What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you?
— frank

Not the least, not the slightest. It’s an unbearably sinister view, that there’s this cabal of evil millionaire pharmaceutical companies scheming to get rich by pulling the wool over the citizen’s eyes.

Yes, I can acknowledge genuine concerns about vaccine safety in light of the thrombosis issue. But I’d trust the boards and management and scientists at these pharma companies a long while before I trusted conspiracy-mongering internet posters or their lunatic fringe antivaxer cheer squad. — Wayfarer

This is my position too. But I understand how fear works and there is no doubt that most people would like more time to see how the vaccines pan out.

Is Jung a priest?

I didn't major in philosophy, probably because (then as now) I saw it largely in terms of expression of personality. — T H E

Interesting. Can you expand on this a little?

But I think he's an under-rated genius in 20th century arts and sciences, due to his distance from the standard-issue Darwinian materialism which dominates secular culture. I noticed when I was an undergrad the only dept. — Wayfarer

Not wanting to be offensive, but it sometimes sounds to me like you will elevate almost anyone if they share the same 'enemies' as you. If a particular thinker is against what you have determined to be reductionist scientism, or if they hold unverifiable theories - it seems they get an immediate pass, maybe even a high distinction. :razz:

It was the old nun teaching me about the collective unconscious who alerted me to the fact that most of Jung's prose is almost indecipherable (apart from his popular works) and that even Jungians struggle to understand or agree on what he means. Not so much a function of the thoughts as a function of the writing. This has probably rendered Jung mostly harmless as all he is remembered for is some work on dreams and the not very well understood collective unconscious as hawked by Joseph Campbell for so many years and, of course, an influence on the Star Wars cycle.

Has the decline of newspapers and broadcast TV news, plus the rise of social media and the ability to choose among an ever wider selection of streaming or online 'news' providers resulted in people being more ignorant than say 10 or 20 years ago? — Tim3003

To not know the symptoms of COVID in the current era suggests something more than mere ignorance but I am not certain what it is. I don't think the decline of mass media and the introduction of mess media can explain this one.

Which is an interesting comment - Catholicism finds Jung a greater threat because he’s ‘subtly mistaken’ rather than just ‘bluntly atheistic’ - which I think would be typical of Catholic critics of Jung. — Wayfarer

It's interesting you say this. I think Catholicism may be more diverse. I attended an elective on Myths and Symbols (A Jungian Perspective) taught by a practicing Catholic and Jung nut - the course also had as students a couple of Brigidine nuns. They said Jung was very popular with the sisters. Years later I attended a conference in mental health with a day devoted to Jung - a Catholic nun leading the session. I have always associated Jung with the best of the enquiring Catholic tradition. But I also recognize that there are dark, reactionary focus in the Church which are at odds with anything that isn't conservative doctrine.

I do wonder if the idea of the collective unconscious is too fuzzy, however, and I do believe that the concept does need a lot more analysis within philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Before 1916 and Jung's use of the term Collective Unconscious (which is a beauty) he fumbled with less auspicious names - 'the spirit world' and 'land of the dead' - which would never have resonated with as many people and had far less scientific appeal. But perhaps these gives us more of a sense of what he was actually thinking. Collective Unconscious provided a more dignified, less superphysical orientation for his scientific colleagues to relate to and was a master stroke of branding, if you ask me.

It goes without saying that the winners are happy, convinced they are living worthwhile, meaningful lives. — baker

Can you provide an example of the kind of winner and situation you mean?

And I suppose they have to feel its meaning, whatever it is. — T H E

Yes, although there is an element of 'fake it till you make it'. Meaning can have a funny way of arriving when you are not expecting it. Sometimes it sits with you for a while before you recognise you have been transformed.

