Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

Palomar · 2002-07-29 15:09:44

*I brought this over from the "Asteroid could hit Earth in 2019" thread:

Phobos: I don't know if you've read Joseph Campbell's books on mythology or not, but he touches a lot on archtypical motifs in the collective subconscious that become manifest in our mythologies.

Bill: Campbell's writings are - at times - over the top, yet he does present a pretty good case that our religious heritage is far more valuable than mere refuse to be discarded as quickly as possible.

*To answer Phobos: No, I've not read Joseph Campbell. From what I've heard of him, including what you've written, it sounds as though he was influenced at least in part by Carl G. Jung. As far as religion itself goes, IMO it's all simply an extension of humankind's psyche -- mostly a collective matter, but somewhat individualistic as well. I've read quite extensively [in the past, not currently] about comparative religion, mythology, etc.; there are themes repeated throughout all civilizations and times -- even in societies formerly isolated by huge expanses of water or very harsh surrounding terrain; Phobos touched on this when he mentioned the recurrent theme of the benevolent fertility/agricultural god either dying or being put to a violent death...only to come back to life later [The Egyptian gods Osiris & Set are an example of the latter].

I don't discount archetypes, the notion of a collective un (or "sub") conscious, the relevance of mythology cycles and stories as they equate to the human psyche -- these things tell us more about ourselves as homo sapiens than any other means can and does.

Religion, IMO, is simply an active and participatory extension of these things via ritual, dogma, tradition, etc.

And, IMO, it's all purely psychological.

But to each their own.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-30 20:57:30

I pretty much subscribe to the viewpoint myself that god(s) are merely projections of the needs and desires of our own egos being manifested in a spiritual device. For some, god provides that personal relationship, protection, and security that people crave, for others god is merely an impersonal trascendent presence that reflects our own desires to transcend the limitations of our mortal and carnal nature. It is amazing though that we seem to share certain collective elements in our psyches that become expressed in our mythologies. Even though it's something of a long and plodding read, you might check out "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by J. Campbell. It's almost scary how the hero figures in virtually all mythologies follow the same basic path whether they be out of the Veddas or a Native American tale.

And I agree with Bill White to, I'd love to see Campbell and Sagan get into a debate over the value of mythology. I'm not sure the two would necessarily disagree though. Even though Sagan was almost fanatical in his anti-religious viewpoints I'm not sure he'd flat out deny that there's value to our mythological past.

clark · 2002-07-31 10:02:01

It's almost scary how the hero figures in virtually all mythologies follow the same basic path whether they be out of the Veddas or a Native American tale.

There is really only one path for a hero to take, so seperate cultures invariably develop the same story- just different names and places.

Something I learned about writing- there are only 7 stories. That's it. No more, no less. Seven different stories for the last 8,000 years.

What Campbell provides is an insight into the parts of storytelling. The Hero's journey is the classic example, and the basis for telling all stories.

It breaks down the stories into roles- i.e. The Hero, the Villian, the Mentor, The Prize, etc.
It shows the neccessary developmental process for telling a story: World in Equilibrium, World moved from Equilibrum, World put into New Equilibrium.

Can stories be told without following the formula- yes, but they're not very good and most of us wouldn't recognize them as anything worthwhile.

Every culture ends up with the same "basic path" for story telling the same way everyone comes up with 2+2=4... even if they have different symbols for their math. It all relates to how we all fundamentaly experience life in the same way.

Palomar · 2002-07-31 10:37:22

Phobos: It's almost scary how the hero figures in virtually all mythologies follow the same basic path whether they be out of the Veddas or a Native American tale.

*What blew my mind was reading [years ago] of how the West figures into death mythologies. The Vikings sent their warrior/hero dead floating westward on burning boats; the Celts had specific mythological stories of the west being the place of death [and, conversely, the east being the place of rebirth...thus the black and orange colors which figure into Samhain aka Halloween, death and rebirth]; the west was the sacred land of the dead for ancient Egyptians; and archeologists found little wooden boats with paper sails on them, all facing west, in ancient Thai caves. This is indicative, IMO, of a collective unconscious and Jung spoke of it. Something's up; there's too many coincidences.

Phobos: And I agree with Bill White to, I'd love to see Campbell and Sagan get into a debate over the value of mythology. I'm not sure the two would necessarily disagree though. Even though Sagan was almost fanatical in his anti-religious viewpoints I'm not sure he'd flat out deny that there's value to our mythological past.

*I differentiate religion from mythology. Again, IMO, mythology is an extension of the human psyche -- it's like the ultimate "Freudian slip" in that it [mythology] tattle-tells human nature and our psychological processes better than anything we yet know. Religion, IMO, is the attempt to factualize and authoritize what is simply a psychological process, and to capitalize/gain power from same. Imagine the Earth goes through a horrible calamity and 500 years from now people discover relatively intact and well preserved Marvel Comics. Many of our super-heros of today can fit into mythological patterns as well. But supposing the people of 2502 believe Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc., were REAL people -- or even above that, Gods and Goddesses. And now let's suppose they start building holy places for these characters, and begin demanding and insisting people MUST attend worship services, MUST believe Wonder Woman was real and her Golden Lasso could make people tell the truth, that you MUST hand over a portion of your money to sustain the worship of Superman or Wonder Woman...and if you disagree or disbelieve, you could be imprisoned or killed for your disagreement or disbelief. That's my major gripe with religion; it takes for undisputable, rock-solid fact what are simply psychological processes of the human mind. I don't see a difference between current religions, past religious history, and the people in my scenario of the year 2502.

