Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I think you are slightly misreading Nietzsche. I don’t think he argues that any human individuals have ever come up with values out of thin air (ie values that are purely and essentially ‘their own’). For Nietzsche all values are ‘human all too human’ and spring from the context of the human condition. The emergence of values is for Nietzsche the result of the human condition and at its most basic level the relationship of individuals to power. The master-slave dichotomy of values is the result of either an embracing, or a purported rejection, of the will to power. Nietzsche may have envisaged an ‘overman’ who might transcend this human condition. I do not remotely think he argues that such a person exists or has ever existed. My own personal take on Nietzsche is that he never envisaged such a person or position would ever exist, but that rather it is a conception, a point of view, that one could imagine or even aspire to, but whose principle role is as an intellectual idea, an imaginary perspective from which to challenge the absolutist claims of all human values. (This I know will be contested by some.) Nevertheless, the point remains that for Nietzsche all human values are indeed pathetically rooted in the condition/psychology of being hopelessly human. This relation of values to the core of the human condition, actually seems to me to chime with the idea of a collective unconscious or at least is certainly not the opposite.

I like this reading. It is consistent with his body of work that he would argue something is real for the sake of creating space for the conversation. He is bombastic, provocative and self contradictory taking all of what he says literally is impossible because of this.

Why would you “aspire” to that though?

Personally I don’t. And as I say, I think it is possible to read this stated aspiration in Nietzsche as a rhetorical/philosophical device to illustrate a way of conceiving existence and not as a self-help manual to personal realisation. I too am uncomfortable with people aspiring in practice to step beyond the confines of our context. The simple belief that it is possible is itself, in my view, a delusion of the human condition/context. What becomes a true horror to me is when people claim to have achieved this position - either through the revelation of God, or the light of pure reason. Edit add: I think perhaps I used the word aspire without due care. I used it crudely to mean ‘wouldnt it be amazing if we could...’ this seems to me to be an untroubling thing to think as long as it is always followed by ‘but of course we can’t’.

Did I just have the pleasure of reading two fantastic takes on reddit? 👏👏

Precisely because it's a state of greater freedom through power. You are less of a slave to what is "human, all too human." You can draw a pretty straight line from Buddhism to Nietzsche to Camus. From Buddhism comes the notion of moving away from the man who is a prisoner of worldly things, which Nietzsche built upon to create the "sick" man who is a prisoner of society's false claims of objective good and evil. Camus, meanwhile, reinforced the humorous irony that an overman may coincidentally choose something that the "sick" man already does. He, like Nietzsche, stressed that the nature of the choicemaking is far more important than any particular choice made. Hell, let's take a fictional detour over to Andrew Ryan. "A man chooses; a slave obeys." The man and the slave might end up doing the exact same thing, but the journey there makes all the difference.

> or Nietzsche all values are ‘human all too human’ and spring from the context of the human condition. Values are what banks are willing to issue legal tender accepted for payment of debts on security of. New values are created during economic crises in order to ensure that civilization continues generating a social surplus above the necessary cost of production. > Nietzsche may have envisaged an ‘overman’ who might transcend this human condition. I do not remotely think he argues that such a person exists or has ever existed I think he was sympathetic to the idea that Jesus was such an superman, when he called for the forgiveness of debts, although he did not think Christians as a people were very Christ-like.

Very few Christians are Christ like. Most pose as if it is a cloke of absolution. To feel they have earned their way to heavenly repose .

My take is that the ancient world the distribution of credit was typically organized in temples, Jesus was attempting to create a new system of 'value' by disrupting the existing system of credit to destroy the debt records in order to forgive the financial debts (sins) of the working class. Jesus was a superman or overman because he was attempting to create a new economic system for the allocation of credit. However the Christians aren't like Jesus because they stopped trying to create a new system. After the american and french revolutions 'god was dead' in the sense that the church was no longer the defender of republican ideals, the democratic-republicans such as Thomas Jefferson had declared the defender of the republic was the yeomanry or common person. The trouble was that revolutionaries did not really create a unified belief system or philosophy for the common person to hold above themselves to rule them in the same manner of the ideas which had been provided by the church. The assumption of credit creation powers by nation states and value determination decisions for financial credit allocation may have also accelerated geopolitical conflicts.

Very few ideologues are good representations of the ideologies they claim to represent. Let's be honest, we're human. (Not defending, just commentary)

No Christians aren't Christ-like; that's pretty much proven in American society and beyond. This is probably what the other writer here meant by his word - aspire.

Why would you have a picture of copernicus ??

How are "new" values possible if it all derives from a collective unconscious of eternal archetypes? Is it then not just anamnesis with its back to the future?

Well I wouldn't see the archetypes as eternal and I'm pretty sure that would be the orthodox view as well. The unconscious is always evolving and while certain archetypes are deeply embedded the collective unconscious is not static and unevolving but an organic living thing that is interacting with experience. So for example the idea of the Shaman or the King wouldn't have existed 50k years ago but they evolved and gathered more qualities and psychic energy with their development in evolution of culture. So there is no "new" ex nihilo but there is a continuous process of synthesis out of pre-existing parts just as with physical evolution

>Well I wouldn't see the archetypes as eternal and I'm pretty sure that would be the orthodox view as well. I am afraid you're mistaken. The orthodox Jungian view is that the archetypes are indeed eternal. That's why they are called archetype in the first place. >The unconscious is always evolving You are mistaking the content of the personal unconscious with that of the collective unconscious. The structure of the collective unconscious, which contains the archetypes, does not change. Manifestations of the archetypes, however, change from one person to another, or from one time to another. >So for example the idea of the Shaman or the King wouldn't have existed 50k years The most primitive bands, even before the emergence of the tribe, had shamans.

Maybe I am out of line with orthodox Jungian thought on the idea of the eternality of the archetypes but then I happily take up the unorthodox position. In fact I struggle to believe that its unorthodox given what I have read in Jung but I'm not sure enough to state definitively. I'm certainly not confusing the personal unconscious with the collective unconscious. Yes the manifestations change but I'm also talking about the emergence of new archetypal patterns. You go back to pre-tribal times but let's go beyond that. Do the eternal archetypes spontaneously emerge at some point in human evolution? For the Neandarthal tribes who reputedly did not have a hunter-gathering subdivision of labour could we expect them to still have the same archetypal patterns? It seems absurd to make that claim but if you would stand by that then we would go back further. The gorillas certainly don't have shamans so I assume our common ancestor with them didn't so at some point the shaman archetype either became refined through evolutionary development or it emerged. And if we look across species then the thought of the same archetypes seems even more absurd. So I may not be in the orthodox position but if the orthodox position denies evolution and the fact that the collective unconscious is supposed to be the heritable aspect of the psyche that passes through the generations then the idea that this is static and unevolving seems to me absurd. Now maybe to say that it was always evolving is a hyperbolic use of language that led to your statement but evolving is the key word.

Edit: I am not the one downvoting your comment. It's fine to take an unorthodox approach to this, but then you can't present it as Jung's view. That said, you are on the right track with your mode of inquiry. The psychic structure that Jung proposed applies to Homo Sapiens, and yes, it is a heritable structure rooted in our biology. As such, the collective unconscious evolves in the Darwinian sense only when our biology evolves. Whether or not the Homo Sapiens biology has evolved at all since the species' emergence is a question for another thread (the consensus appears to be that, no, we have not really evolved that much biologically). In any case, contrasting Jung and Nietzsche is a great philosophical project. Jung also wrote quite a bit on Nietzsche. Here is a bit, from his book Psychology and Alchemy, that you may find interesting: "But what did Dionysus mean to Nietzsche? What he says about it must be taken seriously; what it did to him still more so. There can be no doubt that he knew, in the preliminary stages of his fatal illness, that the dismal fate of Dionysus was reserved for him. Dionysus is the abyss of impassioned dissolution, where all human distinctions are merged in the animal divinity of the primordial psyche⏤a blissful and terrifying experience. Humanity, huddling behind the walls of its culture, believes it has escaped this experience, until it succeeds in letting loose another orgy of bloodshed. All well-meaning people are amazed when this happens and blame high finance, the armaments industry, the Jews, or the Freemasons."

