/lit/ - Literature

>>22493605
>nicht schlecht

>>21275827
Not really. A good writer's characters are best described as 'imagery friends'-- see Tolkien's Gandalf. Imagination is actually a very trippy adventure and borderline insane, not some kitschy kindergarten nonsense you see in media.

Jung explains it very well with AIM and archetypes: these are autonomous entities that you can converse with and even go on adventures with. Then there's the whole art of daemons/Tuplas and such from religions such as the Greek philosophers if you want to get hardcore about it.

>>20102802
You tell me

>>19931711
>Life begins at 40.

>>19380923
Keep your problems to yourself.

>>19280250
Jung. Both Heidegger and Jung followed extremely close lines of 20th century thinking, giving encompassing retrospectives of the Western tradition with an especially germophile tinge, but from wildly different directions.

Psychology is empirical, starting with Schopenhauer as Jung did, but closer to Fichte in essence, and who contrary to Jung, was a systematic and completely anti-empirical thinker, just like Heidegger. Some would even go so far, in the metaphysical treatment of his psychology (inverting his psychological treatment of metaphysics), that his psychology was 'poorly suited' to a Cartesian framework. The similarities and comparisons between Jung and Heidegger are endless.

>These two aspects became overwhelmingly clear to me as I read this admirable study of Fichte's psychology: on the one hand the apparent carelessness and vagueness of my own concepts when it comes to systematic formulation, and on the other the precision and clarity of a philosophical system which is singularly unencumbered by empirical impedimenta.
>The strange but undeniable analogy between two points of view derived from totally different sources certainly gives one food for thought.

This 'vagueness' is not derogatory of course, it is a necessity for a psychology, likewise Fichte does not hold up to an empiricist frame.

https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/09/30/carl-jung-foreword-to-mehlich-fichtes-psychology-and-its-relation-to-the-present/#.YXVxVBpBzIX
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/05/18/carl-jung-on-georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel-anthology/#.YXVxihpBzIU

>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this “inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world. The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever “originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother, the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.
>In former times, despite some dissenting opinion and the influence of Aristotle, it was not too difficult to understand Plato's conception of the Idea as supraordinate and pre-existent to all phenomena. "Archetype," far from being a modern term, was already in use before the time of St. Augustine, and was synonymous with "Idea" in the Platonic usage. When the Corpus Hermeticum, which probably dates from the third century, describes God as το άρχίτνπ-ον φώς, the 'archetypal light,' it expresses the idea that he is the prototype of all light; that is to say, pre-existent and supraordinate to the phenomenon "light." Were I a philosopher, I should continue in this Platonic strain and say: somewhere, in “a place beyond the skies,” there is a prototype or primordial image of the mother that is pre-existent and supraordinate to all phenomena in which the “maternal,” in the broadest sense of the term, is manifest. But I am an empiricist, not a philosopher; I cannot let myself presuppose that my peculiar temperament, my own attitude to intellectual problems, is universally valid. Apparently this is an assumption in which only the philosopher may indulge, who always takes it for granted that his own disposition and attitude are universal, and will not recognize the fact, if he can avoid it, that his “personal equation” conditions his philosophy. As an empiricist, I must point out that there is a temperament which regards ideas as real entities and not merely as nomina. It so happens—by the merest accident, one might say—that for the past two hundred years we have been living in an age in which it has become unpopular or even unintelligible to suppose that ideas could be anything but nomina. Anyone who continues to think as Plato did must pay for his anachronism by seeing the “supracelestial,” i.e., metaphysical, essence of the Idea relegated to the unverifiable realm of faith and superstition, or charitably left to the poet.