I can understand Sagan's anti-religious sentiments. I'd like to know from his writings, however, why he would be anti-mythology.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-07-31 13:03:35

Religion, IMO, is the attempt to factualize and authoritize what is simply a psychological process, and to capitalize/gain power from same.

It has been argued that a processive versus cyclical view of time was the unique invention of the ancients Jews and that monotheism is a necessay pre-cursor to adopting a moral philosophy that highly values the rights of individuals.

Thomas Cahill - The Gifts of the Jews - may give a cursory introduction to this topic, even if his book is lightly written.

Even Daniel Dennett - who is decidely not a religionist - has written that the Western belief that we all are "children of God" makes our culture markedly different from Sinic cultures which view each human as being rather more like "an ant" than a "child of God"

He wrote this in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" - the best single book on evolution I have ever read - and he made these comments in the context of Eastern bafflement at Western outrage when an American teenager in Singapore received a judicial sentence of blows with a bamboo paddle as punishment for vandalism.

Palomar · 2002-07-31 15:21:59

It has been argued that a processive versus cyclical view of time was the unique invention of the ancients Jews and that monotheism is a necessay pre-cursor to adopting a moral philosophy that highly values the rights of individuals.
Thomas Cahill - The Gifts of the Jews - may give a cursory introduction to this topic, even if his book is lightly written.
Even Daniel Dennett - who is decidely not a religionist - has written that the Western belief that we all are "children of God" makes our culture markedly different from Sinic cultures which view each human as being rather more like "an ant" than a "child of God"
He wrote this in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" - the best single book on evolution I have ever read - and he made these comments in the context of Eastern bafflement at Western outrage when an American teenager in Singapore received a judicial sentence of blows with a bamboo paddle as punishment for vandalism.

*I see where you're coming from, Bill, but I disagree with every point except the concept of progressive time coming about as a result of monotheism, versus the idea of cyclic time in paganism/polytheism.

Please don't take this ::personally::, but allow me to go on:

I don't believe morality is necessarily a religious invention, or dependent upon religion. I think it's entirely possible that morality can come about through the reasoning process. People make choices, and the consequences of their choices [pleasant or unpleasant] bring about the concepts of morality. I consider myself a moral person, though I'm not religious. I choose behaviors which benefit myself, my loved ones, and society; and shun those behaviors which could destroy me and bring harm to myself, my loved ones, and the society in which I live.

Given the recorded history of religion, and having read and studied it, I honestly see very little good ever having come out of it. I don't see the world as having been a better place for it.

Day before last, my husband and I attended a memorial service for a 5-month-old baby girl who died from abuse in our town. Her father, mother, maternal uncle, and some other adults in a trailer home had beaten her; her father had sexually penetrated her; they'd tossed her around like a football, laughing while she struck the ceiling and/or fell to the floor; she had HUMAN BITE MARKS all over her body; she had multiple broken bones and bruises throughout her little body. She died of massive brain swelling. The memorial service was held in a church in which the minister spoke of God's love and care of children. Then why was this baby DEAD? A song was sung, "Jesus Please Protect the Children." Though this baby is DEAD. The minister said that Jesus was there at the moment of the baby's death, to "take her home." Well, where was he when she was being raped, beaten, and bitten by the savage brutes who were her "family"?

I don't mean to sound snide, rude, or insulting. It simply does not make sense to me, any of it.

I agree with BR Redman that the rationalism of Voltaire [and other 18th century "philosophes"] **despite all its limitations** [no one is saying Voltaire or some of his contemporaries were perfect and/or knew everything, because they weren't and didn't] are the best hope and best instrument mankind has.

Religion generally has not, IMO, made people nicer, kinder, more compassionate, etc., etc. I think people either recognize their own intrinsic value and worth or they do not, and religion isn't necessarily needful in that regard either.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-31 21:41:24

*I differentiate religion from mythology. Again, IMO, mythology is an extension of the human psyche -- it's like the ultimate "Freudian slip" in that it [mythology] tattle-tells human nature and our psychological processes better than anything we yet know. Religion, IMO, is the attempt to factualize and authoritize what is simply a psychological process, and to capitalize/gain power from same. Imagine the Earth goes through a horrible calamity and 500 years from now people discover relatively intact and well preserved Marvel Comics. Many of our super-heros of today can fit into mythological patterns as well. But supposing the people of 2502 believe Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc., were REAL people -- or even above that, Gods and Goddesses. And now let's suppose they start building holy places for these characters, and begin demanding and insisting people MUST attend worship services, MUST believe Wonder Woman was real and her Golden Lasso could make people tell the truth, that you MUST hand over a portion of your money to sustain the worship of Superman or Wonder Woman...and if you disagree or disbelieve, you could be imprisoned or killed for your disagreement or disbelief. That's my major gripe with religion; it takes for undisputable, rock-solid fact what are simply psychological processes of the human mind. I don't see a difference between current religions, past religious history, and the people in my scenario of the year 2502.

