I would not deny that both Freud and Jung had faults in their philosophy. Freud may have overplayed sexuality, with the issue of the Oedipus complex being open to question. Similarly, Jung's writings may display racism, especially in his ideas about Jews, in the context of a critical time in Nazi Germany. Also, the idea of the collective unconscious is open to question.

Nevertheless, I would argue that both Freud developed such an important contribution relevant to both psychology and philosophy. Freud's critique of religion in 'Totem and Taboo' contributed to critical analysis of religion. Also, his model of the human psyche was extremely important, leading on to the development of thinkers such as Melanie Klein and Donald Winnicott. Jung's ideas on the shadow as the repressed side of human nature was also extremely important.

Of course, I would not deny that they were influenced by German idealism and vitalism. What I think was particularly great though, beyond the specific ideas which they developed was the scope of their thinking, as evident in the vast amount which they wrote, drawing from many diverse sources. In this sense; they were system builders in the tradition of philosophers of the past. It is probable that if they were writing in the twentieth first century they would be open to greater criticism, and they may not have risen to importance, amidst the tendency towards scientific materialism.
.

:ok:

:up:

How to draw:

Step 1: Draw the form/structure (circles, straight lines i.e. math/science?)

Step 2: Flesh it out (the imperfections, too Platonic?)

So, I am asking more about how people see the idea of God as a basis for beginning to think about the existence of God. Is it simply best to dismiss the idea of God in relation to scientific knowledge? Or, is time to rethink the notion of God, in line with mythic or symbolic ways of understanding the philosophy of reality, including the underlying source of everything ? To what extent is arts and a basis for understanding the symbolic aspects of the God question, rather than simply asking about the existence of God from a scientific approach. Is science and art completely divided here , or is it about juggling different models to understand the nature of reality? — Jack Cummins

Science can only address the world as physicality. Since God is not asserted to be a physical entity, science would have nothing to say about it.

Science can only address the world as physicality. Since God is not asserted to be a physical entity, science would have nothing to say about it. — Jackson

That's deeeeep, dude! Deeeeeep! :up:

That's deeeeep, dude! Deeeeeep — Agent Smith

Not in the mood for jerks. Debate or keep quiet.

Not in the mood for jerks. Debate or keep quiet. — Jackson

Sorry. Carry on.

Sorry. Carry on. — Agent Smith

Goodbye.

Goodbye — Jackson

Stay safe :mask:

Jung — Jack Cummins

I read his biography & life's work on Wikipedia. He comes across as a genuine person - did extensive research on subjects that interested him, formulated his own theories based on that, and so on - whose mission it was to gain insight into the human mind. Like his estranged mentor, Freud, his focus seems to have been the unconscious (that part of the psyche that exists below the threshold of awareness, I like to call it the autopilot - reminds me of God somehow, hidden, behind a veil we can't hope to penetrate, not anytime soon that is). Leibniz was of the opinion that minds were little gods). Just speculating but my hunch is that an aspect of the unconscious is probably like a computer compiler/interpreter that translates high level language code (thoughts) into machine language (action potentials or bioelectric currents) and back.

For a post-Freudian/Jungian (woo-free), Nobel Prize winning scientific treatment of functional interactions between the un/subconscious and "conscious" meta/cognition, I recommend Daniel Kahneman's excellent Thinking, Fast and Slow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

:lol:

Science can only address the world as physicality. Since God is not asserted to be a physical entity, science would have nothing to say about it. — Jackson

How did the asserter’s determine that God is not a physical entity? Did they perform scientific tests?

Gods are, in my humble and respectful opinion, as physical as Earthly life. They did create life in their image, oui?

How did the asserter’s determine that God is not a physical entity? Did they perform scientific tests? — praxis

Stay safe :mask: — Agent Smith

Okay. How does science examine the existence of God. You're much smarter than me. Explain.

How did the asserter’s determine that God is not a physical entity? Did they perform scientific tests? — praxis

What definition of God makes it a physical entity?

What definition of God makes it a physical entity? — Jackson

I haven't asserted that God is a physical entity. I asked how anyone could determine that God is not a physical entity.

I haven't asserted that God is a physical entity. I asked how anyone could determine that God is not a physical entity. — praxis

You don't believe God is a physical entity. Nor do I. Why would we debate something neither of us believe?

You don't believe God is a physical entity. — Jackson

I'm asking how anyone (myself included) could know whether or not God is a physical entity. I honestly don't know. If I did know, or were somehow persuaded to think one way or the other, I would not ask.

I'm asking how anyone (myself included) could know whether or not God is a physical entity. — praxis

By definition.

God

• (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
  
  
• (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
  "a moon god"

Nope. What dictionary did you use?

God
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

Nope. What dictionary did you use? — praxis

Where did those definitions say God is a physical entity?

Where did those definitions say God is a physical entity? — Jackson

Nowhere. It also does not define God as a non-physical entity.

Nowhere. It also does not define God as a non-physical entity. — praxis

So, "spirit" to you means physical?

So, "spirit" to you means physical? — Jackson

I'm afraid that I am also ignorant about the nature of spirits as well. Please enlighten me.

I'm afraid that I am also ignorant about the nature of spirits as well. Please enlighten me. — praxis

You have no idea what people mean by spirit?

You have no idea what people mean by spirit? — Jackson

Consulting my trusty dictionary again, I see that spirit is defined as: the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Now we're getting somewhere!

God is soul without a body, like a dead person.

What definition of God makes it a physical entity? — Jackson

God is often described as omnipotent. By that definition it can manifest physically anytime it wills it.
If it can't do that then it is not omnipotent so it would fail one of the omni definitions of god

God is often described as omnipotent. By that definition it can manifest physically anytime it wills it.
If it can't do that then it is not omnipotent so it would fail one of the omni definitions of god — universeness

Ok. How would a physicist investigate those physical properties?

Ok. How would a physicist investigate those physical properties? — Jackson

Well as soon as someone or something performs an act which is not possible under the known laws of physics. We can call in the physicists to confirm that this physical manifestation may be god and not just a weird quantum fluctuation that used quantum tunneling to pass through a physical barrier.

Okay. How does science examine the existence of God. You're much smarter than me. Explain. — Jackson

You homed in on a very important point. I congratulated you on it. You went berserk! Nec caput nec pedes.