JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
When we take into account the miracle of creation we assume that a creator must be behind it.The idea of a God overloads the mind.More questions arise and we are not sure just which God one means when the question is put to us as to whether God exists.It assumes that we know his intentions when we are clearly in the dark. Man has invented far too much in this regard. God remains a mystery to honest people.God however is "felt" in our hearts.God must exist.
I am deeply saddened by so many peoples attempts to explain God through analitical thought. it simply works like this,Repent of your sin,be Baptized in Jesus name and God will fill you with the Holy Ghost! After the moment of infilling you will be able to understand it all!
@nathanielcalhoun That's not what he meant by God. He didn't mean any God as conceptualized by organized religion. I think he means the infinite transcendent consciousness that is like the blood of the universe, coursing through in waves, giving and taking life, but it's all one.
@lapopofighting Actually, I'm pretty sure he believed in the archetypal personal God. He was a Gnostic. What you're saying is more of a Pantheistic view which I don't think he held.
“A young female student accused Jung of being an atheist. Jung was confused and asked the student where she had gotten that idea. The student paraphrased a quote she had read in which Jung said he didn't believe God existed. Jung smiled and said "Dear girl, rest easy, “When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. "
The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"
@AcceleratorPlus Touche! You know more about Karl Jung than I thought I knew! Interesting he would be like that but then he always was a bit "metaphysical" and all that. I have read logical things he wrote about personality type and wrongly assumed he would be more logical about supreme beings.
@Surrealist6 i´m sorry but i think it´s exactly the other way around... I all comes down to what is your concept on God. If you are thinking about a great old man, sitting on a cloud and smiling, you are not thinking abot God. You must probably be thinking about Santa. You can´t get to know God, you can only hope to be overwhelmed by it. That´s the experience Jung is talking about, a force that´s beyond his understanding. Trying to conceptualize it is killing God.
@bella50008 How are you so sure anything happens .003 seconds after you die? Probably nothing at all happens. I do not believe it to be arrogant to say so. You believe something WONDERFUL is going to happen? Well then bully for you, but your belief is just as arrogant as mine.
@Surrealist6 ...Of course you're right. What do I know ....I've never been dead. You're probably right when you say there is no God. In the event that you're not right..just pretend you were misinformed.
@Surrealist6 please tell me how you know that? ever heard of laws of nature? laws need dictating and enforcing via a will.. unless you believe all laws of nature are by coincidence like life*lol*
@mancsakacarl You are confusing two diff kinds of "laws." Laws of nature are just what we call the *properties* of nature...they don't "need dictating...via a will." Why would you laugh at life being a coincidence? If you laugh at it, it means you never thought it a possibility, which means you are not giving all possibilities a fair chance, and whatever conclusion you may come up with is invalid :/
@hollumber they are not chaotic in nature or design nothing can hold together or form without will and to believe so is stupidity , even newton concluded there was a god.
@mancsakacarl Nature does not have to be "chaotic," and it can be demonstrated (and has been) that simple rules give rise to complex patterns. "Nothing can hold....is stupidity" Why is it stupid? Now, I am not saying I *believe* it, but I am saying it's a possibility. And to not give it a chance as a possibility is like trying to find the best way to run the world, without including democracy and anarchy. "even newton..." So what? If he only believes it, but doesn't have evidence, doesnt matter.
@mancsakacarl I don't think you're putting a good effort in trying to understand what i am *actually* saying. What I said was, you must be open to all possibilities, and look at the evidence, and see which ones are *still* possibilities, and which ones are *most likely*. Again, you say you *doubt* this "chance" thing, but why? What is the reason? Honestly, I don't know what to believe, and I hold the position "idk." How come I do not take a stance, but you do? Why must you take a stance?
@hollumber because its in my being to believe there is something that i cant explain , just as i cant explain why i feel like there is(a creator). what i find amazing is that you can break down matter to nothing yet we are here observing and feeling nothing theoretically ,everything is the same made of energy connected with light yet everything is different.. when you make a wall of brick and mortar it is always brick and mortar , yet reality doesn't work like that.
@hollumber which basically make's me wonder how, and make's me wonder that all is not what it seem's we are electrical energy being's when the spark leaves we die but do we? i dont think energy can ever dissipate only change or move on , even the body that is left behind will eventually become atoms floating round space.
@mancsakacarl You cannot explain it? You "feel" there is something bigger? Feelings have a very low batting average when it comes to distinguishing b.t fact and fiction. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm saying that it's not the only option available. Many of us (including me) hope that there is something more, but I do not say there *must* be something more because I *want* there to be. We can't let this get in the way of what we claim is knowledge. Until it is proven, we shouldn't teach it.
I believe in umbrellas. Umbrellas block the tears of the my-suit-is-too-darn-big-for-me god. He doesn't mind if you block his tears. He's crying from laughter at the sight of Jung's big baggy suit. He also said don't listen to Carl Jung because Jung is an idiot.
If Geezer says a god exists then a god exists. You can see that Jung has a hard time not laughing when he says he knows a god exists. He doesn't say which god he believes in though. Maybe it's the god of tobacco pipes he believes in.
Not all the great minds were that great. God was just one of the prevailing beliefs of Jung's time. He probably didn't like seeing women being given the right to vote either.
@Watchdawg i agree! but they have some logic that u cant create borders for god. u cant judge him as ur morrality perceptions etc .once u accept a religion there is no question everything is logical,if u say this book comes from god.
Jung knew he didn't have to believe he knew, he delves alot more into this in the book an answer to job, Jung also Knew everyone knows even if they are unaware of it, all humans have a religious instinct whether it is faith in God or a secular faith like atheism. Know one can escape the prejudice of being human young observed.
i disagree, that Freud was much smarter than Jung because for starters Freud disregarded human history.He focused on the now and then would come up with a hypothesis, were as Jung looked at all of history while also looking into the now. Jung said himself that when he first started to work with Freud,Jung was knee deep in reading Kant,Nietzche and other philosophers while Freud had know education of any of that and know interest in it either.Nietzche was smart but not smarter.
@DreamstateEmergency After reading your comment, you sound like you should be reading Hegel rather than Jung ;) (I personally enjoy Hegel even though I am definitely not a Hegelian). However, when you think about it Freud is definitely not disregarding human history (if you doubt this, read 'The Future of an Illusion' and 'Totem and Taboo'). I'm not a Freudian at all (even though I admire him), but Freud definitely does not disregard human history. Jung is into woo-woo though. I hope this helps.
@alifeofreason Maybe because Nietzsche was a prophet of Jesus..
Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?" The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god." - IJohn 10:31
“Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
@AcceleratorPlus Get a life... Are you serious? You obviously have never read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or The Antichrist. A prophet of Jesus writing a book called The Antichrist (also translated as 'The Anti-christian). Please don't poison my comments unless you know what you're talking about. I suggest you read one of these books if you are not smart enough to read Nietzsche in the original:'The Death of God and the Meaning of Life' and 'Nietzsche's Philosophy of Religion', both by Julian Young.
@alifeofreason My friend I can assure you that Jesus and Nietzsche are perfectly compatible
Nevertheless.. I’m impressed by your great learning.. and thank you for so modestly bringing it to our attention.. even if it was amidst some blatant false assumptions.
Tell me… Who was Zarathustra
How does 'Nietzsche's Philosophy of Religion' differ from that of Jesus.. (and also Buddha’s)..?
Weren’t they ALL in agreement.. that organized religion should be torn down.. ?
---. "If moral virtue was Christianity, Christ's pretensions were all vanity, The moral Christian is the cause Of the unbeliever and his laws. For what is Antichrist but those Who against sinners heaven close With iron bars, in virtuos state impose oppression at the gate." William Blake
@AcceleratorPlus And Jesus' next words.... “Isn’t it written in your Law, I have said, you are gods?”35 Scripture calls those to whom God’s word came, gods, and scripture can’t be abolished
@jdroane Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:5.. a verse that undermines what many Christians mistakenly believe.. that Jesus alone was God. I featured this idea on a vid I uploaded called The God Man. Translaters tend to butcher the meaning of the verses ..
------
“They have not known, and they do not understand; In darkness they keep walking about; All the foundations of the earth are made to totter. I myself have said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.” - Psalm 82:5
@esraretin So what... Are you saying that all people are part of the herd? There are some who overcome the herd mentality. Spinoza is definitely one of them, and Nietzsche is another. There are some others, Heinrich Heine and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, etc. etc. If you really think the above mentioned individuals are part of the herd, you are absolutely mistaken. Just because one is human, doesn't mean one is subject to specimenity. Think of all of the faith heads out there... Jung included.
