Spiritualism - Lesson #7

Spiritualism - Lesson #7

The writings of Plato, Aristotle and, in more recent times, Carl Jung are fascinating. Jung besides being a great psychologist was also something of a psychic who possessed second-sight and extraordinary powers of imagery. He sometimes saw the future before it happened and was proved to be correct. Yet he was never triumphant about this but sought answers in the immediate. It was this, in my view, which led him to the concept of the collective consciousness. Jung had been Freud's pupil whom Freud hoped would take on his mantel – but this didn't happen because they fell out and Jung went his own way.
Plato's teaching on Forms is, in my view, too simplistic as Aristotle came to see also. The reason I can recognise a horse is because I've seen one with my eyes! If I had not seen a horse with my eyes there is no way I could possibly imagine one! And if I can't imagine a horse (or anything else for that matter) there could be no "perfect form" of it either! Scientists tell us there are many thousands of yet to be discovered species of plants, sea-life and so on. But until those species are discovered (and seen with human eyes) there is no-one anyone can imagine them. It would seem, therefore, that according to Plato's philosophy humans, themselves, create those perfect forms and therefore the perfect world in which they reside. This doesn't make any sense and is therefore fit only for the bin. This is not to say that human-beings do not muse within themselves that there is more to life than meets the eye. Of course they do. For example the writer of Ecclesiastes, who was himself a teacher of philosophy, came to this very same conclusion. According to him it was as if God has planted within the human-heart knowledge that there is more to life than meets the eye but not the intelligence to work out exactly what it is! So frustrating.
The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything according to its kind. Aristotle seems to follow this with his teaching on form and potential. For example an acorn has the inbuilt potential to become a fully developed tree and nothing other than a tree. As that tree grows up from the earth it aspires to the heavens where God is. However, Aristotle's God is not a personal or knowable God. On the contrary his is an "unmoved mover" who sits on the edge of the universe attracting every living thing to him while he sits there completely oblivious to them. That's not the God Jesus speaks of in the New Testament i.e. God is a loving Father (in relationship with creation) through his son Jesus. The problem with philosophy is that, while it is a fascinating subject helping people to think logically it often ends up talking itself into a corner.

Rog

15th Feb 2016