I would say these two men did a great deal of harm to human beings in the 20th century. I believe neither of them are generally regarded with that much respect nowadays in the profession they more or less established but, nonetheless, many of their ideas have become absorbed into the general consciousness and continue to do their nefarious work.
If the sexual revolution of the 1960s can be laid at the door of any one man, it would be Freud. Although still not recognised as the destructive force it can be, because we are such materialists, we will one day be forced to recognise that if the sexual instinct is not ruled by a religious understanding then human beings will no longer be able to look up to the sky to see what lies beyond it, and civilisation will start unravelling. We will return to the mud. Freud gave spurious authority to that mud by presenting it as foundational to the reality of what we are. But we were formed of the dust of the earth and the breath of God.
The idea of an atheist pronouncing on the mysteries of the human mind is so absurd you would have thought that Freud's pretensions to knowledge on the subject would be seen as incoherent, but they had enough plausibility to convince a generation softened up by the retreat of religion in the face of materialistic science that he was onto something. It's the old story of a half-truth being worse than a lie. Perhaps the part of the mind he defined as the unconscious had been neglected by earlier generations but to give it such a prominent role in human psychology, and to build a theory of repression on top of it, only serves to encourage and release instincts which are meant to be superseded by first rational and then spiritual impulses. It is not a question of denying the past or the lower or the more primitive but of seeing it in the light of the higher. If it is the higher that is denied then the lower assumes much more importance than it should have. Freud did deny the higher and that fact undermines his whole system.
Jung supposedly reacted to that and tried to re-establish a spiritual sensibility. But did he really? Not in my view. What he did was reduce the spiritual to the psychological which means see the transcendent in the light of the immanent. He reduced God to Man. He might have corrected Freud's reductionism but he established his own which is almost more harmful in the sense that the corruption of the best is the worst. Jung employed pseudo-spiritual terminology and hijacked certain ancient spiritual techniques to bring the divine down to the level of the human mind where it becomes enclosed in our own limitations instead of breaking down those limitations and enabling us to rise above them which it can only do when it remains on its own plane. God is not the image of the Self. He is God.
Jung's big mistake opened the door to many spiritual forms in the late 20th century which sought to steal spirituality from God. They thought they could be more than religion but ended up being less. Both Freud and Jung were false prophets. Their influence was huge but it was only possible in a world that had lost touch with spiritual truth and needed a substitute to compensate for that. They are examples of materialism and the false spirituality that arises as a result of materialism, and although they are no longer regarded with the reverence of earlier decades the damage they did with their ideas has entered the mainstream and carries on undermining the truth.
21 comments:
@William - Yes, an accurate summary.
Freud was the worst - but in a sense he knew no better; and his damaged personality and nihilism was obvious. Jung was potentially useful, but probably more blameworthy because he Did know better, but covered it with expedient ambiguity.
I used to allow myself to think (against my better judgment really) that Jung was probably, on balance, helpful and a means of getting modern materialists interested in spirituality but now I would say he just led people astray by teaching a form of pseudo-spirituality that appeals to the reward-seeking ego. He was a kind of occultist with interesting insights but ultimately falling far short of truth.
The influence of "thinkers" such as Freud have brought only ugliness and moral decay to the world. To fall under their spell is to bring an immediate blight upon ones life. Not just in this incarnation - but in a post-death existence of soul darkness incapable of the communion with higher beings upon which we depend for our spiritual faculties in the next life.
It was Steiner who addressed the question of how such a vicious circle of ever steeper descent for such souls is avoided. For those who have rejected Christ, Lucifer will supply the deficit. The result is a "cleverness" - a barren intellectualism, that is all that separates them from the abyss and in a sense keeps them in the game, still with the chance to choose Good over Evil.
Agreed, Moonsphere. You make an important point about the post-mortem state of people who allow themselves to be bamboozled by false teachings, teachings that literally darken the mind. Given that our outer state in the next world will reflect our inner state, they will not be in a good place. God is merciful and none of us are worthy by virtue of ourselves but still it's far better to open oneself up to the truth as much as possible while in this world.
