Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Nick_A »

Jack, you wrote in the OP:
The question of the supernatural is the main issue which I am addressing. Where does reason or faith come in? Part of the problem which I have with the idea of faith is that to abandon reason in thinking about the Biblical texts seems like philosophical suicide. So, I am asking how much can be interpreted literally or symbolically?
The Bible is not a literal text but rather a psychological work. Its purpose is to bypass the literal dualistic outer mind or our acquired personality so as to enable us to experience its truths internally. If you don't question, you lose its value.

I know you like Carl Jung so this excerpt from Maurice Nicoll's book "The New Man" should resonate. It describes Jesus use of parables.
"The object of all sacred writings is to convey higher meaning and higher knowledge in terms of
ordinary knowledge as a starting−point. The parables have an ordinary meaning. The object of the
parables is to give a man higher meaning in terms of lower meaning in such a way that he can
either think for himself or not. The parable is an instrument devised for this purpose. It can fall on
a man literally, or it can make him think for himself. It invites him to think for himself. A man
first understands on his ordinary, matter−of−fact or natural level. To lift the understanding,
whatever is taught must first fall on this level to some extent, to form a starting−point. A man
must get hold, of what he is taught, to begin with, in a natural way. But the parable has meaning
beyond its literal or natural sense. It is deliberately designed to fall first on the ordinary level of
the mind and yet to work in the mind in the direction of lifting the natural level of comprehension
to another level of meaning. From this point of view, a parable is a transforming instrument in
regard to meaning. As we shall see later the parable is also a connecting medium between a lower
and a higher level in development of the understanding"...............
A lot of modern philosophy seems directed at replacing the higher contemplative mind with the lower literal mind. The result is the loss of awakening ideas and the increase of those starved for "meaning". What is more natural to satisfy the need for meaning then turning to drugs?
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Count Lucanor »

EricPH wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:31 am
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 8:49 pm Of course, you can have faith in whatever you decide to have faith in, may that be Jesus or Zeus.
We are here today, and no matter how far back you try and extrapolate, you are left with two choices. Either something had no beginning, or something popped into existence and did not come from anything. Science will not be able to prove in our life time that particles A;B and C had no beginning; or they did not come from anything. At some point life had to have a beginning and come from no life.

You would have to use your logic and reasoning to say the universe came into being purely by natural causes. You weren't there at creation, there is no testable evidence; you would be using your beliefs and logic to cover up a lack of evidence.
Sorry, but what does the beginning of something have to do with an historical Jesus or the historicity of the Bible in general?
EricPH wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:31 am
First of all, none of the people that wrote the Gospels were witnesses, not they ever said they were witnesses.


Scholars might try and understand who wrote the Gospels, but God is in control. If God can create the universe and life, that is the biggest miracle possible. The Bible I read today, is the Bible God intends me to read.
Could you be more precise and identify which of the approximately 4,000 gods ever claimed to exist, are you referring to? How do you know it is that god? Are you aware that if you were born somewhere in Africa in the 18th century you wouldn't have any idea about this god and would be worshiping other divine entities?
EricPH wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:31 am
Secondly, if five people gave in a court room different accounts of what happened in one particular day of extraordinary events, their testimony would have very little credibility.
One witness might remember some peculiar logo on the clothing, one might remember facial features, one might remember something about the voice. One might remember the make and colour of the car and weapon used. When you put all these individual accounts together they tell a bigger story. Same with the Gospels.
What matters is the balance between consistent and inconsistent information. Minor details might be irrelevant, but key things as the amount of witnesses to the event, who they were, their sex and the time when the events unfolded, do matter.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

EricPH wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:28 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:04 pm I believe nothing. It suits me fine.
mmmm
Where I have evidence I have knowledge.
Your limited evidence must tell you there is so much more you do not know.
What of it.
If you have faith then you think you know but you do not. That is useless.
Saper Aude!
You dare to know, so you must be right. To be fair, most of us have a similar attitude.
Not those who have faith, because that is giving in to wish and fantasy.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by EricPH »

