Unconscious Thought in Philosophy and Psychoanalysis

John Shannon Hendrix

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137538123
• eBook ISBN: 9781137538130
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Mind & Body in Philosophy

The book explores concepts throughout the history of philosophy that suggest the possibility of unconscious thought and lay the foundation for ideas of unconscious thought in modern philosophy and psychoanalysis. The focus is on the workings of unconscious thought and the role it plays in thinking, language, perception, and human identity.

1

Plotinus: The First Philosopher of the Unconscious

In the thought of Plotinus (204–70), seen as the first philosopher to develop a systematic conception of the presence of unconscious thought in conscious thought, or a systematic philosophy of intellect involving unconscious thought, concepts that contribute to a theory of unconscious thought include the nous poietikos (noetic thought, Intellect), the intelligible, phantasia (imagination), and the logos endiathetos (unuttered word) which aids in translating the intelligible into the presentation of it available to discursive reason or conscious thought.

Plotinus is sometimes referred to as “the first philosopher of the unconscious.” In his 1960 essay “Consciousness and Unconsciousness in Plotinus,” Hans Rudolph Schwyzer called Plotinus the discoverer of the unconscious. In the same year, Eric Robertson Dodds wrote that in the thought of Plotinus “there are sensations which do not reach consciousness,” and there are desires that are “unknown to us” (Dodds, 1960, pp. 1–7). In 1965 Dodds wrote: “Plotinus was the first writer to recognize that the psyche includes sensations, desires and dispositions of which the ego is normally unconscious ... ” (Dodds, 1990, p. 88, n. 4). In the Meno (80d, 81b–c) and Phaedo (68b–d, 74b), Plato (429–347 BC) suggested that we have knowledge of which we are not aware at the moment, in anamnesis. But Plotinus was the first writer to address the thought of which we are not aware, and incorporate it into a philosophy of intellect. What exactly was Plotinus’ unconscious? In the Enneads, Plotinus asked about soul and intellect: “Why then ... do we not consciously grasp them ... ? For not everything which is in the soul is immediately perceptible” (V.1.12.1–15) (Plotinus, 1966). In the De anima of Aristotle (384–322 BC), “Mind does not think intermittently” (430a10–25) (Aristotle, 1964). We cannot remember eternal mind in us, because passive mind is perishable. Is the productive intelligence in our mind that of which we are not conscious? Can productive intelligence be compared to unconscious thought?

Plotinus suggested that we do not notice the activity of intellect because it is not engaged with objects of sense perception. The intellect must involve an activity prior to awareness. Awareness of intellectual activity only occurs when thinking is reflected as in a mirror, but knowledge in discursive reason, reason transitioning from one object to the next in a temporal sequence, is not self-knowledge. Only in the activity of intellect inaccessible to discursive reason is thinking as the equivalent of being. The intellectual act in mind is only apprehended when it is brought into the image-making power of mind through the logos or linguistic articulation; “we are always intellectually active but do not always apprehend our activity” (IV.3.30.1–17) (Plotinus, 1966). If the Intellectual is the unconscious, then unconscious reason is superior to conscious reason. The inability of conscious reason to know itself is the premise of psychoanalysis in the twentieth century.

In Enneads V.1.11.1–15, the human mind or soul “sometimes reasons about the right and good and sometimes does not ... .” If this is the case, then there must be an element of thought which knows what the right and good are, not intermittently and indecisively, but permanently and without question. This must be intellect, which rather than reason discursively about the right and the good, possesses the right and the good, based on the principle and cause of Intellect. The principle and cause of Intellect is undivided in discursive reason, and abides in mind but not in place. As such, the principle and cause can remain undivided, just as the center of a circle remains undivided by the individual radii connected to it.