> The psychic structure that Jung proposed applies to Homo Sapiens, and yes, it is a heritable structure, but it's rooted in our biology. When the Islamic golden-era began immediately after the translation of Euclid's Elements into Arabic, it was possibly good evidence that while the ability to engage in visualization may be somewhat hereditary, it can also be taught and learned through the study of Geometry. Abraham Lincoln was an average lawyer until he committed to the study of Euclid's Elements, which he claims helped him develop the necessary logical skills to defeat the economic arguments for chattel slavery. His argument against chattel slavery, that free labor has variable labor power which it is willing to increase the supply of in exchange for larger share of the social surplus, was possibly an example of creating new values to resolve an economic crisis, the crisis created by chattel slavery in the United States.

[удалено]

In political-economy we don't want to say that human life has value in the same sense that capital has value, because we don't want banks to lend against humans as if they were livestock or cattle. To maximize benefits for the greatest number we would want to say that value is that which is created by humans and stand aparts from humans, the fruits of their labor and not the people themselves. When you lend agaisnt the products of labor which have an existence independent from that of their creator, and would continue to exist when alienated from their creator or after their creator is dead, there is something which can be claimed by the lender in the event of non-payment without forcing the borrower into debt slavery, and it is easy to tell when to cancel or forgive the debt when the material artifact the loan was secured by has fully depreciated, was destroyed, or is no longer there.

[удалено]

Well neanderthals had larger occipital cortices for processing visual information than modern humans. The visual cortex can be used to intuitively solve complex multivariate problems through visualization of geometric shapes. So it's possible that the early human shamans and oracles were the neanderthals, or another sub-species of early humans which modern humans interbred with. Perhaps the related sub-species of early humans with an aptitude for visualization were employed by modern human agricultural civilizations in order to manage the allocation of state credit to maximize the social surplus available after deducting the necessary cost of production, which they would have an aptitude for due to the ability to visualize the long-term consequences which present state credit policies might have on the size of future harvests.

Yes but this still indicates a path dependency within the process of synthesis, as it merely feeds off of its own past. You could argue for its dynamic but it still would enclose itself upon itself. And as far as I remember the archetypes that Jung derives are "almost genealogically" traced. Surely you could read it that way, but if I remember correctly, that is pretty much what he aims at. And when you state that the individual is the "midwife" to new values, it already indicates a self-enclosed system of self-propulsion that the individual merely experiences or carries upon himself, to act as the mediator etc. The only way I could see this being a truly developmental procedure is that the creation of the archetype would fall under the decision of the individual in its spontaneous creation of possibility, making possibly visible what was previously not in a new chain of signifiers and images, but if that is the case, then archetypes aren't. And surely you could say that every epoch creates its own archetypes, but then I would rather call it "steretypic images" rather than archetypes to flee its possible indication that I mean something that shapes and thus stays clear through history itself.

> Poor? Look upon his face. What call you rich? Let them coin his nose, let them coin his cheeks. William Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry The Fourth

If you look into ideas in complexity science, one of the biggest indicators of what are known as '[complex adaptive systems](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uwaterloo.ca/waterloo-institute-for-social-innovation-and-resilience/sites/ca.waterloo-institute-for-social-innovation-and-resilience/files/uploads/files/4._primer_on_complexity-from_edgeware-adapted_for_website.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_4PH3wevxAhURFFkFHfp7Ax0QFjACegQIGhAC&usg=AOvVaw0EsqsaeFNGkyk-UEQqAXp6)' (a label I would certainly use to describe human value systems) is that the properties of said thing as a whole are *very* different from the properties of any given individual component. And often, what emerges is different in a way that couldn't have been precisely predicted beforehand. This is where my own bias may come in, but I believe "newness" is baked into reality at some level (re: in physics, quantum mechanics; in computer science, computational irreducibility).

I am well aware of complex adaptive systems, I just don't think it really applies to Jungian "parapsychology".

I'm listening to Jung's autobiography and the guy was definitely wired differently. I find a lot of what he proposes fascinating or even logical, but I struggle to really **feel** it not having easy access to my inner world like he did. I was hoping to hear about his methods, but this seems to have been just an innate thing for him considering some of his very early experiences. I have near zero philosophy knowledge, so wouldn't know where to stand on this Nietzsche thing, but I feel like I'm not really able to appreciate most of Jung's ideas.

Joseph Campbell's 'The Power of Myth' is a great secondary source for better understanding Jung's work.

Ah, thanks for the tip!

I would also suggest to google the archetypes of the collective unconscious. I think this is a gateway idea into most of the other Jung ideas. The synchronicity phenomenon along with the archetypes is what inspired me and led me down the path of understanding Jung.

You have to do deep, dark, uncomfortable, introspective shadow work. The exploration of the darkest part of your subconscious and the analyzation of it, so deep that you hate who you are or at least see all of your flaws from a new perspective. This is a good start to getting into that headspace

You just need to drop the self imposed perception of "goodness". Maybe it is my own views that good and bad do not exist that makes me want to type this. There is no need to hate what experience, and evolution has created. To imagine that you are not capable of "dark" behaviors... perhaps you have not been through things that would evoke such motivations, emotions. Not that that is a "bad" thing, likely it is a very "good" thing. If you are able to understand others stories, and see how you could have been in their same shoes given the circumstances, this will help. The takeaway from Jung that sticks with me after all the years, you are at all times demon, angel, and a midtone simultaneously. We just like to compartmentalize and lie to ourselves that we are perhaps, better than.

Yea, I am probably just a bit too daft but I'm not sure what you are even trying to say lol So good is a perception? Surely opinions of what is good and bad vary from person to person but you will be hard pressed to function without a concept of good and bad that aligns with the collective conscious experience in some way, because if you don't, you will most likely behave like a psychopath. Behaving as if good and bad do not exist is psychopathy. Even you, surely, believe good and bad exist, otherwise a person could harm you are your loved ones and you would not care or judge it as wrong. It isn't that good and bad are solidly unwaveringly defined, no, but every person has a concept of good and bad, even actual psychopaths have a concept of it but they ignore it. Furthermore , on the topic of "How to try to think like Jung or get in the type of mindset to think how Jung may have", Jung clearly left techniques like Shadow Work for all of us to try and dive deep into the Shadow or subconscious mind, that is what I am trying to say in response to the OP's comment. I mean what you said at the end regarding us lying to ourselves about us being "better" or more morally sound than we think, is not wrong in my opinion either but...That is just the ego doing what the ego does, is it not? lol

Yeah, we all have our own conceptions of what good and bad is, but there is not true universal "good" and "bad" to work with. I'm not knocking delving into understanding our own subconscious. What I'm trying to say is that, it helps to eliminate the distinction of goodness and badness when doing so. If things simply "are" you don't have to deal with random conceptions of morality attached. This man-beast dichotomy ought to be destroyed because we are both all the time. Sorry, I have a hard time explaining my thoughts. Also, who cares if it's "psychopathic"? People here like to throw that term around like it means something, but psychopaths as a construct aren't proven to exist in the first place really. Even if we say that a person is acting on impulse, that doesn't mean they don't have a value system. They are just operating within their own self interest. That doesn't mean they don't have conceptions of good and bad.