Count Lucanor wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:09 pm Could you be more precise and identify which of the approximately 4,000 gods ever claimed to exist, are you referring to?
I could call you by whatever name I choose, but that does not change who you are. You could call God the creator of all that is seen and unseen by any name you like, it won't change who God is.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:48 am It seems that you are not consistent in applying critical historical criteria:
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 10:19 pm Just because Kansas does exist, doesn't mean the Wizard of Oz depicts historical facts.
Exactly: that's what I said: each single line, each single word, each single piece of information needs to be evaluated separately. I would turn your words this way: the fact that the Wizard of Oz is not a historical fact doesn’t mean that Kansas is not either.

But it seems that for other things this criterion isn’t valid anymore in your mind. Kansas and Wizard of Oz cannot be generalized, either to say that both existed or that both did not exist.
You're confusing things. The elements of a fictional story can point to things that are real, so the city of New York is a real place, but the story of King Kong is not. Your argument was basically that given that the city of New York that appears in the King Kong story is real, therefore we must give it a chance to the story of King Kong to be real. That's nonsense. I have no problem acknowledging the real existence of New York, Kansas, Canaan, the Hebrews, Egypt, etc., but that plays no part in accepting the stories of the Bible, the Wizard of Oz or King Kong, as things that really happened.
Angelo Cannata wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:48 am Instead, when we come to Jesus, generalization is allowed:
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 10:19 pm We don't know for sure that there were people called Jesus doing things and claiming to perform miracles in 1st century Palestine. We only know that there were members of a cult claiming this had happened before.
which means: since Jesus’ miracles are not historically acceptable, then the entire existence of Jesus must be considered not historically acceptable. So, in this case the generalization on miracles is allowed.
No, that is not my argument. If a character is depicted in a narrative in terms of his biography, and then you find out that the stories in that biography are fictional, then you are allowed to say that the character of that particular narrative did not exist. Maybe another character, depicted in another narrative, which may resemble the first one or not, did exist, but you are not allowed to say that the possible existence of the second character implies the possible existence of the first one. And possibility of existence of something is not evidence of its existence, anyway.
Angelo Cannata wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:48 am The question is:
what are the reasons to doubt that 2000 years ago somebody called Jesus went around Palestine, had disciples and followers, claimed to make miracles, was executed by Romans on the cross and then was told resurrected?
I can doubt whatever story anyone presents without compelling evidence. If I find inconsistencies and contradictions in the narrative itself, I can doubt even more. And if I'm given extraordinary claims of supernatural events, for which there's not a grain of evidence, I can doubt a little more. And if you add then all the historical context of mythical thinking and falsehood in religious narratives, we definitely has spotted baloney.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Count Lucanor »

EricPH wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:50 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:09 pm Could you be more precise and identify which of the approximately 4,000 gods ever claimed to exist, are you referring to?
I could call you by whatever name I choose, but that does not change who you are. You could call God the creator of all that is seen and unseen by any name you like, it won't change who God is.
So if someone asked who killed J. F. Kennedy and I answered with your name, address and social security number, you would be OK with that, because it's just another name among the billions of people in Earth, and that does not change who killed JFK. Nice logic.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Count Lucanor wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:54 pm I can doubt
That’s ok, of course. I thought you were talking historically.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 5th, 2022, 5:03 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: June 5th, 2022, 4:54 pm I can doubt
That’s ok, of course. I thought you were talking historically.
I can doubt the veracity of a story presented as a historical event.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by JackDaydream »

Nick_A wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:44 pm Jack, you wrote in the OP:
The question of the supernatural is the main issue which I am addressing. Where does reason or faith come in? Part of the problem which I have with the idea of faith is that to abandon reason in thinking about the Biblical texts seems like philosophical suicide. So, I am asking how much can be interpreted literally or symbolically?
The Bible is not a literal text but rather a psychological work. Its purpose is to bypass the literal dualistic outer mind or our acquired personality so as to enable us to experience its truths internally. If you don't question, you lose its value.

