How Important is the Idea of the Unconscious in the Philosophical Understanding of Mind?

[JackDaydream]

The idea of unconsciousness, or the unconscious, may have particularly significant implications for the understanding of mind and consciousness. During recent thread discussions I have had some debate on the nature of the unconscious, so I thought that it may be worth looking at the concept of the unconscious specifically. My starting point is from Jung's idea of the unconscious but other models of mind, including that of Freud and Maslow, are also relevant for thinking about mental processes.

Jung says that 'physical events can be looked at in two ways: from the mechanistic and from the energetic standpoint'. He disputes Freud's strong emphasis on sexuality as the main factor in understanding human motivation. He explains instinct and will in human consciousness in the following way: 'primitive man is much more unconscious, much more of a "natural phenomenon" than we are, and has next to no knowledge or what we call "will"'.

He is looking at consciousness as arising from the source of the unconscious, seeing the nature of opposites as important. He says, conflict can be understood as an opposition between the primitive nature of the newborn infant and his highly differentiated inheritance.Jung suggests that ' we have no idea how the unconscious functions, but since it may be that it has everything that consciousness has, including perception, perception, memory, imagination, will, affectivity, feeling, judgement etc. in all subliminal form'. The quotes which I have included in this outpost are from Jung's writings in the volume called, 'Jung: On the Nature of the Psyche',
(Routledge, 1969).

I wishing to open debate on the concept of the unconscious, asking how important it is to the nature of consciousness? How useful is it for the development of models and the philosophy of mind? Howw useful is it for understanding will, intellect and emotions? Also, how may the concept of the unconscious be considered or evaluated in relation to metaphysics and scientific models, including physicalist ones, including those based on cognitive science?

[Sunday66]

The idea of unconsciousness, or the unconscious, may have particularly significant implications for the understanding of mind and consciousness. During recent thread discussions I have had some debate on the nature of the unconscious, so I thought that it may be worth looking at the concept of the unconscious specifically. My starting point is from Jung's idea of the unconscious but other models of mind, including that of Freud and Maslow, are also relevant for thinking about mental processes.

Jung says that 'physical events can be looked at in two ways: from the mechanistic and from the energetic standpoint'. He disputes Freud's strong emphasis on sexuality as the main factor in understanding human motivation. He explains instinct and will in human consciousness in the following way: 'primitive man is much more unconscious, much more of a "natural phenomenon" than we are, and has next to no knowledge or what we call "will"'.

He is looking at consciousness as arising from the source of the unconscious, seeing the nature of opposites as important. He says, conflict can be understood as an opposition between the primitive nature of the newborn infant and his highly differentiated inheritance.Jung suggests that ' we have no idea how the unconscious functions, but since it may be that it has everything that consciousness has, including perception, perception, memory, imagination, will, affectivity, feeling, judgement etc. in all subliminal form'. The quotes which I have included in this outpost are from Jung's writings in the volume called, 'Jung: On the Nature of the Psyche',
(Routledge, 1969).

I wishing to open debate on the concept of the unconscious, asking how important it is to the nature of consciousness? How useful is it for the development of models and the philosophy of mind? Howw useful is it for understanding will, intellect and emotions? Also, how may the concept of the unconscious be considered or evaluated in relation to metaphysics and scientific models, including physicalist ones, including those based on cognitive science?

Freud made up the idea of the unconscious. I have no idea what use it is.

[JackDaydream]

The idea of unconsciousness, or the unconscious, may have particularly significant implications for the understanding of mind and consciousness. During recent thread discussions I have had some debate on the nature of the unconscious, so I thought that it may be worth looking at the concept of the unconscious specifically. My starting point is from Jung's idea of the unconscious but other models of mind, including that of Freud and Maslow, are also relevant for thinking about mental processes.

Jung says that 'physical events can be looked at in two ways: from the mechanistic and from the energetic standpoint'. He disputes Freud's strong emphasis on sexuality as the main factor in understanding human motivation. He explains instinct and will in human consciousness in the following way: 'primitive man is much more unconscious, much more of a "natural phenomenon" than we are, and has next to no knowledge or what we call "will"'.

He is looking at consciousness as arising from the source of the unconscious, seeing the nature of opposites as important. He says, conflict can be understood as an opposition between the primitive nature of the newborn infant and his highly differentiated inheritance.Jung suggests that ' we have no idea how the unconscious functions, but since it may be that it has everything that consciousness has, including perception, perception, memory, imagination, will, affectivity, feeling, judgement etc. in all subliminal form'. The quotes which I have included in this outpost are from Jung's writings in the volume called, 'Jung: On the Nature of the Psyche',
(Routledge, 1969).

I wishing to open debate on the concept of the unconscious, asking how important it is to the nature of consciousness? How useful is it for the development of models and the philosophy of mind? Howw useful is it for understanding will, intellect and emotions? Also, how may the concept of the unconscious be considered or evaluated in relation to metaphysics and scientific models, including physicalist ones, including those based on cognitive science?

