Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Our human psyche is, by nature, religious.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Excuse me if this question or discussion has already been posted, but I searched and acquainted with no desirable results. I know it's usually a problem, though.

On to the discussion, Our human psyche is, by nature, religious——what does Carl Gustav Jung mean by this statement? The definition of religious is pertaining to religion, and religion is the belief in a supernatural, ultimate being. At first, I ended my curiosity by solving that we are intrinsically philosophical, but not religious. In order for our human psyche to be religious by nature, the knowledge of god is intrinsic rather than exposed to us. But, I doubted my conclusion. I thought I was too hasty and that I might be mistaken.

I ask one of you to explain my question (the bold) and, if possible, refute his original statement (in italics).

Edited by Egosum—
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember where he said that, or at least the general context? I'm not a jung scholar by any stretch, but I'm wondering if it was tied in with his concepts of the "collective unconscious." If so, it's based on blind speculation about what amounts to a racial memory, primarily, and doesn't leave much to refute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember where he said that, or at least the general context? I'm not a jung scholar by any stretch, but I'm wondering if it was tied in with his concepts of the "collective unconscious." If so, it's based on blind speculation about what amounts to a racial memory, primarily, and doesn't leave much to refute.

Yeah, I further researched into him. He is no longer in my concern. He deduced, with reason, that reason is an illusion——that rationalism is his enemy, but he fought it with reason, and now it's just an infinite regression of fallacy.

lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aphorisms have this zen quality to them, that you can read yourself into a statement and find meaning in it. The I Ching and tarot cards work like that. I know how un-Objectivist those are, but they are no different than flowcharts and entity diagrams, really, just a way to see your own thoughts as you work out a problem. ... at least for me... I do not use them now, have not for 15 years or so, but I explored their potentials and even worked "New Age" shows as a reader.

Julian Jaynes presented the theory of "the end of the bicameral mind." Before writing, our brains were more symnetrical, and there was no "self." Writing was a trigger for the creation and development of reflexive consciousness, being aware of being aware. Before that, people did not have voices in their heads. When they did, they did not know where the voices were coming from and identified the source as external to them, as "god" (or a spirit) speaking to them. There is much evidence to support this, but, of course, no "proof" in the Newtonian sense. Even now, you can drive home from work and not remember doing it, as your conscious mind was "someplace else." Joan of Arc heard "voices" that commanded her. This is still a modern phenomenon and it explains much of he world. Not all featherless bipeds are rational animals. Many people today still have no self, which is why they can behave as they do collectively without thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...