“Why then,” Plotinus asked, “when we have such great possessions, do we not consciously grasp them, but are mostly inactive in these ways, and some of us are never active at all?” (V.1.12.1–15). Intellect, what comes before Intellect (the first cause), and what results from Intellect (soul, which is itself “ever-moving”), are all “always occupied in their own activities,” but those activities are not always perceptible; they are only perceptible when they somehow enter into perception, when their activity is shared. Since we are mostly preoccupied with our activities of perception, it is difficult to be aware of when the activities of Intellect are shared. Nevertheless, when the activities are shared with perception, then “conscious awareness takes place.” Otherwise we are unconscious of the activities of Intellect in discursive or conscious reason; we are not aware of the role that unconscious thought plays in the activities of our conscious thought and perception. In order to become aware of the activities of unconscious thought or Intellect, “we must turn our power of apprehension inwards, and make it attend to what is there.”

First it is necessary to examine one’s soul. The powers of perception in soul are only capable of perceiving external objects. Discursive reason in soul makes judgments based on the mental images which come from sense perception. The mental images come from sensible objects and are organized by reason, in combinations and divisions. It should be kept in mind that the mental images themselves are not entirely dependent on the sensible forms, though, because the mental images play a role in the determination of the sensible forms to begin with, and the result is not just the sensible form imprinted in the mind’s eye, but a combination of the sensible form and the intelligible form. As Plotinus said, “as for the things which come to it from Intellect,” the intelligible forms, “it observes what one might call their imprints, and has the same power also in dealing with these ... ” (V.3.2.1–26). Understanding in perception on the part of reason is the result of a dialectical process of combinations of sensible and intelligible forms in the mind, which is an unconscious process.

Any knowledge or awareness of this process can only come from Intellect, and not discursive reason in soul. But a part of Intellect has to be in soul, just as a part of the Aristotelian active intellect has to be in potential intellect. The part of Intellect which is in soul, though, does not have the capacity of pure Intellect to be aware of itself – self-awareness in soul can only come from Intellect higher than soul, intellect not connected to the body or sense perception. In other words, conscious reason cannot know itself. This is in contradiction of the Cartesian premise of modern philosophy, a premise that was refuted by Kant, Schelling, and Hegel. Discursive reason in soul cannot know itself or have self-awareness, but it can know where it is: somewhere between Intellect and sense perception. Discursive or conscious reason “has understanding of the impressions which it receives from both sides,” from Intellect and sense perception. It can be aware of what it receives from perception, and it can be aware of what it receives from Intellect, the higher forms to which it has access. How does conscious reason have such understanding?

In Enneads V.3.3, impressions are received by discursive reason from sense perception, but discursive reason can only respond to them with the help of memory. With the help of memory, discursive reason then performs analytical operations on the impressions from sense perception, “taking to pieces what the image-making power gave it ... .” Any judgments that discursive reason makes about what it receives from sense perception can only be the result of what is already in discursive reason. In order for discursive reason to make any particular judgment about something perceived, discursive reason has to contain the quality that it judges. The only way that discursive reason can contain a quality is if it is illuminated by Intellect, as the sun would illuminate an object in vision. Discursive reason is not conscious of the illumination of Intellect, of the reception of the reflection of Intellect, as in a mirror, because again it is too engaged in perceiving and judging external objects. Only Intellect is capable of observing and knowing itself, which is a kind of reason inaccessible to discursive or conscious reason. Discursive reason makes use of Intellect, unknowingly, in perception and logical thought, when discursive reason is in accord with Intellect, and can be affected by it. Discursive reason is only in accord with Intellect to the extent that discursive reason has knowledge of such accord; in other words, unconscious thought can only be known in conscious thought.

While impressions are received through sense perception, “it is not we ourselves who are the perceivers ... ,” because the mechanisms that allow perception to take place, from Intellect, are not accessible by conscious thought. We can define ourselves and have self-identity only in our conscious, discursive reason, not in the unconscious mechanisms behind perception, and not in the unconscious mechanisms of Intellect. Thus “we are this, the principal part of soul, in the middle between two powers ... ,” neither of which is accessible to our knowledge or awareness. Thus our self-knowledge and identity can be described as being caught between two mirrors; we can perceive the reflections of sense perception and Intellect, but we cannot see beyond the source of the reflections.

