PDA

View Full Version : Joeseph Campbell and Skeptics?


UnTrickaBLe
15th May 2004, 03:33 PM
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/campbell-joseph.jpg

How do most skeptics feel about Joeseph Campbell? As far I can tell from reading his books, Campbell was an antheist or agnostic, though he did enjoy exploring spiritualism and mysticism, especially Asian.

Campbell was the world's foremost authority on mythology, and probably one of the most well-read men in history.

I rank Campbell along with Sagan as 20th century writers and thinkers I have literally learned the most from. But I am curious how the skeptical community views him.

EGarrett
15th May 2004, 03:50 PM
His Power of Myth series was a key step in my move away from religion...it made me realize the similarity between Christianity and so many other mythologies.

I don't think he was an athiest though. In the Power of Myth video series he said he was a Buddhist.

UnTrickaBLe
15th May 2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by EGarrett
His Power of Myth series was a key step in my move away from religion...it made me realize the similarity between Christianity and so many other mythologies.

I don't think he was an athiest though. In the Power of Myth video series he said he was a Buddhist.

I agree that Joe inspired many people to abandon religion by pointing out the clear and undeniable patterns shared amongst them all. He really was ruthless in exposing the origins and fictional nature of Christianity.

I don't believe he was "a Buddhist", although he had a great philosophical affinity for Buddhism. Anyway, to be a Buddhist doesn't necessarily require belief in anything "supernatural."

Soapy Sam
15th May 2004, 04:21 PM
Can't open the link- (It's a company firewall feature, not your end).
Is this the Campbell who was editor of "Amazing Stories"when Azimov was a young writer?

Abdul Alhazred
16th May 2004, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Can't open the link- (It's a company firewall feature, not your end).
Is this the Campbell who was editor of "Amazing Stories"when Azimov was a young writer?

No. That's John Campbell. No relation.

Joseph Campbell is claimed to be the godfather of New-Age-ism, though likely that wasn't his intention. His Masks of God books are worth reading, but remain skeotical.

Abdul Alhazred
16th May 2004, 04:05 AM
Hey UnTrickaBLe, what happened to that African-American that used to be your avatar? I thought that was a picture of yourself.

UnTrickaBLe
16th May 2004, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Hey UnTrickaBLe, what happened to that African-American that used to be your avatar? I thought that was a picture of yourself.

No, that was actually Todd Shaw, aka rapper "Too Short."

I just thought he had a real skeptical, untrickable look on his face. :D

http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/t/Too_Short/sq-too-short-album3-jive.jpg

I really like that avatar and wanted to keep it, but then I thought: When people actually meet me and I tell them I'm UnTrickaBLe from the forum, they're going to be disappointed that I'm just a random white guy. :con2:

Abdul Alhazred
16th May 2004, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe


No, that was actually Todd Shaw, aka rapper "Too Short."

I thought thought he had a real skeptical, untrickable look on his face. :D

http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/t/Too_Short/sq-too-short-album3-jive.jpg

I really like that avatar and wanted to keep it, but then I thought: When people actually meet me and I tell them I'm UnTrickaBLe from the forum, they're going to be disappointed that I'm just a random white guy. :con2:

Now I understand. As for my avatar, I am the little boy on the far right. I am saying "Mommy! Please stop them from nuking me!"

evilgoldtoesock
16th May 2004, 02:38 PM
Joeseph Campbell was a brilliant dude, in my opinion, and I think his work has pushed people towards a more scientific understanding of religion and mysticism.

I was first introduced to Campbell by my 9th grade teacher, who was a humanist and an atheist. Campbell's work was never was presented to me as a "new-agey" thing so I guess I never interpreted it that way.

I share Campbell's appreciation of mystic philisophy and shamanic cultures. I don't find that much of mysticism conflicts with science if viewed in the proper light. I believe that many of the strange "energies" and entities talked about in eastern religion make sense as abstractions.

Anyway, although I like the work, I agree that a healthy dose of skepticism can never hurt.

Abdul Alhazred
16th May 2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock

I was first introduced to Campbell by my 9th grade teacher, who was a humanist and an atheist. Campbell's work was never was presented to me as a "new-agey" thing so I guess I never interpreted it that way.


The New Agers claim him, it's that shaman buisiness, Joseph Campbell was never such a thing.

hammegk
16th May 2004, 03:07 PM
Do evolutionists have any comment on archetypes, in that do they exist, and if yes, to what advantage?