Religion basically is mythology it's just not "dead" mythology. After all the Greeks and Romans wholeheartedly believed in their gods as did the Incas and the Egyptians. These mythologies that we enjoy reading today often had rather ghastly religious rituals that included things from human sacrifice to bodily dismemberments, so Xtianity isn't alone in some of the abuses it has brought on. After all, there are similiarities between the story of Christ and say the corn saviour of the Alogonquin. Mythologies are merely the vehicles by which we expose our values, morals, and subconscious nature. Christianity and other modern religions are just as much a part of that as are other mythologies.

Even Daniel Dennett - who is decidely not a religionist - has written that the Western belief that we all are "children of God" makes our culture markedly different from Sinic cultures which view each human as being rather more like "an ant" than a "child of God"

Visions of God vary greatly within single religions. Today it's a common conception among Christians that God is a loving and compassionate being whereas to the Puritans God was more of a spiteful and wrathful spirit that one should fear. One of the marked differences that seems to exist between the "Abrahamic" religions is the idea that nature is fallen and isn't worthy. I remember watching a question and answer show on my local Catholic channel where a priest mentioned that any marriage that takes place in "nature" isn't a valid one since nature is fallen. The marriage has to take place in a temple of God. Anyways, on the question of monotheism, I often wonder if Christians can be considered monotheists. A lot of them believe that the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God are three separate and uncreated beings. Would that essentially mean they believe in three gods instead of one? I quizzed one Christian on that and she said that she believed they are three separate beings so I think she could be classed more as a polytheist than a monothiest.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-01 02:02:35

I was brought up in the christian faith. It wasn't until I developed more critical faculties during my teens that I began to question what I had accepted as a child.
Christianity is probably one of the weirdest religions, in my humble opinion. I say that without any intention of criticising those who follow it. As far as I am concerned, religion is a personal thing and, as long as no organised religion seeks to curtail my freedom, I am happy to reciprocate. But I do have views.
The three-gods-in-one bit, which Phobos mentioned, makes no sense to me at all ... though I've had it explained to me dozens of times by experts. Yahweh, the jewish god of the old testament, is supposed to be the same god as god-the-father of the christian trinity. Yet he was the one and only god ... "a jealous god" ... throughout the old testament. He never once, in all his chats with jewish elders, intimated that he was part of a small group! Even if Jesus wasn't born yet, he must have existed then anyway, mustn't he? And where was the holy spirit all that time? Very strange!
I don't know why a baby is born a sinner, either. I can't accept that explanation about the sins of the fathers. It's just a guilt trip.
I also have no idea why a "son-of-god" has to be brutally tortured and slaughtered in order to appease god-the-father, who is ostensibly a god of love.
And I am supposed to accept and believe I'm a sinner, I must believe god loves me, I must believe the only way to avoid being burned in hell forever as punishment for something I didn't do is to accept that the barbaric crucifixion of someone I never met is my salvation! Very odd!
And this is all packaged up neatly as a choice I can make, based on faith. The choice is eternal life in paradise or eternal suffering in the pits of hell. Now this has me foxed! If a guy says to you at the gates of Disneyworld, you can either go in and have fun or he's going to drag you away and torture you to death, where's the choice in that?! That's not a choice, it's a threat. If that happened, you'd call the police and have the guy taken away and charged. There'd be psychological profiles done to determine whether the guy was insane and needed to be placed in care.
Even supposing god does want us to believe in him, why the cloak-and-dagger routine? Why does it have to be based on faith? If he is watching us, why doesn't he come out in the open and show us incontrovertible proof that he's there ... like he did when he went by the name of Yahweh and smoked and thundered his way across the Sinai peninsula?! How come he's so shy all of a sudden?
If there is a god, that god made us intelligent. He made us so that we can analyse things and come to conclusions using our large brains. I've used my brain to analyse christianity and, with the utmost sincerity, I can find nothing in it that makes sense There is nothing in it I CAN believe in; nothing I would even WANT to believe in. When I ran that past the Christian Society in high school (affectionately known as the god-squad) and suggested to them that surely Jesus would understand and let me off with a warning or something when I died, they answered no! No belief ... no heaven!! In other words, my reward for carefully considering christianity and finding myself unable to comprehend or believe in it, was to be burned in hell for all eternity!! A most unpalatable religion!
In any event, there is a growing body of evidence that Jesus (and yes, he was a real person) did not die on the cross. He was apparently either taken down while still alive, or a substitution occurred and someone else died in his place. Either way, the evidence suggests he was married to Mary Magdalene and had children. The whole family was smuggled to the south of France according to most researchers. Why did Rome seek to execute him and why did his people go to such lengths to save him? For one reason: He was a direct descendant of King David; he was jewish royalty and heir to the throne of Israel. Rome perceived him as a threat to the state, which is why they used crucifixion, the accepted execution method for enemies of the state.
Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth!!

clark · 2002-08-01 09:23:25

Shaun, do you blame the gun, or do you blame the killer?

Religion is a tool. Neutral. It is neither good, nor bad, it just is. There are those who seek to use it, bend it, interpret it to mean things they wish it to mean.There are those who seek to only learn from religion, to let it guide them- most people fall into this category.

If you despise religion then you must be neccessity despise any and all ideologies since they all can be corrupted in the same manner as religion.

Democracy versus Communism.
Liberty vs. Security.
Liberl vs. Conservative.