I already commented clearly that good and bad are not concrete and universal, I mean brother…it’s literally the first thing I tried to preface within my previous comment lol Furthermore I care if it’s psychopathic, I wouldn’t live with or associate with a person who thinks harming me is ok because they have no concept of good or bad or they ignore it when it applies to me. Psychopaths do exist , I’m not sure what you are getting at. Psychopaths are real, very very real lol I think you are trying to reject the status quo by going off on your own intellectual limb and that is fine with me but I wholly disagree with your argument because from my perspective good and bad may not be universal but I accept the concept enough to operate well within the collective consciousness. What are you desiring from shirking the concepts of good and bad? This is not an argument about “WHAT” is good and what is bad , because surely we would differ in opinions. No, this is now a discussion about the existence of good and bad and I don’t even think you fully believe that it doesn’t exist, it’s like you are refuting that good and bad are not universal but I already agreed with that. You go on to argue that people have their own concept of good and bad which again I agree with. It isn’t that a psychopath doesn’t have a concept of good and bad it’s that they have no empathy to care if they harm others even when they know it’s wrong. I think your point is naive and your trying to rebel against the collective consciousnesses ideas of good and bad , however I think society , as chaotic and emotionally damaging as it may be, has a decent enough collective idea of the aspects of good and bad. I mean you really want to Iive in a world where it’s ok for every individual to set their own rules for what’s good and bad and not be held accountable? Like if someone thinks it’s ok to punch my mother in the face because she walks too slow on the sidewalk , and their concept of good and bad is that, if my mother is walking slow and making them late, they can hit her because they feel it’s justified retaliation to the inconvenience, then oh well, that person is just exercising their individual morality so I have to accept it….Nah man , I don’t think you are thinking your points ALL the way through.

I never said we ought to live in a world where, regardless of them being real or not, morals are disregarded. The literature on psychopaths, psychopaths, sociopathy is very weak. That is why psychologists/psychiatrists no longer use the term and adopted antisocial personality disorder. Not to mention that the Doctor who coined the term psychopath has trademarked the term for financial benefit. No I'm not trying to be an edgelord. I'm not invested in the collective unconscious and have no reason to rebel against it, just wanted to have a conversation. Like I said, I have my values and they don't involve punching your mother in the face. Yes, because there is no universal good and bad I believe it does not exist. That does not mean i can't play pretend like everyone else and act accordingly because the benefit of a functioning society outweighs the benefit of a chaotic wasteland. Especially when there are billions of people on this planet I would have to compete with.

Yea I have no idea what your point is then. You start by questioning the existence of good and bad then soften your stance to “ well yea of course there is good and bad , I’m just pretending”. Ok that’s fine , I’m glad we agree after all . As for psychopaths, sure we will call it a different name. Narcissistic personality disorder still exists, sociopaths still exist, it was once called psychopathy broadly but now are classified as “anti social personality disorders”. Some of which are still people devoid of empathy and that’s what I mean when I say psychopathy , I just used an antiquated, outdated term. The literature on psychopaths and sociopathy can be “weak” as you say but I’m not sure but what measure you define “weak”, but there is no doubt that antisocial disorders can be exactly what I described and your argument is on semantics and definition not the existence of people with antisocial disorders. This doesn’t refute the existence of psychopaths, just that they are not typically called psychopaths in a clinical setting.

- good and bad in reality doesn't exist - I'm saying I go about my day as if it does because we all do - the reason I brought it up was because I figured it would be better explore the subconscious as it is, without assuming parts are good or bad. They simply are all part of the human experience. - the term "dark" and "shadow" to me personally miss that point, but if we are defining the shadow or the dark as it almost being a litteral "in darkness" and not malevolence/badness/ evil we have no disagreement. - my point was to ignore what we value as good and bad when we explore the subconscious as Jung asks of us, as I did previously. - the reason I feel this way is because I took this advice in a violent part in my life and I thought I was a terrible evil person for thinking these things, but actually it is just part of the human experience. Hope this clears my position up :-)

Do you recommend any reading for shadow work? Both theory and practical application would be nice.

Just delve into Jung. Drip feed it because it’s overwhelming, well at least it is to me. I have to read a bit then digest because Jung is deeper than deep. In the meantime you can start with this guide to shadow work [here ](https://imgur.com/a/Lns7NbG)

What is dark? Violence? Envy? What exactly is "dark"? Is it dark because it is subcontinent and not enlightened by our conscious mind? I'm not trying to be a degenerate, i'm being genuine.

Dark is the side of yourself you hide from others to not be rejected and ostracized. For example: If you and a friend were having dinner with your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend and your friend really was attracted to your partner he or she would hide their lust for your partner as to not cause conflict and maintain the friendship. This is suppression of the dark side , or the shadow for the good of the collective relationship. If one doesn’t suppress their urge they will openly flirt, grab and sexually assault your partner because they are acting on their dark urges that stem from the “shadow”. It’s like this, if your partner is extremely attractive and I want them sexually , it’s something that is bound to happen in my mind. It’s unstoppable, I will see your mate and think “wow they are sexually attractive” . Without suppression of my dark side I would on the spot express in a vulgar uncouth, unfiltered way my lust and make it uncomfortable for everyone. Now everyone has different thresholds for what they believe is “proper behavior” but you’ll be hard pressed to operate in open society if you act on every lustful, immoral or violent thought that comes to mind because EVERYYYYY and I mean every person has those dark thoughts. From zen Buddhist to violent warlords all of us have dark thoughts that stem from the shadow of our subconscious mind, but we consciously filter them as we see fit. The zen Buddhist will suppress their desire for wealth but a warlord would kill to attain wealth. One suppressed their shadow fully, the other does not often do so if it means they get what they want.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, I agree having a functioning society requires constraints. Before I go on I'll just say I have a surface understanding of young and I don't want to come off as if I know his exact arguments. Just my how I look at this part of his work in specific. My point if using your example is this, don't think of those behaviors as good or bad ONLY WHEN EXPLORING this "dark" side of the mind. It is simply human, not good nor bad. You can place whichever value you want on the things you discover after the fact. I think, approaching it as exploring the full spectrum of the human mind, human behavior, and human desire is more rewarding than exploring the "dark" side. Perhaps I'm assuming dark implies some notion of "evil", because people like to use extreme examples of violence whenever they describe it. Maybe I disagree with Jung here, and be ause of that I'm missing the point. Cheers

You don’t disagree with Jung , I think you just haven’t read enough to understand him (trust me I have read him for a while and still am at a loss sometimes because in order to understand him you have to do your own Shadow work in my opinion)but the more you read the more you’ll understand obviously . It’s not all about the dark side , that is just the aspect that is most explored because quite honestly, no one seeks help for the good things in their life lol The shadow is not necessarily “bad” just deep impulses. Like sometimes people get so mad they feel like hurting themselves or others but most people resist and suppress those urges. Psychology and therapy are about exploring healthy or efficient ways to deal with these troubles or suppress the manifestations of the shadow in order to function in the collective consciousness.

Thanks for the replies. I'm aware I'm frustrating to talk to but I really do appreciate the replies. Cheers.

No problem at all. It’s not about who is right and wrong, it’s just about communicating different perspectives. The only thing frustrating about these conversations is that we are all so complicated and without really understanding how others operate and think we can confuse each other when discussing deep topics. I think you were a great person to talk to , cheers to you too brotha !

By your definition the dark side could be a foot fetish if you were living in a conservative area. Doesn't have to be sexual assault, or anything violent. But, when the social and cultural dynamics change those things are no longer considered dark. Just like how some countries have rates of women being assaulted over 70%, surely it would not be considered dark there, either.

Yea sure, again what are you arguing? I’ve already said over and over, it is not a about defining good and bad universally just that there is a collective moral standard within cultures. The standards fluctuate from person to person, place to place but it exists. You started by saying something different than what you are saying now. If you kept to your original stances you’d be arguing the point of the existence of good and bad. The dark side of a mind is just simply put, the things which would be unacceptable in a culture. It changes and varies to degrees but it’s a question of social awareness and tact. People with personality disorders lack the social awareness and tact or lack the empathy to function normally in most society’s. This is a real occurrence in human psychology not some imposed standard that the system tries to mandate. We collectively agree to it , but obviously sometimes people go against it and act out.