@aqueenowlbee His name is spelled Nietzsche. He was important enough for Carl Jung to devote a complex seminar on his book 'Zarathustra', which I have and I can say the Jung admires certain aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy, but because of certain biases he rejects important aspects of Nietzsche that are essential. If Nietzsche watched this 28 second clip he would jump in his seat. What have you read of Nietzsche? Although he's a philosopher, he knows the truth of the 'soul', like Dostoevsky.
@alifeofreason To me, Nietzshe was a mediocre prose writer, and a rather ghastly poet; but a philosopher... he was not. I can't think of even ONE philosophical concept of his that has survived the test of time. Like Ayn Rand, he was a literary mediocrity who said it well, but said hardly anything at all. He is studied to today more as a fin de siecle historical curiosity than a philosopher, and owes his continued fame to the Fuhrer, Herr Wagner, and the ruthless rigour of modern capitalism
@akrifasouth Ayn Rand is a wretched waste of human life and not even to be talked about within the subject of philsoophy. Also, I find your comments on Nietzsche not only grossly ignorant but quite ghastly! Take almost any 19th century philosophy course, philosophy of art, and take any existentialism course in university and you WILL be required to read a lot of Nietzsche. You have no idea what you are talking about. Nietzsche is one of the most widely read BY PHILOSOPHERS!!!
@alifeofreason I am entitled to my opinion. I know his works very well indeed. For me, the ONLY marginally helpful piece is Twilight of the Gods. His views on women are now defunct (and offensive); his ideas are a nasty hotchpotch of borrowed antagonisms and petty squabbles, penned in a fever of national pride and over-zealous materialistic rationalism. He is a sociologist, philologist, anthropologist... in short, he seems not to know what he is. A philosopher? By no means.
@alifeofreason Nietzsche was more for lyrical and rhetorical entertainment than to be taken seriously. Whilst he was a good writer but that is about as far as the compliment goes. Nietzsche was a nihilist and had nothing to do with existentialism.
@07Aristotle Is this a joke? You obviously haven't read Nietzsche if you think he is a nihilist. The whole point of Nietzsche's philosophy is to overcome nihilism, the nihilism so evident in the thought of Christianity (Platonism for the masses), and its influence on Kant, and in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Basically, the nihilism that engulfed western civilization. Go back and read Nietzsche before denouncing him...
@alifeofreason No this is not a joke. I have read a lot of Nietzsche, five to be exact. Nietzsche was a nihilist just like the philosopher Schopenhauer who he inherited his ideas from. Nietzsche was content with the notion of nihilism and thus it showed in his writings. He criticized Christianity for its objective existentialism and believed that, through religion, objective meaning was therefore superimposed. Thereafter, he believed, that people bought into the idea of objective meaning.
@07Aristotle You obviously have no grasp on Nietzsche. The young Nietzsche was greatly influenced by Schopenhauer, but he broke away from Schopenhauer because he disagreed with his nihilism. Nietzsche denounced the nihilism inherent in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Nietzsche is known for 'philosophizing with a hammer', which is to say he taps things to see if they are hollow (shallow and meaningless), and thus nihilistic.
@alifeofreason A section in 'untimely meditations' called 'Schopenhauer as educator' , Nietzsche wrote how Schopenhauer influenced his life and assimilated his beliefs along side his own original views. Nietzsche noted Schopenhauer as a 'true educator'. Nietzsche never ''broke away'' from Schopenhauer, he just progressively mentions him less in his later works. There is nothing in the Judeo-Christian tradition that is nihilist. There is evidence of nihilism in his view on morality.
@07Aristotle You are ignoring so much of Nietzsche's philosophy. You should be well aware that the eternal recurrence is a complete rejection of Schopenhauer's negation of the will. You should carefully examine 'The Gay Science', 'The Antichrist', and 'The Will to Power'.
@alifeofreason What?! I never said that 'eternal recurrence' was not a negation of Schopenhauer's will. We are talking about nihilism and Nietzsche. Nietzsche was appealed by Schopenhauer pessimistic nihilism. Nietzsche thought that nihilism was a characteristic of modern society and that Christianity was more for the primitive. He thought that it was of cardinal importance for, what he termed, as the 'free spirit' or creative geniuses. You should know this since you say you know Nietzsche.
@07Aristotle And obviously the eternal recurrence is a complete affirmation of life, of existence, contra the previous nihilistic conceptions of reality, of the need of positing some other-worldly salvation (which was at the heart of Schopenhauer's philosophy). The eternal recurrence is a complete rejection of nihilism. And Nietzsche thought that the 'creative geniuses/free spirits' create their own values, are above the nihilistic tendencies so evident in Christianity. Goethe, Shakespeare, etc.
@alifeofreason No, according to Nietzsche, eternal recurrence was a meaningless repetition of life. That is why he said it was an 'eternal recurrence of the same'. Because he viewed life as a repetition of the same theme over and over ad infinitum. There was nothing in Nietzsche's philosophy that was ''life-affirming''. There was never an explicit change of Nietzsche philosophy away from Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer had the biggest influence on Nietzsche than any other philosopher.
@07Aristotle This has to be a joke. The eternal recurrence is life-affirming in itself because it is the willing for this existence to happen again and again forever with all of the sufferings that come with it, because life is worth all of those bad things that come with it. If that's not life affirming, then nothing is. Again, I think you're just making a joke of this. Nietzsche is perhaps the most life-affirming philosopher in the history of western thought.
@alifeofreason ''This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself...
@alifeofreason ...The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it ''--'The Gay Science', Section 341
This sounds very nihilistic to me. I do not think you know what you are talking about when it comes to Nietzsche but when you say 'life-affirming' it obviously has nothing to with his philosophies. It has nothing to do with the 'willing for this existence to happen again and again'. As if eternal recurrence was dependent on only a willing subject.
@07Aristotle Responding to your comments is growing rather old. I highly recommend to you a book by a Nietzsche scholar at Brown Univ. named Bernard Reginster called 'The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism', which goes over some of the very same things I have been posting to you. You have misunderstood all of Nietzsche, including his basis for moral and philosophical questioning, namely the importance of ideas the add to life's energies, rather than negate them.
@alifeofreason ''Responding to your comments is growing rather old. I''
Nice cop-out response.
''named Bernard Reginster called 'The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism'''
I'm sorry, I don't read books of people who wrote ABOUT Nietzsche. Who twist Nietzsche's words in order to support their viewpoints. You failed to conjure up any quotes from Nietzsche himself that directly proves any sort of 'overcoming' nihilism.
@alifeofreason And as far as anyone is concerned Nietzsche is still a nihilist and you ,still asserting that, he is wholly life-affirming shows that you need to read up more. You were wrong about eternal recurrence being life affirming and now your coping out.
@07Aristotle You have absolutely no evidence for that. It is clear that you not only haven't sufficiently read Nietzsche, but that you haven't read any secondary literature on him. All (and I do mean all) Nietzsche scholars deny the myth that Nietzsche was a nihilist. It is a common misunderstanding. You should look into the works of Brian Leiter, Christopher Janaway, Robert Solomon, Walter Kaufmann, and Julian Young.
@alifeofreason ''Virtue is under certain circumstances merely an honorable form of stupidity: who could be ill-disposed toward it on that account? And this kind of virtue has not been outlived even today. '' --Will to Power, Section 34
Nietzsche claims there is no virtue here. This must be nihilism. I could not read secondary literature because I would not be using Nietzsche words. It does not matter what other writers say, I'm concerned to what Nietzsche says. You have provided nothing...
@07Aristotle Look, you are right about Nietzsche's nihilistic views toward morality. Nietzsche was not a moral relativist, but a moral nihilist. This means that he believed that moral valuations have no objective meaning, they are MEANINGLESS. However, he is not a nihilist about life itself, he does not believe life is MEANINGLESS. You also have to realize that Nietzsche's essay 'Schopenhauer as Education' was part of the 'Early Nietzsche' period.
@alifeofreason '' Man does what is habitual to him more easily, better, and therefore more willingly; he feels pleasure therein, and knows from experience that the habitual has been tested, and is therefore useful; a custom that we can live with is prove to be wholesome and advantageous in contrast to all new and not yet tested experiments. According to this, morality is the union of the pleasant and useful'' Human, All Too Human, Section 97
@alifeofreason I do not know if you know what moral relativism is but the quote above displays man and his morality as what is most pleasurable to him. This therefore implies that Nietzsche speaks of a morality based on the avoidance of pain and the gaining of pleasure, which is just, exactly, what moral relativism is. Moral relativism is person dependent, in other words, defined by the person, this would indeed be subjective.
@07Aristotle Nietzsche does not give a morality. He wants to get 'away' from morality as anything objective or universal. Also, a morality based on avoidance of pain and gaining pleasure is called utilitarianism (as seen in J.S. Mill and J. Bentham), which is a view that Nietzsche attacks over and over throughout his books as something quite silly, again because it tries to universalize things, tries to make common what is not common. Nietzsche wants us to take a step back from our prejudices.