Freud made up the idea of the unconscious. I have no idea what use it is.

The idea of the unconscious goes back before Freud, as far as Schelling. Freud developed a model based on dreams, association and a model of mind, involving the id, ego and superego. His theory was influential in making the unconscious recognised within psychology even though his outlook has come up against strong criticism. As for the view that 'he made up the idea of the unconscious', it depends what it means to make things up because ideas may have their source in the unconscious itself, depending on how the notion of the unconscious is seen. This is because it can be viewed as the invisible aspect from which all thoughts proceed if one understands it in a Jungian way, as the foundation for imagination itself.

[Gertie]

We now know conscious experience is correlated with brain processes in some way. We don't know why or how some brain processes manifest as phenomenal experience and some don't (''the unconscious'') from moment to moment, but the inter-connectedness of the brain means the 'unconscious' parts are playing a role in what does manifest as experience. We do have a broad evolutionary functional account to explain this. Evolutionary psychology is a potential game changer in enabling us to understand ourselves better, and hopefully do better.

Tho human brains are the most complex natural phenomena we know of, so it's really, really, unimaginably complicated. But we don't have to rely on very basic metaphors like id, ego and superego now.

We've also got this ability to conceptualise, think abstractly and reflect on ourselves as selves. We have notions like meaning, purpose, value, mattering and right and wrong, which feel difficult to reduce to neurons exchanging electro-chemical signals, it feels like there's something more to being an experiencing human subject. But I don't think such a reduction (if - BIG IF - that's the right way to understand the mind-body relationship) diminishes the experience of being a human, it's still real and has meaning and worth in its own right.

[JackDaydream]

We now know conscious experience is correlated with brain processes in some way. We don't know why or how some brain processes manifest as phenomenal experience and some don't (''the unconscious'') from moment to moment, but the inter-connectedness of the brain means the 'unconscious' parts are playing a role in what does manifest as experience. We do have a broad evolutionary functional account to explain this. Evolutionary psychology is a potential game changer in enabling us to understand ourselves better, and hopefully do better.

Tho human brains are the most complex natural phenomena we know of, so it's really, really, unimaginably complicated. But we don't have to rely on very basic metaphors like id, ego and superego now.

We've also got this ability to conceptualise, think abstractly and reflect on ourselves as selves. We have notions like meaning, purpose, value, mattering and right and wrong, which feel difficult to reduce to neurons exchanging electro-chemical signals, it feels like there's something more to being an experiencing human subject. But I don't think such a reduction (if - BIG IF - that's the right way to understand the mind-body relationship) diminishes the experience of being a human, it's still real and has meaning and worth in its own right.

The way in which memories and aspects of the mind, including the subconscious and completely unconscious ones, are hardwired is likely to be very intricate. The field of neuroscience may bring forth aspects of this. However, the actual existence of mind as coming from the brain is hard to establish. It is the mind-body mystery or paradox. The reduction to the physical, as a system, may miss out on the elusive nature of conscious experience as well as the unconscious.

Memories are so bound up with human individuation and while the unconscious can be seen as having storage of memories it is also about potential and sources for becoming. Some of potential may be contained in the structure of DNA but this is merely the code for development. There is also the question of the individual unconscious in conjunction with the intersubjective, because it may be about the basic structure or patterns beyond the individual. This may be about group mind or even relationships between the living and ancestors. It is likely that the unconscious is the hidden depths of everything, the dark and light side of human nature.

[3017Metaphysician]

The idea of unconsciousness, or the unconscious, may have particularly significant implications for the understanding of mind and consciousness. During recent thread discussions I have had some debate on the nature of the unconscious, so I thought that it may be worth looking at the concept of the unconscious specifically. My starting point is from Jung's idea of the unconscious but other models of mind, including that of Freud and Maslow, are also relevant for thinking about mental processes.

Jung says that 'physical events can be looked at in two ways: from the mechanistic and from the energetic standpoint'. He disputes Freud's strong emphasis on sexuality as the main factor in understanding human motivation. He explains instinct and will in human consciousness in the following way: 'primitive man is much more unconscious, much more of a "natural phenomenon" than we are, and has next to no knowledge or what we call "will"'.

He is looking at consciousness as arising from the source of the unconscious, seeing the nature of opposites as important. He says, conflict can be understood as an opposition between the primitive nature of the newborn infant and his highly differentiated inheritance.Jung suggests that ' we have no idea how the unconscious functions, but since it may be that it has everything that consciousness has, including perception, perception, memory, imagination, will, affectivity, feeling, judgement etc. in all subliminal form'. The quotes which I have included in this outpost are from Jung's writings in the volume called, 'Jung: On the Nature of the Psyche',
(Routledge, 1969).

I wishing to open debate on the concept of the unconscious, asking how important it is to the nature of consciousness? How useful is it for the development of models and the philosophy of mind? Howw useful is it for understanding will, intellect and emotions? Also, how may the concept of the unconscious be considered or evaluated in relation to metaphysics and scientific models, including physicalist ones, including those based on cognitive science?

