The problem with archtypes is that they require translation, and therefore they actaully describe difference rather than sameness. Jung may have been correct to assume a structure underlying various cultural beliefs, but he wrongly "located" that structure in the beliefs themselves instead of in his own interperative schema. Those studies don't say what you think they say.
Good points. Perhaps a better way to phrase my point of view is that humans are uniquely capable of choosing these actions/feelings and ignoring others. This would probably place me counter to your Buddhist argument, but I don't think an animal consciously chooses these actions - they're impulsive, or instinctual - if you will. That's a tad human-centric, and pure conjecture on my part, so don't take that statement as a hardline stance or anything. Again, hardly a new argument. And one substantially riddled with flaws. True, and interesting. For your amusement, there are arguments that the christian concepts of heaven and hell are far more karma-esque in reality than certain sectors would like you to believe.
I haven't read the whole thread, so i apologize if this was likely already discussed, but: if this is his thesis, this kind of altruism/mutualism is found in every single social animal to some degree. it's basically a function of economics and collective action problems being overcome - if the prisoner's dillemma could never be overcome than no social animals would ever develop and prosper.
Actually they don't require translations - they are symbols...his book was called "Man and his Symbols" that's the whole point - is that they are not words. Which studies are you referring to and what do they say??? I mean, have you even read Carl Jung?
So what is Jung doing when he writes about archetypes if not translating them into a text? Words are symbols, too, you know. Just as some people don't understand certain words or combinations of words, some people don't understand certain "symbols". Furthermore, people understand symbols in different, nuanced ways. There is no continuity to them apart from some nostalgic retro-fitting of contrived meaning. I don't know. Which ones were you referring to? You claimed that studies show that religion makes people happy. I highly doubt that conclusion is merited from the evidence. Well, yeah, but what does that have to do with this conversation?
Why don't you research Carl Jung - maybe look at what people write about "Man and his Symbols" then come back and we can discuss. I can't explain everything the guy put together in a book.
Oh, I'm sorry. I made the mistake of presuming that you were able to think for yourself and communicate your ideas in a dialog. I guess I'll go "research Carl Jung" now. And you're right, I better find out what other people say about his book because clearly there must be something wrong with me if I disagree with the great Carl Jung. Maybe I'll read a Joseph Campbell book while I'm at it.
I would give you my thoughts but you seem to be very dismissive of everything I am trying to communicate in the first place - so I figure why invest my time? I don't mean any offense, but I just sense too much resistance from you. I tell you he's talking about symbols and you than fire back that words are symbols too which just goes to show you're looking for an argument and not to really discuss. That's my "translation" of your language. Joseph Campbell is an interesting read as well. You don't have to buy into everything these authors are saying to learn something from them. But before you show disdain for Carl Jung, I suggest you skim through some of his writings and yes - form your own opinion. Good luck.
Hmm, with that definition, when does a person not imagine since our perceptions are nothing more than translations of what is real?
I don't know what you want from me. I already told you I've read Jung, and I happen to respect both his and Campbell's texts. Where did you get the idea that I have disdain for either? My disdain is over your refusal to actually read my posts and answer them, as with your bizarre incredulity over my statement that words happen to be symbols or your shying away from discussing those studies you purport to show that religion makes people happy. I happen to have read many of those studies, too, which is why I challenged you on them. Not that it matters that I've read any of the texts you imbue with authority; you should be prepared to defend the claims you make.
You haven't even said what you disagree with about those studies!!!! How can I defend myself when you just say you disagree and nothing more???? You said you hadn't read Carl Jung, now you say you have, yet you say words are symbols - and that's not what he was talking about. You've missed the whole thing so clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You say Santa Claus exists! What on earth? I can't debate you - you make no sense to me. What am I suppose to say? I don't want anything, I'm trying to end this debate - it's very frustrating to have a discussion with you so let's just end it.