Abdul Alhazred
16th May 2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Do evolutionists have any comment on archetypes, in that do they exist, and if yes, to what advantage?

I don't position myself as an archetypcal evolutionist, but I would say that archetypes are abstractions, maybe useful concepts, but not "things". Therefore they do not exist.

UnTrickaBLe
16th May 2004, 05:54 PM
Certainly archetypes are "real things." Why would evolutionists have any different view? If anything, they should be quicker to accept archetypes and the collective unconscious, considering their theorized origins.

That was part of Campbell's work, following in the footsteps of his hero Jung: to show, so repeatedly and clearly these shared human archetypes exist, as to erase any doubt.


Jung believed that there was a deeper and more significant layer of the unconscious, which he called the collective unconscious, with what he identified as archetypes, which he believed were innate, unconscious, and generally universal. Jung's collective unconscious has been described as a "storehouse of latent memory traces inherited from man's ancestral past, a past that includes not only the racial history of man as a separate species but his pre-human or animal ancestry as well." Therefore, Jung's theory incorporates Darwin's theory of evolution as well as ancient mythology. Jung taught that this collective unconscious is shared by all people and is therefore universal. However, since it is unconscious, not all people are able to tap into it. Jung saw the collective unconscious as the foundational structure of personality on which the personal unconscious and the ego are built. Because he believed that the foundations of personality are ancestral and universal, he studied religions, mythology, rituals, symbols, dreams and visions.

http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/jungleg.html


My own theory about people being able to "tap into" the collective unconscious is that some are born with a greater ability to do it than others. For example, some writers and artists are born with a fiber-opitc 100MB-per-second broadband connection directly to the unconscious mind, while most are stuck on finicky 56k lines. Only (literally) in their dreams do most 56Kers ever get a "high-definition" look at the images and motiffs lurking deep in all of our brains.

As for the evolutionary advantage of archetypes... uh... um... does Dawkins post here? ;) :D

Abdul Alhazred
16th May 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
Certainly archetypes are "real things." Why would evolutionists have any different view?

I suppose I am an evolutionist. At any rate I accept the theory of evolution as a reasonable explantion and do not believe in a miraculous creation.

But I do not accept the Jungian idea of archetypes as real things.

How much does an archetype weigh? Could you mail me one if I gave you my address?

Jung was a crackpot.

UnTrickaBLe
16th May 2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

But I do not accept the Jungian idea of archetypes as real things.

How much does an archetype weigh? Could you mail me one if I gave you my address?



:confused:

How much does General Theory of Relativity weigh??

EGarrett
17th May 2004, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
My own theory about people being able to "tap into" the collective unconscious is that some are born with a greater ability to do it than others. For example, some writers and artists are born with a fiber-opitc 100MB-per-second broadband connection directly to the unconscious mind, while most are stuck on finicky 56k lines. Only (literally) in their dreams do most 56Kers ever get a "high-definition" look at the images and motiffs lurking deep in all of our brains.
I never bought into that collective unconsciosu thing, even when I heard about it in high school. It sounds suspiciously wooish, like some theory of collective psi or something.

I just believe human beings on earth have some common threads of existence and experience no matter where they are which lead to certain themes showing up in independently developed theories.

Two distinct cultures might both believe in floods or rivers in their mythology because they both developed near rivers that frequently flooded etc. There's no "psychic link" behind it.

UnTrickaBLe
17th May 2004, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by EGarrett

I never bought into that collective unconsciosu thing, even when I heard about it in high school. It sounds suspiciously wooish, like some theory of collective psi or something.

I just believe human beings on earth have some common threads of existence and experience no matter where they are which lead to certain themes showing up in independently developed theories.

Two distinct cultures might both believe in floods or rivers in their mythology because they both developed near rivers that frequently flooded etc. There's no "psychic link" behind it.

First of all no one is claiming any "psychic" links. The theory of a "Collective Unconscious" is widely accepted in psychology. I think,basically, there are very few reputable psychologists alive today who does not believe it is valid. How is a "Collective Unconscious" woo-woo? That's like saying instincts in animals are "woo-woo."

Anyway, I suggest you read one or two of Campbell's books, then report back. I bet you will change your tune.

plindboe
17th May 2004, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by EGarrett
I don't think he was an athiest though. In the Power of Myth video series he said he was a Buddhist.

