Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Jung, Plato, Archetypes

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Jung, Plato, Archetypes

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I find the theory of archetypes quite convincing and significant.

In my view, such a theory implies that man cannot escape pursuing an ideal. The outward form of this ideal is edited by life experience, but its numinous kernel does not change.

Jung himself interpreted Plato's Ideas in the light of this theory.

If anyone is biased against Jung that has not read him, I strongly advice a reading. He's not the boogey-man contra-science mystic his haters would have you take him for.

He was strongly influenced by Kant, and knows the difference between a hypothesis and a dogma. And he also knows how to hypothesize on a dogma.

Were Plato and Plotinus describing/responding to something like what Jung would call archetypes?

Here's a link. An intro for those to whom the concept is new: Jungian archetypes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Reconstructo,

Would not it be the other way around, Jung's archetypes describing responding to Platos forms?
The "collective unconscious" as truth not yet remembered?

@Reconstructo,

I would say that if Jung were right, the Archetypes would very much precede both Plato and Jung, and stretch back into our prehuman ancestors.

I was reading about Fichte last and his conception of God as something similar to energy, a supra-sensible moral-world-ordering. This reminded me very much of that numismatic kernel, or rather spiritual emotion or motive. One might say that Fichte was cleverly asserting that God exists as the Holy Spirit, an urge toward moral order.

But he was accused of atheism, for his strong idealist streak made him point out that even our self-conceptions are just objects of consciousness.

For me this is crucial subject, as humans are very much beings of meaning and purpose. I think man can be defined as indeterminate heroism. Kojeve would say that Man is time nihilating in space. Fascinating stuff. I've enjoyed your post in regards to science, by the way. I like that you're not trapped in any sort of conventional view.

@Reconstructo,

I think it's exactly because man is an organism with purpose/spirit, that any epistemology that neglects this is errant. The impartial view is an inhuman view, a fiction. This fiction as an epistemological ideal has been useful for physical science, and therefore useful to man as applied physical science: technology. But we must be careful not to fall into the quicksand of this fiction "impartiality." In our real lives, we meet people with significantly different ideas of virtue and truth. I think concepts like the archetypes help us to see an order in what would otherwise be chaos. A consideration of the power of archetypes can also allow us a better understanding of our fellow human beings, from the inside. The masks we wear vary, and they are direction. But the face beneath these masks is One. This is the description of an intuition, not an argument. Those too attached to their mask will refuse to grasp it. That is an example of motive affecting epistemology. We know what we are willing to know. We doubt what offends our prejudices or our wisdom.

Blake also seemed to have written about Platonic Ideas or Jungian Archetypes. His descriptive catalogs and annotations are some of the best philosophy/psychology/mystic writings I've seen.

@Reconstructo,

Well, two things spring to mind in regards to the hypothesis of a Jung-Plato continuity.

The first lies in the cognitive field, currently, and that is semiotics and the fourfold symmetry therein. What has come out of that is extremely reminiscent of Jung's hypothesis. The functional, mathematical language has been implicated into psychology and, I dare say, is more sensible than a wannabe IQ test precisely because it is expressive and manipulable.

The second thing is this notion of a 'meta-language': does the value of these systems lie in their 'meta-ness', if you will, their ability to encapsulate language in general; or does their value emit from their ability to show (and reveal the concepts of) contradictions and tautologies?

Regards,

MJ

@jack phil,

jack;114492 wrote:

Well, two things spring to mind in regards to the hypothesis of a Jung-Plato continuity.

The first lies in the cognitive field, currently, and that is semiotics and the fourfold symmetry therein. What has come out of that is extremely reminiscent of Jung's hypothesis. The functional, mathematical language has been implicated into psychology and, I dare say, is more sensible than a wannabe IQ test precisely because it is expressive and manipulable.

The second thing is this notion of a 'meta-language': does the value of these systems lie in their 'meta-ness', if you will, their ability to encapsulate language in general; or does their value emit from their ability to show (and reveal the concepts of) contradictions and tautologies?

Regards,

MJ

It seems to me that meta-language is part of language, that "language" is a metaphor within a nexus of metaphors. "Meta-language" is still a useful term, I think. I see meta-language as another example of man's self-consciousness. Man is largely the words he speaks, and to speak words on these words is to build a soft-science of man.

I haven't studied the hard science angle much, but I like hearing about it. I ma unfamiliar with the fourfold symmetry in semiotics. I would enjoy information on the subject.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;115052 wrote:

It seems to me that meta-language is part of language, that "language" is a metaphor within a nexus of metaphors. "Meta-language" is still a useful term, I think. I see meta-language as another example of man's self-consciousness. Man is largely the words he speaks, and to speak words on these words is to build a soft-science of man.

I haven't studied the hard science angle much, but I like hearing about it. I ma unfamiliar with the fourfold symmetry in semiotics. I would enjoy information on the subject.

Well, there is always Google. Razz

I hold the meta-language suspect largely because I do not think 'meta' grasps the nature of semiotics. If language is a tool, then any mathematical or natural language we use must essentially be contingent of that nature- of being a tool. I know NOT what a meta-tool is.