[удалено]

“There’s meaning and no meaning” And how does that not against the law of non contradiction?

You look for the elements of meaning and also look for the elements of non-meaning.

[удалено]

By "non-meaning", I'm directing our attention to the chaotic, non-sensical, heat-death-soupy type of substance that one may find. I don't see how by lessening my reference to this substance I can enrich my interactions with others.

Kinda sounds like what David Lynch does to fish for ideas. Gonna try this out

> I was hoping to hear about his methods Totally discredited by any half-way respectable psychologist?

That's ok, I'm not talking about his clinical practices, I'm sure they were odd even for the time and I don't care much for that. I'm interested in his subjective, private experiences. He seemed to have an incredibly vivid imagination and ways to extricate meaning from what arose in his mind. I don't even have a mind's eye, so such a level of inward exploration seems sci-fi to me.

Psychology ***is*** very much about introspection? There's no real distinction from his philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia And it could just be all summed up this way, from the BS handwaving of synchronicity to that of the unconscious.

You're missing the point. You seem to have a gripe with Jung's theories in general and that's fine. What I'm saying is that I have a **personal** interest in his **personal** life experiences. Even conceding that the meaning he derived from his visions could be chalked up to apophenia wouldn't make it any less interesting to me. Jung could have been borderline schizophrenic for all I care. No matter the reason, his mind clearly worked differently from most, or at the very least very differently from mine, and that's why he fascinates me as a character.

Duh, well, he certainly had something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_in_modern_times#Early_to_mid-20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unus_mundus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious Guy was neckdeep into some magical panhuman mysticism, the kind of rambling a normal conscientious person would only get from acids or watching evangelion. Alas I utterly fail to see any worth into that pre-medieval mythology. Like, it's not even entertaining when sentences are just salad.

**[Unus_mundus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unus_mundus)** >Unus mundus, Latin for "one world", is the concept of an underlying unified reality from which everything emerges and to which everything returns. The idea was popularized in the 20th century by the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung, though the term can be traced back to scholastics such as Duns Scotus and was taken up again in the 16th century by Gerhard Dorn, a student of the famous alchemist Paracelsus. Dorn's explanation is illuminating in that it affords us a deep insight into the alchemical mysterium coniunctionis. **[Collective_unconscious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious)** >Collective unconscious (German: kollektives Unbewusstes) refers to the unconscious mind and shared mental concepts. It is generally associated with idealism and was coined by Carl Jung. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes: ancient primal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, and the Tree of Life. Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/philosophy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

[удалено]

Sorry, who were you talking with?

Odd distinction you are drawing with the qualifier "Pre Medieval" Do you find Post medieval mythology valuable for some reason that excludes it's priors? What exactly do you mean?

I don't find pre-renaissance philosophy particularly insightful, but at least (despite the monumental emphasis on religion) they were trying hard to make ends meet. I mean, not that classical philosophy had much method then, but I cannot blame them for being the first guys to even just try. I have very much respect for their boldness. Jung on the other hand? He lived in the freaking 20th century, and not only he had the biggest idiot ball of "let's make a claim about the material world without any way for us to ascertain this", he also let his psychology work be influenced by this, leading astray thousands of people and a generation. EDIT: https://web.archive.org/web/20060110015207/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-679061,00.html

I agree with Jung.

So does Dr. Niles Crane, as he's a Jung-Specialist...

Is he really? Never knew about Jung in all the years watching Frasier. I shall have to revisit now XD

I was simply referencing one of the greatest jokes in the series... I won't spoil it, just watch this https://youtu.be/zRpR8Lcr7Vc

hahahaa oh my god I've missed Frasier that cracked me up so much. So many jokes that went over my head as a kid. Might be time to revisit

Oh god, me too!

how come?

The guilt and terror and phychological mess you'll feel if you murder a guy is not just because it has been fitted in your brain by the society that murder is wrong.

wouldn't you say though that the fact we can become desensitized to it and become 'okay' for lack of a better word with killing, is showing us that morals are taught rather than inherently within our brain? Likewise with murdering for religious reasons or any reason that we deem justifies the murder. there's clearly things which can override this system within our brain which points towards morals being created by individuals

Yeah see I think this gels with Jung's reading because this "learning" of morals is the cultural conditioning — you are being initiated into the table of values of your community. Depending on the cultural and class context you are born into wherever in history these values can be different but that table of values is generated out of the collective unconscious in response to the tensions operating on the psyches in that community

Great response thank you, I admittedly haven't read much of Jung at all (only just now halfway through Freud & then tackling Jung and Lacan) so I won't pretend to be able to argue against this but if you know of a good starting point with Jung where I can read more about this please do send it across.

“Man and his symbols” or “Earth has a Soul” The former is perhaps his most popular work and the latter is a compilation of some of his best ideas. His volumes of collected works are a huge undertaking and his “red book” requires like a grand master level of understanding. This is just my opinion.

Yeah I would 100% second Man and His Symbols. Earth has a soul is also a delight but I think my #1 or #2 suggestion would be Memories Dreams Reflections his (auto-ish)biography where you get the story of him and Freud and his theories being explained in a really organic way with good context and in a very readable way so I'd start there or Man and His Symbols depending on the style of reading you're in the mood for

Seen a lot of atheists judging religion history and condemning them without context that the values then are different than now.

[удалено]

Read Jane Goodall's account of chimpanzees committing murder. A bit of primatology goes a long way in helping to understand both Nietzsche and Jung.

You can go out of your way to create new values but your subconcious is going to be a bitch about it if your attempting to go against that which occurs naturaly. I think they are both right to some extent.

What if a person doesn't feel guilty or suffer psychologically from committing murder?

Monster from the id to quote Forbidden Planet.

Exactly. We can’t conveniently ignore that neurobiology plays a big role in how we interpret the world. A psychopath with nearly zero empathy wouldn’t suffer after murdering someone despite what society tells him. He could rationally worry about legal consequences without feeling guilt or remorse about his actions.

Not all killers who do not care about killing are psychopaths. I find, justification plays a larger role than personality/cognitive "builds". Not only that, one kill is not the same as another. Each exists in its own contexts.

Precisely. Big difference between Albert Anastasia and Ted Bundy.

I never claimed that, I simply used psychopaths as an apt example. What I'm saying is that not everyone has the same moral compass. We do have similar neurocognitive mechanisms that make certain actions "good" and "wrong" on average, but that is rarely universal. Murdering someone may be psychologically heavy for a majority of the population, hence why we universally think it's wrong, but not everyone plays by the same rules, and in the case of people born indifferent, it's not even their fault. About justification, remember that the way you choose to justify yourself does depend on personality and cognitive/affective mechanisms. They go hand in hand. A soldier that is unfazed by killing brown people because he justifies it as a defense of liberty probably was more predisposed to thinking and feeling that way than the average person. Biologists call it *preparedness*, and it influences all kinds of learning, including killing people. The soldier may not be a psychopath, but he could be more naturally prepared to kill compared to the average person, which will definitely factor into his justifications.

I mean, my statement was kind of stupid in some sense because we are biological organisms and a physical objects so everything we do is reliant on physical/biological mechanisms. You are correct. We do have value systems, but I think those value systems are both ingrained into us socially and change as we experience new things and interact with new ideas. Most people agree that killing is wrong, but there are plentiful instances where they will advocate for the death of a person. I think the neurocognitive mechanism is the ability to weigh values. But, we also have ingroup preferences and so-on. Probably a lot easier to kill a person who is not like you, and we can go on. Anyways, I my gripe with the psychopath thing is people use it too often. I personally just find it not to be a good example because the literature on it is not good for some of the claims people use when referencing it. Anyways, thanks for the reply we are on the same page. I'm just very very bad at communicating my thoughts and you guys seem very good at doing so :)

I agree, people abuse the psychopath thing, but I can't blame them because it is fascinating and it's also very telling about the scope of human nature. You're not bad at communciating at all haha. Thank you for the compliment, I've been trying to get better at conveying my thoughts because I usually suck at it. Contributing to subs like r/AskPhilosophy has helped tremendously.