I know you like Carl Jung so this excerpt from Maurice Nicoll's book "The New Man" should resonate. It describes Jesus use of parables.
"The object of all sacred writings is to convey higher meaning and higher knowledge in terms of
ordinary knowledge as a starting−point. The parables have an ordinary meaning. The object of the
parables is to give a man higher meaning in terms of lower meaning in such a way that he can
either think for himself or not. The parable is an instrument devised for this purpose. It can fall on
a man literally, or it can make him think for himself. It invites him to think for himself. A man
first understands on his ordinary, matter−of−fact or natural level. To lift the understanding,
whatever is taught must first fall on this level to some extent, to form a starting−point. A man
must get hold, of what he is taught, to begin with, in a natural way. But the parable has meaning
beyond its literal or natural sense. It is deliberately designed to fall first on the ordinary level of
the mind and yet to work in the mind in the direction of lifting the natural level of comprehension
to another level of meaning. From this point of view, a parable is a transforming instrument in
regard to meaning. As we shall see later the parable is also a connecting medium between a lower
and a higher level in development of the understanding"...............
A lot of modern philosophy seems directed at replacing the higher contemplative mind with the lower literal mind. The result is the loss of awakening ideas and the increase of those starved for "meaning". What is more natural to satisfy the need for meaning then turning to drugs?
Thanks for your reply, especially as you have not been using the site that much. I got a bit demoralised in thinking about the thread which I started, mainly because I was not sure if anyone could understand the nature of symbolic truths. This led me to question my own angle, because, sometime, it seems as if there is a choice between concrete religious perspectives or similarly concrete atheist ones. I don't find either of the extremes particularly helpful because they both seem a bit inadequate.

Jung has been my biggest philosophy mentor, but I am not sure that he is seen as important in philosophy. I do think that the symbolic aspects of the Bible are extremely important and that part of the big division between theism and atheism comes down to this. I do wish to understand and interpret the Biblical accounts and my basic intuition is that this involves looking at the symbolic aspects and going beyond a perspective of idealism or materialism as opposites. This may seem strange to many but I do wonder about symbolic reality as a firm metaphysical structure underlying ideas and connecting mind and body as two interrelated aspects of reality. I wonder if religious and mythic aspects of this are part of this aspect of reality, in the form of the collective unconscious and archetypal aspects underlying consciousness.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Nick_A »

Have you noticed that Jung's collective unconscious is similar to Plato's anamnesis: "Anamnesis in Plato's Philosophy. The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.

Of course the idea is appropriate for philosophy. Man doesn't learn objective truths from the literal mind. Yet the higher symbolic mind can remember what has been forgotten: the collective unconscious, If true, makes it foolish to argue literal interpretations of our source? A person must remember our connection to our source. A picture is worth a thousand words. The question becomes how to remember, to grasp the forest without getting lost arguing the trees: the details?
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by JackDaydream »

Nick_A wrote: June 5th, 2022, 11:13 pm Have you noticed that Jung's collective unconscious is similar to Plato's anamnesis: "Anamnesis in Plato's Philosophy. The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.

Of course the idea is appropriate for philosophy. Man doesn't learn objective truths from the literal mind. Yet the higher symbolic mind can remember what has been forgotten: the collective unconscious, If true, makes it foolish to argue literal interpretations of our source? A person must remember our connection to our source. A picture is worth a thousand words. The question becomes how to remember, to grasp the forest without getting lost arguing the trees: the details?
I haven't read Plato for a while but I can remember noticing some aspects of a Platonic influence in Jung's writings and the idea of the collective unconscious. I am not an extremely literal thinker as it seems that so much of life is embedded in mythic structures. I have found so many people who are theist or atheist to be rather literal. Most of the time it doesn't affect my thinking but, at times,I do drift into wondering about the 'literal'. The debates within philosophy about science often seem to be very literal, although even scientific theories are only models.

