/lit/ - Literature

>>3526934
I think you have a great point, but then again, rock music always involved image and popularity. The scenario is different and to say they are "most influential" is not too far off. I believe there is a natural reaction to the fact that the Beatles get too much attention. While I'm sure they deserve attention, it's frustrating to see how many people can settle for that or go over them again and again. In the same sense that we would be pissed if Coltrane was the only jazz name people ever heard. It is a culture of "top 5" and "the best" that gets out of hand.

>>3527016
That's silly and you sound like youtube comments.

>>3527219
Fame went to their heads, but then again it changed them. The studio phase is definitely where the good stuff is, not the live performances. And each album released was somewhat of a surprise.

That being said, I think I'm cool for listening 3 Beatles songs in a year. I'm so sick and tired of it, I can't even listen to it when it's playing.

>>3329376 here
I forgot my point. My point is that Jung didn't deny or destroy or shit all over what Freud said as you imply he did.

In fact, I'm a fan of both for a certain honesty that they shared in their writing, even if they had their stubborn attitudes as well. No one will be "unlearning" from reading either of them and Jung writes with a clarity and openess that is unmatched, so it's not "dangerous" at all. The "worst" that could happen is you understand his point and agree, but the actual worst thing that could happen would just to disagree and move on. Not that bad scenarios.

It's all a goddamn process.

Stop treating yourself like a videogame character with intelligence points and leveling up.

Intelligence is potential, it's an abstract concept, not measurable, it's something you say about people who do intelligent things. It's shows itself with the context, with attitudes. You don't need to worry about how intelligent you are or look, you need to worry about doing your thing right and thinking on unusual and creative solutions for the things you have to face. Intelligence is what people will point out from you thinking those solutions.

Otherwise, you put the carriage in front of the horses, talking about the word intelligence, but not intelligence itself, boosting yourself up about thing that might perhaps be indicators of how intelligent you are which would then indicate how valuable you are for the situations of life. Can you see how derivative and egocentric that is? Nothing is being said.

And I also see education being mentioned as if you were an empty bucket and school and books were there to fill this up. Knowledge is also a process, a matter of meaningful relationships between what you see, hear, experience. It doesn't add up as in a pile of things. There is a fog between being educated and being indoctrinated, between learning and memorizing.

"How many books do I have to read to compensate my 10 IQ points deficit?". This is insane.

It's not a competition, don't treat this with "I'm smarter than you are" egoistic mentality.

dyer?