@alifeofreason No, utilitarianism does not posit a 'pleasure vs pain' ethics, it advocates 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people', to quote Bentham. You are getting it confused with hedonism, which is the life philosophy of the pursuit of pleasure as a principle.
-He did not, however, say that they create norms for society-
''The genius does nothing but learn how to lay stones, then to build, always to seek for material and always to work upon it...it precludes all thought of..
@alifeofreason..its development, it tyrannises as a present perfection.'' Human, All To Human, Section 162
In the above statement Nietzsche indicates that the genius is the learning how to 'lay stones' and to build upon 'material' (his creations). He not only names the 'creative genius' as a stellar learner but that they 'tyrannise perfection', that the are the most exquisite forms of art form in cultures.
Eternal recurrence, according to Nietzsche, was the repetition of the same...
@alifeofreason Considering that Nietzsche eternal recurrence had to do with life being an 'eternal recurrence of the same' things, this would also include as Nietzsche viewpoint on life to be meaningless. He believed the people of 'higher culture' or 'free spirits' were themselves gave the meaning, but that life itself was meaningless without individuals transforming themselves in these so-called free spirits. Nietzsche being a 'Yes-sayr' in no way affirms life, it only means he creates meaning.
@07Aristotle How would embracing the eternal recurrence make life meaningless? It is quite the opposite, the existential thought itself that this life is the one you will repeat for eternity, and the acceptance of it makes one fully embrace life as meaningful, and gives one the power to create a work of art out of one's own life. Pure existentialism and life-affirmation.
@alifeofreason...thing over and over. He said that,'this life as you live it, you will live it innumerable time more' and also 'that there will be nothing new in it but every pain and joy will return to you', to me, this sounds pretty meaningless to me, but this repetition happens regardless of whether you accept it or not. Against the will. Pure nihilism.
@07Aristotle "While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed." - Nietzsche
@alifeofreason "While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed." - Nietzsche
@alifeofreason...in accordance to Nietzsche not being a nihilist. Your one quote was not even remotely in the area of proving Nietzsche was, as you say, ''life-affirming''. It was just talking about morality and him making morality out as moral relativism. Nietzsche was a moral relativist. Meaning there is no morality to begin with, individuals created it in order to sustain a community. He said there is no objective morality. This proves my point even further that Nietzsche was a nihilist.
@07Aristotle Yes, Nietzsche was a follow of Schopenhauer early on, and you can tell when reading works like 'The Birth of Tragedy' and 'Untimely Meditations', but there is a great breaking away from the Early Nietzsche once you reach the period of 'The Gay Science' and 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. I'm assuming that you haven't read 'The Gay Science'. To prove my point you only need to pay attention to section 276 at the start of Book Four.
@alifeofreason Nietzsche believed these 'creative geniuses' gave their own meaning in a life that was devoid of meaning at the onset. Nietzsche also believed that creative geniuses were above and established the norms of society.Nietzsche agreed that it was true that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose in human existence, such truth is, like all other truths, conditional upon the value-creating human being.
@07Aristotle Yes, Nietzsche did believe that creative geniuses were above the norms of society. If you've ever read his Zarathustra, you can see that he wants to escape societal 'norms' in every way possible. He looks down of the masses, the rabble, the herd. He did not, however, say that they create norms for society. Again, he wants to encourage us to get away from the hold of societal norms. The try to universalize and make people equal, when people are not equal (creative genius vs. herd).
@07Aristotle In this section Nietzsche first introduced the ideas of AMOR FATI and Yes-saying to life. Unlike Schopenhauer, Nietzsche affirms rather than denies Schopenhauer. This section is anti-nihilstic. He says: "I do not want to wage war against what is ugly...Looking away shall be my ONLY NEGATION. And all in all on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer." Now, if this doesn't prove you of my point, nothing will. This opposes nihilism, it opposes Schopenhauer, and affirms life.
@07Aristotle It is clear from Nietzsche's notes on nihilism (the highest values devaluing themselves) that he views it as decadence, and in no way favors it. It is a great misunderstanding that Nietzsche's philosophy is only destructive. At its core it is an affirmative view on existence. Nietzsche is against any sort of other-worldliness (Judaism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhism, Kant, Schopenhauer, and even Hegel), since they all strive toward the other-worldly, negating this world (nihilism).
@alifeofreason Nietzsche wasn't a psychologist and most of Freud's theories have been rejected over time. Jung's work is more widely applied and decidedly more analytic (Freud poisoned a lot of his fundamental ideas, such as the unconscious, with unfounded bias). Freud was more of a textbook example for his own mental problems and so his work is great material for studying people with similar cases. He also thought cocaine was a miracle drug.
@Flubly Nietzsche was a German Philosopher and the epitome of non-hypocrisy .. although he never acquired genuine meaning and later went insane .. he was a man who thought outside the box . He coined the term " herd mentality " . And at a time in my life he was just what the doctor ordered ) Jung admired him in many ways .
Jung " indeed "knew there was something very special in the union of the two sides of the psyche .
you have found god when you speak of him and smile as though in a great romance! im not religious but i dont have the words to convince anyone what or where or how or anything .
Hey uploader you should put an explanation of how this is to be understood, I'm sure Jung didn't really mean God like most people understand that word and I already see many idiots turning his words into what they want to believe.
@freudian456 “When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"
@AcceleratorPlus i like a lot of carl's work, however i believe freud's analogy "god is a childhood neurosis" hit's it on the head. There's not a iota of evidence for god, so i tend to gravitate more in freud's direction on the god theory.
@TheHolyMolyPoly This upload was intended to be provocative.. Most people speak of a belief in God.. while the Bible consistently speaks of a Knowledge of God and explains that God is a Spirit existing in hearts and minds. I recently created a play-list called - The Knowledge of God - to help clear up any misunderstandings. I have posted Jungs views many times on the comments.. but since there are so many comments they tend to slip into the past. but I will quote him again.. for good measure.
@TheHolyMolyPoly good point but, its important to make sure we do not throw out the baby along with the old bath water . there is something "out there " and in us . whether we call it or not its there
archetypes and dark shadows he used that term as it is not cool to use the term evil spirit in them days. These will speak Through the same pathway god wants to speak to you it is your choice who you run with . God used Jesus as a vehicle of expression totally sane mind whos using yours kind regards.....
I think Dawkins needs to spend a whole year in whatever place is the most haunted place on Earth. Spiritual beings do exist. Maybe everyone of you should do the same. If they exist and manifest that's proof of God realm. Check Michael Crichton book Travels last chapter.
I think it's easy to make the mistake of thinking there are lots of seperate things in the universe. Isn't everything supposed to be energy? Didn't that energy come from the big bang as a single thing? Therefore we can't die because there is no we. There is just one thing, which goes through different states. We are just a part of the big bang. Nothing would exist without everything else around it. If there is a God, then it is us. Or, you know, like, whatever, haha :-)
“Empirically it can be established, with sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc.
Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype produces a symbolism which has always been characterized and expressed the Deity.... The God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the Self.”
"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama." ----- Alan Watts
@1simonmatthews hahahah, my favorite part of what you said was the, "Or, you know, like, whatever." You just spoke most Americans' language.... did you see the latest Desperate Housewives....OMG
The spiritual realm is just as real as the non-spiritual realm, for in fact they are one. Our senses only pick up five percent of the light that the cosmos is formed of. That is why dogs bark at higher frequencies of sound and are said to see spirits. There are beings that exist in a different frame of frequencies to us. God is the big frame and the big fabric we are all sewn from. God is the laws of reality. God is the creative impulse. Is it a machine that loves us hates us or is indifferent?
I believe in a God, but I also believe their are many people make up who God is in their heads and they have no clue.They have this old church view that God as this old man sitting on a chair up in the clouds.I dont think anybody has evidence of God. To me God feels like something that is right there in front of my face,I dont know what it is, but I cant grasp it because my mind cant comprehend this thing called God.
Discussing topics on youtube is a bit difficult. You only have so much characters you can use so you can hardly ever get the proper nuances. And everybody answers every question with : "where are the facts" or variations thereof. As if real academic facts can be properly dealt with here. Let's not kid ourselves. I'll delve into this matter no more. Thank you.
@splankhoon 'As if real academic facts can be properly dealt with here. Let's not kid ourselves.'
Lets not assume that we can't. That is not the scientific approach! We always want to venture into the unknown with an OPEN MIND because that is where the most amazing discoveries can be found! God hides in the unknown.