Religion is not bad. It basically tells people to be good to one another, and then tell them how. It is a roadmap, and I have met quite a few people who need that roadmap. Now maybe you don't Cindy, but then you're pretty smart and pretty balanced to begin with.

What about religion is there to dislike? All religion is is a set of values, almost all of which are beneficial to everyday life.

The ten commandments- take the religion out of it as a mandate from god, and they are simple rules to live life. Thou shall not kill, how is that bad?

Dieatary laws- they make sense with historical perspective, and what's wrong with having a set of rules on what you will and won't eat? We generally all agree that eating people isn't right- so how is not eating pork a big deal?

Women's roles- I can understand the issue here, as women are placed in a subserviant role. However, look at the context in which the religions were created that lead to this view. It can change, and even be ignored, which is routinely done over and over again by even the most devout.

The problem is not religion, it is the abuse of religion.

Some people use guns for selfish gain, are we better off without guns completely then?

Palomar · 2002-08-01 10:30:13

Religion is a tool.

*Religion is the fallacy of mistaking for FACT what are "simply" psychological processes of the human mind.

Religion = subjective.

Psychology/psychiatry=seeks objective explanations, i.e. cause and effect.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-01 10:42:53

I draw a distinction between those who, with humility, search for the divine and those who assert they truly know what God is and what God wants. IMHO, anyone who claims to know the whole truth about God - be they theist or atheist - is merely wrong.

The latter - like the "God Squad" described by Phobos & the Soviet and Maoist atheists who torture and persecute people of all religious persuasions - have indeed caused great anguish and suffering.

But the former, IMHO, have been a force for good.

The question you ask about how God can allow a child to suffer as you described cannot be answered - at least by me. It is an excellent question and is beyond my understanding.

Yet, for me, having an ability to say with total intellectual and moral certainty that such things are WRONG! is evidence that a divinity - of some form or nature - either can or does exist.

Insects routinely devour their own young. Are they blessed or cursed in that they - seemingly- do not comprehend what they have done? Our ability to recognize that abusing a child is EVIL does provide, IMHO, a portal to the divine.

For me, the search for the divine falls in the nexus between power and justice. According to Thucydides, at Melos, the Athenians had captured the island and were preparing to massacre every man, woman and child. In the vein of GWBush, "Either you are with us or against us" and the Melians had sought to remain neutral.

The Melians protested saying such a massacre would offend the gods. The Athenians said the following (a paraphrase):

"Gods, you speak to us of gods? Here is the truth about such things: The strong shall do what they will and the weak shall suffer what they must. Thus has it always been and thus will it always be."

It seems to me that justice and morality might merely be what those in power say it is - which IMHO leads inevitably to nihilism. OR - might does not make right, in which case something like the divine must exist, even if it lacks a white beard or perhaps even is not a "person" subject to our human anthropomorphic understandings.

As I have posted before, Jack Miles is a Jesuit priest who quit. He then wrote a book called "God; A Biography" which provides a fascinating "postmodern" review of Jewish Scripture.

- The idea that religious ideas merely reflect the preferences of the powerful goes to the heart of postmodernist thinking, by the way -

Miles accepts the conventional translations everywhere except for the Book of Job where he makes a seemingly persuasive case for a different translation.

And - voila' - The Book of Job becomes a story having the same plot as the Melian dialouge, only with a different ending. His translation gives us a radically different take on how power and justice should interact and anticipates the Christian call to "turn the other check"

Were I living in Voltaire's time, I would have fought the Church just as he did. Now that we are living in a much more atheistic time - except for the shallow no-nothings like Phobos' God Squad - I now need to oppose both the smug no-nothing fundamentalists and those who point to such people as evidence that the divine cannot exist.

Bill White · 2002-08-01 10:45:49

Religion = subjective.
Psychology/psychiatry=seeks objective explanations, i.e. cause and effect.

If "Hearts have reasons that Reason can never know" per Pascal,

How can we ever come to know the human heart using science or reason?

Palomar · 2002-08-01 10:56:31

If "Hearts have reasons that Reason can never know" per Pascal,
How can we ever come to know the human heart using science or reason?

*If we don't attempt to try to understand the way in which the human mind operates and function via observation, studying cause and effect, studying behavioral patterns, etc., then - IMO - we do a disservice to the human mind and our possible future(s) by endorsing the idea that the human mind can never be known, so why bother? Granted, some of the human psyche probably will never be known, i.e. what motivates people, agendas they may not even be aware of, etc., etc. However, how could we ever have psychiatric hospitals which rather successfully treat the mentally ill [so long as the patients are willing and/or able to cooperate], if we don't attempt to *know* the human mind in so far as we are able? How could pharmaceutical science have developed anti-psychotic, anti-depressive, and anti-anxiety agents [which, if my line of work is any indication -- I've transcribed thousands of medical and psychiatric reports in my career -- do indeed work very well to help mentally and/or emotionally troubled persons who are willing to seek and comply with medical treatment] if it weren't for the attempts to scientifically and objectively study the human mind?

