Difference between Archetype and God?

[westwoden]

How can we define the difference here?

An archetype is what everyone idealises, from the religious to the atheist.

It could be a sports hero, movie star, historical figure, a Jungian psychological construct or a deity.

Some people say that we have a need for the archetype build into our instinct.

but who built this in, and how could it really just evolve over time, as I cannot see how the standard 'catch all' theory of natural selection can really work in this way?

I see that we have a built in need for the archetype as a way of communing with the higher powers, but how do we differentiate here between religious thought and mere psychology?

[Medusa]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

As a LaVeyan Satanist, I believe in archetypes. I believe (in my atheistic opinion) it's a more honest description of what a god is. I'm just more practical I guess. Knowing that what I am looking up to in an archetype is not a god does not lessen the importance.

[Jembru]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

So.. if someone were pagan in terms of the way they live their lives, celebrate seasons, live with the earth, and yet believed all gods were archetypes, would that technically make them atheist? I mean, even if they revered their archetypes and got comfort from speaking to them and having their images around their home? I prefer to think of deities as real entities, but I also can't shake the feeling that there is a good chance they could be simply a creation of the human mind. Does this make me a bad pagan? Or just an open-minded one?

[Medusa]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

So.. if someone were pagan in terms of the way they live their lives, celebrate seasons, live with the earth, and yet believed all gods were archetypes, would that technically make them atheist? I mean, even if they revered their archetypes and got comfort from speaking to them and having their images around their home? I prefer to think of deities as real entities, but I also can't shake the feeling that there is a good chance they could be simply a creation of the human mind. Does this make me a bad pagan? Or just an open-minded one?

I know Mickey isn't real. But I still have a blast at Disneyland. I just don't need to kill people in his name and stuff.

[AL!CE]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

How can we define the difference here?

An archetype is what everyone idealises, from the religious to the atheist.

It could be a sports hero, movie star, historical figure, a Jungian psychological construct or a deity.

Some people say that we have a need for the archetype build into our instinct.

but who built this in, and how could it really just evolve over time, as I cannot see how the standard 'catch all' theory of natural selection can really work in this way?

I see that we have a built in need for the archetype as a way of communing with the higher powers, but how do we differentiate here between religious thought and mere psychology?

I'm not sure I agree with your definition of archetype. Archetypes are types of God or Goddess. So for example Maiden, Mother and Crone are 3 archetypes. God of war is an archetype. Goddess of love is an archetype. Sky father... Dark mother... Hunter... Storm... you get the point. Each archetype will have several named Gods/Goddesses from a variety of pantheons under it.

[Jembru]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

I know Mickey isn't real. But I still have a blast at Disneyland. I just don't need to kill people in his name and stuff.

He might not be real, but he made me pee.. He actually made me pee.. I'm never going back to that terrible place.. I don't want to think about it *rocks in the corner*

[Medusa]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

He might not be real, but he made me pee.. He actually made me pee.. I'm never going back to that terrible place.. I don't want to think about it *rocks in the corner*

Goofy felt me up.


Archetypes is more of a symbol then a god. At least definition wise. Wolverine is the archetype anti-hero. He's not a god. More a smexy beast.

[westwoden]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

I prefer to think of deities as real entities, but I also can't shake the feeling that there is a good chance they could be simply a creation of the human mind. Does this make me a bad pagan? Or just an open-minded one?

an agnostic pagan perhaps?

the question comes down really to the same God or no God debate.

so what makes an archetype a God?

I feel that the archetypal construct was inserted into the human mind by the Supreme Force of the Universe - this is the One which creates all life and even the gods themselves.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

Some people say that we have a need for the archetype build into our instinct.

but who built this in, and how could it really just evolve over time, as I cannot see how the standard 'catch all' theory of natural selection can really work in this way

Yes it can. A major function of the mind is to categorize and classify data. Arranging certain "modes of thought" into mental patterns allows our minds to deal with the data as a group, making it much easier to work deal with.

I see that we have a built in need for the archetype as a way of communing with the higher powers, but how do we differentiate here between religious thought and mere psychology?

There is no difference. Religious thought is a subcategory of psychology. And the word "mere" doesn't come close to being appropriate when discussing human psychology......