Jack!

I'll do some digging, but as a 'housekeeping matter', I know that much like James' coined term of 'stream of consciousness' which has significant implications in its own rite (conscious thoughts happening to us v. by us), Freud preferred using the term 'unconscious' from his dislike over the concept of 'subconscious' for some reason. I think for Freud they were one in the same, can't remember. Of course, in epistemology, the fundamental principle of the unity of opposite's rears its head there... ! Meaning, I think he felt like to examine the thing's opposite, was a better approach in parsing the complexities associated with both minds (conscious and subconscious)... .

https://www.simplypsychology.org/uncons ... nconscious.

[JackDaydream]

The idea of unconsciousness, or the unconscious, may have particularly significant implications for the understanding of mind and consciousness. During recent thread discussions I have had some debate on the nature of the unconscious, so I thought that it may be worth looking at the concept of the unconscious specifically. My starting point is from Jung's idea of the unconscious but other models of mind, including that of Freud and Maslow, are also relevant for thinking about mental processes.

Jung says that 'physical events can be looked at in two ways: from the mechanistic and from the energetic standpoint'. He disputes Freud's strong emphasis on sexuality as the main factor in understanding human motivation. He explains instinct and will in human consciousness in the following way: 'primitive man is much more unconscious, much more of a "natural phenomenon" than we are, and has next to no knowledge or what we call "will"'.

He is looking at consciousness as arising from the source of the unconscious, seeing the nature of opposites as important. He says, conflict can be understood as an opposition between the primitive nature of the newborn infant and his highly diffemrentiated inheritance.Jung suggests that ' we have no idea how the unconscious functions, but since it may be that it has everything that consciousness has, including perception, perception, memory, imagination, will, affectivity, feeling, judgement etc. in all subliminal form'. The quotes which I have included in this outpost are from Jung's writings in the volume called, 'Jung: On the Nature of the Psyche',
(Routledge, 1969).

I wishing to open debate on the concept of the unconscious, asking how important it is to the nature of consciousness? How useful is it for the development of models and the philosophy of mind? Howw useful is it for understanding will, intellect and emotions? Also, how may the concept of the unconscious be considered or evaluated in relation to metaphysics and scientific models, including physicalist ones, including those based on cognitive science?

Jack!

I'll do some digging, but as a 'housekeeping matter', I know that much like James' coined term of 'stream of consciousness' which has significant implications in its own rite (conscious thoughts happening to us v. by us), Freud preferred using the term 'unconscious' from his dislike over the concept of 'subconscious' for some reason. I think for Freud they were one in the same, can't remember. Of course, in epistemology, the fundamental principle of the unity of opposite's rears its head there... ! Meaning, I think he felt like to examine the thing's opposite, was a better approach in parsing the complexities associated with both minds (conscious and subconscious)... .

https://www.simplypsychology.org/uncons ... nconscious.

Thanks for your reply. The article summarising Freud's understanding of the unconscious is very useful and you are right in saying that he preferred the idea of the unconscious to the subconscious. My main reading of his writings was while studying art psychotherapy and his whole emphasis on defence mechanisms is extremely important for understanding the nature of the unconscious. As far as his own perspective on opposites the division between the life and death instincts is a major one.

The difference between Jung and Freud's understanding is interesting too, especially as they ended up falling out of friendship completely. This seemed to be to do with the way in which Jung was far more positive about religion than Freud. However, there were tensions in their friendship anyway, which may have involved issues around Judaism and German nationality. Also, I understand that Freud fainted in Jung's presence and Freud attributed this to Jung having a death wish towards him.

The field of psychoanalysis raises important issues for understanding human motivation and relationships. The work of Melanie Klein, on protective identification shows the way in which people disown parts of themselves which they seek to deny by projection onto others, as objects of hate. The understanding of psychoanalysis is a way of understanding the roots of love and hate in the depths of the unconscious, especially with Jung's own writings on the shadow..

Metaphysically, Jung's own idea of the collective unconscious and archetypes is compatible with the Plato's understanding of the Forms. His picture of mind and consciousness is so different from that of BF Skinner and Daniel Dennett. There are many ambiguities in Jung's writings, which is not surprising given the amount he wrote at different times in his life. At times he seemed influenced by science of his time, but also on so many writers including Henri Bergson, who spoke of 'mind at large' with the brain as a filter. To some extent, Jung's own approach seems to be more in the direction of idealism, as he seems to understand the collective unconscious as the source from which all consciousness is derived.

[JackDaydream]

To 3017 Metaphysician,
One other major issue in the nature of the idea of the unconscious, mainly in the perspective of Jung is the way in which the nature of religious experience is understood. Freud did have a strong interest in the origins of religion and mythology, but Jung saw inner experiences as so significant, and he had a strong interest in the Eastern and Western metaphysical ideas here. What is particularly significant is his emphasis on the nature of symbolic reality, as apparent in dreams and mythology.