Jung wants to save God. It's what drove him away from Freud. His 'mythology' is interesting for art but in real life it's useless. Our brains are all we have. And when we die, that's it. End of story. There are no gods, no demons, or whatever. There is just biology. People just hate the idea of not being conscious anymore one day. So they conjure up ghosts and gods and pixies and santa claus etc. Sorry.
@splankhoon There is not just biology, biology is just all we (or you?) know at the present time. Stating that there is nothing else beyond that is a huge assumption and has no grounds.
@splankhoon I would stick on the neutral side and with no evidence to support such a conclusion you could possibly say its a 'leap of faith' in a sense.
@splankhoon 'His 'mythology' is interesting for art but in real life it's useless'
That's not how mythology works. Mythology is not even used for art, it is used for providing modes of behavior. Get your facts straight!. Scientists would love to hear your explanation for the nature of 'when we die, that's it.'' claim.
@splankhoon The truth that death is incredibly simple (a ceasing of bodily functions) is hard to swallow. People will always want to believe a more comforting explanation, even if it is tangent to rationalized thought.
@TheAnonynja I don't think its rationalized thought to assume, with what we know now, that death is a simple process. Your jumping the gun instead of being conservative and saying "I don't know". Needless to say, it is a fact that bodily functions do come to a halt, but whose to say it is the be all end all. I for one won't take that leap!
@freudian456 False- what we know about death is simple. Believing that there is anything beyond what we do know, that death is the failure of bodily functions, would be to take a leap. Imagining life after death is an incredibly naive leap to make, in my opinion, but it is one that people WANT to believe.
@TheAnonynja You are obviously not aware of research into paranormal phenomena. If you were you wouldn't make such stupid statements as if they were facts.
@klindred But seriously, don't call my statements stupid while talking about "research into paranormal phenomena." That's like an oxymoron, almost as stupid as people believing in some mystical imaginary friend ruling over their lives. Paranormal just means unsubstantiated claims of bullshit that can't be proven by any acceptable means..
@TheAnonynja ''Paranormal just means unsubstantiated claims of bullshit that can't be proven by any acceptable means''
Wrong, what is paranormal are just gaps in our knowledge of what we do know. In other words, is in the process of being proven, not something that can't be proven. There is a lot of paranormal research out there you just need to look for it. Google 'paranormal case studies'
@TheAnonynja Yes, but in this case it was stated that there is nothing beyond death. No one ever said or implied that there was (at least not me) anything beyond death. I take the neutral position and say, 'i don't know', but I'm no one special. It's foolish to assert to people, that believe in God, that there is no God with what we know now.
Believing in something does not make it truth. We must know the truth instead of believing in religious myths. Seek the truth for yourself, check out truthcontest (dot) com and read The Present.
@estarmes Now I'm wondering.. What is it you consider not to be true.. ?
“When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"
@AcceleratorPlus It's more of a response to all the people who say ''Carl Jung said it, he is a genius, therefor, it must be true''. But if he just calls things that are bigger or stronger than him God there is no problem. However, he does not address it in this footage. He just says he knows, but there are people who define God in a different way and apply this quote in the video to make the claim; ''There is a God'' sound more reasonable.
Jung said,, "Myth is the natural and indispensable intermediate stage between unconscious and conscious cognition. True, the unconscious knows more than the conscious does; but it is knowledge of a special sort, knowledge in eternity, usually without reference to the here and now, not couched in the language of the intellect. Only when we let its statements amplify themselves does it come within the range of our understanding; only then does a new aspect become perceptible to us.”
"The unconscious is the only available source of religious experience. This in certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is simply the medium from which religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such experience might be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem."
@AcceleratorPlus Jung had a very vivid near death experience when he had a heart attack in 1944. I would be this is largely the basis of his knowledge that God exists. His experience was somewhat religious in nature although not in the christian sense. It did involve the classic components of a near death experience including the out of body, and what looked like a possible life review and possibly the vision of loved ones deceased, including a premonition. It affected him a great deal.
@estarmes a person's ignorance of something, in no way proves the something to be untrue...a person unaware of the beast hidden in the bushes, is in no way safe from its jaws...just because you dont know about something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist
@longfootbuddy ''Smart people CAN say things that are not true.'' Just a reminder. I am not saying he is wrong or right, but just recognising he is human.
A silly thing to say. Did he forget he is a mere mortal?
MrXephyr 1 week ago
I think his "I know" meant "I feel".
ceppobattericoforte 3 weeks ago
GOD IS MONEY,PEOPLE WORSHIP IT AND BOW TO THE POUND SIGN .
bowmaker11 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
When we take into account the miracle of creation we assume that a creator must be behind it.The idea of a God overloads the mind.More questions arise and we are not sure just which God one means when the question is put to us as to whether God exists.It assumes that we know his intentions when we are clearly in the dark. Man has invented far too much in this regard. God remains a mystery to honest people.God however is "felt" in our hearts.God must exist.
noado51 1 month ago
Yes he was grinning because for him it is not a believe if you have a relation with something or someone but people allways use the word believe.
rootsjack 1 month ago
Yeah, there are some Absolute Truths which are self-explanatory and need no proof to know it is the way it is
LeHavreParis 2 months ago
I am deeply saddened by so many peoples attempts to explain God through analitical thought. it simply works like this,Repent of your sin,be Baptized in Jesus name and God will fill you with the Holy Ghost! After the moment of infilling you will be able to understand it all!
nathanielcalhoun 2 months ago
@nathanielcalhoun That's not what he meant by God. He didn't mean any God as conceptualized by organized religion. I think he means the infinite transcendent consciousness that is like the blood of the universe, coursing through in waves, giving and taking life, but it's all one.
lapopofighting 2 months ago 4
@lapopofighting Well spoken )
jungian9111 2 months ago
@lapopofighting Actually, I'm pretty sure he believed in the archetypal personal God. He was a Gnostic. What you're saying is more of a Pantheistic view which I don't think he held.
TheAxis456 1 month ago
Actually he said he knew.He didn't say what he knew. The grin on his face looks like he knows what I know (there is no God)
Surrealist6 2 months ago
@Surrealist6 but he did say what he knew..
“A young female student accused Jung of being an atheist. Jung was confused and asked the student where she had gotten that idea. The student paraphrased a quote she had read in which Jung said he didn't believe God existed. Jung smiled and said "Dear girl, rest easy, “When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. "
AcceleratorPlus 2 months ago 14
@Surrealist6 He continues....
The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"
Carl Jung - The Undiscovered Self
AcceleratorPlus 2 months ago 20
@AcceleratorPlus Touche! You know more about Karl Jung than I thought I knew! Interesting he would be like that but then he always was a bit "metaphysical" and all that. I have read logical things he wrote about personality type and wrongly assumed he would be more logical about supreme beings.
Surrealist6 1 month ago
@Surrealist6 Everyone makes wrong assumptions so.. not to worry.. you are not alone in this respect.
Nevertheless.. I’m curious.. What did he say about “supreme beings”.. that you assume was illogical.. ?
A quote from his collective works would do..
Don’t forget to take into account that Jung was an admirer of Nietzsche..
---------------
"Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.”
Nietzsche
AcceleratorPlus 1 month ago
@AcceleratorPlus Nietzshe was a pretentious miserable little man. lol
Chesedrosen 1 week ago
@Surrealist6 i´m sorry but i think it´s exactly the other way around... I all comes down to what is your concept on God. If you are thinking about a great old man, sitting on a cloud and smiling, you are not thinking abot God. You must probably be thinking about Santa. You can´t get to know God, you can only hope to be overwhelmed by it. That´s the experience Jung is talking about, a force that´s beyond his understanding. Trying to conceptualize it is killing God.
MrDiegota 2 months ago
@Surrealist6 ... .003 seconds into eternity you will experience a massive "un-knowing" of that which you arrogantly think you know.
bella50008 1 month ago
@bella50008 How are you so sure anything happens .003 seconds after you die? Probably nothing at all happens. I do not believe it to be arrogant to say so. You believe something WONDERFUL is going to happen? Well then bully for you, but your belief is just as arrogant as mine.
