Blog Post #4

Carl Jung’s reading “On the Psychology of the Trickster figure” talks about a specific type of figure that came about in cultural and religious literature. These figures are called “archetypes” and there are many that exist, however, Jung focuses on the “trickster” in this particular writing. All the figures said to have existed were psychological and are called a product of the collective unconscious, which means they could not been seen with the human eye and were sort of that bridge between human beings and cultures around the world. With name like trickster that automatically makes me think there is some negative attachment to this character. A trickster is usually someone or something that is up to no good. They cause harm to other individuals and Jung explains that that was exactly what this character was like.

I think having archetypes was a pretty interesting foundational concept for culture and for people. I’m not entirely sure if these are still “used” in psychology because I have heard of them throughout my schooling so far. One of the things I found pretty interesting is how these archetypes were “universal”. They were able to be applied to all sorts of religions no matter what belief system that religion had. They existed in every religion and shared quite a bit of similar characteristics. One article I found online, mentions how a lot of the tricksters in religion were always a male figure and had both a human form and an animal form. In addition, tricksters were best viewed by their personality.

Blog Post #3

Mary Daly, was a great influence to the women’s movement. Daly, preferred addressed as a philosopher and a theologian, rather than a religious study scholar, and liked to view herself as a right wing lesbian feminist. She was a strong believer that most of the popular religions we hear about today such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are extremely patriarchal or paternally focused and that any matrilineal religions have completely disappeared from history. She did not have a great outlook on society because it was and still is, man-ran. She also goes on to express and write about how everything wrong that happens in society is a direct representation of having men in positions of power, and “sees the woes of the world, such as environmental degradation, constant warfare, racist and ethnocentric attitudes, and particularly the terrible plight of women, as a direct consequence of patriarchy. Another reason why Daly was not a fan of religions like Christianity, was largely in part to treating women inferior or subordinate to men in society. This was obviously not going to settle well with a feminist who believed everything that went wrong in society was due to having men in positions of power.

Another thing Mary Daly writes, is how other’s personal perspectives are going to differ from person to person, and that it is completely okay and that one should not be judged for that. She goes on and writes, “it is as inappropriate to make personal negative moral judgments or criticisms about it within the framework of one’s work, as it is to cloak the findings of one’s research, compromise the rigor of one’s analysis, and modify the language in which it is articulated, in order to justify or protect the religious tradition being studied”, and she follows that with the example of Mary Magdalene. Magdalene was a woman who many Christians believed to be a prostitute and that she should be stoned to death for her actions. Despite the fact that not many Christians were a fan of Magdalene, she continued to hold the authority of the Church diligently.

Blog Post #2

Mostly everything we have been leaning in class the last couple of class periods, is all new information to me. I have been enjoying learning all things Freud and everything he did as well as his position on things. While I have heard the name Freud in previous class discussions, I was still unfamiliar as to what he did or why he was even recognized. He coined a lot of the different terms we hear in psychology today, like “ID” and “ego” and so on and was known for being an incredibly smart man. What was really alarming information was, the way parents treated their children. These parents were helicopter parents to the extreme and could probably be considered psychotic now a days, by controlling every single thing their kids did, including monitoring any sexual activity. Seeing some of the chastity “equipment” kids were forced to wear was just insane and more often not, these extreme measures left children completely unable to have children for themselves when they were adults because of the damage they suffered to their genitals. I am glad this is not the standard for normal parenting for the time period we live in today. The reading was more so on the harder side.

https://goo.gl/images/QGgKuw

The term phenomenology is introduced and it is related to a modern philosophical movement led by Edmund Husserl, in which the human brain or consciousness is studied through a personal or subjective view on phenomena. To me, this was still confusing and did not know what that meant. As I continued with the rest of the reading, it examines why phenomenological approaches have been grouped with psychological approaches and how both relate to the sociological and anthropological approaches. As the reading continues, it explains how and why phenomenological approaches differ from those the study is compared too. I wasn’t able to take away too much from the reading because I found it to be too dense.

Blog Post #1

1.One experience I see overlapping is that of the last quote by Rodrigues, “when a Jain is educated by a Jain about Jainism, he or she is also learning how he or she is different from non-Jain”. This quote resonated with me because the more I thought about it the more I was opposed, I even tried replacing the word “Jain” with “Hispanic”or “Hispanic culture, to make it a more personal comparison and to see if the meaning would remain the same. And I found it to have the same idea and I was still against it. Growing up I was exposed to both sides of this argument. I had more traditional relatives tell me that the best education I would ever receive about my own culture/race would be through family, close friends, or through those individuals within my culture. This argument was quickly proven wrong when I got to high school and even college and started taking Spanish classes. I learned so much from people “outside” of the group. I think if we can learn to branch out and meet new people who are not like us, we can learn so much more even about ourselves. By sticking to only those who look like us, we are limiting ourselves.
2. If I am completely honest, I had no idea what to expect from this class. I thought maybe I would learn about about religion in a more expected manor where we sit in class for the entire time and are lectured and it would be taught by some old annoying professor on the verge of retirement. I signed up for this class to take it with my friend  to fulfill my full time unit requirement. So far, I am really enjoying the class. I love the fact that our professor is so fun and free-spirited, she says what she wants and that really takes the pressure off class. It makes for a really fun environment and it makes me actually want to participate and listen to what she has to say other than spacing out the entire 2 hours of class. I'm looking forward to what's in store for the rest of the semester!