/lit/ - Literature

>>11517990
>Does anyone know of any careers that apply the Jungian approach but aren't psychotherapy?
Pic related.
In all seriousness you should still consider pursuing Jungian psychotherapy. Patients who go into that are likely looking for honesty and objectivity, whereas excessive empathy may make them feel like you're bullshitting them, or like you're not in a position to help them.

>>11439477

>>10979477
>the problematic nature of the introduction
Your post is problematic.

>>10667459
>lipstick
>high heels
FUCK THAT WHORE

Article says she's engaged
>Hey honey you know how you love me more than anything and want to get married spend the rest of your life with me
>remember that one guy that hurt and defiled me, the woman you love, against my will
> I cheated on you with him
>no after it happened
>well I flirted with him and we made out and rolled around and slept together
> yes in front of all our friends
>no I didn't feel guilty or ashamed
Wew lad
Women are so brave

When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant. Nietzsche saw that the Enlightenment would strip the values of Christianity away,but this requires the individual to create their own values and accept the lack of objectivity without falling into nihilism. The individual has to become an 'ubermensch' with their own values. This seems fine on paper, but in reality, whatever values, like rationalism, the individual holds highest is their God.

Nietzsche's existentialism and ubermensch is a brilliant idea, only it doesn't work. Nobody is able to create a value system that can replace religion and live by it. Peterson want's to resurrect Christianity, the logos, but he can't kill the objectivity problem, despite how hard he tries to hide it.

He knows objectivity is dead and all we have is a linguistic playground. Iv'e now seen six separate videos of Peterson admitting that this 'linguistic playground' is valid and the logical perspective to reach. During the Harris debate, he was even backed into a corner and even had to start arguing from this position. But Peterson had to be dishonest and pretend the entire European school of thought is so shallow it overlooked relativism, pretend that pomo says every view and opinion has equal weight.

Peterson had to blame postmodernism and pretend it enabled this intellectual relativism. So now he stands triumphant, pretending he has defeated postmodernism, and he can make his appealing picture of Christianity with Jungian archetypes. But he still has a problem. He tricked his congregation into dismissing postmodernism, but he still faces the objectivity problem. When asked if he believes in God, instead of saying no, he gives the predictable, "that's a very complicated question which needs hours of..."

His goal is to bring back Christianity, to give people the values it holds because people aren't able to be the ubermensch, I think it's a noble cause, but he can't manage to do it. Even if we go along with him and pretend he managed to slay postmodernism, he still faces the problem of Christianity being divorced from objectivity. His axiomatic reasoning is that evolution has etched archetypal characteristics and modes of behavior into humans, and we are pre-written with these archetypes instead of being born blank-slates, and people aren't as socially conditioned as academics like to say, and this creates a 'truth' that is a description of the world different to the truth that comes from the description of the world from empirical testing.

Even if his two truth's didn't fall apart under scrutiny, and even is his dismissal of postmodernism didn't fall apart, he still can't tether his ideology to objectivity. It was easy to mix postmodernism, radical feminism and communism with figures we collectively hate like the shaven-headed trans-rights feminist, but all he has is this strawman which he dances around and sweeps the real issues under the carpet.

I like Peterson but his attempt is too flawed.

I need to see this debate happen before either of them die or retire

I'd like to finish Gulag Archipelago and get some basic Jung under my belt first if I ever read it. But honestly, what does the book offer that his lectures don't? Genuinely asking

HI I'M DOCTOR JORDAN PETERSON AND YOU'D BE STARK RAVING MAD TO TOLERATE YOUR PAIN RATHER THAN CONFRONT IT