[Nitpicking mode]

Actually buddhists are also atheists. Atheism means 'no belief in gods/God', and the buddhist religion is godless.

[/Nitpicking mode]

hammegk
17th May 2004, 08:32 AM
And what is the answer to "What moves? Flag? Wind? Mind?".

I agree with buddhist philosophy (as I understand it) but am not an atheist.

EGarrett
17th May 2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
First of all no one is claiming any "psychic" links. The theory of a "Collective Unconscious" is widely accepted in psychology. I think,basically, there are very few reputable psychologists alive today who does not believe it is valid.
Does that mean I'm supposed to agree with it? Is that why you agree with it?

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
How is a "Collective Unconscious" woo-woo? That's like saying instincts in animals are "woo-woo."
The term "collective unconscious" implies that people's minds are linked to each other beyond having similar characteristics. I hear concepts like ideas springing from the "collective unconscious" and it sounds like linked thought or some concept.

There is such a thing as instincts and people having similar subconscious thoughts. If the concept of collective unconscious simply means that people have similar brains then I won't argue with it. But in that case the concept isn't very revolutionary to me...as it seems obvious.

UnTrickaBLe
17th May 2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by EGarrett

There is such a thing as instincts and people having similar subconscious thoughts. If the concept of collective unconscious simply means that people have similar brains then I won't argue with it. But in that case the concept isn't very revolutionary to me...as it seems obvious.

That is exactly what it means and there is nothing woo-woo about it. It just means people have similar brains. There is nothing about any "connections" or anything supernatural. The idea is that these similarities have been passed down through thousands of generations. Very Darwinian.

Soapy Sam
18th May 2004, 09:01 PM
How much does General Theory of Relativity weigh??

This is a function of it's velocity. Or is that Special Relativity?
;)

UnTrickaBLe
18th May 2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Soapy Sam
How much does General Theory of Relativity weigh??

This is a function of it's velocity. Or is that Special Relativity?
;)

:D

Piscivore
19th May 2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by plindboe


[Nitpicking mode]

Actually buddhists are also atheists. Atheism means 'no belief in gods/God', and the buddhist religion is godless.

[/Nitpicking mode]

[picking a finer nit mode]

Buddhism puts forth no gods of its own, and thus is technically "godless", but neither does it deny any gods. Most cultures in Asia continued to worship or adapted the local gods once introduced to Buddhism, else they substituted boddhisatvahs for gods.

[/picking a finer nit mode]

Hand Bent Spoon
19th May 2004, 11:14 PM
So 'collective unconscious' is just a fancy phrase for 'brain'. Just a fancy way of saying members of the same species will behave similarly. Now there's a news flash...:D

Suezoled
19th May 2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Piscivore


[picking a finer nit mode]

Buddhism puts forth no gods of its own, and thus is technically "godless", but neither does it deny any gods. Most cultures in Asia continued to worship or adapted the local gods once introduced to Buddhism, else they substituted boddhisatvahs for gods.

[/picking a finer nit mode]

Indeed. I do hope the Goddess of Mercy saves you a seat on the right side of her lotus throne.

UnTrickaBLe
20th May 2004, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
So 'collective unconscious' is just a fancy phrase for 'brain'. Just a fancy way of saying members of the same species will behave similarly. Now there's a news flash...:D

There's a little more to it than that. :D

Piscivore
20th May 2004, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Suezoled


Indeed. I do hope the Goddess of Mercy saves you a seat on the right side of her lotus throne.

Heh, I didn't say I espoused any gods, I was only pointing out the statement "Buddhism is an athiest religion" is inaccurate and misleading, much as saying "Christians are all creationists".

UnTrickaBLe
26th May 2004, 03:11 PM
Campbell, for one, would not have believed any of the "supernatural" aspects of the Buddha story, obviously.

Piscivore
26th May 2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
Campbell, for one, would not have believed any of the "supernatural" aspects of the Buddha story, obviously.

You know, it is facinating to me how every time we humans get one of us that has a new, better idea about how we should treat each other, a group forms that tries to "sell" the idea by expounding on the fantastical aspecs of the teacher's birth, life, and works.

UnTrickaBLe
26th May 2004, 03:39 PM
Yeah, humans have lots of relics in the psyche. It's one of the reasons millions of people were so excited recently to see the royal weddings in Europe. :(