/lit/ - Literature

>>1203845

Psychology is a science.

I don't know about science, but to the people who study art, psychology, or mythology his work is extremely important.

>>1203845
Wait, psychology is a science.
Derp

>>1203853

How is psychology applied biology?

I'd recommend his ideas as they're certainly interesting (the monomyth and that shit).

But I wouldn't buy the book. Just find the stages on wikipedia, you'll basically have the fucking thing down.

>>1203862
The brain is controlled by chemicals. That's all I can think of.

How is his analysis of Finnegans Wake?

>>1203862
You're studying the behaviors of a creature.

>>1203862
The biological basis of behavior. neurotransmitters, the Endocrine system, the enlargement of the 4th ventricle being a possible reason as to why schizophrenia develops.

tl:dr: you're an idiot

I have the book and I've read part of it. In order to read it with any level of critical comprehension one must have a social science background, probably a minimum junior or senior undergraduate level.

He seems to subscribe to many outdated and discredited theories, and his argument is hard to follow at times. Other times, his argument is nonexistent.

So, I will go with "bullshit" rather than "well respected".

A better place to start in understanding mythology is probably just to read the Grimm's Fairy Tales. Then you should read the manga One Piece, because it is basically an encyclopedia of counterexamples to Campbell's theory.

>>1204137

If you want to maintain an air of credibility, never seriously recommend anything published by Shonen Jump.

>>1203874
>>1203971
Behaviourism is not all of Psychology.

>>1203853
How is math the purest form of logic? Most logical complexes are counter-intuitive. Physics, and all mathematical derivatives attempt to deny human nature by delineating it? Purity is unequivocal to logic.

>>1205011

Nowhere in that picture does "logic" appear

Reading his book inspired George Lucas to make episodes 4, 5, and 6. That's a good reason in and of itself.

>>1205020
Logic is implied hence the term "purity," in reference to fields that quantify the human experience. Maybe you should learn to be a bit more analytical. : ) And yes, discernment is cultivated.

>>1205026

>Logic is implied hence the term "purity,"

No it isn't

>>1205027
> Logic is implied hence the term "purity," in reference to fields that quantify the human experience.

You might want to finish the quote, in order to maintain context. But, in doing so, your retort is proven baseless. The purity, in the matter at hand, being it's relation to the human experience in its ability to delineate it. Reducing man back to a system of cause and effect.

>>1205031

Purity refers to the ability to isolate what is being studied

Not all of the fields quantify (just) human experience

You cannot read

>>1205026

Perhaps, instead, you should learn to read for comprehension. You've invented an entirely different definition for "purity" from the author, and entirely different from the one every scientist immediately draws on when seeing this image.

But then again, you probably come from a field even less pure than sociology, like literature, or waste disposal.

>>1205034
Sociology and psychology are quantifiable accounts of human experience. Hence the theme of the comic. You're attempting to conjecture about in hopes to justify a brash defense of it. Lol.

Also, chemistry, physics and mathematics quantify man's relation to the universe / environment. I.e. they're direct correlations of / to the human experience.

>>1205042

That isn't the theme of the comic

>chemistry, physics and mathematics quantify man's relation to the universe / environment

>(just)

>>1205043
then what is the theme? The complexities of humanity intensifying, then again be reduced to cause and effect once more? The inability to escape the simple complexities of humanity- of which it ultimate / only amounts to.

also, from what other relation can they quantify?

>>1205037
Oh, irony. I'll let you find it on your on.

>>1205048
Own*

>>1205045

Fields of study by order of purity, purity being the ability to be analyzed without interference by extraneous factors (You don't need to refer to biology to understand combinatorics, you do need to do so to understand mental illness)

It's not about humanity except that of course they are performed by humans

>of which it ultimate / only amounts to.

That's nice, dear, I'm sure you have a very convincing argument for why you have access to this non-relative truth but no others

>>1205045

>then what is the theme? The complexities of humanity intensifying, then again be reduced to cause and effect once more? The inability to escape the simple complexities of humanity- of which it ultimate / only amounts to.

>also, from what other relation can they quantify?

It's not Sartre, anon. The theme is "LOL, mathematics is the fundamental, most theoretical and 'pure' underpinning of science by far."

Sociology relies on an understanding of psychology, psychology (to debatable degrees) relies on an understanding of biology, which is governed by chemistry, which is governed by physics, which is governed by mathematics, which relies on nothing else. Mathematics creates itself. Theoretical Mathematics is the Bad Wolf.

>>1205055
>>1205052
It's still a diminutive order, regardless of your defense(s). All any of you have done, is extrapolated my immediate deduction. Again, its purity being in relation to humanity's ability to apprehend an extraneous object

>>1205067
>Pretentious faux-intellectual wankery

OK, bro, I got this far thinking that maybe you weren't a troll or a total asshat, but whichever you are, this is me washing my hands of it.

Weird. My wife was reading a book by this guy earlier today. She read part of it to me. It sounded interesting, but I don't know much about the subject.

>>1205072
> Lol, dismissing opposition under the the pretense of a pseudo-intellect due to your inability to ascertain another interpretation. The fallacy of objectivism. Regardless, connotation exists in the true intellect, and its presence is inescapable.

i learned today that it is justly inhumane to pursue mathematics because I'm far too intelligent to waste my time with it

>>1205078

You're misusing language here. You don't mean 'ascertain', you mean 'evaluate', and you don't mean 'objectivism', you mean 'objectivity'. As for the third sentence, I have no idea what that means.

Joseph Campbell's work is fraudulent. He was a purveyor of catch-all categories, to whom scholarship was mere consumerism.

>>1205420
Where are you getting that information from because I've never read or seen anything to indicate that.

>>1205424

Reading his work. Try it sometime.

>>1205429
I think you just didn't like what he had to say. I've not read his work, but I've read about him. He seems generally well respected. Professors seem to like him as well. I've read some bits and pieces of his stuff, but I'm not that interest in what he writes about. I'm still not conceding that there's any weight to what you've said until you give me someone with creditably agreeing with you.