Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Jung and God

Reply
- Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:22:24 EST j/QkiNfq No.210635
File: 1638991344734.png -(3085956B / 2.94MB, 2560x1440) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Jung and God
Here is a clip of old Carl Gustav Jung being asked if he believes in god.

https://youtu.be/Os3RscGfkhE?t=78

He says "I know, don't need to believe."

What does he mean by this? Do you have any clue as to how he reached that conclusion?
>>
Hamilton Daffingstat - Sun, 19 Dec 2021 01:28:40 EST rfZ3px7W No.210640 Reply
>>210639
I can believe something for all sorts of reasons, but my belief in something depends on those reasons. Faith is unshakeable devotion despite reason. Hence why Jung "knows". Its unquestionable he's so sure. Tho I almost write faith as a form of belief, maybe it is.
>>
Charlotte Trotspear - Mon, 20 Dec 2021 19:13:38 EST 2YCFE3AB No.210642 Reply
>Sir, - So many letters I have received have emphasized my statement about 'knowing' (of God) [in ‘Face to Face’, THE LISTENER, October 29]. My opinion about ‘knowledge of God’ is an unconventional way of thinking, and I quite understand if it should be suggested that I am no Christian. Yet I think of myself as a Christian since I am entirely based upon Christian concepts. I only try to escape their internal contradictions by introducing a more modest attitude, which takes into consideration the immense darkness of the human mind. The Christian idea proves its vitality by a continuous evolution, just like Buddhism. Our time certainly demands some new thought in this respect, as we cannot continue to think in an antique or medieval way, when we enter the sphere of religious experience. I did not say in the broadcast, ‘There is a God’, I said ‘I do not need to believe in God; I know’. Which does not mean: I do know a certain God (Zeus, Jahwe, Allah, the Trinitarian God, etc.) but rather: I do know that I am obviously confronted with a factor unknown in itself, which I call 'God' in consensu omnium (‘quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur’). I remember Him, I evoke Him, whenever I use His name overcome by anger or by fear, whenever I involuntarily say: ‘Oh God’. That happens when I meet somebody or something stronger than myself. It is an apt name given to all overpowering emotions in my own psychical system subduing my conscious will and usurping control over myself. This is the name by which I designate all things which cross my willful path violently and recklessly, all things which upset my subjective views, plans, and intentions and change the course of my life for better or worse. In accordance with tradition I call the power of fate in this positive as well as negative aspect, and inasmuch as its origin is beyond my control, 'god', a 'personal god', since my fate means very much myself, particularly when it approaches me in the form of conscience as a vox Dei, with which I can even converse and argue. (We do and, at the same time, we know that we do. One is subject as well as object.) Yet I should consider it an intellectual immorality to indulge in the belief that my view of a god is the universal, metaphysical Being of the confessions or 'philosophies'. I do neither commit the impertinence of a hypostasis, nor of an arrogant qualification such as: 'God can only be good'. Only my experience can be good or evil, but I know that the superior will is based upon a foundation which transcends human imagination. Since I know of my collision with a superior will in my own psychical system, I know of God, and if I should venture the illegitimate hypostasis of my image, I would say, of a God beyond good and evil, just as much dwelling in myself as everywhere else: Deus est circulus cuius centrum est ubique, cuis circumferentia vero nusquam

tl;dr

It's your typical deist "I know because I know" shit.
>>
Edwin Buddlewell - Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:27:13 EST VzlITPwK No.210674 Reply
>>210642
the 'ol "God exists because we're talking about him right now :)" bit
>>
Fanny Poddlebanks - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:23:08 EST DtTugHZR No.210681 Reply
Quite simply because a man of such introspection and genius would come to the obvious conclusion that physical reality is a mental construct and thus the mental element is eternal and untreated and itself the source/God.

Those who understand me know this to be true.. Those who don't will find this ridiculous.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Charles Sanningkere - Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:22:15 EST DtTugHZR No.210699 Reply
>>210642
>>It's your typical deist "I know because I know" shit.
He had a long internal dialogue in which he contemplated what "god" is and deliberately chose to refer to it in the terms which were most aligned with his conclusion.

Anti-philosphers with no understanding of dialectic will get caught up on the word "god" while Jung is able to be a genius because he isn't held back by infantile paradigms which make an equal amount of assumptions, but which are based on common sense rather than logic and reason
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Samuel Puzzlehick - Thu, 24 Feb 2022 05:07:00 EST jc5FblHI No.210700 Reply
>>210699
>It's the alt-right uses babby's first philosophy lesson to justify why he became a bible thumper within the past year and a half
Enjoy your ban lol
>>
1if3giv3r - Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:55:01 EST L1L7SRwh No.210701 Reply
1646009701420.png -(118914B / 116.13KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210635
What he means is that he understands cosmic logic. He's simply stating that he knows the Universe must be an Organism within which we live... like how our cells have a "God". He's simply stating knowledge of the fact that consciousness only comes from greater consciousness, like how we animate all that constitutes us. Hope that helps
>>
Polly Worthinglock - Sun, 27 Feb 2022 23:23:32 EST kJvbsLrE No.210702 Reply
1646022212789.jpg -(294858B / 287.95KB, 3840x2160) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210699
>Anti-philosphers

i'm going to start calling myself this now thanks
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Polly Worthinglock - Sun, 27 Feb 2022 23:44:28 EST kJvbsLrE No.210703 Reply
>>210701
>consciousness only comes from greater consciousness

I tend to support the idea that consciousness is something that arises in complex information systems (i.e. us) after they reach a certain level of complexity/self-reference, an idea explained very well I think by Douglas Hofstadter in his book I Am A Strange Loop, which is satisfying to me because it explains the actual issue at hand (i.e. the nature of this phenomenon we're calling consciousness) in a comprehensive, clear way, and it requires no faith to explain, unlike something like "consciousness only comes from greater consciousness", which actually means fuck all, like what is the nature of this greater consciousness? how do we know? oh we "feel" it?

The universe is interesting and complex enough as it is, we don't need to trick ourselves into wondering at nothing.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Fucking Greenville - Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:33:47 EST Wa/2PG1L No.210711 Reply
>>210635
Sermones is bullshit it's fucking magic spells and crazy shit like that

I'm willing to bet he was gay.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Fucking Greenville - Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:35:34 EST Wa/2PG1L No.210712 Reply
>>210711
Psychenomy - calling people names
User is currently banned from all boards

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.