Why Carl Jung's concept of truth is not tenable

The quote below is from a gentleman by the name of Erich Fromm. Erich Fromm was a very popular author in his day and wrote a number of books from popular best sellers to more academic works still in use today. In the below quote, taken from the book, Psychoanalysis and Religion, Erich Fromm clearly points out what he sees as significant failings in Jung`s way of thinking.
♦♦♦

Turning now to Jung we find at almost every point the opposite of Freud's views on religion.

Jung begins with a discussion of the general principles of his approach. While Freud,though not a professional philosopher, approaches the problem from a psychological and philosophical angle as William James, Dewey, and Macmurray have done, Jung states in the beginning of his book: "I restrict myself to the observation of phenomena and I refrain from  any application of metaphysical or philosophical consideration." He then goes on to explain how, as a psychologist, he then goes on to explain how, as a psychologist, he can analyze religion without application of philosophical considerations. He calls his standpoint "Phenomenological, that is, it is concerned with occurrences, events, experiences, in a word, with facts. Its truth is a fact and not a judgement. Speaking for instance of the motive of the virgin birth, psychology is only concerned with the fact that there is such an idea, but it is not concerned with the question whether such an idea is true or false in any other sense. It is psychologically true in as much as it exists. Psychological existence is subjective in so far as an idea occurs in only one individual. But it is objective in so far as it is established by a society - by a consnsus gentium."

Before I present Jung's analysis of religion a critical examination of these methodological premises seems warranted. Jung's use of the concept of truth is not tenable. He states that "truth is a fact and not a judgement," that "an elephant is true because it exists." But he forgets that truth always and necessarily refers to a judgement and not to a description of a phenomenon which we perceive with our senses and which we denote with a word symbol. Jung then states that an idea is "psychologically true in as much as it exists." But an idea "exists" regardless of whether it is a delusion or whether it corresponds to fact. The existence of an idea does not make it "true" in any sense. Even the practising psychiatrist could not work were he not concerned with the truth of an idea, that Is, with it's relation to the phenomena it tends to portray. Otherwise he could not speak of a delusion or a paranoid system. But Jung's approach is not only untenable from a psychiatric standpoint; he advocates a standpoint of relativism which, though on the surface more friendly to religion than Freud's, is in it's spirit fundamentally opposed to religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism. These consider the striving for truth as one of man's cardinal virtues and obligations and insist that their doctrines whether arrived at by revelation or only by the power of reason are subject to the criterion of truth.

Jung does not fail to see the difficulties of his own position, but the way in which he tries to solve them is unfortunately equally untenable. He tries to differentiate between "subjective" and "objective" existence, in spite of the notoriously slippery quality of these terms. Jung seems to mean that something objective is more valid and true than something that is subjective. His criterion for the difference between subjective and objective depends on whether an idea occurs only to one individual or is established by a society. But have we not been witnesses ourselves of a "folie a millions," of the madness of whole groups in our own age? Have we not seen that millions of people, misguided by their irrational passions, can believe in ideas which are not less delusional and irrational than the products of a single individual? What meaning is there in saying that they are "objective?" The spirit of this criterion for subjective and objective is that of the same relativism which I commented on above. More specifically, it is a sociological relativism which makes social acceptance of an idea the criterion of its validity, truth, or "objectivity."

After discussing his methodological premises, Jung presents his views on the central problem: What is religion? What is the nature of religious experience? His definition is one which he shares with many theologians. It can be summarized briefly in the statement that the essence of the religious experience is the submission to higher powers than ourselves. But we had better quote Jung directly. He states that religion "is a careful and scrupulous observation of what Rudolph Otto aptly named the 'numinosum,' that is, a dynamic existence or effect, not caused by an arbitrary act of will. On the contrary, it seizes and controls the human subject which is always rather its victim than its creator."

Having defined religious experience as being seized by a power outside of ourselves, Jung proceeds to interpret the concept of the unconscious as being a religious one. According to him, the unconscious cannot merely be a part of the individual mind but is a power beyond our control intruding upon our minds. "The fact that you perceive the voice (of the unconscious) in your dream proves nothing at all, for you can also hear voices in the street, which you would not explain as your own. There is only one condition under which you might legitimately call your voice your own, namely, when you assume your conscious personality to be a part of a whole or to be a smaller circle contained in a bigger one. A little bank clerk showing a friend around town, who points out the bank building, saying, 'And here is my bank,' is using the same privilege."