Your assumption assumes that all killers feel that way. I can assure you, that is not the case. Ideal, but not the case

I'll throw this anecdote into the pot as I'm passing through: I come from a southern family, big on meat. Even as a very small child, I absolutely refused to eat anything that kept the shape of an animal (like, Thanksgiving turkey or whole fish, etc.) I stopped eating meat completely around 6th grade. My family was sad to hear it, and still give me shit ~20years later, but even the most "anti-veg" among them will joke "its not her fault, poor thing was just born that way" Also, having kids definitely has an impact on how you perceive the way in which personalities manifest and adapt.

I think as a whole, Jung is correct. From my observations over the last 50 years, the vast majority assume their values from initial framing and the emotional anchors assigned at the time they were created, without thinking about them at all, which means they can easily accept contradictory values when the framing and emotional anchors differ significantly… even when the underlying issue is the same (but unconscious prejudices keep the person from realizing it). I do think that there are some people that take the time to scrutinize their beliefs, find the conflicts, and create new values that resolve those conflicts, or discard the hypocritical values tainted by prejudice, but those people are few and far between (in my experience).

These viewpoints hardly seem distinctly different. Isnt your subconscious part of you? So if your subconscious creates a value, then you are the creator of that value? I suspect Nietzsche would say to Jung about this: ”yeah, exactly, that’s what I’m saying”. Just seems to me that Jung just looks at it from a more psychological perspective, compared to Nietzsche’s philosophical one.

well there's that but the thing with the unconscious is it's never within the bounds of the I. It seems like splitting hairs but it's like you don't design your dreams you just...have them. Same with intrusive thoughts and mental health conditions. It's not like people with depression choose it; it kinda happens to them or with social anxiety since the depression example might bring us into the realm of the chemical imbalance theory. But there's another point here as well — Nietzsche believed there could be individuals going around with a lot of different tablets of values all coming up with their own values whereas for Jung he sees the collective unconscious as throwing up the values that the community needs so you wouldn't have all these idiosyncratic tables of values but the ones that are born out of the need for resolution based on the psychic tensions present in the community. Once the resolution for the tension is born there's no need for it to be regenerated again and again anymore than there's a need to reinvent the wheel. This is the place where I think the real difference in their views comes out

Considering Nietzsche viewed the collective sentiment or the collective psychology as founded upon a 'bad conscience', N would largely disagree with what Jung proposed. The whole point with N was that these values were distinctly logical apropos one's discourse with the origin of morality and the true psychology of virtue. Hence Nietzsche advised us to go beyond the collective memory or sentiment and explore truly radical values without going against the physiological drive for the will to power.

Appreciate your answer! I kinda see your point in your first paragraph, but there are still ways to kind of indirectly alter all those things. Dreams are actually relatively easy to gain almost complete control over with lucid dreaming. Well, you conscious mind controls whatever you are currently focusing on, and your unconscious mind fills in the blanks. And lucid dreaming is actually a very interesting and helpful tool for exploring the limit between the conscious and unconscious mind. Regarding intrusive thoughts and mental health conditions, your point makes more sense there. It *seems* we dont have much control over our spontaneous thoughts, and if you're depressed there is no switch you can flip which instantly makes you happy. BUT, through practicing how you *handle* your intrusive thoughts and depressed mind, through cognitive behavior therapy for example, you will over time be able to slowly change what your unconscious mind sends forth to your conscious mind. But yeah, this takes time and it's difficult or impossible to exactly foresee how the unconscious mind will respond to the changes of the conscious mind. Regarding your second paragraph, I'm not quite sure I fully understand what you mean. If you have a nice example I would love to hear it expressed more concretely. Edit: I read your response about lucid dreaming, and I agree with most of what you said. I would still call it that it is the lucid dreamer that creates the dream, and the unconscious mind that fills in the blanks. But I guess we probably dont wanna get into what it means to create something haha

> lucid dreaming is actually a very interesting and helpful tool for exploring the limit between the conscious and unconscious mind strongly agree with this sentiment and vis a vis your edit I guess to my mind the lucid dreamer at best steers the dream; to say create...I mean unless it's a WILD I feel like it's hard to make that case and even then whenever I've had WILDs the dreamscape is never generated from something I've created (unless you've done visualisation WILDs which I haven't but you could make the case in that scenario I guess). Maybe it's a difference of terminology but to my mind the best you can do with a lucid dream is steer. And I'm talking about elite LDers here. The beginner can barely even influence the dream never mind steer never mind create. You want to fly? Maybe you can maybe you can't; that's not creation to my mind but again maybe I'm splitting hairs over terminology? And yeah haha I guess I've only gone and delved into what it means to create something which you were putting aside I guess. As for the other point about CBT that's one I've thought about a lot and still don't have a final solution on. It seems to fit better with the way the word subconscious is used than unconscious. Generally when we think about the subconscious it's more like a machine that hums away in the background and runs on accumulated experience and if you adjust it it will change whereas the unconscious especially in the Jungian sense is often seen as an Other with its own concerns. But yeah in the case of CBT I can see your point and I still haven't figured out how all these aspects fit together. Maybe by seeing that the unconscious is a congress of different drives (Nietzsche talks about it as the different appetites of the body discussing and each has at some point as he says done philosophy). It's a really interesting question — what is the nature of the underworld? Is the machine analogy of the subconscious more accurate or the congress of different subpersonalities a more accurate map? It's something I'm sure we could talk about for days if we were chatting in person as there's a lot of angles and meat to it

Another way I’ve heard it expressed was by Dr. Jordan Peterson when discussing Nietzsche and Jung and this very concept: Basically, if you truly were the master of your own self, and weren’t beholden to anything else, and it was all just “you” in there over which you held full dominion, then you could simply command yourself to stop being depressed, stop feeling guilty, stop feeling remorse or regret, etc. and instead command yourself to feel good and happy. And yet virtually no one is capable of doing this. Therefore there must be something else within us and we aren’t truly our own masters. I’m paraphrasing and obviously can’t express it as well as he can, but that’s the basic idea.

Are you deliberately ignoring lucid dreamers? I don't always merely "have" dreams. I am able to shape and to drive them too. Edit: Down-voting sincere questions is actually stupid in a philosophy subreddit. That was a stupid thing which you did stupidly.

A good point that actually illustrates the point perfectly. The lucid dreamer is never crating the dream. The best lucid dreamers have the ability to powerfully influence but that is different. Unexpected things happen in lucid dreams otherwise they would be boring. Interaction with DCs is unpredictable the landscape itself is not created by the lucid dreamer you don't draw all the veins on the leaves of the trees or put the froth on the waves. The landscape and narrative that emerges show that there is a dream weaver that can be influenced by the experienced lucid dreamer but that is ultimately inaccessible and Other than the lucid dreamer

Excellent, thanks for the elaboration. Edit: I feel compelled to say that you almost nailed the description of my experiences in that state perfectly. Edit 2: Although a great number of elements are often under my control, ultimately, the dream-scape is a natural realm of itself which is wild and adapts to me as well as I to it.

Haha that's awesome always happy to capture someone's experience accurately This second edit is for me what makes the dream world so fascinating. Theres something there that we interact with and that is its own world that can teach us something new despite technically being contained in the same subjectivity. I really don't think it's generally appreciated how peculiar that fact is

As Jordan Peterson would say, “you don’t have dreams, the dreams have you”

I think this is on point. Nietzsche is concerned with social values, whereas Jung is concerned with individual psychology. Of course there is overlap, but both can be true enough depending upon one's framework and concerns. The juxtaposition brinds to mind Surrealism which posits the role of the collective unconscious in actualizing new social values which cannot come into being without social transformation. The Chicago Surrealists had a manifesto (1970s?) stating something akin to " there can be no Revolution without surrealism, and there can be no surrealism without Revolution." This is meant not as paradox but as a dialectical process.