Humankind would do itself a major disservice to ::not:: attempt to continue to study, via scientific and objective methods, the inner workings of the human mind. It's a very complex and complicated field of inquiry, granted. Most of it probably never will be known, but that doesn't mean psychonauts shouldn't attempt to map and chart the human psyche like nautical explorers mapped and charted oceans, currents, and bodies of land in days of yore.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-01 11:21:20

Insects routinely devour their own young. Are they blessed or cursed in that they - seemingly- do not comprehend what they have done? Our ability to recognize that abusing a child is EVIL does provide, IMHO, a portal to the divine.

*But Bill, people in the Old Testament [not Israelites] were recorded as having slain, disemboweled, and burned upon fires their children to the god Moloch. Certain South American/Mexican Native American tribes routinely sacrificed young [juvenile, by our standards] girls and boys in religious ceremonies.

::shrugs::

Religion hasn't necessarily provided morals and respectable behavior by our standards. This has been the work -- or attempted work -- of some philosophers.

Are you familiar with the Assyrian winged bull? It had the head of a man, the body of a bull, and the wings of an eagle. It's mythology, and represents both the carnal and intellectual aspects of humankind. The "message" of the winged bull seems to be that mankind has it in his capability to do/become what he wishes.

And I think Ayn Rand was generally right in her outline of a nonreligious morality; I'll hunt up some quotes of hers later.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-01 11:31:18

I thinnk you miss an important distinction of what is being done when we map the human mind, map the human psyche Cindy.

All of our progress, all of our science has lead to a greater understanding of HOW things work.

Psychonauts may very well describe how we think, what chemicals cause us to behave in certain ways- but they will never be able to explain the WHY.

WHY do we think? WHY do we see things in a certain perspective? Sure, science can tell us how we come to have that perspective, but not WHY.

Science will tell me how the universe works, but it will never tell me WHY it works.
Science will tell you how we are able to exsist, but not why we exsist.

Maybe there is no explanation to "why", but we will never know. Science can't tell you. Reason can't tell you. All you can do is guess, and believe.

Palomar · 2002-08-01 12:10:20

I thinnk you miss an important distinction of what is being done when we map the human mind, map the human psyche Cindy.
All of our progress, all of our science has lead to a greater understanding of HOW things work.
Psychonauts may very well describe how we think, what chemicals cause us to behave in certain ways- but they will never be able to explain the WHY.
WHY do we think? WHY do we see things in a certain perspective? Sure, science can tell us how we come to have that perspective, but not WHY.
Science will tell me how the universe works, but it will never tell me WHY it works.
Science will tell you how we are able to exsist, but not why we exsist.
Maybe there is no explanation to "why", but we will never know. Science can't tell you. Reason can't tell you. All you can do is guess, and believe.

*I never said science and critical/rational thinking has, or could possibly have, all of the answers. Everything has its limitations. However, again, I do believe scientific inquiry and critical/rational thinking are the best instruments mankind yet has. Not perfect, not all-knowing...but so far the best we've yet had and which can benefit us the most.

And here too is another difference between science and religion: Science can, and does, more freely admit its limitations while humbly expressing "may be"; "we think"; "seems to be"; "might" -- and which naturally lends itself to criticism, correction, and the possibility of being wrong [hence THEORY]...unlike many religious dogmas which insist on absolute infalliability and which frowns upon/punishes doubt and considers questioning "of the devil."

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-01 12:29:32

*But Bill, people in the Old Testament [not Israelites] were recorded as having slain, disemboweled, and burned upon fires their children to the god Moloch. Certain South American/Mexican Native American tribes routinely sacrificed young [juvenile, by our standards] girls and boys in religious ceremonies.

Such religions are BAD! No argument.

But, how does proving that bad things have been done in the name of religion allow us to conclude that all searching for the divine is faulty?

IMHO - Jewish Scripture is the story of a people looking for a better way to live, a people seeking to live without the brutality and cruelty that surrounded them.

Religion hasn't necessarily provided morals and respectable behavior by our standards. This has been the work -- or attempted work -- of some philosophers.

What about Martin Luther King, Jr.?

He pointed out the hypocrisy of supposedly Christian racists acting in a very un-Christian way. All souls are equal before God - whether white, black, yellow, brown, male or female - what better way to banish racial and sexual prejudice?

Churches, as political entities, very often are guilty of hypocrisy for failing to follow the very tenets they claim to be founded upon. Does that prove the tenets false, or rather that the clergy is weak and misguided?

IMHO Ayn Rand sought to cast religion down in favor of "Reason" but she also strived to endow Reason with a "sacredness" that places Reason upon the now vacant pedestal.

Palomar · 2002-08-01 13:02:16

Bill: But, how does proving that bad things have been done in the name of religion allow us to conclude that all searching for the divine is faulty?

*All things infernal, divine, and other rest within each of us. It is our individual choice as to which we will nuture and develop.

Bill: IMHO - Jewish Scripture is the story of a people looking for a better way to live, a people seeking to live without the brutality and cruelty that surrounded them.

*Well, I recall Old Testament stories wherein Jehovah ordered the Israelites to go out and smite neighboring enemies...not just the adults of the enemy settlements, but also their children and animals as well.

Bill: What about Martin Luther King, Jr.?

He pointed out the hypocrisy of supposedly Christian racists acting in a very un-Christian way. All souls are equal before God - whether white, black, yellow, brown, male or female - what better way to banish racial and sexual prejudice?