It is a necessary consequence of his definition of religion and of the unconscious that Jung arrives at the conclusion that, in view of the nature of the unconscious mind, the influence of the unconscious mind, the influence of the unconscious upon us "is a basic religious phenomenon." It follows that religious dogma and the dream are both religious phenomena because they both are expressions of our being seized a power outside ourselves. Needless to say, in the logic of Jung's thinking insanity would have to be called an eminently religious phenomenon. Does our examination of Freud's and Jung's attitudes toward religion bear out the popularity held opinion that Freud is a foe and Jung a friend of religion? A brief comparison of their views shows that this assumption is a misleading oversimplification.

♦♦♦Archetypes on Shatterday!♦♦♦



For more about this included tonepoem go to this blog post and this soundcloud page.
♦♦♦


Freud holds that the aim of human development is the achievement of these ideals: knowledge (reason, truth, logos), brotherly love, reduction of suffering, independence, and responsibility. These constitute the ethical core of all great religions on which Eastern and Western culture are based, the teaching of Confucius and Lao-tse, Buddha, the Prophets and Jesus. While there are certain differences of accent among these teachings, e.g., Buddha emphasising reduction of suffering, the Prophets stressing knowledge and justice, and Jesus brotherly love, it is remarkable to what extent these religious teachers are in fundamental agreement about the aim of human development and the norms which ought to guide man. Freud speaks in the name of the ethical core of religion for preventing the full realization of these ethical aims. He explains the theistic-supernatural concepts as stages in human development which were necessary and furthering but which now are no longer necessary and are in fact a barrier to further growth. The statement that Freud is "against" religion is therefore misleading unless we define sharply what religion, or what aspects of religion he is critical of and what aspects of religion he speaks for.

For Jung, religious experience is characterised by a specific kind of emotional experience: surrender to a higher power, whether this power is called God or the unconscious. Undoubtedly this is a true characterisation of a certain type of religious experience - in Christian religions, for instance, it is the core of Luther's or Calvin's teachings - while it contrasts sharply with another type of religious experience, the one, for instance, which is represented by Buddhism. In its relativism concerning truth however, Jung's concept of religion is in contrast to Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. In there, man's obligation to search for the truth is an integral postulate. Pilate's ironical question "What is the truth?" stands as a symbol of an antireligious attitude from the standpoint not only of Christianity but of all other great religions as well.

Summing up the respective positions of Freud and Jung we may say that Freud opposes religion in the name of ethics - an attitude which can be termed "religious." On the other hand, Jung reduces religion to a psychological phenomenon and at the same time elevates the unconscious to a religious phenomenon.

Erich Fromm
Psychoanalysis and Religion Pg 14
====

Why Post?

I have read and studied the works of both Carl Jung and Erich Fromm and hope the above quote from Mr. Fromm on Carl Jung is appreciated?

====

A Few Notable Quotes about the Above 

"A lie is a lie, even in Latin." - Anonymous

"The truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it." - Anonymous

Religion is a by-product of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity? - Arthur C. Clarke

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei

If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine - but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good - and CARES about any of it - to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working. - Frank Zappa

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein
====

How Do I Know - Information Towers in the Age of Psycho-Babble

I was listening to the angst in a monologue on the RT news soundcloud channel with the title: "Online information on the level of valid military intel?" and it got me thinking about the general breakdown of our information structures as we seemingly enter into a more suggestible and superstitious age.

So as I listened to this guy from RT expressing his anxiety over getting poor quality information, instead of "valid military intel," I was inspired to do a Tonepoem on the situation.

My views are not his at all. I do not believe we need "military grade intel". We do need ppl who are disgusted with "military grade intel," and have a tendency to laugh at mass theosophy, history, or any other thot based on ideas of mass. After all, it is much better to grasp things from the point of view of charge.

Tonepoem - How Do I Know?

♦♦♦

Notable Quotable 

Winston Churchill had once said: "True genius resides in the capacity for the evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information."

... I would imagine that Churchill had a great deal of guilt riddled and personally biased military grade intel to deal with? Each and every piece undoubtedly filled with images of salvation and damnation and he needed to evaluate all of that uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information in spite of bias, whether his or others.
♦♦♦♦♦♦

The above Tonepoem How Do I Know? fits nicely with similar Tonepoems I have done about militant guilt riddled revisionist cultures breeding an increasingly paranoid and suspicious psychological type where military grade intel goes all to hell!

https://soundcloud.com/paul-bergeron-3/sets/ray-bradbury
https://soundcloud.com/paul-bergeron-3/sets/vd
https://soundcloud.com/paul-bergeron-3/logansrun-lostfromhome
https://soundcloud.com/paul-bergeron-3/logansrun-fearfactor
♦♦♦

Hope the mashup is appreciated as an artistic way to represent the frustration and anxiety we all feel over "trusted sources" in our brave new world. As always feed back is appreciated.