Surrealist6 1 month ago
@Surrealist6 ...Of course you're right. What do I know ....I've never been dead. You're probably right when you say there is no God. In the event that you're not right..just pretend you were misinformed.
bella50008 1 month ago
@Surrealist6 please tell me how you know that? ever heard of laws of nature? laws need dictating and enforcing via a will.. unless you believe all laws of nature are by coincidence like life*lol*
mancsakacarl 3 weeks ago
@mancsakacarl You are confusing two diff kinds of "laws." Laws of nature are just what we call the *properties* of nature...they don't "need dictating...via a will." Why would you laugh at life being a coincidence? If you laugh at it, it means you never thought it a possibility, which means you are not giving all possibilities a fair chance, and whatever conclusion you may come up with is invalid :/
hollumber 2 weeks ago
@hollumber they are not chaotic in nature or design nothing can hold together or form without will and to believe so is stupidity , even newton concluded there was a god.
mancsakacarl 2 weeks ago
@mancsakacarl Nature does not have to be "chaotic," and it can be demonstrated (and has been) that simple rules give rise to complex patterns. "Nothing can hold....is stupidity" Why is it stupid? Now, I am not saying I *believe* it, but I am saying it's a possibility. And to not give it a chance as a possibility is like trying to find the best way to run the world, without including democracy and anarchy. "even newton..." So what? If he only believes it, but doesn't have evidence, doesnt matter.
hollumber 2 weeks ago
@hollumber so everything is by chance?? is that what you are saying?? i doubt that , very very much.
mancsakacarl 2 weeks ago
@mancsakacarl I don't think you're putting a good effort in trying to understand what i am *actually* saying. What I said was, you must be open to all possibilities, and look at the evidence, and see which ones are *still* possibilities, and which ones are *most likely*. Again, you say you *doubt* this "chance" thing, but why? What is the reason? Honestly, I don't know what to believe, and I hold the position "idk." How come I do not take a stance, but you do? Why must you take a stance?
hollumber 2 weeks ago
@hollumber because its in my being to believe there is something that i cant explain , just as i cant explain why i feel like there is(a creator). what i find amazing is that you can break down matter to nothing yet we are here observing and feeling nothing theoretically ,everything is the same made of energy connected with light yet everything is different.. when you make a wall of brick and mortar it is always brick and mortar , yet reality doesn't work like that.
mancsakacarl 2 weeks ago
@hollumber which basically make's me wonder how, and make's me wonder that all is not what it seem's we are electrical energy being's when the spark leaves we die but do we? i dont think energy can ever dissipate only change or move on , even the body that is left behind will eventually become atoms floating round space.
mancsakacarl 2 weeks ago
@mancsakacarl You cannot explain it? You "feel" there is something bigger? Feelings have a very low batting average when it comes to distinguishing b.t fact and fiction. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm saying that it's not the only option available. Many of us (including me) hope that there is something more, but I do not say there *must* be something more because I *want* there to be. We can't let this get in the way of what we claim is knowledge. Until it is proven, we shouldn't teach it.
hollumber 2 weeks ago
Man, it's just cool that there's actually footage of this guy speaking.
WanderLink 3 months ago
I believe in umbrellas. Umbrellas block the tears of the my-suit-is-too-darn-big-for-me god. He doesn't mind if you block his tears. He's crying from laughter at the sight of Jung's big baggy suit. He also said don't listen to Carl Jung because Jung is an idiot.
MostMagnificentOne 3 months ago
Jung believed in the god of "My suits is too darn big for me. I'm swimming in my suit." He worshipped him regularly, in fact.
MostMagnificentOne 3 months ago
If Geezer says a god exists then a god exists. You can see that Jung has a hard time not laughing when he says he knows a god exists. He doesn't say which god he believes in though. Maybe it's the god of tobacco pipes he believes in.
MostMagnificentOne 3 months ago
Jung = hilly-billie
Neueregel 3 months ago
Not all the great minds were that great. God was just one of the prevailing beliefs of Jung's time. He probably didn't like seeing women being given the right to vote either.
ChipArgyle 4 months ago
god exists whether u like it or not.
esraretin 4 months ago
@esraretin The question isn't if god exists of not, the question is: what is a god? God explained in the bible, qu'ran... is obviously a psychopath.
Watchdawg 4 months ago
@Watchdawg i agree! but they have some logic that u cant create borders for god. u cant judge him as ur morrality perceptions etc .once u accept a religion there is no question everything is logical,if u say this book comes from god.
esraretin 4 months ago
god exists whether or not u like it. (is it gramaticaly correct?
esraretin 4 months ago
im lying on the bed and watchin jungs vids .im not normal
esraretin 4 months ago
I know too, God is very real, and we do live on, I know, because I do EVP research, so I"I know" too. you tube.com/user/Snowfirel?feature=mhee
Snowfirel 4 months ago
bost beautiful thing i've seen in a long time.
daskaustubh 4 months ago
Jung knew he didn't have to believe he knew, he delves alot more into this in the book an answer to job, Jung also Knew everyone knows even if they are unaware of it, all humans have a religious instinct whether it is faith in God or a secular faith like atheism. Know one can escape the prejudice of being human young observed.
DreamstateEmergency 5 months ago
Look at the smile at :23. I'm going out right now and casting Robin Williams to play Jung in his life story.
Jlongtors0 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Freud was much smarter than Jung. Nietzsche was smarter than both of them.
alifeofreason 6 months ago
@alifeofreason
i disagree, that Freud was much smarter than Jung because for starters Freud disregarded human history.He focused on the now and then would come up with a hypothesis, were as Jung looked at all of history while also looking into the now. Jung said himself that when he first started to work with Freud,Jung was knee deep in reading Kant,Nietzche and other philosophers while Freud had know education of any of that and know interest in it either.Nietzche was smart but not smarter.
DreamstateEmergency 5 months ago
@DreamstateEmergency After reading your comment, you sound like you should be reading Hegel rather than Jung ;) (I personally enjoy Hegel even though I am definitely not a Hegelian). However, when you think about it Freud is definitely not disregarding human history (if you doubt this, read 'The Future of an Illusion' and 'Totem and Taboo'). I'm not a Freudian at all (even though I admire him), but Freud definitely does not disregard human history. Jung is into woo-woo though. I hope this helps.
alifeofreason 4 months ago
@alifeofreason Maybe because Nietzsche was a prophet of Jesus..
Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?" The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god." - IJohn 10:31
“Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
AcceleratorPlus 4 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus Get a life... Are you serious? You obviously have never read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or The Antichrist. A prophet of Jesus writing a book called The Antichrist (also translated as 'The Anti-christian). Please don't poison my comments unless you know what you're talking about. I suggest you read one of these books if you are not smart enough to read Nietzsche in the original:'The Death of God and the Meaning of Life' and 'Nietzsche's Philosophy of Religion', both by Julian Young.
alifeofreason 4 months ago
@alifeofreason My friend I can assure you that Jesus and Nietzsche are perfectly compatible
Nevertheless.. I’m impressed by your great learning.. and thank you for so modestly bringing it to our attention.. even if it was amidst some blatant false assumptions.
Tell me… Who was Zarathustra
How does 'Nietzsche's Philosophy of Religion' differ from that of Jesus.. (and also Buddha’s)..?
Weren’t they ALL in agreement.. that organized religion should be torn down.. ?
AcceleratorPlus 4 months ago
@alifeofreason BTW - Have you read Blake..?
Blake knew the scriptures well
He puts Jesus and Nietzsche in bed together too..
---. "If moral virtue was Christianity, Christ's pretensions were all vanity, The moral Christian is the cause Of the unbeliever and his laws. For what is Antichrist but those Who against sinners heaven close With iron bars, in virtuos state impose oppression at the gate." William Blake
AcceleratorPlus 4 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus And Jesus' next words.... “Isn’t it written in your Law, I have said, you are gods?”35 Scripture calls those to whom God’s word came, gods, and scripture can’t be abolished
jdroane 3 months ago
@jdroane Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:5.. a verse that undermines what many Christians mistakenly believe.. that Jesus alone was God. I featured this idea on a vid I uploaded called The God Man. Translaters tend to butcher the meaning of the verses ..
------
“They have not known, and they do not understand; In darkness they keep walking about; All the foundations of the earth are made to totter. I myself have said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.” - Psalm 82:5
AcceleratorPlus 3 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus Yes. Nice work.
jdroane 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alifeofreason Who are you "smarter than" ?
triflind 4 months ago
@alifeofreason ohh hes smarter shes smarter...all of them were just people,humanbeing.
esraretin 4 months ago
@esraretin So what... Are you saying that all people are part of the herd? There are some who overcome the herd mentality. Spinoza is definitely one of them, and Nietzsche is another. There are some others, Heinrich Heine and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, etc. etc. If you really think the above mentioned individuals are part of the herd, you are absolutely mistaken. Just because one is human, doesn't mean one is subject to specimenity. Think of all of the faith heads out there... Jung included.
alifeofreason 4 months ago
@alifeofreason freud was a dogmatist. nietsche was correct on much but i have to disagree jung bested them all.
aqueenowlbee 4 months ago
@aqueenowlbee His name is spelled Nietzsche. He was important enough for Carl Jung to devote a complex seminar on his book 'Zarathustra', which I have and I can say the Jung admires certain aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy, but because of certain biases he rejects important aspects of Nietzsche that are essential. If Nietzsche watched this 28 second clip he would jump in his seat. What have you read of Nietzsche? Although he's a philosopher, he knows the truth of the 'soul', like Dostoevsky.
alifeofreason 4 months ago
@alifeofreason To me, Nietzshe was a mediocre prose writer, and a rather ghastly poet; but a philosopher... he was not. I can't think of even ONE philosophical concept of his that has survived the test of time. Like Ayn Rand, he was a literary mediocrity who said it well, but said hardly anything at all. He is studied to today more as a fin de siecle historical curiosity than a philosopher, and owes his continued fame to the Fuhrer, Herr Wagner, and the ruthless rigour of modern capitalism
akrifasouth 3 months ago
@akrifasouth Ayn Rand is a wretched waste of human life and not even to be talked about within the subject of philsoophy. Also, I find your comments on Nietzsche not only grossly ignorant but quite ghastly! Take almost any 19th century philosophy course, philosophy of art, and take any existentialism course in university and you WILL be required to read a lot of Nietzsche. You have no idea what you are talking about. Nietzsche is one of the most widely read BY PHILOSOPHERS!!!
