René Descartes

Descartes Coffee, Chicago: Larry Miller via Flickr

René Descartes (1596-1650) was a French lawyer, philosopher and mathematician often hailed as the father of modern philosophy.

While serving in the Bavarian army he devised an ambitious scheme for unifying truth with a rational model based on mathematics, physics, morality and medicine.

As a philosopher, Descartes questioned so many issues that he’s known for his ‘method of doubt,’ outlined in Discours de la Méthode (1637), the Meditationes de prima Philosophia (1641) and the Principia Philosophiae (1644).

Descartes made a fundamental distinction between mind and matter, the latter to include the body. The philosopher Gilbert Ryle said, somewhat pejoratively, that for Descartes the mind is like a “ghost in the machine,” the machine representing the body.

Descartes is probably best known for arguing that the very act of thinking proves one’s existence: cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). His next question, not unlike that of solipsism, was: “how do I know that the outside world truly exists?”

He was not the first to look at things this way. Thomas Leahey notes that

St. Augustine [354–430 CE] had said, “If I am deceived, I exist,” and Parmenides [515-445 BCE] had said, “For it is the same thing to think and to be.”¹

Descartes’ answer to the problem of truth seeming to be only inside oneself (that is, truth as entirely subjective) involved God. For Descartes, God exists by necessity. God must exist in order to be perfect. A perfect God also by necessity is Good. And a God that is Good would not deceive his creatures into believing in an outside world if no such thing existed.

Often lampooned by contemporary professors for saying the pineal gland mediates among body, mind and soul, we’d do well to remember that,  given the medical knowledge of his day, this was an innovative and arguably rational attempt on the part of Descartes to explain the relation between body and spirit.

In mathematics Descartes developed algebra and contributed to major innovations in geometry.

—

¹Leahey, Thomas H. A History of Psychology, Prentice Hall, 1980, p. 92.

Related articles

• Hume’s Empiricism and the Teleological Argument (stubbyj88.wordpress.com)
• Don’t Upset Descartes (mathjokes4mathyfolks.wordpress.com)
• Descartes’s Ontological Argument (kovidrathee.wordpress.com)
• The Philosophy of Rene Descartes (troubledblogger.wordpress.com)
• Cartesian Doubt and the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence (stubbyj88.wordpress.com)
• Doubt Mis-Placed (tryingtobemisunderstood.wordpress.com)
• Austin on Descartes through Sense and Sensibilia (theesposito.com)
• Cartesian Circularity? A Clarification and an Objection to Descartes Meditations (stubbyj88.wordpress.com)
• Descartes Knew More Than He Thought (wmbriggs.com)
• Rene Descartes: Doubts, Demons and Despair (theanalogyofreligion.wordpress.com)

Active Imagination

Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud
Disagree on How to Treat
the Patient’s Stormtrooper Delusion

Originally uploaded by ShellyS

Active Imagination An apparently therapeutic technique developed by C. G. Jung that uses some form of self-expression, such as a fantasy-image, to represent and analyze the contents of the hypothesized collective unconscious.

Active imagination may involve artistic representation but this is secondary to its essentially internal character.

Jung says imaginary changes within active imagination should be carefully observed and noted because they indicate underlying unconscious processes.

In advanced stages of active imagination, Jung suggests a more direct engagement with imaginary contents, where one puts oneself on the stage, as it were, of the unconscious and becomes one of the players.

Here, unconscious attitudes toward a person or situation may be explored by running imaginary trials – e.g. fantasy dialogue or interactions – which Jung says contribute to an overall integration of the unconscious within consciousness.

Jung, himself, practiced active imagination deeply, going as far to say that he was guided by a “ghost guru” called Philemon. When Jung became bored with Philemon, however, he cut him off.

We cannot know whether Jung was dealing with a spiritual being or a mere product of his imagination.

Due to the hypothesized interconnectedness of all things, some depth psychologists and New Age enthusiasts believe that the internal dialogue of active imagination has real effects on other people and the visible world.

The psychologist and philosopher William James similarly wrote in The Varieties of Religious Experience about ‘thought insertion’–where the power of thought apparently influences another person at a distance.

Today the archaic idea of ‘thought insertion’ is sometimes called Remote Influence within parapsychological circles.

Jung mentioned but didn’t emphasize this possibility in his published works, perhaps to avoid negative repercussions from the skeptics and “medical materialists,” as he put it, of his time.

However, Jung did speak of belonging to an alleged “inner circle” of prominent, mystically inclined thinkers such as the novelist Herman Hesse and the Chilean diplomat Miguel Serrano.

Active imagination is similar to Shakti Gawain’s notion of creative visualization but is more about developing psychological balance instead of achieving external goals. » Channeling

Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion by posting a comment

Ahriman

Ahriman Also known as Angra Mainyu in Zoroastrianism, Ahriman is the Persian principle of eternal evil and counterpart to the all-wise creator God, Ahura Mazda.

Not created by Ahura Mazda but existing independently, the two are in constant battle.

Today Ahriman is recognized by Parsees as an evil force of darkness and death.