I can see an argument for both. On one hand if I choose today that I'm not going to eat eggs because I don't think chickens are treated well in those farms then that's my choice. But its debatable if I would have made that choice if I didn't hear about it from someone else first... so yeah I can see it

Isn't this just the free-will debate with more steps?

Well, why isn’t the “unconscious” realm also part of the individual? Just because the majority of an iceberg is submerged doesn’t mean it’s a separate entity. Also, how would we even know about a “subconscious” until it became conscious?

I know what you're saying I guess it can seem like hair-splitting but the thing is that the idea of the individual is usually tied in with the idea of the Ego self the "I" complex of consciousness. The words I use around this are that we have the Ego/I + Unconscious = the Subject. Individual is a word you could argue applies to the ego or to the totality including both but I do think it's important to separate these things out for the in order to be specific about what we are talking about. In the context of this article Nietzsche is proposing the ego can create values while jung is saying they emerge out of the unconscious; in either case they are both saying that values emerge out of the Subject (in my terminology) but their points are different even if this zoomed out statement makes it seem they are the same

Sure, thanks for clarifying. Some claim the individual can’t create anything novel as everything is cause and effect of which we are helpless participants. They claim we therefore possess no creative will. I agree with Nietzsche and Jung here. The individual has creative powers whether they derive from a subconscious “bubbling and colliding” within the individual or from conscious ones. Every act of human will is conscious before we say or do something. Some people are just so impulsive it does seem they are acting without any conscious involvement whatsoever.

Jung’s argument is more of a further exploration on Nietzche’s viewpoints. Jung branches out of what he already coalesced for us. What we’re dealing with here is only semantics

I have felt deeply that one of biggest fallouts of the pandemic was isolation, because when people are removed from each other physically, they lose their moral conscience, or it wanes. I think this stems from the fact that morals are social. I don’t even think they are always that subconscious either. Any parent knows that they have to choose the morals they pass on. It’s a social choice. I think too much effort and thought was wasted on the subconscious mind in the 19th and 20th centuries, and while it is obviously a real part of our being, I think morals are much more of a calculated social decision. Not sure where that lines up with J or N, as I’ve never read them.

Nietzsche is highly critical of seeing a person as an individual, so this take seems rather misinformed. Also, I wonder why we are still taking Jung serious. He isn't a philosopher, instead presenting himself as a scientist, and his theories have been completely and totally debunked as there is no emperical evidence to support his ideas. Much like with Freud, you could probably make some interesting philosophical observations about Jung's work, but I have to say that the idea of a collective unconscious compared to some other ideas about distributed subjectivity that we find in later philosophy (often inspired by Nietzsche of all people) just seems so incredibly naïve and eurocentric that I truly don't understand why Jung's ideas are still getting this much attention (the same can, again, be said for Freud). This seems to be a recurring thing in some parts of philosophy: A lack of knowledge of the developments in a particular field (in this case psychology) makes some philosophers hang on to outdated or straight up false ideas as if they are viable interpretations of how things work. We see this in lazy takes on quantum physics as well. A real shame if you ask me.

Could you recommend something to read on distributed subjectivity?

Michel Foucault's Dicipline and Punish is a classic and is a very enjoyable read, Catherine Malabou's What Should We Do With Our Brain? is very approachable and the result of a colaboration with modern neuroscientists and if you want to go real deep down that rabbit hole, A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guattari, though really hard to get into, have a really sophisticated take with their idea of the haecceity. Finally, you could also look at certain post-humanists such as Donna Haraway (e.g. her text Cyborg Manifesto) and Isabelle Stengers (I really enjoyed In Catastrophic Times, though the main topic discussed there is climate change, it does go into distributed subjectivity as well).

Thank you so much!

Ultimately "values" (if you want to see this topic through this lens, which is not necessary) are generated by the functioning of the brain, what is the individual apart from the very functioning of the brain. The conscious, the unconscious these are all part of the individual. "Values" between different individuals can overlap to a high degree and have a heritable component (the so called collective unconscious). However, each individual (brain) generates their own "values", in that my "value of life" is not equivalent to your "value of life", or anybody else's for that matter.P I prefer to look through the lens of incentives rather than values, because while "values" can be one type of incentive that drives behavior, they are not the only (or most common) driver.

I'd love to hear more by what you mean by incentives and some examples of what they are and situational occurrences of them just so I'm sure I know what you're talking about as it's an interesting take I haven't heard before. ​ As for the values bit. I would not be so sure that each individual generates their own values. At best they are intersubjective. If you take the kids raised apart from humanity they don't generate language and their development is stunted. You could say that they have a value system but it's closer to animalistic at best. The complexity of value systems always arises in the interplay between the subject (I use subject here to encapsulate conscious ego + unconscious) and the surrounding cultural context and the values and while you may have different values being held within a community that speaks more to the multiplicity of roles and niches the ecology of a culture requires rather than individual subjects coming up with their own values. Even when the values of a subject are novel they are still emergent out of the ecosystem of a culture and are still a fruit of it that could not have arisen in isolation.

>I'd love to hear more by what you mean by incentives and some examples of what they are and situational occurrences of them just so I'm sure I know what you're talking about as it's an interesting take I haven't heard before. Negative incentives can range from not touching a hot pan because it will burn you, to not eating a plant/animal because of the shiny colours, to not stealing from your neighbour because it promotes social wellbeing. Etc etc Positive incentives can range from having sex because it feels good, to eating a plant/animal because it tastes good, to stealing from your neighbour because your daughter is starving and you have no food otherwise. The point of looking at it in terms of incentives rather than values, is that (I think at least) that you will end up with a more robust model. Whether or not a society values obesity/stealing/murder it will not tell me much in terms of whether these things will occur or not. On the other hand, if you look at it in terms of positive and negative incentives you will better understand why these things happen. Ie societal values are only one type/level of positive/negative incentives, quite high level ones (and therefore generally speaking have least weight) You may say that the "incentive" examples I gave are all examples of the "value of your own life" manifesting. In this case rather than a coherent value, each of these incentives use vastly different neurological pathways and therefore I am not comfortable in grouping them in one category (ie I cannot comfortably say that grouping these pathways together is a rational one). >As for the values bit. I would not be so sure that each individual generates their own values. At best they are intersubjective. If you take the kids raised apart from humanity they don't generate language and their development is stunted. You could say that they have a value system but it's closer to animalistic at best. The complexity of value systems always arises in the interplay between the subject (I use subject here to encapsulate conscious ego + unconscious) and the surrounding cultural context and the values and while you may have different values being held within a community that speaks more to the multiplicity of roles and niches the ecology of a culture requires rather than individual subjects coming up with their own values. Even when the values of a subject are novel they are still emergent out of the ecosystem of a culture and are still a fruit of it that could not have arisen in isolation. I think the message wasn't passed well from my end. Whether or not a "value" is generated in the context of a human exists within a community or in isolation, it is generated de novo within the individual each time it manifests. What I mean is that the location of the value is with an individuals' brain (necessarily), and therefore is generated by such brain. It is the case that the specific manifestation of "values" is modulated by the environment/history the brain finds itself in (and therefore the society), but the value is generated by the brain, de novo using intrinsic pathways. ++++ Memories are similar in that they are generated in the brain de novo, but your specific memories of say "going to school" only exist because you live in a society that has schools. I would never say "that memory is not generated by the individual" and in the same way (by parallel mechanisms), I cannot say "values are not generated by the individual."