William, Jung has become something of a sacred cow in spiritual circles, so I am glad you punctured some of the pretension that surrounds him. I tried to read him once and found him impossibly squishy on the big questions. I think his appeal rests precisely on his lack of clear commitment to a God that is both transcendent and immanent, i.e. to the reality of Jesus Christ. He also allows a degree of comfort to intelligent people who are attracted to spirituality and embarrassed by the attraction. When someone says, "Well, Jung thought ..." all listen reverently and preen themselves on their sophistication. Jung wrapped his ideas in mystery and legend and the fog of dreams and fancies, and his disciple who made him popular in the U.S., Joseph Campbell, was the toast of New York society. He gave people something interesting to talk about at cocktail parties. He can be a distraction and a dead end for sincere seekers. Now, Jordan Peterson is one of his new champions. Peterson seems to be a work in progress and he has great courage in confronting the politically correct demagogues, but he, too, tends to turn spirituality into psychology and pulls the ground out from under himself. The hero may have a thousand faces, but he has one Creator that he either moves toward or away from by the commission of specific acts.
Jungian spirituality is the spirituality of materialistic people in my opinion, people who want the benefits of the the spiritual without being willing to humble themselves before God. Jordan Peterson, as far as I know him which is not very far, seems to fall into a similar category. God is not some kind of universal archetype or pattern of the integrated self. He is the living God.
What's amazing about Freud is how fast his ideas have evaporated from the culture. They were everywhere and then they were gone.
True but their influence lingers.
William, I sense a spirit within you for a while, where you have become so determined to describe that evil exists, rather than God. You are more determined to prove evil exists, than just to be.
Evil does exist, Kirstie, and to ignore it is to be complicit with it. Just being can be an evasion. Much of Jesus' teaching was specifically about the reality of evil in the world.
I think that it's possible that Peterson's reticence on things metaphysical is fundamentally strategic. Discussing spirituality in psychological terms could be of a tactical nature . Perhaps the same could be said of other figures , even the likes of a CJ Jung? Not sure .
CG Yung
You could be right Chris but I don't think such a compromise ever works. If you water spiritual teachings down in order to engage a particular audience you lose their integrity and the worldly element just corrupts the spiritual. I think that's exactly what we see with Jung. I don't know Peterson well enough to comment.
That's CG Jung!
Ugh, that repeated error must have been something Freudian at work.
Again, I'm not so sure if " spiritual" psychology is ultimately a bad thing. Is being a watered down Buddhist or a Kumbaya Christian worse than being an atheo-materialst?
You see , if one begins to accept the truth of the psychology of the spiritual , a consistent thinker will logically come to question the truth of naturalism . As Tolkien once said to Lewis , if the four dimensions or walls of materialism is all there really is , how is it that we can see things beyond those walls ?
And once one comes to the realization that we are spiritual beings , isn't that, at the very least, a step in the right direction . EF Schumacher , who wrote " Small Is Beautiful" had said that the people of the West suffer from a kind of anti-Christian
Syndrome that often can be cured by going beyond the familiar , that is , entering a different spiritual universe . He said one of the chapters in his book, " Buddhist economics" could have been entitled "Thomist" or Catholic economics , but it probably would have been less appealing to the worldlings.
Even Tolkien's works have been criticized by other traditional Christians for its paganism and Gnosticism . And yet , I suspect that more grace has flowed from his pen than any other writer in the modern era.
@Chris
Is being a watered down Buddhist or a Kumbaya Christian worse than being an atheo-materialst?
Perhaps as a snap-shot of their human states - the Kumbaya Christian might be favourably compared to the atheo-materialist. But a watered-down Christian has vastly less potential to undergo a visceral pendulum swing than a hardcore atheist. Perhaps the stakes are higher though for the atheist - if they remain that way.
So we can say whilst Zero might be a step closer to One than minus One is, inversion is a far more powerful process than addition. And even "addition" is unlikely for someone who is already satisfied with a luke-warm, shallow conception of God.