*Well then I'd say, by the standards of the Holy Bible, MLK wasn't conforming to his own religion because Saint Paul beseeched slaves to obey their masters, and commanded that women should have no say in church matters and must obey/submit to their husbands [because, according to him and his religious scriptures, Eve partook of the forbidden fruit first, and thus it was Woman who brought sin, sorrow, suffering and death into the world, and therefore she is subject to Man]...but yet, on the other hand, St. Paul also once said "there is neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ." St. Paul seems to have been confused on the gender issue.

I respect and admire Dr. King. What I don't understand is how intelligent, driven individuals such as him -- working for equality and fairness for all -- can, on the other hand, espouse a religion which has contradictory sentiments recorded in its own pages regarding equality and fairness.

Bill: Churches, as political entities, very often are guilty of hypocrisy for failing to follow the very tenets they claim to be founded upon.

*True.

Bill: Does that prove the tenets false, or rather that the clergy is weak and misguided?

*If contradictions abound, something's wrong...isn't it? The Roman Catholic church used to absolutely forbid -- for centuries -- eating meat [except fish] on Fridays. This was a Papal decree, and it was Law...persons who dared to disobey could be threatened with excommunication [which was a nonrefundable, one-way ticket to Hell, in their minds]. In the 20th century the Church overturned this rule, and now Catholics can eat meat of any sort on Fridays...except during Lent. So apparently the Pope [who is supposed to be God's infalliable representative on Earth, next only to Christ] who made that decree hundreds of years ago [no meat on Fridays ever, just fish, "or else"] was wrong -- ? How can his infalliable proclamation have been overturned?

Bill: IMHO Ayn Rand sought to cast religion down in favor of "Reason" but she also strived to endow Reason with a "sacredness" that places Reason upon the now vacant pedestal.

*Ah, but the gist of Rand's philosophy was to empower the individual -- to encourage people to think for themselves, to value and appreciate their lives, to exercise their autonomy. I'll provide some quotes later on. You'll have to decide for yourself, of course.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-01 18:39:22

I never said science and critical/rational thinking has, or could possibly have, all of the answers. Everything has its limitations. However, again, I do believe scientific inquiry and critical/rational thinking are the best instruments mankind yet has. Not perfect, not all-knowing...but so far the best we've yet had and which can benefit us the most.

I agree that religion isn't exactly conducive to reason but often neither are politics nor science. I think one of the largest dangers looming on the horizon is the mixing of science and politics. When you try to force fit science to "political correctness" as is often the case with nuclear and environmental subjects, it hardly makes for good science. I remember having a Spanish textbook where the science chapter portrayed only radical environmental groups like Greenpeace. I can think of a lot of better institutions and scientists to put in that chapter. I really don't think there's much of a difference between politics and religion. Both are often beyond the scope of reason and have their dogmatic adherents. As long as humans have emotion, reason will be taking the backburner for most of them unfortunately if history is any indication.

Palomar · 2002-08-01 20:49:13

*Ah, but the gist of Rand's philosophy was to empower the individual -- to encourage people to think for themselves, to value and appreciate their lives, to exercise their autonomy. I'll provide some quotes later on. You'll have to decide for yourself, of course.
--Cindy

Quotes from _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand:

"We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt."

"You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door--but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you - not to further your life, but to drain it...Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason but the province of faith and force...Whatever else they fought about, it was against man's mind that all your moralist stood united. It was man's mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now chose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life."

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice--and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man--by choice; he has to hold his life as a value--by choice; he has to learn to sustain it--by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues--by choice. A code of values accepted is a code of morality. There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and MAN'S LIFE is its standard of value. All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil. Man's life, as required by nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being--not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement--not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason."

"Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness--to value the failure of your values--is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard...But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live...since life requires a specific course of action , any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions is acting on the motive and standard of death. Such a being is a metaphysical monstrosity, struggling to oppose, negative, and contradict the fact of his own existance, running blindly amok on a trail of destruction, capable of nothing but pain."

"Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man's instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live. No, you do not have to live; it isyour basic act of choice; but if you choose to live, you must live as a man--by the work and the judgment of your mind. Now, you do not have to live as a man--it is an act of moral choice. But you cannot live as anything else--and the alternative is that state of living death which you now see within you and around you, the state of a thing unfit for existence, no longer human and less than animal, a thing that knows nothing but pain and drags itself through its span of years in unthinking self-destruction. No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive."

"Man's mind is the basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch--or build a cyclotron--without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think. But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that *man is a being of volitional consciousness*. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that *reason* is your means of survival--so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'"

"Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason; his senses tell him only that something *is*, but *what* it is must be learned by his mind."

"When a man declares 'Who am I to know?' -- he is declaring 'Who am I to live?' This, in every hour and in every issue, is your basic moral choice: Thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence."

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in the single axiom: existence exists--and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold 3 things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason--Purpose--and Self Esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge; Purpose, as his choice of the happpiness which that tool must proceed to achieve; Self-esteem, as his involiate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness."

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."

For further reading of this section, refer to _Atlas Shrugged_, pages 927-984.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-02 01:42:32

Quote from Phobos:-

"I really don't think there's much of a difference between politics and religion. Both are often beyond the scope of reason and have their dogmatic adherents." ... !!

LOL ! A pearl of wisdom, if ever I saw one!! You got THAT right, Phobos, and no mistake!!!!