I guess that it sometimes seems that there is a division between reason and the imagination. Often, the imaginary realm, which does include the arts as well as religion, seems pushed aside, with reason being seen as the main focus. I am not sure that the two are opposed completely, anymore than the tension between reason and emotions. This way in which I see it is that all these aspects are important in understanding truth in a synthetic rather than reductionist account or picture of reality.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Nick_A »

JackDaydream wrote: June 6th, 2022, 8:24 am
Nick_A wrote: June 5th, 2022, 11:13 pm Have you noticed that Jung's collective unconscious is similar to Plato's anamnesis: "Anamnesis in Plato's Philosophy. The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.

Of course the idea is appropriate for philosophy. Man doesn't learn objective truths from the literal mind. Yet the higher symbolic mind can remember what has been forgotten: the collective unconscious, If true, makes it foolish to argue literal interpretations of our source? A person must remember our connection to our source. A picture is worth a thousand words. The question becomes how to remember, to grasp the forest without getting lost arguing the trees: the details?
I haven't read Plato for a while but I can remember noticing some aspects of a Platonic influence in Jung's writings and the idea of the collective unconscious. I am not an extremely literal thinker as it seems that so much of life is embedded in mythic structures. I have found so many people who are theist or atheist to be rather literal. Most of the time it doesn't affect my thinking but, at times,I do drift into wondering about the 'literal'. The debates within philosophy about science often seem to be very literal, although even scientific theories are only models.

I guess that it sometimes seems that there is a division between reason and the imagination. Often, the imaginary realm, which does include the arts as well as religion, seems pushed aside, with reason being seen as the main focus. I am not sure that the two are opposed completely, anymore than the tension between reason and emotions. This way in which I see it is that all these aspects are important in understanding truth in a synthetic rather than reductionist account or picture of reality.
We must be careful to see if we define imagination in the same way. Imagination can be seen as what sustains Plato's cave or it could be seen as the same as intuition. First this is how Einstein defines intuition or imagination:
1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930
Einstein is referring to accessing the collective unconscious. Simone Weil defines imagination as escapism and fantasy preventing Man from seeing his real nature and thereby preventing growth.
Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life. Simone Weil
It is obvious then that in contemplating religion, fear inspires fantasy in imagination for many. Yet imagination is what enables remembrance, intuition or the collective unconscious. To make matters worse, neither side seems to understand the other. Does this make sense to you? The same word refers to what inspires conscious growth but also refers to the chief obstacle preventing it.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by JackDaydream »

Nick_A wrote: June 6th, 2022, 2:08 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 6th, 2022, 8:24 am
Nick_A wrote: June 5th, 2022, 11:13 pm Have you noticed that Jung's collective unconscious is similar to Plato's anamnesis: "Anamnesis in Plato's Philosophy. The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.

Of course the idea is appropriate for philosophy. Man doesn't learn objective truths from the literal mind. Yet the higher symbolic mind can remember what has been forgotten: the collective unconscious, If true, makes it foolish to argue literal interpretations of our source? A person must remember our connection to our source. A picture is worth a thousand words. The question becomes how to remember, to grasp the forest without getting lost arguing the trees: the details?
I haven't read Plato for a while but I can remember noticing some aspects of a Platonic influence in Jung's writings and the idea of the collective unconscious. I am not an extremely literal thinker as it seems that so much of life is embedded in mythic structures. I have found so many people who are theist or atheist to be rather literal. Most of the time it doesn't affect my thinking but, at times,I do drift into wondering about the 'literal'. The debates within philosophy about science often seem to be very literal, although even scientific theories are only models.

I guess that it sometimes seems that there is a division between reason and the imagination. Often, the imaginary realm, which does include the arts as well as religion, seems pushed aside, with reason being seen as the main focus. I am not sure that the two are opposed completely, anymore than the tension between reason and emotions. This way in which I see it is that all these aspects are important in understanding truth in a synthetic rather than reductionist account or picture of reality.
We must be careful to see if we define imagination in the same way. Imagination can be seen as what sustains Plato's cave or it could be seen as the same as intuition. First this is how Einstein defines intuition or imagination:
1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930
Einstein is referring to accessing the collective unconscious. Simone Weil defines imagination as escapism and fantasy preventing Man from seeing his real nature and thereby preventing growth.
Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life. Simone Weil
It is obvious then that in contemplating religion, fear inspires fantasy in imagination for many. Yet imagination is what enables remembrance, intuition or the collective unconscious. To make matters worse, neither side seems to understand the other. Does this make sense to you? The same word refers to what inspires conscious growth but also refers to the chief obstacle preventing it.
The idea of imagination involving three quarters of life is interesting, but it may well be true, as well as the relationship between fear and the imagination. I know that fear creeps in a lot of the time for me. I sometimes feel that I go into 'black holes' of fear.

