/lit/ - Literature

>>12135175
bump

Chad

>>12135244
this board is not the same.

>>12135269
shut up bitch

>>12135175

Answer to Job was the best critique of the old testament I've ever read. Almost made me religious

>>12135287
shut up nerd

>>12135175
He is too mystical, I don't even want to call his theory a theory

>>12135284
>>12135310
subhumans. pity you

>>12135322
shut up cuck

>>12135321
He is scientific, he doesnt believe. He establishs hypothesis through reason

>>12135175
soiboy
hate him

>>12135321
>>12135333
That's the point. There's science behind every myth and a myth behind every science.

outdated mystic pseud. No one in academia takes him seriously, only petersonfags

>>12135269
what a dork

>>12135350
yeah, the academia would rather fellate a pseud like Freud than accept anything that breaks their positivistic worldview.

>>12135365
Academia doesn't take Freud seriously either you dilettante. There is no serious Jung vs Freud dialectic.

We balls deep in cbt atm bois

>>12135350
i dont read jung because academia doesnt take him seriously. I only read Steven Pinker, Judith Butler, Jared Diamond, and other Truly Great Minds.

What are you even supposed to read from Jung? He has over 30 books according to wiki.

>>12135703
t. 4chan "intellectual"

>>12135782
The Red Book

>>12135782
Man and his symbols, then four archetypes.
If you want just to understand his psychically Yolande Iacobi has a nice book on that.

>>12135782
memories, dreams, reflections
intro to man and his symbols (rest is optional)
archetypes
aion

Literally self-help tier. At least Freud is entertaining.

>>12135350
he's not "outdated", but he may have been a bit of a fraud.
from a traditional pov, he is a materialist who thinks systems of belief come from unconscious, involuntary forces that are encoded into the fabric of human beings, as opposed to the impulse toward the transcendent coming from divine "intuition" or "knowing" that guenon and evola talk about.
from a modern materialist scientific pov, he is constantly making unfalsifiable claims, and making connections where there may not be any.
i would look at his way of thinking as a continuation of nietzsche's work, trying to present itself as scientific for pragmatic reasons.

>>12135175
Nobody on /lit/ has either the patience or the intelligence to be able to form an intelligent and well-informed opinion on him and his work.

>>12135175
His writings feel completely useless and alien to me since there has never been any people in my dreams.
I only dream of geometric shapes moving around, looks to me that most of his interpretation only comes from the fact that he was really immersed in the topic of stories and symbolism.

>>12135287

Job is selfish in only considering the relation between God and suffering when he himself becomes afflicted. It is implied that God could have destroyed everyone and everything around him and Job would have thought nothing of it. Job's conclusion or lack thereof being as strange as God's explanation or lack thereof. The story reveals the idea of ironic divine punishment, warning that the absolute is good and the particular is bad, as earnest henotic empathy, warning that the particular unknowingly IS the absolute and that it would have an awful experience were it to see itself reflected as such. In this case God perfectly mirroring Job's casual selfishness.

>>12135287
>The basic thesis of the book is that as well as having a good side, God also has a fourth side - the evil face of God. This view is inevitably controversial, but Jung claimed it is backed up by references to the Hebrew Bible. Jung saw this evil side of God as the missing fourth element of the Trinity, which he believed should be supplanted by a Quaternity. However, he also discusses in the book whether the true missing fourth element is the feminine side of God. Indeed, he saw the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary by Pope Pius XII in 1950 as being the most significant religious event since the Reformation. Another theme in the book is the inversion of the myth that God sent his son Christ to die for the sins of humanity. Jung maintains that upon realizing his mistreatment of Job, God sends his son to humankind to be sacrificed in repentance for God's sins. Jung sees this as a sign of God's ongoing psychological development.

What the HELL is this?

Dialectic: Job is selfish in only considering the relation between God and suffering when he himself becomes afflicted. It is implied that God could have destroyed everyone and everything around him and Job would have thought nothing of it. Job's conclusion or lack thereof being as strange as God's explanation or lack thereof. The story reveals the idea of ironic divine punishment, warning that the absolute is good and the particular is bad, as earnest henotic empathy, warning that the particular unknowingly IS the absolute and that it would have an awful experience were it to see itself reflected as such. In this case God perfectly mirroring Job's casual selfishness.

Continental: what if there were like 4 uuuhh faces instead of 3 which aren't really those 3 like you know....and uuh it was mary or something LOL?

>"In Jung’s interpretation, Job is completely innocent. He is a scrupulously pious man who follows all the religious conventions, and for most of his life he is blessed with good fortune. This is the expected outcome for a just man in a rationally ordered universe. But then God allows Satan to work on him, bringing misfortune and misery. Being overwhelmed with questions and images of divine majesty and power, Job is then silenced. He realizes his inferior position vis-a-vis the Almighty. But he also retains his personal integrity, and this so impresses God that He is forced to take stock of Himself. Perhaps He is not so righteous after all! [ As Marc Fonda observes, God’s omniscience precludes self-awareness. Being omniscient, God has no concentrated self to speak of. Being a part of everything, God has no opportunity to distinguish self from non-self. However, as God knows the thoughts of humans, through the thoughts of his creation he can experience what self-awareness is. ] And out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born."

This is shit.

>>12135350
>outdated
Might be an argument against modernity more than the past. Or maybe you simply lack the avenues where he can be used, such as friends or, how should I say it... A mind.
>mystic
Nothing wrong with that.
>pseud
[citation needed]

>>12136598
I like it because it fills a good plot hole in my Abrahamic headcanon. The Bible now makes more sense to me.

>>12137484
>And out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born."
This is retarded. The rest of it is alright.

>>12135175
Gave me the confidence to reclaim control of my dreams, and of the imagination I had as a young child. As if they are activities that are not just for children, but can be richly meaningful for adults.

>>12135350
Academia takes feminist literature seriously, go fuck yourself

>>12135782
Start with man and his symbols and something by Freud and see if you like it, then move on to the heavier works by Jung

>>12136115
>he is a materialist who thinks systems of belief come from unconscious, involuntary forces that are encoded into the fabric of human beings, as opposed to the impulse toward the transcendent coming from divine "intuition" or "knowing"

Wouldn't "unconscious, involuntary forces that are encoded into the fabric of human beings" be the exact same phenomena as "impulse towards the transcendent"? Because what is an 'impulse' if not an "unconscious, involuntary force"?

I don't understand your argument here. You've made an accusation of fraud when offering up absolutely nothing to support that point of view, other than a tautology.

Where do i start with Jung? I have already read Modern Man in Search of a Soul, but it didn't do much for me. I've got The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious in my stack, shall i start here or read something else to understand it better?

>>12135175
Hes general theories were correct, but the specifics get very iffy. Psychology is a very difficult field.