I immediately become suspicious of anyone too dogmatic about things. There's a list of cynical observations of life called "Murphy's Law". I assume you're all familiar with it. One part of the list has always rung very true for me (I may not have the wording just right, but the point is clear):-

"If you're sure you have everything under control, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on."

Hi Cindy!
That Ayn Rand sure says a lot, doesn't she?! There must be some way of abbreviating all that stuff.
I think I agree in essence with what she's saying, but I don't think I could wade through a whole book written like that!
I take my hat off to you, Cindy. You must be an especially deep thinker to assimilate all that intense philosophy. Makes me realise what a basically simple soul I am, I guess. But I'm happy enough as I am.

clark · 2002-08-02 08:59:08

You know what troubles me about this whole issue of "Reason", it's the simmilarity in assuraedness of correctness that religous fanatics have.

My God is the right one, yours is the wrong one. Come listen to the TRUE religion.

Of course those who espouse a knowable Reason are mor3e they ready to explain the differences between Religion and themselves, but they are loathe to contend with the actual similarities.

The issue of self-correction. Reason holding that it can change- fine, but then it isn't Reason is it. Reason is sensible- apparent. It is good. How can one mistake good? Of course though this act of change, of self correction exsists in all religions- they change, they incorporate new and contemporary views. They evolve along side us as we evolve- just like our Reason.

To know reason is to know truth, to know truth is to know god. I say this with the belief that there may be no god- yet the universe still exsists, and as such, it exsists as something greater than I. As such, I would surmise that the objective truths we know from science allow us the best picture of God- it allows us to at least in some small way define god (as in how the universe operates). Reason, like Religion looks to further define God. it looks to find the morality and ethics of God- or in other words, it looks to define the objective good that is God- yet Reason like Religion, fails becuase Reason attempts to define God fundamentaly the same way as Religion- with belief adn faith.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in the single axiom: existence exists--and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold 3 things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason--Purpose--and Self Esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge; Purpose, as his choice of the happpiness which that tool must proceed to achieve; Self-esteem, as his involiate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness."

Here Ann has reduced and defined what is neccessary- a code of law given to her by the God of Reason. In order for her defintions to work, for her world view to make sense, her absolute must exist- yet there is no evidence that such a thing does. How is what she saying any different then those who say that God grants life, and that we must strive to improve upon ourselves in order to meet the expectations of God since he has placed within us the ability to improve ourselves?

Reason SHOULD teach you one thing, that you can never truly know anything. Reason should teach you the difference between facts, and meaning. A ball falling is a fact, the ball falling on a person is a fact. What that means though changes, depending on the point of view- it is mutable, interchangable. Reason should teach you to question others, more importantly, to question yourself- we will only know ourselves, we can only guess about other people.

Reason has become a false religion, by defining itself as what religion is not- but that in and of itself does not make it correct- it only makes it different, and able to deal with the serious problems that get pointed out with the system of religion.

If reason is apparent to all, then those who do not see it, decieve themselves.
All the religions in the world say the same thing- talk to the "bible thumpers" and find out.
If reason can correct itself, then we can never truloy know reason becuase it will always change- you create a situation where we await our final savior- the End Time Reason that establishes peace for a thousand years- religions hold this long term view as well.

I'm not syaing Reason is as bad or anything, just that it is used the same way as religion. Hell, politcal ideology is a religion. Economic systems are a religion.

Ann, at least in the quotes provided, also paints Reason as a choice between life and death- again, no different than Hell or Heaven....

Bill White · 2002-08-02 10:37:35

Cindy - and clark -

Ayn Rand is a powerful tonic for anyone wrongly oppressed by a dogmatic society. To that I will agree readily and fully.

However, what I find missing from her philosophy is a description of how one best relates to their parents and to their children. And, in a symbolic sense, this also applies to the society we are borne into and the society we leave behind, whether or not one has biological children of one's own.

I believe how we bury our parents and how we raise our children - literally, symbolically and psychologically - is the central life issue we will all face. Rand speaks nothing to that.

Rand wants nothing that she has not herself earned. An honorable stance - to be sure - but plainly impossible.

Children owe their parents an unearned debt, an unchosen obligation, for having borne them - this obligation does NOT trump all others - and bad behavior by parents can cancel that debt - but it exists nonetheless. Likewise, parents, who chose to create a helpless infant owe that child a debt, an obligation, as well.

All of us living today have inherited great gifts we have done nothing to earn - the existence of a language to speak and read, for example. Even if I learned to read by my own efforts - without the aid of grammar schol teachers - I DID NOT invent the English language, or French or Latin nor did I write the books that I read.

* * *

Do you wish to go "on strike against the creed of unearned gifts and unearned duties" - does this mean unchosen duties, by the way?

Okay - move to a desert island and take nothing with you - no books, no tools you did not INVENT, no langauge, no seeds etc. . .

* * *

Ayn Rand, IMHO, was gripped by a condition Harold Bloom calls "The Anxiety of Influence"

Poets, Bloom writes, are gripped with a fear that their words, their poems, their creations came into existence under the influence of predecessors. Poets want their work to be truly original, new creations of their own genuis. Bloom argues this is impossible, thus poets feel - and struggle to escape from - anxiety.