I've spent many years managing and delivering services for people experiencing addiction and mental ill health, along with complex trauma and a host of other challenges and what often seems to shift a person's trajectory is when they stop talking about their problems and start doing something meaningful. Often in helping animals or other people (for instance) they start to find a new, happier and more resilient version of themselves. The journey may be slow and painful and it is difficult to describe this process without sounding reductive.

We do not help the neurotic patient by freeing him from the demand made by civilisation; we can only help him[225] by inducing him to take an active part in the strenuous task of carrying on the development of civilisation. — Jung

Nice quote. Or as Jordan Peterson might frame it - 'first clean up your room.'

The human condition seems to be one of non-acceptance of those things that people can do little about and acceptance of those things that people can do a great deal about. Seems as if this inversion needs to be turned right-side-up. What say you? — synthesis

Not sure this is relevant but I am always surprised by how significantly people get in their own way. They are free, yet think they are trapped. They have resources yet think they are impoverished. They have what they need for a happy life but chase knowledge and systems to try to get to.... wherever the hell they think they need to be.

I'm not normally a fan of Žižek but this point resonates for me.

The problem for us is not are our desires satisfied or not. The problem is how do we know what we desire.
― Slavoj Žižek

You have dismissed him as a kook and are asking someone to talk you out of that conclusion — Valentinus

You make this sound like a bad thing...

I have dismissed him for me - I am genuinely interested in what others get from him as I am with many ideas. I am also, unlike some, open to changing my mind. I actually enjoy hearing that I should have considered X or Y. I also think the notion fo God not existing but being a 'necessary' construct in some way (for want of better wording) is interesting and wonder if others read Jung in this way.

I have edited my earlier post to tone it down. Thanks for the feedback.

Yet, I am aware that Jung's particular point of view is probably not seen as important within philosophy circles. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure it matters much who venerates him. The question is: Are Jung's ideas more than one man's subjective experiment? The fact that some people get things from Jung does not shift his status. The fact that Jung is seen as a scientist who flirted with occult and religious matters makes him very attractive to a certain cohort. I guess I am wondering if I am being unfair to his ideas.

I'd be interested Jack, and if you are willing, what it is you think you have gained from Jung? Is there a specific insight you can point to? Just in a sentence or two.

For the record I don't think Jung believed in God - not as we would describe belief in standard terms. I knew a man who worked closely with Jung for many years. He said that Jung thought God was a necessary idea that provided the compass points to human behaviour and had to be believed in as a functional necessity.

I seem to remember that Jung greatly disliked Nietzsche (perhaps because Freud venerated N as a great psychologist) but he may have taken a similar view of God as that dramatised in The Gay Science. If secularism has killed God, look out! All of human history has been built on this idea (archetype) and with it suddenly gone we are missing our compass points and may be truly lost. Hence Hitler, Stalin, Mao and... pop art. (sorry that last was a poor joke).

I think again this is Jordan B Peterson's crusade. The archetypes are not necessarily 'true' and God is not a real entity. But the divine is built in or hard wired into human experience over time and therefore may as well be real. Like the hunting instinct, it is simply there.

Which leads many to Dostoyevsky's little gem - without God anything is permissible. If we remove God, we lose ourselves. I have always felt this was the wrong interpretation. In truth it is with God that anything is permissible - suicide bombers, holy wars, terror, throwing acid in the face of a young girl for daring to learn to read. But that's another story.

I am interested in how Jung's understanding contributes to the philosophy of religion and I am asking to what extent his approach is useful for analysis? — Jack Cummins

Jung doesn't really give us much to go on except speculative interpretations. Jung was essentially a mystic (a description he rejected) who coveted the ineffable and the symbolic and filled the void with his own take on Gnosticism. Despite this he thought of himself as an empiricist uncovering spiritual and religious facts - a kind of syncretism where all roads led back to Jung himself.

