/lit/ - Literature

I was recommended 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections' as an intro to Jung. About 5 pages in...

>"So anyway, when I was like, 3 years old, I had this dream that I entered a subterranean grave/temple which contained a 20 foot giant phallus called The Maneater which was seated on a golden throne"

I was not expecting this.

>>15131475
Damn straight

>>14919997

Theres absolutely no way the free market new age online versions of a psychometrically unsound test built on a bad reading of my work are "shit"

>>14903716
Why do you fear your own shadow, my son?

>Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purpose through him. As a human being he may have moods and a will and personal aims, but as an artist he is "man" in a higher sense— he is "collective man"— one who carries and shapes the unconscious, psychic forms of mankind.

Is he right?

So basically, to recap, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and Jung all represent a sort of linear progression of intellectuals engaging with modern breakdown of spiritual values. They all link this breakdown of spiritual values to people giving up their autonomy to become part of a herd, a mass movement, like a revolutionary or totalitarian one — or, on the other hand, as just being lost in life, blindly and shallowly seeking for small pleasures, or just full on having existential crises about the meaninglessness of it all. They view the solution to this as taking greater responsibility for oneself, developing oneself and one’s own values (even if Dosto views it in a Christian way, Nietzsche in an aristocratic/aesthete way, and Jung in a spiritual/mystical way). The commonalty is a belief in the potential greatness of the individual, their ability to stop blaming others for their problems, totranscend crowds, and get in touch with real, serious, life-affirming values beyond just shallow hedonism, technocratic utilitarianism, or totalitarian politics.

This is all basically a lot of what Pete is saying and the tradition he’s working off of. Peterson is basically saying the same exact shit: people are losing their values. This leads to a desire to blame others for their issues, become part of revolutionary crowds. This victim psychology, not wanting to take responsibility for changing oneself and coming in touch with higher values, leads to totalitarian movements (this is JBP’s thesis based off of his study of 20th century totalitarian movements like in Germany and Russia). Modern day SJWism is a frightening manifestation of this phenomenon for him. He also sees the modern dropping out of society by many young men, their crisis in faith in a meaning of life or contributing to society, as linked to this.

Now, you may criticize Peterson’s views. You certainly don’t have to agree with him on everything. For instance, some criticize his belief that there really is a very good, linear progress of technology/Western civilization making everything better. Some also criticize what seems like his urging that people shouldn’t at all focus on changing society and instead should focus on changing themselves first. To some, this seems like shallow conformism, upholding the status quo. Indeed, these points are debatable.

So the purpose of my thread isn’t to blindly worship and praise Peterson. It’s rather to show that he is working in a respectable tradition of thinkers tackling modern breakdown of faith in standard spiritual values and seems to be more well-read than most underage people on this board. I think discussions of Peterson could actually be much more interesting and productive if people don’t just criticize him based off of really shallow assumptions, or because he has a self-help-guru aura around him, is related to the “alt-right” and edgy young men, and instead see he’s actually touching on some important 19th-20th c. ideas.

How long, or approximately how many books did it take you to advance from average books and novels to be able to read and understand philosophical and psychological books written by highly intelligent authors? Was it a fluid transition or did you simply decide to read literature by the likes of Jung or Nietzsche one day?

Memes and value appraisals aside, what are the most essential writings of Jung and in which order should they be read?

>>11084386
A cave is an incest archetype

>>11035220
Dude mother-son incest is just an archetype lmao

>>10169878
Hi.

>>9986814
>uncovered the secret of dreams

I think that's Carl Jung.

>>9987098
Pay attention to your dreams, they're trying to tell you something

>>9007896
Seems like someone can't bear his collective consciousness, not even the shadow

Why do Lacanians hate Jung?

Where to start on his works on spirituality?

ITT:

>Your MBTI type

>Your favourite work of genre fiction

-

>INTJ
>Neuromancer

How do I into psychology, /lit/? I took AP psych in high school, but have not studied anything on the topic since. Are there any fundamental books to read?

So, /lit

Where do I start with this fucker?