With the collective unconscious there is the realm of dreams and borderline sleep experiences. There is an overlap between the religious experience and the arts as part of the imagination, especially in myths. The study of myths was emphasised strongly in Jung's writings and I understand that the story of Atlantis is spoken of by Plato as well as Homer. The Bible is so full of myths including the story of Genesis.

Sometimes though it can be a problem if myths are taken too literally and this can be an area where fear comes in, especially around the idea of hell and damnation. It does seem that the institution of the church has magnified this and may be one reason why many have sought to reason against the Bible.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by LuckyR »

JackDaydream wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:28 pm
Nick_A wrote: June 6th, 2022, 2:08 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 6th, 2022, 8:24 am
Nick_A wrote: June 5th, 2022, 11:13 pm Have you noticed that Jung's collective unconscious is similar to Plato's anamnesis: "Anamnesis in Plato's Philosophy. The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.

Of course the idea is appropriate for philosophy. Man doesn't learn objective truths from the literal mind. Yet the higher symbolic mind can remember what has been forgotten: the collective unconscious, If true, makes it foolish to argue literal interpretations of our source? A person must remember our connection to our source. A picture is worth a thousand words. The question becomes how to remember, to grasp the forest without getting lost arguing the trees: the details?
I haven't read Plato for a while but I can remember noticing some aspects of a Platonic influence in Jung's writings and the idea of the collective unconscious. I am not an extremely literal thinker as it seems that so much of life is embedded in mythic structures. I have found so many people who are theist or atheist to be rather literal. Most of the time it doesn't affect my thinking but, at times,I do drift into wondering about the 'literal'. The debates within philosophy about science often seem to be very literal, although even scientific theories are only models.

I guess that it sometimes seems that there is a division between reason and the imagination. Often, the imaginary realm, which does include the arts as well as religion, seems pushed aside, with reason being seen as the main focus. I am not sure that the two are opposed completely, anymore than the tension between reason and emotions. This way in which I see it is that all these aspects are important in understanding truth in a synthetic rather than reductionist account or picture of reality.
We must be careful to see if we define imagination in the same way. Imagination can be seen as what sustains Plato's cave or it could be seen as the same as intuition. First this is how Einstein defines intuition or imagination:
1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930
Einstein is referring to accessing the collective unconscious. Simone Weil defines imagination as escapism and fantasy preventing Man from seeing his real nature and thereby preventing growth.
Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life. Simone Weil
It is obvious then that in contemplating religion, fear inspires fantasy in imagination for many. Yet imagination is what enables remembrance, intuition or the collective unconscious. To make matters worse, neither side seems to understand the other. Does this make sense to you? The same word refers to what inspires conscious growth but also refers to the chief obstacle preventing it.
The idea of imagination involving three quarters of life is interesting, but it may well be true, as well as the relationship between fear and the imagination. I know that fear creeps in a lot of the time for me. I sometimes feel that I go into 'black holes' of fear.

With the collective unconscious there is the realm of dreams and borderline sleep experiences. There is an overlap between the religious experience and the arts as part of the imagination, especially in myths. The study of myths was emphasised strongly in Jung's writings and I understand that the story of Atlantis is spoken of by Plato as well as Homer. The Bible is so full of myths including the story of Genesis.