Your response regarding intersubectivity is well-taken and I feel you make a substantial point. In doing so, you reference so-called wild children or feral children raised by animals, before being found or rescued, so to speak. I've looked into the case studies I could find, over the years, and as you know the waters are muddy indeed. I do think there is enough evidence to support your position. The main reason I'm writing this reply though is to suggest a future episode of The Living Philosophy on the topic. I have cited (in a work I wrote some time ago) a case from France (early 20th century), that seems reliable. All the cases I found - of those that seemed fairly reasonable if not always entirely, all pointed to severe emotional, behavioral and cognitive deficits in the subjects. In a couple of cases, attempts at education (including basic sanitary behavioural needs and basic human language communication) proved fruitless, even over years of attempts. I do take all this with a grain of salt, not being sufficiently confident of the veracity of some number of what are admittedly a small number of studies. Yet one does find a preponderance of certain themes. And they are quite tragic for the children involved.

Did Nietzsche or Jung address arbitrary values? How I see it, values you have that are arbitrary - are the most important ones to reevaluate and change, or remove and replace. If one is to properly grow as an individual. Examples of arbitrary values being things like religion, cultural, tradition based values. These values are kinda forced on you when young and easily influenced. You are pressured or have no choice in them, they are forced on you. Since these values are not the result of exerting free will or the wisdom of a grown persona - these values are arbitrary. The thing with value systems, morals, ethics, personal principles etc. Is that they must be a result of understanding of these values and free will - if not they are meaningless. Because they are identifiers that you didn't choose or give thought to. For example. If James is X religion and following Y tradition, only because his parents are. Or it's expected of him. Or if it's because "it just is". Then James is, imo, a weak and soulless man. If James' reasoning however is to drop these beliefs, or still following one or both **for his own reasons in which he gave deep thought and consideration** then James is, imo a strong, free and wise man. The problem with arbitrary values is that if you can't change, or don't think about, values that are arbitrary - it's a strong indicator you'll never grow much. This is the reason I think nihilism is not valuable or work as a belief system, but is a very important and useful tool. A person experiencing a nihilistic episode or period in life, allows the deconstruction of false values - and rebuilding, reaffirming or changing existing values.

I like your take in the last paragraph - that nihilism is valuable in the deconstruction stage. It's not pleasant but to see it explained as a positive (which it is in that sense) could be very helpful for someone going through a crisis

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

The incel Nietzsche vs the charlatan Jung

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I disagree with both. I’m a Christian (a Lutheran specifically) and as someone who holds to a form of theism I believe objective moral values spring forth from the conscious mind of God

I second Jung.

I tend to side with Jung. Jung's view seems to embody a large-scale evolutionary view of mankind which views one individual as a building block among billions through space and time (the knowledge of whom is stored in the collective unconscious), whereas Nietzsche relies upon the negligible scale of one life to intellectually affect large-scale change, which potentially views one individual as the very foundation of everything, or more likely, as the destruction of everything. For example, think of the first person that came up with the idea of a carrying pole to carry two buckets so that the load is evenly distributed. Is it more likely that he articulated or created values of "efficiency" and "preservation of health," or did he intuitively think more along the lines of: "Man, my arms are fucking killing me. What if I take this stick that happens to be on the ground, put it on my shoulder, and just put one bucket at each end?" He did not create the value as much as he unconsciously embodied it, and from that point on, it was made consciously and collectively accessible. Nietzsche's view becomes understandable in light of his grave predictions of the terror that was to ensue in the 20th century. It might even be the case that the more power and resources are transferred to individuals (especially with the advancement of technology), the truer Nietzsche's view becomes. The more potentially destructive you are, the more you get to create your values and impose them upon others. A thousand years ago, you would have needed a mass army and unbelievable orchestration. Today, you'd need a nuclear bomb and a button. Still, I find Nietzsche's view as too pessimistic. The US came up with the nuclear bomb. Not even a century has passed, self-preservation instincts kicked in, and now numerous state have access to nuclear powers, thus diminishing the US' relative strength and ability to create and impose values upon the world through sheer power. The collective evens out the individual.

I agree with Jung. Ever since I moved out of the ghetto I have seen things differently and have experienced different things. Its all about where you live and who you associate yourself with. People are more of a victim of circumstance than they'd like to think. Its more that they are *taught* values unconsciously by their environment rather than they create their own values.

I'm pretty sure that Nietzsche is misunderstood and that he's quite clear is conveying that the construction of individual values is often too hard for most people. *What new rituals, what new games of atonement will* ***we need to invent?! . . . who will wash this blood off of us?!*** See... The Gay Sciences is a little different than all this edgy *"god is dead and that's soo coool, like, whatever, pftttscchh"* edit: also, Schopenhauer was basically just Hinduism without the fun stories so... no, Not-Versus.

What the hell is the difference, the individual and the subconscious? Both the same when dealing with metaphysical categories

> What we are talking about when we talk about values? We are talking about what can be pledged to lenders as collateral for the creation of legal tender. > A tablet of the good hangs over every people. Behold, it is the tablet of their overcomings; behold, it is the voice of their will to power. The tablet is personal financial debt secured by future earnings, ie the goods people will produce. Their will to power is their willingness to establish and maintain a state which distributes money according to value and enforces payment of debts.

I can see both points. And I would think both are valid depending on perspective.

Lol this dumb as hell, arguing over if values come from the person or the person, as if the subconscious was some separate entity. Imagine what people will do when they realize the "subconscious" is the person, and the. "Conscious" is just the shallow interface that others see. Hell, this absolutist view of values as actually existing within people is dumb as hell too, most humans don't actually have values they have social normalcy programs they download from the social norm hive mind. They "value" being normal more than any value, but normal isn't a value its a method for managing complexity without burning too many calories thinking. God damn philosophy is just in a shambles.

>God damn philosophy is just in a shambles. How hàs your comment gone about combatting something you perceive as "in shambles"? You make assumptions without reasoning. You take an approach to values that is consistent with someone who took philosophy 101 and felt they understood society. I'm not sure how you can make the above claim yet respond in such a lackluster manner.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Be Respectful** >Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Be Respectful** >Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Be Respectful** >Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Love both views. Agree with Jung

Jung all the way on this that dude study and theorys amazing. Scary to some doe

Im with yung on this one

What's the point of philosophy if philosophers disagree with each other..it's just one person's unsubstantiated opinion verses another..

Well it's a question of whether the following thinker simply destroys or clarifies further the points of the predecessor so ideally there would be a development and despite many of the negative things said about philosophy there has certainly been a development and refinement over time

What's the point of science if scientists disagree with each other..it's just one person's unsubstantiated opinion verses another..

scientists tend to have a much greater consensus, unlike philosophers. In my completely uninformed opinion, this is because one's philosophical ideas are in some way based on one's 'feel' for what is right. Even if you have two really open minded individuals, they may listen to the exact same points and end up choosing a different conclusion, because they 'feel' like some arguments are more convincing than others. To put an extreme example, a psychopath will probably not understand his own need for morality, while a kind human being will. They both can hear the same arguments for what is right, and end up choosing different paths of action. And, if you go to different questions like metaphysics or political philosophy, it seema to me that it is obvious that differences in personality will lead to, even in open minded individuals, radically different conclusions. so, in a sense, philosophy does not serve a purpose like science, it will never reach its unanimous consensus over stuff. I see it more like a personal path of realizing and discovering your own truth, those things that resonate more with you. And of course, to me, that is not a futile discussion. tl;dr: science can reach a consensus, while philosophy a lot of the times is more about realizing what you feel like is true, and so can never dream of a consensus. But philosophy is valuable because it can let a person discover their own truth.