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

I think it might be helpful to pause and have a try at defining archetype here. Leaving Jung aside, the word itself comes from the Greek arkhe meaning ancient and tupos meaning a model. So, at the very least I think an archetype needs to fall into the archaic category. Which would certainly rule out movie stars and sportsmen.

It would probably also be helpful to define god, but since that would almost certainly fry my brain today |I am not going to even attempt that

Perhaps the fairest explanation as a starting point is that most gods are archetypes. But I have my doubts that all archetypes, or even most of them, are gods.

[AL!CE]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

I think it might be helpful to pause and have a try at defining archetype here.

I already did. I'm waiting for someone (like the OP) to offer a good counter definition.

Archetypes are types of God or Goddess. So for example Maiden, Mother and Crone are 3 archetypes. God of war is an archetype. Goddess of love is an archetype. Sky father... Dark mother... Hunter... Storm... you get the point. Each archetype will have several named Gods/Goddesses from a variety of pantheons under it.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

I already did. I'm waiting for someone (like the OP) to offer a good counter definition.

Yes, you had a try and I had a try. You stated your opinion and I stated where the word comes from as a basic starting point.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

Well, to add Jung back in - which I think is necessary because a lot of Jungian ideas have entered into people's thought about this -

Jung saw archetypes as being representations of pre-existing mental clusters or patterns of interrelated ideas. They are mental constructs which come from the way our mental hardware works.

Archetypes (for Jung) are non-material, and only come out (of the unconscious) when a person is faced with certain types of life experience which mesh with a particular archetype. At that time, the archetype rises into consciousness where the individual becomes aware of it. In other words, it shows up when needed. And, at that time, they can manifest themselves in many ways, ranging from vague feelings to full blown visualizations which seem to be autonomous...

Again, for Jung, archetypes are part of the "collective unconscious," a thing created by massed human thought, feelings, and beliefs - therefore, all people experience them, although not all in the same way, or with the same degree of strength.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

Well, to add Jung back in - which I think is necessary because a lot of Jungian ideas have entered into people's thought about this -

Jung saw archetypes as being representations of pre-existing mental clusters or patterns of interrelated ideas. They are mental constructs which come from the way our mental hardware works.

Archetypes (for Jung) are non-material, and only come out (of the unconscious) when a person is faced with certain types of life experience which mesh with a particular archetype. At that time, the archetype rises into consciousness where the individual becomes aware of it. In other words, it shows up when needed. And, at that time, they can manifest themselves in many ways, ranging from vague feelings to full blown visualizations which seem to be autonomous...

Again, for Jung, archetypes are part of the "collective unconscious," a thing created by massed human thought, feelings, and beliefs - therefore, all people experience them, although not all in the same way, or with the same degree of strength.

Yes, and here it could also be useful to point out Jung's concept of Archaic or Two-Million-Year-Old Man dwelling in each of us. In turn this leads us to question whether man lives in history, or history lives in man. (The latter being an interesting theory from an Islamic philosopher and theologian at the Sorbonne, called - wait for it - Henri Corbin!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Difference between Archetype and God?

Yes, and here it could also be useful to point out Jung's concept of Archaic or Two-Million-Year-Old Man dwelling in each of us. In turn this leads us to question whether man lives in history, or history lives in man. (The latter being an interesting theory from an Islamic philosopher and theologian at the Sorbonne, called - wait for it - Henri Corbin!

LOL - no relation.

Does live in history, or does history live in man - that is such a Jungian question...

I think Jung would answer "both."

I have found that the easiest way to understand Jung is to adopt a particular world view - there are two worlds, both are very much real.

One world is the world of material things - rocks, trees, kittens. These things exist, but that is all you can say about them, without entering the second world, which is the world of thoughts, feelings, emotions, urges, drives. We usually think of these as "inner" things. To Jung, inner things are every bit as real as external things.

The two worlds come together when we observe the world = we can not help but think of "meaning" when we observe things, for example (when I typed "kitten" earlier what did you think of?).

The human mind is the thing which brings the two worlds together. The inner world needs the outer, because that is where actions can occur. The outer world needs the inner, because, without something material to attach thoughts and feelings to, thoughts and feelings would be chaotic tangles - worse than they already are.