Sometimes though it can be a problem if myths are taken too literally and this can be an area where fear comes in, especially around the idea of hell and damnation. It does seem that the institution of the church has magnified this and may be one reason why many have sought to reason against the Bible.
So, since you brought it up, what are you fearful of? What's the worst-case scenario?
"As usual... it depends."
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Nick_A »

JackDaydream wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:28 pm
Nick_A wrote: June 6th, 2022, 2:08 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 6th, 2022, 8:24 am
Nick_A wrote: June 5th, 2022, 11:13 pm Have you noticed that Jung's collective unconscious is similar to Plato's anamnesis: "Anamnesis in Plato's Philosophy. The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.

Of course the idea is appropriate for philosophy. Man doesn't learn objective truths from the literal mind. Yet the higher symbolic mind can remember what has been forgotten: the collective unconscious, If true, makes it foolish to argue literal interpretations of our source? A person must remember our connection to our source. A picture is worth a thousand words. The question becomes how to remember, to grasp the forest without getting lost arguing the trees: the details?
I haven't read Plato for a while but I can remember noticing some aspects of a Platonic influence in Jung's writings and the idea of the collective unconscious. I am not an extremely literal thinker as it seems that so much of life is embedded in mythic structures. I have found so many people who are theist or atheist to be rather literal. Most of the time it doesn't affect my thinking but, at times,I do drift into wondering about the 'literal'. The debates within philosophy about science often seem to be very literal, although even scientific theories are only models.

I guess that it sometimes seems that there is a division between reason and the imagination. Often, the imaginary realm, which does include the arts as well as religion, seems pushed aside, with reason being seen as the main focus. I am not sure that the two are opposed completely, anymore than the tension between reason and emotions. This way in which I see it is that all these aspects are important in understanding truth in a synthetic rather than reductionist account or picture of reality.
We must be careful to see if we define imagination in the same way. Imagination can be seen as what sustains Plato's cave or it could be seen as the same as intuition. First this is how Einstein defines intuition or imagination:
1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930
Einstein is referring to accessing the collective unconscious. Simone Weil defines imagination as escapism and fantasy preventing Man from seeing his real nature and thereby preventing growth.
Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life. Simone Weil
It is obvious then that in contemplating religion, fear inspires fantasy in imagination for many. Yet imagination is what enables remembrance, intuition or the collective unconscious. To make matters worse, neither side seems to understand the other. Does this make sense to you? The same word refers to what inspires conscious growth but also refers to the chief obstacle preventing it.
The idea of imagination involving three quarters of life is interesting, but it may well be true, as well as the relationship between fear and the imagination. I know that fear creeps in a lot of the time for me. I sometimes feel that I go into 'black holes' of fear.

With the collective unconscious there is the realm of dreams and borderline sleep experiences. There is an overlap between the religious experience and the arts as part of the imagination, especially in myths. The study of myths was emphasised strongly in Jung's writings and I understand that the story of Atlantis is spoken of by Plato as well as Homer. The Bible is so full of myths including the story of Genesis.

Sometimes though it can be a problem if myths are taken too literally and this can be an area where fear comes in, especially around the idea of hell and damnation. It does seem that the institution of the church has magnified this and may be one reason why many have sought to reason against the Bible.
“Whatever you repress, whatever you don’t recognize in yourself, is nevertheless alive. It is constellated outside of you, it works in your surroundings and influences other people.”
“Nothing has a stronger influence psychologically on their environment and especially on their children than the unlived life of the parent.”
~ Carl Jung

“Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached. ” Simone weil
Plato in the cave allegory explains that a person can become free from the prison of attachments to the shadows on the wall by inwardly turning towards the light with the whole of oneself.

As you point out, taking this idea to literally as with the fear of hell an damnation does more harm than good and prevents a person from recognizing the prison of attachments.

Selective attachments are encouraged in the young through politics and secularized religion. This really child abuse. Imagine a mob chanting a cause. Is there anything conscious in it or just manipulated reaction? The central idea here is if attachments are created in us as Yung suggests. If it is, how does a person become free? What does it mean to turn towards the light and away from the effects of imaginary repressions? How does a person experience the benefits of higher mind without getting caught up in the trappings of the literal mind?
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021