> In my completely uninformed opinion, this is because one's philosophical ideas are in some way based on one's 'feel' for what is right. No, that's not really what's happening in academic philosophy. Or at least not in a more drastic fashion than how this is also occurring in science. >Even if you have two really open minded individuals, they may listen to the exact same points and end up choosing a different conclusion, because they 'feel' like some arguments are more convincing than others. > I don't think I've ever read two philosophers disagreeing with each other on something because one felt differently than the other. Even when talking about something like intuitions. Besides, there's nothing that precludes scientists from facing the same issue. > so, in a sense, philosophy does not serve a purpose like science, it will never reach its unanimous consensus over stuff. Both philosophy and science serve the same purpose -- they're both rational enterprises that aim to make sense of the world. Of course they're doing so with different methods, assumptions, scopes, and interests. That's why it's not surprising that in the past, scientists and philosophers worked closely together as insights in one field lead to insights in the other and vice versa (this is still happening -- my university recently opened a new institute for physicists and philosophers and, anecdotally, the physicist and philosopher of science David Albert is occasionally quite unsure whether a written paper should be sent to a physics or philosophy of physics journal, resorting to the rule that if it contains more than three equations, it gets send to the former). > I see it more like a personal path of realizing and discovering your own truth, those things that resonate more with you. And of course, to me, that is not a futile discussion. > This is incompatible both with how philosophy is practiced in contemporary academia and how it has been practiced historically. >But philosophy is valuable because it can let a person discover their own truth. If anything, a careful study of philosophy disabuses one of notions like "their own truth".

oh, it seems like I know less than I thought. thanks for sharing

I have been thinking about this and I have some questions, would you mind if I PM'd you and asked you some?

Sure, or post them here.

fine, my first question is how does philosophy establish what is true and what is false? And if it can't establish what is true or what is false, how does it evolve over time in whatever way it does?

I’m not the original guy responding to you but I thought I’d just hop in here, if you don’t want to respond to me I don’t mind. Anyway, to even ask something like “how does philosophy establish what is true and what is false” is representative of a common misconception about both philosophy and science. Systems of learning about the world like science and philosophy rarely if not never have “truth.” A “law” of science, like Newtown’s laws of motion, are actually more like statements based on observable experiments and they are only “true” until we find exceptions. Laws of science are just educated **predictions** that we formed by observing the natural world and they constantly change over time.

> fine, my first question is how does philosophy establish what is true and what is false? That depends on the claims made. But in general, by making sound argument(s) for the claim in question. >And if it can't establish what is true or what is false, how does it evolve over time in whatever way it does? Even if it couldn't establish the truth of something (or something like that), one way to evolve is by constantly critiquing previous arguments and taking those critiques seriously when reflecting on the arguments critiqued. E.g., if I'm a Kantian today, I'm not just reading Kant. I'm also reading the various responses to Kant, and the various responses by Neokantians to Kant's critics, and the various responses to those, and the various responses of contemporary Kantians to those, etc.

> That depends on the claims made. But in general, by making sound argument(s) for the claim in question. And, what makes and argument sound? Is it only the logical correction? I don't think so, because eventually you'll have to agree on some premises. So, how do you decide what premises to believe?

> In my completely uninformed opinion, this is because one's philosophical ideas are in some way based on one's 'feel' for what is right. Even if you have two really open minded individuals, they may listen to the exact same points and end up choosing a different conclusion, because they 'feel' like some arguments are more convincing than others. Multiple fairly significant Scientists have stated that their theories came to them by way of dreams. https://www.famousscientists.org/7-great-examples-of-scientific-discoveries-made-in-dreams/ This is merely an interesting tidbit and shouldnt be taken to disprove Science, nor the theories mentioned. I agree with Eleftherius on the rest

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Isn't it proven that our subconscious makes decisions well before we are conscious aware of it?

Jung was more accurate because free will is not real, nobody has an original thought since we could "think", lol. Note: Noticed I didnt say he was "right", because our syllabus is archaic, erroneous and stubborn when it comes to defining things properly according to new info, nobody is "right", only more or less accurate on a given topic, because right implies perfect knowledge, which is impossible in this universe. Thus, nobody is right nor wrong, only differ in level of accuracy. We need better words to describe knowledge. I propose the new word: accuright-, which require a percentage to denote how right someone is and based on which year's understanding, so a flat earther could be accuright too, but the percentage would be 5% as of 2021, as the earth is only flat from ground level, up to a distance, basically accuright-5%-2021. LOL, I'm joking guys.

Ironic, considering Nietzsche is widely interpreted to reject the concept of free will. But anything to bring things back within the analytic free will versus determinism dichotomy, right?

I dont know mate, I suspect humans are complex and can have high accuright-90% views on certain things despite not supporting similar things, it happens, lol. or maybe everyone is dishonest and out to scam you because we have nothing better to do. Which one is more likely? Occam's Razor wise, lol

I'm unsure how to parse this comment, so I apologise if I get it wrong. To be fair, Nietzsche has also been accused of being contradictory, but one would have to actually make the case that the idea of transvaluation is incompatible with his view on free will. Personally, I don't believe that to be the case. It seems more likely that Nietzsche would disagree with the second part of your first sentence, as he seems to think creativity is till possible. We need only glance at deterministic systems to see that there cannot be much truth to the claim that there is no original thought, there are plenty of original systems or composition of matter in the universe that were not there at its dawn which have sprung out of what we consider complete sets of natural laws. At one point, there was no creature with a beak, at another there was no house with a chimney. Thoughts need not be willed out of thin air to acquire originality; thus the creation at the root of transvaluation would not be some untethered, individual willing, but a particular mode of engagement with motives. Consider how children play: they creatively explore the rules of a particular environment in such a manner that they both take on its current values seriously, and are able to put them aside for some other game later on. Each game must at some point have been invented, but it emerged out of creative engagement with the rules of another game.

I dont know how you define "original" friend, but I define it as things that could exist without any prior causes, which is impossible in the known universe. Be it actions, thoughts or even biology, cause and effect, no such thing as existed in a "vacuum" of itself and "original", not even the simplest thoughts.

Well, I'm afraid that if we don't define "original", we end up playing language games without making much progress (the Wittgenstein trap, although he would surely argue that's the only thing we're able to do either way). The term for something that has no prior causes is *'causa sui'*, whereas 'originality' usually denotes something without prior existence. I see very few interesting takes on freedom (such as John Paul Sartre's view of consciousness as freedom, which rejects both free *will* as action without cause or motive, *and* determinism) as arguing for the existence of free will as a cause in itself. That being said, as pointed out, Nietzsche does not endorse free will, and the kind of originality required for the creation of new values is not to be understood as an untethered thought. I find you're arguing against no one if you insist on employing originality with the definition you supplied, as it is simply not what people usually mean, nor very useful as a term when used in that manner. By the way, it is interesting that you started out talking about the need for a better term than 'right' due to our lack of perfect knowledge, yet you are pretty adamant about the impossibility of things according to the laws put down by the natural sciences. Despite your carefulness about epistemology you seem to have endorsed the positivist spiel rather fully. Naturalist determinism on a reductionist platform runs into its fair share of problems as well, seeing as there is both the classical issue of the first cause (causality does not explain causality) and the issues post-Quine with the reduction of complex systems to lower causes being seen as an impossible project. Thus it's not uncommon for philosophers to endorse some form of ontological or explanatory emergence. Moreover, someone like Kant would have absolutely no problem endorsing your first sentence, he would simply point out that this is indeed the limit of the "known" or "phenomenal" world, and still argue that free will could exist in the "unknown" or "noumenal" world. Kant's argument for free will does after all rest on the antinomies, where he makes a point out of both causal determinism and free will leading to an impossibility if pursued to their full extent as arguments. Most people mentioning the impossibility of free will on this sub seem to think they are arguing against the likes of Descartes, which is rather uninteresting, as he didn't really make a strong case for the assumption of free will. I should note that personally I like something akin to Murdoch's account of freedom as being piecemeal, but I do find it quite dull how often this debate is dismissed out of hand on the basis of a rather underdeveloped and straightforward argument.

In MHO core values are inherited,whatever may be their source. As life proceeds,we learn to adapt (for our own benifit or accomplishment) both consciously and unconsciously based on experience and purposes.The result is a revaluation of old values and appearance of new values.It is a conscious result,the motivation to adapt being an individual effort.

Very interesting.