Fundamental to Jung's project was a preference for mystery and incomprehension over reason. I personally find his work almost entirely without use but I know many people find idea of the collective unconscious beguiling. Jordan B Peterson has certainly done a lot to revive interest in this and in Jung more generally. Curiously Peterson talks about God in similar, indirect ways to Jung. If he could get away with saying, 'I don't need to believe, I know' I'm pretty sure he would.

Jung was not the avuncular, sweet old fellow of so much popular imagination. He could also be pretty strident and probably would have hated the New Age cult of Obi Wan Jung that emerged from the 1970's.

It is common for very infantile people to have a mystical, religious feeling, they enjoy this atmosphere in which they can admire their beautiful feelings, but they are simply indulging their auto-eroticism. ~Carl Jung, ETH Lecture 11Jan1935.

Yep, I can drive stick although it has been 2 or 3 years. Most cars here were manual (as we call them) and then automatics started to predominate from the 1990's.

Morris' book was amongst the various erotic treasures selected from my parents very 1960's bookshelf, alongside John Updike and Bruno Partridge. It was actually pretty graphic, in a pseudo-pop-science kind of way. — Wayfarer

Yes, I remember it well a few years later here in Australia. At our place it sat alongside the Female Eunuch, An Invitation to Sociology and Future Shock. An early blockbuster book along the lines of the recent Sapiens.

Humans mistake thought for reality.
That's why there are all these ideologies. That's why people go to wars. That's why people do so much harm to make money. That's why people believe lies. — Yohan

There's some truth to this but I was asking more about your idea about people's 'inability to see the obvious.' I don't think we can see without thinking. We see, then we process and put what we see into some context. This might be different if you were enlightened (a category of human I would consider contentious at best). And what is 'the obvious'?

: I think that's fair and far better expressed than my version.

Most failure of understanding is due to an inability to see the obvious, rather from an inability to think. — Yohan

Most? Can you provide some examples?

Seeing indeed involves a range of other skills. Think about how complex the brain is. You can't see without consciousness. To have consciousness the brain needs to have the skill of self organization , self management etc.
You also have to have the skill of receiving the light Into eye, skill of eye sending information to the brain, and then brain translating or making sense of the information...(rogh estimate abouthow seeing works, I don't know) — Yohan

Not skills so much as the body doing its thing. I see a skill as something a human being can acquire or not. Being able to see in a particular way may be a skill. Being able to see in itself, not so much.

You say you are resistant to risk and change. Many people share this. I certainly don't seek out risks or changes. Some people have change inflicted on them is severe ways. Think Hong Kong. Or a natural disaster. But much of how we deal with this is psychological and wrapped up in our personalities.

The problem is that ‘discursive mind’ can never realise that goal - something which Kierkegaard makes clear - that’s his meaning of ‘unscientific’ — Wayfarer

Yes, that is certainly a clear point of K's. That which truly matters is not reasonable. But then I can't help wonder about how miserable K was in life, how crippled he was by his own choices and how much he got in his own way. Is he really someone we should take heed of?

Watts is similar but different. Chain smoking, hard drinking, busting his arse to feed his many children. Dead in his fifties. Is it a case of physician heal thyself? Or is it the case that we are who we are no matter what we believe or profess? I always remember that Watts called himself a spiritual entertainer. And that is probably right. Nevertheless he was a compelling figure of great reading and syntactic talents. And these days we can hear him and see him on YouTube.

The fatal coastline of the transcendental ego sinks many ships.

the feeling that anxiety/angst/dread is simply what the Buddha terms dukkha. — Wayfarer

I've often pondered that this may be the case. There is a strong overlap - dukkha - suffering, pain, stress, unease. Is there a text that articulates dukkha/discomfort with more of a psychological perspective? Pretty sure there was something great by Alan Watts on this but can't remember where I read it. Can't help but feel there is a special resonance in 'angst' - Kierkegaard talks about anxiety as a dizziness of freedom. We might have the capacity to become anyone and this, shall we call it liberty, may be experienced like an ominous sense of mounting disaster. Or something like this. It sounds like slow motion Nietzsche to me.