CONT

>>19099332
>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this “inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world. The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever “originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother, the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.
>In former times, despite some dissenting opinion and the influence of Aristotle, it was not too difficult to understand Plato's conception of the Idea as supraordinate and pre-existent to all phenomena. "Archetype," far from being a modern term, was already in use before the time of St. Augustine, and was synonymous with "Idea" in the Platonic usage. When the Corpus Hermeticum, which probably dates from the third century, describes God as το άρχίτνπ-ον φώς, the 'archetypal light,' it expresses the idea that he is the prototype of all light; that is to say, pre-existent and supraordinate to the phenomenon "light." Were I a philosopher, I should continue in this Platonic strain and say: somewhere, in “a place beyond the skies,” there is a prototype or primordial image of the mother that is pre-existent and supraordinate to all phenomena in which the “maternal,” in the broadest sense of the term, is manifest. But I am an empiricist, not a philosopher; I cannot let myself presuppose that my peculiar temperament, my own attitude to intellectual problems, is universally valid. Apparently this is an assumption in which only the philosopher may indulge, who always takes it for granted that his own disposition and attitude are universal, and will not recognize the fact, if he can avoid it, that his “personal equation” conditions his philosophy. As an empiricist, I must point out that there is a temperament which regards ideas as real entities and not merely as nomina. It so happens—by the merest accident, one might say—that for the past two hundred years we have been living in an age in which it has become unpopular or even unintelligible to suppose that ideas could be anything but nomina. Anyone who continues to think as Plato did must pay for his anachronism by seeing the “supracelestial,” i.e., metaphysical, essence of the Idea relegated to the unverifiable realm of faith and superstition, or charitably left to the poet.

CONT

>>18974191
>It's almost as if one consists of both femininr and a masculine subsets in the psyche

>>18941567
Based.

>>18883041
True

>>18694880
Enlightened or schizophrenic, what's the difference? Jung has an answer to your questions.

Why do people ignore the fact that Freud conceded to Jung's conception of libido shortly before he died?

>>18329483
>It is, I think, characteristic of our psychology that we find on the threshold of the new age two figures who were destined to exert an immense influence on the hearts and minds of the younger generation: Wagner, the prophet of love, whose music runs the whole gamut of feeling from Tristan down to incestuous passion, then up again from Tristan to the sublime spirituality of Parsifal; and Nietzsche, the prophet of power and of the triumphant will for individuality. Wagner, in his last and loftiest utterance, harked back to the Grail legend, as Goethe did to Dante, but Nietzsche seized on the idea of a master caste and a master morality, an idea embodied in many a fairhaired hero and knight of the Middle Ages. Wagner broke the bonds that fettered love, Nietzsche shattered the “tables of values” that cramp individuality. Both strove after similar goals while at the same time creating irremediable discord; for where love is, power cannot prevail, and where power prevails, love cannot reign.

Choose.

>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this “inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world. The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever “originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother, the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.
>In former times, despite some dissenting opinion and the influence of Aristotle, it was not too difficult to understand Plato's conception of the Idea as supraordinate and pre-existent to all phenomena. "Archetype," far from being a modern term, was already in use before the time of St. Augustine, and was synonymous with "Idea" in the Platonic usage. When the Corpus Hermeticum, which probably dates from the third century, describes God as το άρχίτνπ-ον φώς, the 'archetypal light,' it expresses the idea that he is the prototype of all light; that is to say, pre-existent and supraordinate to the phenomenon "light."

People are still people filtered by the Forms I see.

>>17895224

>>14476825
>natives
>wrote

>>14464895
Alright guys I have an idea.

If we created a system out of Kant, Hegel, Carlyle, Jung, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, what would it be? Or at least what would its direction be like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDLfHP3IKA4
>these are the people who tell you to clean your room

Who is the greatest psychologist known to man (hint it's Jung)?

>>13619815
Psychology is a really easy thing to learn. Psychology would probably offer you more options in life however there are many, many people doing Psych. Psychology you can learn almost all of it within a year and still get an advanced understanding of it all in half of one. Either way I think you should of thought a bit more about this.

Start with Jung's Modern Man in Search of a Soul (the essays are ordered in such a way that each one was better than the prior). Then Jung's a History of modern Psychology lectures. Then you have should go back to say reading William James writings: 1878 - 1899. Then William James writings: 1902 - 1910. Don't take a lot of it as truth but he supplies a heavy branch of psychology and is useful to read to get a good understanding of psychology of that time. As well as his beautiful writing (which still remains true in many cases). Then just buzz around with people like Pavlov. Come back to skim through Freud (buy a short book like the Basic writings of Sigmund Freud). Then start with Jung again by reading Psychology of the Unconscious and continue to read all of his works in chronological order. (except the Red Book/Liber Novus which is arguably his hardest) His will be a life long endeavour and love, reading philosophy(most important), religion, art and occult with Jung will be extremely helpful considering how Jung somewhat acts as the culmination of a tradition of humanity itself.

Don't even bother with Adler that roach. And after Jung it's just the slow progression of behavioural specialists and what not but they tend to just go over the things Jung already mentioned.

>>13501661
>POO
top kek

>>13457175
>>13457191
>>13457235
>Tfw he was of Germanic decent