I agree with Moonsphere. Few people actually seem to move on from what you might call unspiritual spirituality to the real thing unless they do it fairly quickly. If they are the sort of person that is attracted to the imitation version in the first place, the one with a strong enough worldly admixture to make it palatable to worldly people in search of spirituality, they are unlikely to be the sort of person who rejects that as false coin. Experience may push them towards a deeper reality but they will have to change their inner motivation to respond to that correctly. I know this might seem a little hard line but it's been my experience.
As a child, I dutifully went through all Freud's stages of psychosexual development, so when I read about them later my first impression was that this guy definitely knew what he was talking about. Further reading led me to revise that appraisal considerably, to say the least, but I still return to his works from time to time and often find him to be remarkably perceptive. His great strength was noticing things, not theorizing about them. His theories are almost all bunk (as most people recognize these days), but his data are always intriguing. He is somewhat similar to Nietzsche in that regard, though of course Nietzsche was so much greater a man than Freud that the comparison seems silly.
As for Jung, I've never really given him a chance because of a deep-seated aversion to the man and his ideas. I've imbibed a great deal of secondhand Jungianism in my reading on various occult and New Age topics and have always found it repellent. It's possible that Jung himself is better than that (as Freud is much better than any Freudian), but as I say I've never really cared to find out.
I agree that Nietzsche, for all his faults, had far more insight than these two.
But we do not have Jesus's insight and his knowledge and understanding of evil. Only our own. If I am to understand correctly, God gave consent for Jesus to incarnate on this world. And Jesus chose to. Therefore prior knowledge existed before it could ever be known in this world. And Jesus alone was chosen by God to fulfill this unique destiny. By recognising evil (which is a given in this world) is not difficult and all-ready pre-destined and known between God and Jesus.
I believe you have been given the circumstances in which you have developed an unique understanding of the inexplicable (channeling via your friend, Michael). This, still is not enough, yet I get it. Isn't this what is most important about what Jesus can bring to this world? Rather than pointing out the obvious evil, he brought some insight to the other way of being.
I am no intellectual and to be honest, my spirituality is in question. I find myself at Jesus's threshold every time. I struggle. I believe in God, yet I struggle to cross to Jesus. And rather than ask Jesus for the answers, I am asking myself. So I know I am ready for the transformation, but then I hear your words (you have apparently been transformed) yet I see you reverting back to those ways where you doubt.
And I apologise for being so blunt, but yes, you have helped me understand and find answers to explain my doubts, but that does not give you an authority to compare yourself to Jesus when trying to explain the inexplicable.
And that includes evil.
Do you know, there will come a day, when friends lose their friendship because they will judge the strength of their friendship online. Never met, face-to-face. Never spoke words face-to-face. They will put fantasy before reality. And rather than trusting in a fact that has held them together over 25 years....No, they will choose the popular option, the lazy, self-indulgent option. And I know you guys (Tolkienesk types) are into the imagination, you literary types, but it is not enough anymore, not for me. You are far too self-indulgent for me. Never the twain shall meet.
Dear Kirstie, don’t worry about being blunt. That’s what comments are for. I appreciate your honesty and I’m sure that from your struggles you will find resolution.
To be frank in my turn, I’m not entirely sure what you are saying. But I think you are saying I go on about evil too much instead of focusing on the positive. I hope I focus on the positive too but the reason I do mention evil is because it is very widespread now and in a different way to before. What I mean by that is in the past people sinned but they knew and accepted what sin was. Increasingly now that is not the case and this is because in the modern world evil is often presented as good. We live in a mental age and the focus of attack has shifted onto that level, onto thoughts and ideas more than actions. The devil, figuratively speaking but maybe literally too, attempts to corrupt us intellectually, and he has been very successful. This fact is what I and many others seek to draw attention to. Even the idea of love has been hijacked and bent to anti-spiritual use.
I have not been transformed. All I would say of myself is that I believe in God and try to act on that belief. But I frequently fail and I know it. In no way do I compare myself to Jesus! I’m not sure why you think that. But I do try to follow the path he has laid down. That’s all.
Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to comment. I wish you all the best.
Post a Comment