Just throwin' out some random thoughts Altruism is not found in social animals. The motivation of altruism is not loyalty or protection. Social animals 'appear' to show altruism at times because many are instinctively loyal and protective. Mutualism is characteristic instinctively in many and varied animals. That is motivated by survival instincts. The prisoner's dillemma is a survival motivation which is instinctive in all animals. The motivations of humans are free. They are not instinctive. Only humans can recognize value systems. Acts of altruism when pure are based upon values that are determined by free motivations. All animals are motivated solely by instinct and survival to the level of their intelligence. Acts of loyalty are instinctive by species. Animals cannot assign values to various other living creatures. Animals can be loyal and protective but they cannot assign a value to life, liberty, industry, or relationships. For example Mother Teresa valued all the poorest on earth as equal or greater value to herself. I can value my wife far above all other women. These values are measured freely by choice of value and all humans do this. This is a distinction animals cannot make. They can be protective or loyal by instincts and even make sacrifices but the motivation is not free and it is not altruism in a strict sense. When you cannot differentiate values apart from instictive loyalty then your motivation is not free. You are doing something you instinctively learned and the motivation is self directed. When there is true altruism it is motivated by free choice. A dog might sacrifice its life to save a boy drowning but that instinct of protection was not based upon a free choice because a dog would not be held accountable not to do it. A human that has free choice would be accountable and that is the basis of altruism. animals cannot design by creative discovery animals do not have moral motivations animals do not have free choice animals are instinctive and are able to reason solely based upon instinct and intelligence inorganic compounds are governed by physical laws animals by instinct and only humans by morals No studies to link here, just my opinion
I guess what we need to ask first is what we mean by "real". Perceptions, imaginations, etc. are real in the sense that they obviously do happen. Maybe a better approach is to think of things that aren't real. Is my imagined invisible pink unicorn real? Each component of the unicorn could correspond to something we would consider externally "real"--horses are real, horns are real, pinkness is real, etc. But the synthesis of those seperate, real things is itself novel, or not taken from something we know to exist independantly of ourselves. On the surface, it seems like that capacity for novel synthesis of external objects is wholly different than "mere perception" of those objects. That distinction quickly blurs, however, when we attempt to imagine a pure object and realize that there are still traces of other things adulterating our perception.
I have read quite a few studies that purport to say something about the relationship between happiness and religious belief. There are a wide range of problems with these studies. It's your responsibility to specify the studies you refer to when using them as evidence for your claims. I never said I hadn't read Jung. You need to read more carefully. If you're so sure that I have missed the mark then you should have no problem explaining why words aren't symbols. But instead of doing that, you simply retreat behind the pretense of textual authority. This is another example of your sloppy reading. I said that Santa Claus must exist in some sense if your claim that Santa Claus has meaning were to be true. That's fine. I can't tell you what you want to get out of this exchange. I try to challenge the assumptions people make in their arguments, so if you're looking for someone to pat you on the back for dropping Carl Jung's name, I can't help you.
Some excellent points here but let me respond to them. You are correct that when we talk about the Universe we are talking about what are perceptions of the Universe are and not really what the Universe is. The problem though is from our standpoint the Universe is what our perceptions since we cannot divorce ourselves from our perception. In that regard we do witness that our actions have an affect on the Universe. From that standpoint our self-awareness is also an awareness of the Universe and what actions we have in it. I'm glad you brought up Buddhist philosophy because yes existence is emptiness but at the same time that doesn't necessarily mean there is no such thing as meaning even in a Buddhist conception. The Eightfold Path applies a meaning interms of a value judgement on one's action that lead one to enlightment. If there was no meaning then you wouldn't say "Right action" or "Right speech" but just "action" or "speech". What constitutes as "right" is a meaningful statement as it implies there is a reason for doing such with an intended consequence. You are correct that meaning is ever changing under a Buddhist view as everything is ever changing but that doesn't mean it is meaningless. Consider if you are going to a beach there is a lot of sand lying about. Now if I take that sand and make a sand castle it is still beach sand but the meaning of it has changed. I have created a new meaning to it. Now what if the wind blows that sand into a dune it has taken on a new meaning. While it is still sand it can take on different meanings depending on what arrangment it is and how it is perceived. Now if I am reading your argument you would say none of that matters because in the end it is just sand. It is but the affect of sand in a castle, dune or just lying on the beach are different. To tie this back to the original argument If I read you right you say that you see nothing different about life and non-life and that since we are bound by perception there is no meaning to the Universe. The problem with that is that it seems to reductivist but also doesn't address how the Universe works, at least our perception of it. Consider if String Theory is correct then there is no such thing as matter only varying differences of vibrations that creates what we perceive as matter. Those varying differences give rise to a infinite variety of matter so there is a qualitative difference between what creates a one type of matter versus another even though it is all the same. If your argument that there is no difference then you would have to say there is no qualitatitve difference between silence and sound since they are both air. So while yes you can say interms of the composition of what is life and what is non-life it is the same but there is a qualitative difference.