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason I am entitled to my opinion. I know his works very well indeed. For me, the ONLY marginally helpful piece is Twilight of the Gods. His views on women are now defunct (and offensive); his ideas are a nasty hotchpotch of borrowed antagonisms and petty squabbles, penned in a fever of national pride and over-zealous materialistic rationalism. He is a sociologist, philologist, anthropologist... in short, he seems not to know what he is. A philosopher? By no means.
akrifasouth 3 months ago
@alifeofreason No life is a wretched waste.
akrifasouth 3 months ago
@alifeofreason Nietzsche was more for lyrical and rhetorical entertainment than to be taken seriously. Whilst he was a good writer but that is about as far as the compliment goes. Nietzsche was a nihilist and had nothing to do with existentialism.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle Is this a joke? You obviously haven't read Nietzsche if you think he is a nihilist. The whole point of Nietzsche's philosophy is to overcome nihilism, the nihilism so evident in the thought of Christianity (Platonism for the masses), and its influence on Kant, and in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Basically, the nihilism that engulfed western civilization. Go back and read Nietzsche before denouncing him...
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason No this is not a joke. I have read a lot of Nietzsche, five to be exact. Nietzsche was a nihilist just like the philosopher Schopenhauer who he inherited his ideas from. Nietzsche was content with the notion of nihilism and thus it showed in his writings. He criticized Christianity for its objective existentialism and believed that, through religion, objective meaning was therefore superimposed. Thereafter, he believed, that people bought into the idea of objective meaning.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle You obviously have no grasp on Nietzsche. The young Nietzsche was greatly influenced by Schopenhauer, but he broke away from Schopenhauer because he disagreed with his nihilism. Nietzsche denounced the nihilism inherent in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Nietzsche is known for 'philosophizing with a hammer', which is to say he taps things to see if they are hollow (shallow and meaningless), and thus nihilistic.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason A section in 'untimely meditations' called 'Schopenhauer as educator' , Nietzsche wrote how Schopenhauer influenced his life and assimilated his beliefs along side his own original views. Nietzsche noted Schopenhauer as a 'true educator'. Nietzsche never ''broke away'' from Schopenhauer, he just progressively mentions him less in his later works. There is nothing in the Judeo-Christian tradition that is nihilist. There is evidence of nihilism in his view on morality.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle You are ignoring so much of Nietzsche's philosophy. You should be well aware that the eternal recurrence is a complete rejection of Schopenhauer's negation of the will. You should carefully examine 'The Gay Science', 'The Antichrist', and 'The Will to Power'.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason What?! I never said that 'eternal recurrence' was not a negation of Schopenhauer's will. We are talking about nihilism and Nietzsche. Nietzsche was appealed by Schopenhauer pessimistic nihilism. Nietzsche thought that nihilism was a characteristic of modern society and that Christianity was more for the primitive. He thought that it was of cardinal importance for, what he termed, as the 'free spirit' or creative geniuses. You should know this since you say you know Nietzsche.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle And obviously the eternal recurrence is a complete affirmation of life, of existence, contra the previous nihilistic conceptions of reality, of the need of positing some other-worldly salvation (which was at the heart of Schopenhauer's philosophy). The eternal recurrence is a complete rejection of nihilism. And Nietzsche thought that the 'creative geniuses/free spirits' create their own values, are above the nihilistic tendencies so evident in Christianity. Goethe, Shakespeare, etc.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason No, according to Nietzsche, eternal recurrence was a meaningless repetition of life. That is why he said it was an 'eternal recurrence of the same'. Because he viewed life as a repetition of the same theme over and over ad infinitum. There was nothing in Nietzsche's philosophy that was ''life-affirming''. There was never an explicit change of Nietzsche philosophy away from Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer had the biggest influence on Nietzsche than any other philosopher.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle This has to be a joke. The eternal recurrence is life-affirming in itself because it is the willing for this existence to happen again and again forever with all of the sufferings that come with it, because life is worth all of those bad things that come with it. If that's not life affirming, then nothing is. Again, I think you're just making a joke of this. Nietzsche is perhaps the most life-affirming philosopher in the history of western thought.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason ''This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself...
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@alifeofreason ...The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it ''--'The Gay Science', Section 341
This sounds very nihilistic to me. I do not think you know what you are talking about when it comes to Nietzsche but when you say 'life-affirming' it obviously has nothing to with his philosophies. It has nothing to do with the 'willing for this existence to happen again and again'. As if eternal recurrence was dependent on only a willing subject.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle Responding to your comments is growing rather old. I highly recommend to you a book by a Nietzsche scholar at Brown Univ. named Bernard Reginster called 'The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism', which goes over some of the very same things I have been posting to you. You have misunderstood all of Nietzsche, including his basis for moral and philosophical questioning, namely the importance of ideas the add to life's energies, rather than negate them.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alifeofreason ''Responding to your comments is growing rather old. I''
Nice cop-out response.
''named Bernard Reginster called 'The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism'''
I'm sorry, I don't read books of people who wrote ABOUT Nietzsche. Who twist Nietzsche's words in order to support their viewpoints. You failed to conjure up any quotes from Nietzsche himself that directly proves any sort of 'overcoming' nihilism.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@alifeofreason And as far as anyone is concerned Nietzsche is still a nihilist and you ,still asserting that, he is wholly life-affirming shows that you need to read up more. You were wrong about eternal recurrence being life affirming and now your coping out.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle You have absolutely no evidence for that. It is clear that you not only haven't sufficiently read Nietzsche, but that you haven't read any secondary literature on him. All (and I do mean all) Nietzsche scholars deny the myth that Nietzsche was a nihilist. It is a common misunderstanding. You should look into the works of Brian Leiter, Christopher Janaway, Robert Solomon, Walter Kaufmann, and Julian Young.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason ''Virtue is under certain circumstances merely an honorable form of stupidity: who could be ill-disposed toward it on that account? And this kind of virtue has not been outlived even today. '' --Will to Power, Section 34
Nietzsche claims there is no virtue here. This must be nihilism. I could not read secondary literature because I would not be using Nietzsche words. It does not matter what other writers say, I'm concerned to what Nietzsche says. You have provided nothing...
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle Look, you are right about Nietzsche's nihilistic views toward morality. Nietzsche was not a moral relativist, but a moral nihilist. This means that he believed that moral valuations have no objective meaning, they are MEANINGLESS. However, he is not a nihilist about life itself, he does not believe life is MEANINGLESS. You also have to realize that Nietzsche's essay 'Schopenhauer as Education' was part of the 'Early Nietzsche' period.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason '' Man does what is habitual to him more easily, better, and therefore more willingly; he feels pleasure therein, and knows from experience that the habitual has been tested, and is therefore useful; a custom that we can live with is prove to be wholesome and advantageous in contrast to all new and not yet tested experiments. According to this, morality is the union of the pleasant and useful'' Human, All Too Human, Section 97
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@alifeofreason I do not know if you know what moral relativism is but the quote above displays man and his morality as what is most pleasurable to him. This therefore implies that Nietzsche speaks of a morality based on the avoidance of pain and the gaining of pleasure, which is just, exactly, what moral relativism is. Moral relativism is person dependent, in other words, defined by the person, this would indeed be subjective.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle Nietzsche does not give a morality. He wants to get 'away' from morality as anything objective or universal. Also, a morality based on avoidance of pain and gaining pleasure is called utilitarianism (as seen in J.S. Mill and J. Bentham), which is a view that Nietzsche attacks over and over throughout his books as something quite silly, again because it tries to universalize things, tries to make common what is not common. Nietzsche wants us to take a step back from our prejudices.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason No, utilitarianism does not posit a 'pleasure vs pain' ethics, it advocates 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people', to quote Bentham. You are getting it confused with hedonism, which is the life philosophy of the pursuit of pleasure as a principle.
