Philosopher's Group : Philosopher's Group

[Seeking_Nirvana]

I don't think the shadow is standard psychology. The shadow isn't always evil either. IMO

 

[Andre]

I am not entirely sure I understand what the shadow is. Instinct is instinct, but seems more than that is being talked about here. I think I might understand a little of it since its not always evil but I'm still confused here. Would the shadow of the evilest man be even more evil than he was?

 

[Seeking_Nirvana]

From what I read I believe the shadow is characteristics of ourselves that we do not like.

For instance, we all own these characteristics at least once in awhile. Like being lazy or a workaholic, selfish, selfless, easy going, crabby etc. The characteristic we most despise in others is the one we also have, but usually deny it.

The deeper side of our shadow would be killing (which is instinct). We are all capable of it, but deny that we could or would do it. So for those who would say I never would kill anyone they would have to think if their child was being held at gun point by some one, and you were able to free your child by killing the person pointing the gun at the child then you are capable. In a life or death situation I believe we are all capable of anything to save ourselves or some one we love.

These things represent our shadow.

 

[Lisa]

Glad to see people are still posting here!

I like the way this 'shadow' concept explains things in terms of characteristics we don't necessarily like. We are all born innocent, but all humans also have the capability to kill and have such traits that would be in the shadow of ourselves.

My question is... What do you think this concept of shadow is trying to explain fundamentally? And what would this concept say about a serial murderer? Is it representing the notion that we all have certain traits and actions we can carry through (like killing) and that good is in the person, and bad is in the shadow? So would a serial murderer then become entirely the shadow? In which case, would this concept then say that the good person exists somewhere, but this person is just living in their shadow? Sort of like, everybody has the capability to be good, as they do bad, regardless? This is where I can see some debate (and I do like a good debate!)... as that would suggest the good/bad debate. My view is that people are not born bad... but some people end up travelling roads that can't be reversed back up. In which case, there are some situations where I don't believe a person can change for the better.

Would the concept of the shadow suggest otherwise?

 

[Seeking_Nirvana]

If I understand this correctly. The shadow is an aspect of our personality. Some aspects hold more weight than others. So if the person was a serial killer then that aspect would be the main aspect of his/her personality. However, being kind could exist in them

I'm almost certain there can be good traits in some serial killers though. I've read that a few serial killers have had families, like a wife and children, and treated them good. It is a sickness in some and a weakness in others.

I don't think there are many that could live in their shadow 24/7 because it would create such an imbalance in that person they would become mentally ill/insane.

Tammy

 

[linasmom]

http://amishthrasher.blogspot.com/2005/06/carl-jung-and-shadow.html

I'm not sure if I did my link correctly per forum standards. But, here is a good essay regarding the Shadow Theory with nice citations. I found other essays but this one seems to be the most objective and well written.

Lisa's questions are interesting, I'm pondering.

Best,
Rachel

 

[reallydown]

Interesting questions Lisa. While I do not know much about the shaddow theory, I think some of this goes back to the good old nature/nurture debate...or am I totally off base?

 

[Seeking_Nirvana]

RE: Lisa's question can a person change for the better?

I think the concept of the shadow from Jung's point of view is that we are all capable of every trait that we see in others. If I turn bad and then can see a good quality in another person then that means I have good in me. But I can become a very nice individual once again and repress the bad traits into my subconscious (only if I try to).

If you don't see the quality in some one, than you probably don't posses it.

If the person started out good then turned bad I don't see why he/she couldn't return to the original state if they were able to identify it in themselves, and then work on repressing it.

 

[Seeking_Nirvana]

I'm currently reading "The Dark Side of Light Chasers" by Debbie Ford. It's about shadow work.

I like Jung's theories better though. He seems to be the most knowledgeable person about the psyche and unconscious mind.

 

[linasmom]

I think "reallydown" is on to something.

What I found interesting about the essay, (of course this is just my interpretation of the interpretation!) is that Jung seems to base the theory on the fact that the collective conscience(which makes up the Shadow) has nothing to do with instinct, but with a set of ideals and beliefs to which we ascribe without a conscious effort. The theory seems to completely leave out instinct. And that's fine when dealing with projections based on those unconscious beliefs and how to fix them, but if we are discussing good/bad per Lisa's inquiry the effort must go beyond that.

Firstly, how are we defining good and bad and by whose standards?! I'd love to have the good/bad debate but I don't know what it is that I'm debating.

Personally, I subscribe to the evolutionary theory. I believe we do have instincts and that we are not created pure by any religious standards. I think we are descendents of hominids and by nature, we are born with animalistic tendencies and instincts. I don't believe we can remove those instincts. I think as humans, through the evolutionary process, we have more of an understanding how those instincts impact others. We developed a more complicated brain and therefore have complicated feelings and thoughts that stretch beyond what chimps have and that also creates tension between our natural instincts and our complicated thought process. Our communities have grown and therefore our social structures have been reorganized. Our instincts have to come to terms with that.

The terms "good" and "bad" were created in order to keep society under control. How do we interpret those terms now?

Best,
Rachel (who will eventually talk herself in circles!)

 

[Seeking_Nirvana]

I don't think Jung's theory on the shadow is solely based on the collective unconscious. It's both the collective unconscious, religious beliefs and instinct.

That essay is some one else's theory on what Jung is talking about in his books. That is his perception of what he thinks Jung thinks.

 

[linasmom]

when I said collective conscience in my first paragraph, I meant collective unconscious - im a dumb-dumb!

I've never really read Jung's work - I've read some things online but never full bodies. The only philospher whose full bodies of work I've read is Neitzsche.