We do not notice the activity of Intellect because “it is not concerned with any object of sense,” as Plotinus said in Enneads I.4.10. We are generally only aware of our mind’s activity when it is connected to sense perception and thinking about the objects of sense, the nous hylikos. If Intellect, and soul, are understood to come before sense perception and discursive reason, as necessary ground for those activities, then it must be considered that the activities of Intellect and soul are continually active, in making sense perception and discursive reason possible, although we do not have immediate awareness of or access to those activities. “There must be an activity prior to awareness,” said Plotinus, if “thinking and being are the same”; that is, if being is given by thought. When awareness of the activity of Intellect exists, or is produced, intellectual activity is reflected back to conscious thought as in a mirror reflection, perhaps at an angle, since the activity of Intellect itself is not present to the dianoetic self: in front of the mirror as it were. Or the activity of Intellect is reflected back to dianoetic thought as logos, since the lower soul can only perceive it as such. In order for that to happen, the surface of the mirror has to be clear, or, in other words, the power of soul has to be clear of disturbances or distractions from sense perceptions. It is necessary for the individual to not be distracted by or focused on the objects of sense perception, in order to disconnect the mind’s activities from them, and concentrated on the premises for the possibilities of those sense perceptions. It is in self-consciousness that the mind is able to perceive the unconscious activity which makes conscious activity possible.

What is reflected as a mirror image, which is a function of the image-making power or imagination (phantasia) in soul, is the activity of Intellect, which must always be there, whether the mirror reflects it or not. The reflective power of the mirror needs to be turned on, through the will of thinking, and the mirror needs to function correctly. It is not possible to have direct access to the activities of Intellect or unconscious thought, but only to their reflections in soul or conscious thought. In the same way, it is not possible to have direct access to dreams, but only to their images as preserved by memory in waking, conscious life. Memory serves the image-making power to preserve images and translate them into words, so that the images which are the product of sense perception can play a role as the vocabulary elements of thinking activity in discursive reason.

When the mirror imaging power of imagination is functioning correctly, the activity and images of Intellect, what is prior to sense perception, can be perceived by soul in the same way that objects of sense perception are perceived by sight, although the light by which they are illuminated is not the light of the sun, but rather an inner light, the light of Intellect itself. In order for the activities and images of Intellect to be perceived in the same way as sense objects, they have to mimic or take the form of sense objects and activities. Unconscious thought can only be known by conscious thought to the extent that it mimics conscious thought, and conforms to its boundaries and limitations. The full extent of unconscious thought cannot be known by conscious thought because of the limitations of conscious thought, just as the full extent of the sensible world cannot be known by sense perception, because of the limitations of sense perception. On this premise alone the existence of the metaphysical is necessary.

The operation of the mirror of self-reflection, or self-consciousness of intellectual activity, depends on the smooth functioning, harmony and balance of the body in relation to the sensible world. The mirror is a property of nous hylikos, the physical functioning of mind in relation to body. If the body does not function properly, the self-reflexive powers of mind cannot function properly. This is in contradiction to the thought of Plato. If the mirror is broken because the body is not functioning properly, there is no image for thought and intellect to operate with; the image-making power or imagination is a also a property of nous hylikos and bodily function in the sensible, although, as will be seen, it is also a property of Intellect, and in fact was seen by Plotinus as occupying the midpoint between Intellect and sense perception. But for these purposes, the mirror in the mind, as a property of the body, is necessary for the mind to perceive the activities of Intellect in connection with images, the images reflected in the well-functioning mirror of the soul. The activity of Intellect itself does not necessarily involve a connection with images, but its connection with images is necessary in order to be perceived.

