Since the theory of Collective Unconscious is vaguely defined, and not amenable to scientific verification, it serves mainly as a cautionary "myth" about human reason. I interpret the CU, not as a mystical Akashic Record out there in the ether, but as simply our genetic & memetic inheritance for certain knee-jerk attitudes and aversions -- such as innate fear of heights & snakes, or implicit racism & tribalism -- that are automatic, and by-pass our mirror of self-awareness.The reason I use the word 'myth' is based on the idea of the collective unconscious, as stressed by Jung, and he said that, 'There is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious.' — Jack Cummins
Love :heart: , it is not my truth versus your truth. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Democracy is rule by reason, not authority over the people. Democracy is not control by the people who know God's truth and will. :grimace: Like the gods it is for us to reason until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, and it is our duty to speak up when we disagree with that reasoning and try to persuade others to accept our better reasoning. That is why democracy is an ongoing process, not a set of laws written by a God, and then rule by the leaders God gives us with all that there is for us to do, is to obey. — Athena
I view the recurrent "clashes" between Religion and Science as an example of Hegel's Historical Dialectic. It's how Evolution works : ups & downs, but gradual progress. The Dialectic is a Heuristic searching process, perhaps working its way toward ultimate Truth. The key to Cultural progress is to learn from the past, but plan for the future. :smile:So, I am asking about the whole question of truth arising from the clash between religion and science and divergent systems of thinking. Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins
I was just thinking about what you were saying about the collective unconscious , and I agree that it can be regarded as mythic rather than like some mystical entity. But in a sense, it seems wierd that people often level this criticism at the idea of the collective unconscious, because all theoretical structures are models really. The idea of the collective unconscious should not be seen as some kind of supernatural category. — Jack Cummins
I suppose that Jung is one of the writers on the edge, in between religion and science — Jack Cummins
Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins
since the scientific method is an actual method that's based on testing, observation, standardization, then it is superior because anyone can repeat or follow the same methods and arrive at the same conclusions. — 8livesleft
Well, except for the replication crisis. — Wayfarer
There's also the fact that within philosophical and spiritual traditions, there's both peer validation and recognition of the student's understanding by experts (i.e. spiritual masters). In fact, arguably, this is where scientific method originated. — Wayfarer
But can the same be done to religious experience? Probably not. — 8livesleft
You know this already, right? Presumably from long experience in monasteries, viharas, ashrams? — Wayfarer
I don't think that you have to go to church to have significant experiences because people can have peak experiences in all kinds of places. But, of course, we are talking about inner experiences. We could wonder whether the whole world of subjectivity and that is where relativity comes in because, ultimately, no one can claim that their experience of the 'truth' is the superior one. — Jack Cummins
Therefore, any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method. — 8livesleft
Yes I understand that science can only tell us what's real for us humans. And since our perception is limited, then the science will also be limited. — 8livesleft
You have an assumed "us" here. What substantiates the required proposition that what is real for me is the same as what is real for you, to support this assumed "us"? — Metaphysician Undercover
But it really depends what we're talking about. If it's something that can be observed, measured or possibly recorded then there are a lot of things we can use to confirm what you're saying. — 8livesleft
OK, let's talk about that part of reality which cannot be measured or observed, how is the scientific method the only way to prove that these things are real? — Metaphysician Undercover
↪Gnomon I have just read your post and find it very interesting. I still had not responded to your second comment on the post because there have been a lot and I got a bit overwhelmed. — Jack Cummins
Yes, I think that this whole area of discussion has so many aspects and that is why I am becoming rather overwhelmed. There are so many facets of discussion to explore, arising from each person's comments.
My feeling is that this thread should not be a rushed one but one that grows slowly. It is not one for rushed answers or ones which avoid 'mistakes' as today's new debate. It allows for experimental possibilities and reflection. It is not as if we have a deadline for acquiring wisdom in these areas of intricate thought. — Jack Cummins
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.