The Subconscious

What do people mean by the phrase "the subconscious"?  Is the concept epistemologically and phenomenologically legitimate?  The answer depends on what is meant by the phrase.  There are ultimately two main things someone likely refers to by the phrase, the first being entirely true, and the second being solely defensible by fallacies and denial of what is or can be known.

The word subconscious simply speaks of something that is outside of conscious awareness.  A person might mean by "the subconscious" simply the parts of the mind not being directly experienced at a certain moment of time--stored memories or memorized information, which one could access simply by moving conscious focus from one thing to another.  By this definition, the subconscious is basically one's memory that holds information for the conscious mind to interact with at whim.  There is no flaw with this concept, as it is certainly true to reality.  The very fact that I can have coherent thoughts from one moment to the next proves to me with absolute certainty that I have a reliable memory, and that my mind cycles through thoughts and information.

But this is not the same as invoking "the subconscious" as an unperceivable collection of repressed attitudes, feelings, beliefs, memories, or unseen mental forces that invisibly control my actions and thoughts, complete with its own will.  See the problem with believing in this version of the subconscious?  It has a rather grave epistemic flaw.

If my subconscious operates behind the scenes, in such a way as that I cannot experience it directly, then how the hell would--could--I even know it exists?  I couldn't!  Some take the subconscious to be a thing that covertly directs our thoughts and behaviors despite the conscious mind not having awareness of this.  The problem is that there is no way to logically or empirically verify the very existence of such a thing, much less its specific functions and activities.  This is because, by the very nature of the concept, it is outside the scope of what my conscious mind is even capable of experiencing.

This concept of the subconscious could be appealed to in order to argue against the existence of human free will.  Free will remains intact even if the subconscious does exist, and I still know for sure that I have free will [1].  As with all other assaults on free will, this one fails in full.  The subconscious exists in my mind as a memory storehouse, but even if the other type of subconscious does exist in the recesses of my mind, it certainly does not mean I have no free will, for the reasons explained in the post footnoted below.

The subconscious in the second sense that I defined it as is an asinine concept that only a fallacious logician, phenomenologist, or psychologist would truly believe in.  After all, even if such a thing did exist, the conscious mind it lurks behind or underneath would have no awareness of its presence.  This alone refutes any argument in favor of it.  If someone tries to appeal to this version of "the subconscious" as an argument against free will or for some other claim about human nature, don't fall for his or her errors.  They are easy to refute.

Logic, people.  It is helpful.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/explaining-free-will.html