According to Plotinus, there are “a great many valuable activities, theoretical and practical, which we carry on both in our contemplative and active life even when we are fully conscious, which do not make us aware of them” (I.4.10.20–34). This is an explicit recognition of the existence of the modern concept of the unconscious. It is possible to be involved in an activity or an act of contemplation, virtuous action or reading, for example, without being aware of such activity or thought. In fact, conscious awareness, according to Plotinus, “is likely to enfeeble the very activities of which there is consciousness ... .” Plotinus seemed to be suggesting that there is something stronger and superior in mind to conscious thought, which is Intellect. Conscious thought and activity, and consciousness itself, are weak forms of thought and activity. Nowhere in the Enneads did Plotinus suggest the possibility or concept of a “higher consciousness,” contrary to the opinion of some commentators. Instead, Plotinus said that “only when they are alone,” referring to the activities of thought of which there is consciousness, “are they pure and more genuinely active and living.” Thoughts are stronger and purer when they are “alone,” when they are unperceived by conscious thought and perception, when they are what we call “unconscious.”

Thoughts are purer before they have been connected to the images which allow them to be perceptible to consciousness; they are closer to their source, the One, in Intellect. They are purer as the prior ground for consciousness and experience in sense perception. The unconscious is the pure ground for conscious thought and activity, and unconscious thoughts are necessarily corrupted when they become conscious thoughts, if just in their connection to the image in imagination. The power of imagination is the great facilitator for Plotinus, but also the great corruptor. The value of life is increased, and the quality of the soul is increased, when mind is less fragmented and dispersed in the acts of sense perception and discursive reason, but rather “gathered together in one in itself.”

Conscious thought and sense perception involve a fragmentation, dispersal, and diminution of the powers of thought. In order to avoid this fragmentation and diminution of thought, it is necessary to will oneself into self-reflection, and to will one’s intellect away from the objects of sense perception toward the images of Intellect reflected in soul, then away from those images to the prior source of the images in Intellect. It is necessary to will oneself towards one’s unconscious; the more access there is to the unconscious activities of one’s mind, the stronger and purer are the conscious activities. As John Gale recently wrote, “According to Neo-Platonism the analytic withdrawal into the psyche demanded an examination of unconscious desire, which amounted to a therapeutic process” (Gale, 2014, p. 157). For Plotinus this withdrawal was “a kind of catharsis – a breaking through the ego to get in touch with excluded, disassociated parts of the self.”

Plotinus also called the reflections of the images of Intellect “imprints” or “impressions,” so they are seen as the eidos or form which is not connected to a material form or morphe, in the same way that the images of sense perception themselves are the eidos and not the morphe, imprints or impressions of forms that are received in connection to the material objects, as if there are two lights, or a double light, shining on the material object: the light of the intelligible, which illuminates the eidos, and the light of the sensible (the sun), which illuminates matter. Judgment in discursive reason is based on the perception of the eidos of the sensible object, as it is subjected to the mechanisms of combination and division in apperception, which are the same mechanisms which Sigmund Freud attributed to the image-making power of unconscious thought in the formation of dream images from dream thoughts, what he called condensation and displacement. The judgment in discursive reason is also based on the perception of the image connected to thoughts from Intellect, as the objects of sense perception are processed through the unconscious mechanisms of imagination and memory which make the sense perception possible in the first place, then translate the objects of sense perception into a totality (what Immanuel Kant would call the “manifold”), even through the combinations and divisions, which makes being possible, and which makes thinking equivalent to being.

Thinking for Plotinus is a dialectical process which is facilitated by imagination, which is suspended between Intellect, the source of thinking, and sense perception, the object of thinking. The dialectical process involves the imprint of the sense object or sensible form in perception, the imprint of the idea of the object or intelligible form in the imagination or image-making power, the memory or recollection of past thoughts and perceptions in relation to the present thought, the “recollections” of the soul, the transformation of the image – both sensible ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  Plotinus: The First Philosopher of the Unconscious
• 2  The Peripatetics and Unconscious Thought
• 3  The Active Intellect of Averroes
• 4  Robert Grosseteste: Imagination and Unconscious Thought
• 5  Unconscious Thought in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant
• 6  Unconscious Thought in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Philosophies
• 7  Unconscious Thought in Freud
• 8  Unconscious Thought in Lacan
• Bibliography
• Index