Parsees often fear and associate this darkness with the night. In keeping with popular customs, after sunset most village-based Parsees do not draw water from wells nor handle money.

Daytime, on the other hand, is holy time.

The founder of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, says the term Ahriman denotes the darker side of consciousness. For Steiner, Ahriman is ego-based consciousness centered on desire, ambition, greed, vanity, lust and the flawed, animalistic notion of “survival of the fittest.”

Image Credit:

• “Persepolis” by MISTERBLACK1 at http://www.flickr.com/photos/misterblack/1858017541/, Creative Commons License

Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion
by posting a comment

Animus

animus
Originally uploaded by blimpa

Animus In C. G. Jung‘s analytical psychology, the animus is the unconscious contrasexual component of the female self–i.e. the woman’s supposed ‘inner male.’

The animus reveals itself to consciousness by virtue of a series of archetypal images. Usually a primitive, sexual figure first emerges.

As psychological development progresses, the initial symbol is followed by a series of increasingly refined, ‘higher’ images.

Jung says the animus may take either a dark or light form. Like all symbols, it mediates destructive or creative unconscious forces. The negative aspect of the animus has been symbolized by figures like Frankenstein, the Werewolf, Faust and Dr. Jekyll‘s evil counterpart, Mr. Hyde.

It’s perhaps been historically embodied by maniacal types such as Adolf Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Diocletian.

The positive animus is symbolized by the male heroes of world mythology. It is incarnated in wrestling figures like The Rock (lower, more sensual form), the Romantic poet Shelly (higher level of eros), Winston Churchill (societal or cultural hero), and Mahatma Gandhi (spiritual exemplar). » Anima

Critics of this aspect of Jung’s archetypal psychology tend to see his gender theories as too general, sexist and metaphysical.

Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion
by posting a comment

Archetypal Image

Archetypal Image According to Carl Jung, the archetypal image is a representation of an underlying archetype.

The archetypal images symbolize and mediate to everyday consciousness the psychological power of the collective unconscious.

Through various modes of expression (e.g. works of art and architecture) mankind translates these hidden archetypal forces into the realm of human culture.

Some contemporary and ancient examples of archetypal images would be figures like Godzilla, the Klingons, The Cylons, Luke Skywalker, the Magician, the Witch, the Angel, Yahweh and the Devil.

Jung believes that the ancients did not always view the archetypal images as mere symbols, but as actual things in themselves. The Indian sun god, Surya, for instance, was not a symbol but a real deity, diurnally traveling across and lighting the heavens in a splendid chariot.

Likewise, many American Indian cultures firmly believe that their myths tell of actual ancient events and heroic ancestors.

Meanwhile, contemporary Catholics believe that the Eucharist is not a symbol but the real presence – in essence but not form – of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.†

On the topic of UFOs, Jung regarded the rounded saucers of the 1950s as archetypal images of the human self, not unlike the mandala. But Jung didn’t rule out the possibility of actual UFOs.

However, Jung was not quite so open-minded with regard to Christian religious truth-claims, choosing to adapt them into his own theoretical structures. At times he speaks of the crucifixion of Jesus, for instance, as producing a mere “skewed symbol of the self” (i.e. the crucifix) instead of seeing Jesus’ death as a saving sacrifice, as most Christians would believe. » Archetype

Image Source:

• Resized from “Benzaiten” by colodio at http://www.flickr.com/photos/colodio/1420007024/in/set-72157602055544339, Creative Commons License

—

†Belief alone does not necessarily render truth out of falsehood. But as Plato pointed out, a true belief does relate to an actual truth (if not knowledge of that truth).

Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion
by posting a comment

Archetype

Archetype A term used by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung to indicate the psychological contents of a proposed collective unconscious.

For Jung the archetypes are inherited patterns encoded in the body, universally shared by mankind.

Not unlike the gods and goddesses of ancient times, archetypes apparently have a psychic life of their own.

In fact, Jung often likens the archetypes to ancient deities, saying that the word “archetype” is a scientific-sounding update for a very old idea.

When the conscious ego encounters the archetype, the individual is said to experience a sense of the numinous.

According to Jung, this encounter may be psychologically constructive or destructive, healing or disorienting. The effect of the numinous on consciousness depends on the psychological stability and maturity of the individual, as well as the character and intensity of the numinosity encountered.

The experience of the numinous is often mediated by a meaningful visual symbol (e.g. a mandala) or ecstatic activity (e.g. chanting, music-listening or dancing).

For Jung, the self is also an archetype–one of wholeness.

Visible manifestations of the archetypes appear as archetypal images. Jung distinguishes these recognizable images from the archetype proper, which Jung says can never be fully known.

This distinction between the unknowable archetype and its recognizable image is sometimes overlooked in casual commentaries about Jung. » Hero, Mandala, Otto (Rudolf), Psychoid, Trickster

Image Source:

• “Kohenet Archetype Wheel” by Carly & Art at http://www.flickr.com/photos/wiredwitch/365378131/, Creative Commons Share Alike License

Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion
by posting a comment