I think that gets to my point that from our own relativistic standpoint our perceptions are the Universe so we do imbue meaning upon the Universe from our sense even if it our perceptual concept because for us the concept is our reality.
How do you determine though what is instinct and what is free will when it comes to an altruistic act? Consider the dolphins saving a human from a shark attack. What is to be gained for the dolphins from an instinctual POV? The dolphins are putting themselves at risk for something that isn't of their own pod or even own species so its not as though by saving the human the dolphin is going to receive some sort of benefit to its survival. At the sametime what's to say that a human saving another human isn't based upon an instinct that informs us that there is a survival benefit to be accrued through that action. Except you are applying a human conceit that because we don't put Lassie on trial for being neglectful if she doesn't save TImmy that the dog doesn't have a free choice. If accountability is the issue then humans don't have free choice since we are being driven by a societal standard of accountability and the consequences of not acting rather than a free an enumcumbered decision. What I think this comes down to is that since we can't ask an animal why they do something the presumption is that it is instinct and not free will. How do you know that if you could talk to Lassie you might find that her action is even more self-less since she knows she won't be held accountable but chose to save Timmy because it was the compassionate thing to do. As has been shown earlier in the thread animals do have creative capacity. That depends on what you mean by free choice. I was watching a nature special the other night about parenting among animals. There were several instances that they showed animals making various choices between their own safety, they safety of their progeny and the safety of their group. If animals didn't have free choice then their behavior would be easy to predict but often isn't. I'm glad you recognize that it is your opinion but I would suggest taking a look at the vast amount of information that challenges that opinion.
I used to have a highly intelligent dog that would have given his life to save me, or a member of my family. Can I prove it? No, because he died of natural causes, but on several occasions, when we lived in Houston, he protected me or he protected my wife from some very creepy fellows. Never bit anyone, because he never had to. I remember walking down a dark street off Richmond, in the area between Montrose and South Shepard, and a big fellow crossed the street in front of me and started walking towards us. He must not have noticed the Wonder Dog, because he was black and in the shadows, but his actions were suspicious. As he drew closer, my friend stepped out of the shadows and got in front of me, bared his teeth and started to growl. As he got closer, my friend growled louder and showed more teeth, taking a few steps towards him. The fellow was startled, stopped, crossed back to the other side of the street and began walking the other way. It was a nice moment. That sort of thing happened several times over the years. It didn't hurt that he was never on a leash. Sorry. I'll take any excuse to remember that dog and I'll swear that it wasn't "instinct." It was intelligence, acting for my benefit, and doing exactly what I would have wanted him to do, were I able to tell him in plain English that I desired it, although he understood a hell of a lot of English.
Your dog loved you Deckard, just like my dog loves me. But it is not a moral choice for dogs it is instinctive, you don't punish dogs for moral choices. Enjoy one of my favorite videos (I love dogs) <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H17edn_RZoY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H17edn_RZoY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
instinctive? haven't there been several threads about various scientific research showing our genetic predisposition to believing in higher powers? why wouldn't you then be able to say faith is instinctual?
