act on it. It has the power as an idea to touch everyone globally. I can’t think of one group of people that would not be affected by the idea of it, because everyone can see their own circumstances wrapped up in it.

    Because of the conflict over whether it actually exists, even on a scientific level, the contention over statistics, the interpretation, I’ve begun to wonder if it’s something we want to exist, as a catalyst for change about something we cannot seem to deal with; the immediate problems we face right now.

    I’ve begun to look on climate change as a Jungian collective unconsciousness archetype sprung to life from our unconscious understanding that things here on earth have to change.

    Jung’s idea is that that we have a collective unconscious, a set of shared concepts, described as archetypes, which permeate the collective unconscious and emerge as themes and characters in our dreams and surface in our culture. We can all identify with these archetypes, regardless of the culture that we were born into.

    At first this idea seemed a bit crazy, but I’d be interested to hear from others and what they think.
  • A Clearing
    1
    I like this idea. From what I remember of Jung, the archetypes are based on constants of human psychology. Would 'impending catastrophe as a spur for change' map onto any of the archetypes Jung talked about? Even if it doesn't, myths of impending catastrophe is a recurring theme in human society. The archetype could be that there is a 'sickness' in the world, but this hasn't historically been a spur for change.

    I have also seen climate change being used as an argument against change. In the lead-up to the Brexit vote, there were a lot of 'news' articles warning of the various catastrophes that Brexit would cause. One of these articles warned that Brexit would mean the UK would no longer be part of a particular climate change pact, or certain organisations in the UK would lose funding.

    I see climate change as a dual concept - the idea of nature as a fragile and global being/phenomenon, and the incoming threat to this caused by climate change. Could it be two archetypes? Or the first concept merely a fact that increasing scientific knowledge and globalism has made us aware of.
  • wax
    301
    well the process of emergence is important I think.

    Perhaps I could put it to you that the cause of some of the problems on this planet might have lead to the effects on this planet, and any associated ways of looking at the problem, like consequentiality climate change, and possible solutions, are linked..?

    ie the cause and what is happening to the planet are linked...in this context, the effects of climate change are rooted in the same thing as other problems, and associated ideas like 'climate change'.
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    Nobody with any sense denies that the climate changes and has been changing.

    You may as well class any fear as being “Archtypical” and you’ll have some credence for doing so, but that wouldn’t take about the physical facts - nuclear war, genocide and such.

    All said and done it is certainly interesting to mull over. Jung’s defintion of Archetype is something often misunderstood.
  • Brett
    3k
    Nobody with any sense denies that the climate changes and has been changing.I like sushi

    From the perspective of this conversation it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. All they have to do is believe. I would think that most of the people who believe in climate change haven’t read the science papers, nor would they understand them if they did, and nor would they have read the work of scientists who challenge those papers.

    Just regarding Jungs archetypes and your comment of them being misunderstood, and I’m not sure what you mean, but there is an apocalypse archetype:

    “On the collective level the archetype of the apocalypse seeks to reorient humanity away from the illusions of a civilization that has grown stale and inappropriate, so as to permit a new, more viable way of life.”
  • wax
    301
    From the perspective of this conversation it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.Brett

    I'm not sure it is beneficial to separate the two things.

    Take a person who has witnessed an increase in local littering, and who then reads an article about man driven climate change.

    This person may link these two things, ie the local witness and perception of change, to the global, and local issues around man-driven climate change.

    This connection may be that they think there needs to be a change in the way society works. The two things like seeing local littering and reading about climate change may re-enforce each other, and so what is the need to separate these two things?

    The littering thing may be just a perception thing, whereby a person projects his general feeling that things need to change, which may be just a projection itself of a feeling that their own life may need to change in some way...but these things are all linked anyway...maybe they feel that their own life needs to change because there is just so much more dam littering in the area, and they should move somewhere else. :)

    the upshot of the last connection might lead someone to want to move to another place due to climate change...preferably another planet, maybe. :)
  • Brett
    3k
    Take a person who has witnessed an increase in local littering, and who then reads an article about man driven climate change.wax

    This would depend on someone actually experiencing the effects of climate change.
  • wax
    301
    This would depend on someone actually experiencing the effects of climate change.Brett

    why?

    They might read about how man-kind's profligacy and carelessness leading to man-driven climate change, and link that to a view that people litter for similar reasons.
  • I like sushi
    4.9k


    If you use a quote please provide the source. Thanks.

    The proble most people have with Jung’s concept of “archetype” is the difference between conscious and unconscious contents. We can say nothing of the unconscoius content other than by way of conscious manifestation. To say this or that archetype exists is sometimes taken to mean it exists in the unconscious. This is an unknown. Jung’s evidence of unconscious archetypes is based on conscoius contents alone - as it must be. That is a fault he admits to.
  • Brett
    3k
    why?wax

    I just think that connecting littering to climate change is a big stretch. So I replaced littering with the experience of climate change. Only having read about the problem could they then accept the connection of littering with climate change. Otherwise they would make no connection.
  • Brett
    3k
    The proble most people have with Jung’s concept of “archetype” is the difference between conscious and unconscious contents. We can say nothing of the unconscoius content other than by way of conscious manifestation. To say this or that archetype exists is sometimes taken to mean it exists in the unconscious. This is an unknown. Jung’s evidence of unconscious archetypes is based on conscoius contents alone - as it must be. That is a fault he admits to.I like sushi

    Yes, I agree with that.
  • wax
    301
    I just think that connecting littering to climate change is a big stretch. So I replaced littering with the experience of climate change. Only having read about the problem could they then accept the connection of littering with climate change. Otherwise they would make no connection.Brett

    well even if the person doesn't feel as though they have experienced climate change directly, the causes of man-driven climate change are usually presented as being a product of the manufacturing processes, and electric etc power creation.

    So a profligate attitude to consumerism, and the attitude to the way that unwanted things from that process, like rubbish, and toxic waste, as well as CO2 emissions, are deal with may indeed lead someone to connect things like litter, to societal attitudes, and man-drive climate change....
  • Brett
    3k
    This connection may be that they think there needs to be a change in the way society works. Twax

    They can think what they like, it’s still not proof. I say that in relation to people readily believing in the catastrophe of cc without really knowing the facts.
  • wax
    301
    They can think what they like, it’s still not proof. I say that in relation to people readily believing in the catastrophe of cc without really knowing the facts.Brett

    I dunno; often when people don't know the facts, they tend to be sceptical of man-driven climate change.
  • Brett
    3k


    The use of the word ‘facts’ was a bit lazy. I should have said ‘fully informed’.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.