Is seeing a skill? :smile: I think what we call adapting to change is actually a range of different attributes and facilities. Are you essentially arguing that non-attachment is the overarching skill here; or resilience? Adapting to change doesn't greatly resonate with me. Maybe because I do it without anxiety or much thought?? I don't feel I have had to adapt to many changes in my life. Is adapting to change different to accepting change? What do you consider to be a change requiring an adaptive shift?

Personally I don't believe there is an answer to this kind of question, it seems entirely context dependent.

:ok:

That's a very nice summary of how it works for me.

the ability to adapt to change. — Yohan

Is this a skill? I suspect it is a range of skills.

I find Nietzsche almost unreadable.

While in college, a 120 IQ guy told me that Europe works to live and American's live to work. — Shawn

This was an old multi-purpose lifestyle quote doing the rounds decades ago and generally applied to personalties. I have always considered myself someone who works to live. But what the hell does this really mean? I suspect it is about satisfaction with moderation.

I consider myself financially prosperous (I have no debts) and that is partly because I have never had much of an appetite for material things. Frugality is my modes operandi and I was a minimalist before this was just another commodified wankfest chasing authenticity in the absence of God. I think much of the juxtaposition of ideals versus profit depends upon your personal appetites and situation. In Western culture it may be easier to be virtuous if you are comfortable and happy in yourself. If you have an insatiable thirst for material goods, with a need to show off, it must surely be more tempting to sell out and suppress ideals.

Like many words it is used imprecisely. I am sure most of us have known people who are so resentful and loathing of one thing or person that their whole life is distorted or overtaken by it. I say that I hate lots of things (in music, politics, culture) but the hatred is not visceral - it is more a case of dislike dressed up as a world view.

What could be more oppressive than a government system? — synthesis

Corporate power.

It's not either or — synthesis

It was for the people I know, but I take your point.

it may be that the philosopher of the future will have to go in a direction which will leave the reader turning pages in suspense, as meaning leaps from the pages. — Jack Cummins

Wittgenstein made the point that a good book of philosophy could be written just using jokes.

Jack, I listen to music, just not that kind.

I just hate the sound and aesthetics of it.

What philosophy do you get from it?

Certain albums by the Doors, U2, Dylan, David Bowie and all the current ones are central to my life and philosophy quest. I wonder to what extent many other people feel that way too. — Jack Cummins

I think many people would agree with you. I don't hold this view myself but I don't listen to rock/pop music. What do you feel is the wisdom gleaned from these sources?

I am arguing for lack of a better term, flexible killing. Kant believes killing is always wrong I believe it is sometimes not. However both Kant and I are appealing to the absolute that human life should be protected. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Ok thanks for clearing this up. In other words you are a relativist. I thought that might be the case. I'll move on.

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

Good answer. I've known many people who have chosen those values over making money many times over.

Correct but both Kant and I would be arguing what the absolute moral good in this scenario would be, and both of us would be appealing to the value of human life. In fact all arguments made on this scenario would be appealing to the same absolute. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Wrong. Kant would argue that killing in any situation is wrong. You are arguing for subjective ethics.

appealing to the same absolute. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

You are confusing principle with objectivity. This is not case of the 'same absolute' it is a case of people building ethics based on different principles.

If I were to say all my ethics are based on notions of 'highest truth' you can argue that is objective but all this actually is is a phrase open to interpretation. My highest truth may be different to someone else's. You need an identified foundation point outside of human experience. This is why people appeal to God.

that's why killing is wrong in one instance and right in the other, however you have to answer the question: Why is this the case? It is the case because human life is valuable and should always, no matter what be protected. Again an absolute belief in moral truth. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

By the way, this point undermines your position. You are not talking about absolute moral truths, you are talking about a flexible calculation based on some principles you hold. This is situational ethics - very different.

I certainly prefer his non-fiction to his novels.