Bloom also analyzes Freud brilliantly. Recall that in Freud's time few, or none, understood that a child's DNA is part mother and part father. The conceit was that the mother was passive soil and the father active seed.

Thus, if a child kills his father and marries his mother, he symbolically becomes father to himself - maker of himself. Being self made, there is no debt to your maker, there is only a debt to yourself.

Oedipal rage is rage at being the creation of another, rage at not being a god oneself. Freud was *vehemently* atheist because, IMHO, he wanted to be a god unto himself.

A self made man/woman, dependent only on oneself, is the moral equivalent of a god, no?

God, after all is the,

UNcaused, cause;
UNmoved, mover;
UNmade, maker;

A BEING not created by others, hence not obliged to others.

IMHO, we are not and cannot be gods. No man is an island, nor can any be an island. For better or worse we are all stuck with one another.

clark · 2002-08-02 11:21:06

Children owe their parents an unearned debt, an unchosen obligation, for having borne them

So then birth is a form of slavery?

Likewise, parents, who chose to create a helpless infant owe that child a debt, an obligation, as well.

Why?

All of us living today have inherited great gifts we have done nothing to earn

Okay, but why do we owe anyone anything for these "gifts"? The very begining of our exsistence is one where we are given a unchosen debt of obligation . If we are impriosoned, do we owe something to the jail house that houses us? Or the people who provide us food while we are imprisoned? We enter into the world in chains, then must be thankful for the jail in which we are housed?

Even if I learned to read by my own efforts - without the aid of grammar schol teachers - I DID NOT invent the English language, or French or Latin nor did I write the books that I read.

All true. Yet linguistic study has shown that are minds are structured for gramatical rules. Studies of Creole langue, pigeon language has shown that first generation children born in these environments will develop proper grammer rules for disparate langauges where none exsisted before. Grammer- or language itself IS an inherent human ability- the words, well, that is symbology and meaningless. That being said, I see the point you are trying to make.

Okay - move to a desert island and take nothing with you - no books, no tools you did not INVENT, no langauge, no seeds etc. . .

Yet we can extend the metaphor of debt even further- no trees, no rocks, no water, etc- none of these were made by us as well. I think your analogy dosen't quite work Bill becuase it is predicated on the basis that we owe someone something for bringing us into the world- yet, that is like expecting the same from someone imprioned.

If we have a soul, then the body is a prison for that soul. When the body is gone, the soul is free. The creation of a body, or life, traps the soul- life becomes one of punishment, not prize. Am I missing something?

A BEING not created by others, hence not obliged to others.

Yet you hold the parents of children as being obliged to their infant- isn't it in effect the same thing?

Bill White · 2002-08-02 12:54:15

Quick answer, clark, more later. . .

I think we are using "owe" in slightly different senses.

My focus is on how each of us is a "contingent" being

Our existence - what we are and what we have - depends upon people and forces that pre-existed us. Not totally, not 100% - but in significant measure.

What we "owe" most - perhaps - is a willingness to accept that we are not entirely "self made" beings and - perhaps - a willingness to at least consider that maybe our parents and the society which shaped us did some good by us.

IF that is found to be true, then gratitude is owed. IF it is only partially true - for no society and no set of parents are perfect - then we owe some measure of gratitude while retaining the freedom to make improvements.

To assert that I am a 100% self-made entity cannot be supported by the evidence, and is an unwarranted and unjust usurpation of credit that is due to my forebears.

Ayn Rand, IMHO, seeks to avoid any obligation for being grateful for the contribution of others. She wants nothing she has not fully paid for. Each person must wipe the slate clean and use his or her own Reason to create - well -everything. To be dependent on the ideas of another is to be a slave. I see great nobility in such a goal - but utter impossibility and self delusion as well.

As an aside, such philosophy, if strictly followed, makes it impossible to form or maintain a relationship with any other person - except at arms length, like business people.

How to acknowledge and live with legitimate debts of gratitude due others - debts which can never be repaid - and to simultaneously live without a total surrender of one's own free will is part of what being a balanced adult is all about, as always IMHO.

To be at once dependent, contingent and yet free - quite a challenge. I am inclined to think that reflection on the idea of "negative capability" found in correspondence by poet John Keats - written in contemplation of "King Lear" - may be helpful.

I will need to think about this some more. . .

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-29 15:09:44

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#2 2002-07-30 20:57:30

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#3 2002-07-31 10:02:01

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#4 2002-07-31 10:37:22

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#5 2002-07-31 13:03:35

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#6 2002-07-31 15:21:59

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#7 2002-07-31 21:41:24

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#8 2002-08-01 02:02:35

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#9 2002-08-01 09:23:25

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#10 2002-08-01 10:30:13

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#11 2002-08-01 10:42:53

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#12 2002-08-01 10:45:49

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#13 2002-08-01 10:56:31

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#14 2002-08-01 11:21:20

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#15 2002-08-01 11:31:18

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#16 2002-08-01 12:10:20

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#17 2002-08-01 12:29:32

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#18 2002-08-01 13:02:16

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#19 2002-08-01 18:39:22

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#20 2002-08-01 20:49:13

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#21 2002-08-02 01:42:32

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#22 2002-08-02 08:59:08

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#23 2002-08-02 10:37:35

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#24 2002-08-02 11:21:06

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#25 2002-08-02 12:54:15

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

Board footer