I mean, what is mathematics? Is math a language or a sublanguage or a metalanguage? If categories were meaningful, I'd call it a formal language. But what good does it do to call things 'formal', aside from what I am supposed to wear to a wedding.

The language-as-a-tool metaphor might not be sufficient. Then again, it is probably irrelevant.

Levels of Knowing and Existence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw this book months ago at half-ass books, but it was sealed and $40, and by a couple weeks later it was gone. Days before Christmas, I went back to the same half-ass books and saw it, returned and unsealed. I sat down and read the preface. It was good enough for me to spend the next three of four hours reading the text. I didn't finish it, so I bought it for a friend, and he has said that, after reading the preface as well, he became excited about the book. Its a semantics primer written as a philosophical treatise by a guy who spent all but his adult life as a chemist. I highly recommend it, for psychology and semantics are two metaphors for our thinking heads- the latter having real potential in showing what the mind can do rather than talking about it with big words. Then again, this book mostly just talks about what the mind can do. But its such a blast.

But of the logic symbols and their symmetry? Well, I'll let ol' Ludwig take this one for me.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 5.101 (English)

It seems that this list could be arranged in a cardinal system, and therein would be your 'symmetry'. But here described is one end of the spectrum to the other.[SIZE=+1]
-MJ
[/SIZE]

@Reconstructo,

Working with the archteypes is a practical necessity. We all have to figure them out and work with them. It isn't that difficult, provided you are willing to be completely open to the idea - and at least you're on to it. (Mine is Scribe, incidentally, as far as work is concerned. That's how come I am a techwriter.)

jack;114492 wrote:

Well, two things spring to mind in regards to the hypothesis of a Jung-Plato continuity.

The first lies in the cognitive field, currently, and that is semiotics and the fourfold symmetry therein. What has come out of that is extremely reminiscent of Jung's hypothesis. The functional, mathematical language has been implicated into psychology and, I dare say, is more sensible than a wannabe IQ test precisely because it is expressive and manipulable.

The second thing is this notion of a 'meta-language': does the value of these systems lie in their 'meta-ness', if you will, their ability to encapsulate language in general; or does their value emit from their ability to show (and reveal the concepts of) contradictions and tautologies?

I was going to say thanks, Jack, up until you said 'meta-ness'. Then I paused for thought, and realised you were actually on a tangent oblique to the OP. Going with it, though, I can't see why 'semiotics and its fourfold symetry' have any bearing on either Plato's Forms or Jung's Archetypes - but I would love to hear your elaboration.

What kind of language is maths? What is language? Now there's a meta-question for you. I suggest that this is ground for another thread (or ten). I think the philosophy of mathematics and the nature of number is fascinating.

@Reconstructo,

Semiotics: Division of Signs

EXPLORING CHRISTIANITY: Four major worldviews:

THE GREEK, INDIAN, & CHINESE ELEMENTS

@Reconstructo,

Thanks, Jack. I had discovered The Fresian School site previously, which contains some great ideas, but had not seen this particular page yet. Fascinating.

@Reconstructo,

Thanks you, jeepers.

I think all those pages linked get at the same elementary human condition, but it is hard to put into words. A great help for me was a book, "The Vision of Wittgenstein" by H.L. Finch. The author, who taught W for decades before writing this particular book, illustrates the so-called "Four-Fold Symmetry" in his 'human compass'- but the author takes on a more Continental approach, imo. He iterates this dipoled cross within several contexts.

-MJ

@Reconstructo,

I bumping this as I see some new "faces" around who might have a contribution.

@Reconstructo,

As one of the new faces, thanks for the bump! I haven't got anything to say at the moment, except that Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Jung and Heidegger are all on my list of philosophers to study, I was about to mention mathematics myself when I saw the OP a moment ago, I also hadn't heard of this "fourfold symmetry" thing, and I think Richard Tarnas's The Passion of the Western Mind and Cosmos and Psyche probably both have a lot to say on this line of thought, but (as with so much else of importance) I haven't got around to reading them yet.

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;128462 wrote:

As one of the new faces, thanks for the bump! I haven't got anything to say at the moment, except that Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Jung and Heidegger are all on my list of philosophers to study, I was about to mention mathematics myself when I saw the OP a moment ago, I also hadn't heard of this "fourfold symmetry" thing, and I think Richard Tarnas's The Passion of the Western Mind and Cosmos and Psyche probably both have a lot to say on this line of thought, but (as with so much else of importance) I haven't got around to reading them yet.

I'm glad you jumped in. I can vouch for the last four thinkers you mentioned. All of them are clearly geniuses in my opinion. Plato too, but some of his dialogues pain me, they move so slowly. If I remember correctly, they were written to popularize his views. Then with Aristotle one is left with lecture notes. I read much of P and A indirectly, through histories of philosophy.
I've read The Passion and it was good. Archetypes figures prominently. If you like math, you will probably like Spengler. I feel that he's underrated.

Jung is bold enough to stir up haters. I think he's one of the most important thinkers. He's like Kant and Freud with a dash of Plato.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Jung, Plato, Archetypes

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Jung, Plato, Archetypes

Quick Links

My Account

able2know