-He did not, however, say that they create norms for society-
''The genius does nothing but learn how to lay stones, then to build, always to seek for material and always to work upon it...it precludes all thought of..
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@alifeofreason..its development, it tyrannises as a present perfection.'' Human, All To Human, Section 162
In the above statement Nietzsche indicates that the genius is the learning how to 'lay stones' and to build upon 'material' (his creations). He not only names the 'creative genius' as a stellar learner but that they 'tyrannise perfection', that the are the most exquisite forms of art form in cultures.
Eternal recurrence, according to Nietzsche, was the repetition of the same...
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@alifeofreason Considering that Nietzsche eternal recurrence had to do with life being an 'eternal recurrence of the same' things, this would also include as Nietzsche viewpoint on life to be meaningless. He believed the people of 'higher culture' or 'free spirits' were themselves gave the meaning, but that life itself was meaningless without individuals transforming themselves in these so-called free spirits. Nietzsche being a 'Yes-sayr' in no way affirms life, it only means he creates meaning.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle How would embracing the eternal recurrence make life meaningless? It is quite the opposite, the existential thought itself that this life is the one you will repeat for eternity, and the acceptance of it makes one fully embrace life as meaningful, and gives one the power to create a work of art out of one's own life. Pure existentialism and life-affirmation.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason...thing over and over. He said that,'this life as you live it, you will live it innumerable time more' and also 'that there will be nothing new in it but every pain and joy will return to you', to me, this sounds pretty meaningless to me, but this repetition happens regardless of whether you accept it or not. Against the will. Pure nihilism.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@alifeofreason ''All (and I do mean all) Nietzsche scholars deny the myth that Nietzsche was a nihilist.''
So, I care what Nietzsche himself says, not what scholars say. I mean, we are arguing over what Nietzsche says not what scholars think he means.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle "While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed." - Nietzsche
alifeofreason 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alifeofreason "While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed." - Nietzsche
And this proves?...............
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@alifeofreason...in accordance to Nietzsche not being a nihilist. Your one quote was not even remotely in the area of proving Nietzsche was, as you say, ''life-affirming''. It was just talking about morality and him making morality out as moral relativism. Nietzsche was a moral relativist. Meaning there is no morality to begin with, individuals created it in order to sustain a community. He said there is no objective morality. This proves my point even further that Nietzsche was a nihilist.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle Yes, Nietzsche was a follow of Schopenhauer early on, and you can tell when reading works like 'The Birth of Tragedy' and 'Untimely Meditations', but there is a great breaking away from the Early Nietzsche once you reach the period of 'The Gay Science' and 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. I'm assuming that you haven't read 'The Gay Science'. To prove my point you only need to pay attention to section 276 at the start of Book Four.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason Nietzsche believed these 'creative geniuses' gave their own meaning in a life that was devoid of meaning at the onset. Nietzsche also believed that creative geniuses were above and established the norms of society.Nietzsche agreed that it was true that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose in human existence, such truth is, like all other truths, conditional upon the value-creating human being.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle Yes, Nietzsche did believe that creative geniuses were above the norms of society. If you've ever read his Zarathustra, you can see that he wants to escape societal 'norms' in every way possible. He looks down of the masses, the rabble, the herd. He did not, however, say that they create norms for society. Again, he wants to encourage us to get away from the hold of societal norms. The try to universalize and make people equal, when people are not equal (creative genius vs. herd).
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@07Aristotle In this section Nietzsche first introduced the ideas of AMOR FATI and Yes-saying to life. Unlike Schopenhauer, Nietzsche affirms rather than denies Schopenhauer. This section is anti-nihilstic. He says: "I do not want to wage war against what is ugly...Looking away shall be my ONLY NEGATION. And all in all on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer." Now, if this doesn't prove you of my point, nothing will. This opposes nihilism, it opposes Schopenhauer, and affirms life.
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@07Aristotle It is clear from Nietzsche's notes on nihilism (the highest values devaluing themselves) that he views it as decadence, and in no way favors it. It is a great misunderstanding that Nietzsche's philosophy is only destructive. At its core it is an affirmative view on existence. Nietzsche is against any sort of other-worldliness (Judaism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhism, Kant, Schopenhauer, and even Hegel), since they all strive toward the other-worldly, negating this world (nihilism).
alifeofreason 3 months ago
@alifeofreason Nietzsche wasn't a psychologist and most of Freud's theories have been rejected over time. Jung's work is more widely applied and decidedly more analytic (Freud poisoned a lot of his fundamental ideas, such as the unconscious, with unfounded bias). Freud was more of a textbook example for his own mental problems and so his work is great material for studying people with similar cases. He also thought cocaine was a miracle drug.
Flubly 2 months ago
@Flubly Nietzsche was a German Philosopher and the epitome of non-hypocrisy .. although he never acquired genuine meaning and later went insane .. he was a man who thought outside the box . He coined the term " herd mentality " . And at a time in my life he was just what the doctor ordered ) Jung admired him in many ways .
Jung " indeed "knew there was something very special in the union of the two sides of the psyche .
jungian9111 2 months ago
Yes the evidence that my hair , nails et cells don't need my ego to live.
Evidences is needed when you don't know but when you know there are useless.
hedavie 6 months ago
I don't have to believe I know !!!
hedavie 6 months ago
@hedavie Knowledge is based on evidence. I bet you don't know that.
gupsphoo 6 months ago
this guy don't know what god Is better yet he knows no shit?
parisfaith 6 months ago
you have found god when you speak of him and smile as though in a great romance! im not religious but i dont have the words to convince anyone what or where or how or anything .
jennyrgar 6 months ago
somebody bleeped the word no out of there. Carl Jung does not believe he has repeatedly said that throughout his entire career
Linus5439dl 6 months ago
No necesita creer, el sabe.
AlexChristianR 6 months ago
@blabblab1212 lol don't worry you're not crazy or insane :] I understood what you were saying
FanOfThings 7 months ago
Hey uploader you should put an explanation of how this is to be understood, I'm sure Jung didn't really mean God like most people understand that word and I already see many idiots turning his words into what they want to believe.
TheHolyMolyPoly 7 months ago
@TheHolyMolyPoly What way do you think he meant?
freudian456 7 months ago
@freudian456 “When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"
Carl Jung - The Undiscovered Self
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago 13
@AcceleratorPlus Truth, be God sth, surely its truth:) Mahatma Ghandi
xlapj001 6 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus i like a lot of carl's work, however i believe freud's analogy "god is a childhood neurosis" hit's it on the head. There's not a iota of evidence for god, so i tend to gravitate more in freud's direction on the god theory.
MrMilagroqq 5 months ago
@freudian456 Sorry.. that response was meant for Holymolypoly..
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@TheHolyMolyPoly This upload was intended to be provocative.. Most people speak of a belief in God.. while the Bible consistently speaks of a Knowledge of God and explains that God is a Spirit existing in hearts and minds. I recently created a play-list called - The Knowledge of God - to help clear up any misunderstandings. I have posted Jungs views many times on the comments.. but since there are so many comments they tend to slip into the past. but I will quote him again.. for good measure.
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@TheHolyMolyPoly good point but, its important to make sure we do not throw out the baby along with the old bath water . there is something "out there " and in us . whether we call it or not its there
kahetel13 7 months ago
@TheHolyMolyPoly Both ideas God, no God confirm the existence of observer... but really too far from IQ of most people on Earth:)
xlapj001 6 months ago
archetypes and dark shadows he used that term as it is not cool to use the term evil spirit in them days. These will speak Through the same pathway god wants to speak to you it is your choice who you run with . God used Jesus as a vehicle of expression totally sane mind whos using yours kind regards.....
royplumber 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you can observe your mind you are not it.
IIemzyII 7 months ago
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
TruthmyFriend 7 months ago
I think Dawkins needs to spend a whole year in whatever place is the most haunted place on Earth. Spiritual beings do exist. Maybe everyone of you should do the same. If they exist and manifest that's proof of God realm. Check Michael Crichton book Travels last chapter.
harrifongostudios 7 months ago
I think it's easy to make the mistake of thinking there are lots of seperate things in the universe. Isn't everything supposed to be energy? Didn't that energy come from the big bang as a single thing? Therefore we can't die because there is no we. There is just one thing, which goes through different states. We are just a part of the big bang. Nothing would exist without everything else around it. If there is a God, then it is us. Or, you know, like, whatever, haha :-)
1simonmatthews 7 months ago 5
“Empirically it can be established, with sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc.
Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype produces a symbolism which has always been characterized and expressed the Deity.... The God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the Self.”
Carl Jung
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama." ----- Alan Watts
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago 11
@AcceleratorPlus I like Alan Watts. Haven't listened to Carl Jung much yet, but I will :)
1simonmatthews 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus you get a big thumbs up for quoting Watts
theraccoun 4 months ago
@1simonmatthews That is a very interesting theory but there is one small problem with it and it is that it is
a load of bollocks. You seem to be intellectually ill equippedd to do any deduction.
DarkAntiU94 7 months ago
Comment removed
1simonmatthews 7 months ago
@1simonmatthews hahahah, my favorite part of what you said was the, "Or, you know, like, whatever." You just spoke most Americans' language.... did you see the latest Desperate Housewives....OMG
meanmark1 5 months ago
@meanmark1 OMG got the box set on DVD! ;-)
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
The spiritual realm is just as real as the non-spiritual realm, for in fact they are one. Our senses only pick up five percent of the light that the cosmos is formed of. That is why dogs bark at higher frequencies of sound and are said to see spirits. There are beings that exist in a different frame of frequencies to us. God is the big frame and the big fabric we are all sewn from. God is the laws of reality. God is the creative impulse. Is it a machine that loves us hates us or is indifferent?
WhippedCreamChargers 8 months ago
I believe in a God, but I also believe their are many people make up who God is in their heads and they have no clue.They have this old church view that God as this old man sitting on a chair up in the clouds.I dont think anybody has evidence of God. To me God feels like something that is right there in front of my face,I dont know what it is, but I cant grasp it because my mind cant comprehend this thing called God.
tigoldbitties1 8 months ago
Discussing topics on youtube is a bit difficult. You only have so much characters you can use so you can hardly ever get the proper nuances. And everybody answers every question with : "where are the facts" or variations thereof. As if real academic facts can be properly dealt with here. Let's not kid ourselves. I'll delve into this matter no more. Thank you.
splankhoon 8 months ago
@splankhoon 'As if real academic facts can be properly dealt with here. Let's not kid ourselves.'
Lets not assume that we can't. That is not the scientific approach! We always want to venture into the unknown with an OPEN MIND because that is where the most amazing discoveries can be found! God hides in the unknown.
07Aristotle 8 months ago
Jung wants to save God. It's what drove him away from Freud. His 'mythology' is interesting for art but in real life it's useless. Our brains are all we have. And when we die, that's it. End of story. There are no gods, no demons, or whatever. There is just biology. People just hate the idea of not being conscious anymore one day. So they conjure up ghosts and gods and pixies and santa claus etc. Sorry.
splankhoon 8 months ago
@splankhoon There is not just biology, biology is just all we (or you?) know at the present time. Stating that there is nothing else beyond that is a huge assumption and has no grounds.
07Aristotle 8 months ago
@splankhoon I would stick on the neutral side and with no evidence to support such a conclusion you could possibly say its a 'leap of faith' in a sense.
07Aristotle 8 months ago
@splankhoon 'His 'mythology' is interesting for art but in real life it's useless'
That's not how mythology works. Mythology is not even used for art, it is used for providing modes of behavior. Get your facts straight!. Scientists would love to hear your explanation for the nature of 'when we die, that's it.'' claim.
freudian456 8 months ago
@splankhoon The truth that death is incredibly simple (a ceasing of bodily functions) is hard to swallow. People will always want to believe a more comforting explanation, even if it is tangent to rationalized thought.
TheAnonynja 8 months ago
@TheAnonynja I don't think its rationalized thought to assume, with what we know now, that death is a simple process. Your jumping the gun instead of being conservative and saying "I don't know". Needless to say, it is a fact that bodily functions do come to a halt, but whose to say it is the be all end all. I for one won't take that leap!
freudian456 8 months ago
@freudian456 False- what we know about death is simple. Believing that there is anything beyond what we do know, that death is the failure of bodily functions, would be to take a leap. Imagining life after death is an incredibly naive leap to make, in my opinion, but it is one that people WANT to believe.
TheAnonynja 8 months ago
@TheAnonynja You are obviously not aware of research into paranormal phenomena. If you were you wouldn't make such stupid statements as if they were facts.
klindred 8 months ago
@klindred Paranormal phenomena, a study about shit we don't understand. My bad, i should really look into that XD
TheAnonynja 8 months ago
@klindred But seriously, don't call my statements stupid while talking about "research into paranormal phenomena." That's like an oxymoron, almost as stupid as people believing in some mystical imaginary friend ruling over their lives. Paranormal just means unsubstantiated claims of bullshit that can't be proven by any acceptable means..
TheAnonynja 8 months ago
@TheAnonynja ''Paranormal just means unsubstantiated claims of bullshit that can't be proven by any acceptable means''
Wrong, what is paranormal are just gaps in our knowledge of what we do know. In other words, is in the process of being proven, not something that can't be proven. There is a lot of paranormal research out there you just need to look for it. Google 'paranormal case studies'
07Aristotle 7 months ago
@TheAnonynja Yes, but in this case it was stated that there is nothing beyond death. No one ever said or implied that there was (at least not me) anything beyond death. I take the neutral position and say, 'i don't know', but I'm no one special. It's foolish to assert to people, that believe in God, that there is no God with what we know now.
07Aristotle 7 months ago
@EyeAmbivalenceEye What do you mean he was a pedophile? Ive never heard of/about this. Just wondering.
kushcee 9 months ago
Believing in something does not make it truth. We must know the truth instead of believing in religious myths. Seek the truth for yourself, check out truthcontest (dot) com and read The Present.
DemianHermann 9 months ago
If we are to experience for oursleves the truth about anything bigger than oursleves, then we are going to have to get over ourselves.
Omnignosis 10 months ago
Smart people can say things that are not true. He is a genius never the less.
estarmes 10 months ago
@estarmes Now I'm wondering.. What is it you consider not to be true.. ?
“When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"
Carl Jung - The Undiscovered Self
AcceleratorPlus 10 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus It's more of a response to all the people who say ''Carl Jung said it, he is a genius, therefor, it must be true''. But if he just calls things that are bigger or stronger than him God there is no problem. However, he does not address it in this footage. He just says he knows, but there are people who define God in a different way and apply this quote in the video to make the claim; ''There is a God'' sound more reasonable.
estarmes 10 months ago
Jung said,, "Myth is the natural and indispensable intermediate stage between unconscious and conscious cognition. True, the unconscious knows more than the conscious does; but it is knowledge of a special sort, knowledge in eternity, usually without reference to the here and now, not couched in the language of the intellect. Only when we let its statements amplify themselves does it come within the range of our understanding; only then does a new aspect become perceptible to us.”
AcceleratorPlus 10 months ago
"The unconscious is the only available source of religious experience. This in certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is simply the medium from which religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such experience might be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem."
The Undiscovered Self - C Jung
AcceleratorPlus 10 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus Jung had a very vivid near death experience when he had a heart attack in 1944. I would be this is largely the basis of his knowledge that God exists. His experience was somewhat religious in nature although not in the christian sense. It did involve the classic components of a near death experience including the out of body, and what looked like a possible life review and possibly the vision of loved ones deceased, including a premonition. It affected him a great deal.
airtonyt1 8 months ago
@airtonyt1 thanks, I was wondering what type of experience he had.
intj123 8 months ago
@estarmes This is a silly argument, no scientist or religious fanatic can prove or disprove there is a God. So it's a Catch 22
limbdarkening 9 months ago
@limbdarkening Just like people can't disprove invisible unicorns.
estarmes 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@estarmes
"Smart people can say things that are not true. He is a genius never the less."
Sure. Every atheist is an example of this.
dancingwithcalvin 9 months ago
@estarmes you all are reluctant to accept the existance of god.. you go through life pretending youre wise, being only blind fools
longfootbuddy 8 months ago
@estarmes your ignorance in no way proves anything to be untrue...it merely reveals your limitations
longfootbuddy 8 months ago
@longfootbuddy What did I say that is so ignorant?
estarmes 8 months ago
@estarmes a person's ignorance of something, in no way proves the something to be untrue...a person unaware of the beast hidden in the bushes, is in no way safe from its jaws...just because you dont know about something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist
longfootbuddy 8 months ago
@longfootbuddy I never said that what he said is untrue. I am just saying that smart people can be wrong. It is just reality.
estarmes 8 months ago
@estarmes youre just saying hes wrong about god
longfootbuddy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@longfootbuddy ''Smart people CAN say things that are not true.'' Just a reminder. I am not saying he is wrong or right, but just recognising he is human.
estarmes 8 months ago
@estarmes if smart people are wrong and you are smart, you must be doubly wrong
klindred 8 months ago