/lit/ - Literature

>>22887118
no I mean this for example.

>>22597469
>You missed my point.
No, I didn't. You missed mine. But I'll rephrase it in a better manner in-order to provide you with a more clear argument, nonetheless.

>Jung doesn't believe everything can be stated in 'plain English', or at least your severe metric for what is 'plain'. And the reasons for that are doubled when something is of a mystical nature. And most writers, at least many classic writers, some of who I assume you include in thinking to be bad at writing, would believe what they're trying to expresses is dependant on their style of expression.
There is a vast difference between writing a story and writing an analysis/explanation of that story. When you want to write a story, you don't want to say the message of it but instead convey it through the actions of the characters, in other words, by showing it. But when you want to explain the meaning of that story, you wouldn't want to merely show another retelling of that story but to instead provide an actual explanation of message of the story. This is where you fail to understand the purpose of a philosopher. A philosopher is meant to explain, not show. Jung was bad at explaining and preferred to show. This is why he is so frequently misinterpreted by so many people, because he did not explain the mythos, but rather repackaged them and allowed his readers to interpret them instead of the original tests instead. The psyche and the unconscious are vague, yes, because they are erotic. However, that is precisely why Jung should not have used an erotic, vague, and flowerily writing style to explain them, because that merely complicates the manner even more so than it already was. Jung should have been the logos, not another expression of eros. One of the few times Jung's writings are actually good this is in chapter 1 of part 1 of "Archetypes and the Collective unconscious" where he provides a clear and concise definition of the collective unconscious and then proceeds to substantiate this definition by analysing various myths and texts. Otherwise, he does not provide a definition, but let's instead the reader try to form his own definition when they read his retold, compiled lists of various concepts, myths, etc. with added commentary. Which, to repeat myself, is not what a philosopher should do. A philosopher should explain--that is, say--not show--that is, use flowerily language and rely to much on myths to indirectly explain his points.

>When you say Jung's claims are vague, I would say they belong to the authentic dialectic of thought, and he is not so arrogant as to presume that everything has to be neatly systemised. It was his vision, he's not blind to it like you may be, he knew what he was trying to convey.
I will give you that. It is authentic, but it's not really well explained.

1/2