/lit/ - Literature

>>16442476
Careful with taking Jung's observations out of context(and I doubt the validity of that quote), he says these things as they psychologically parallel with their opposites, in his case Hitler being a mystical hero figure, which necessitates an ability and natural character outside of his own people.

Before ww2:Hitler is wodan n sheet
after ww2:Hitler was a miserable inferior loser

>>16442498
Incorrect.

>>16442499
It's almost as if there was an occupying force who would make your life difficult if you didn't distance yourself from the defeated regime...

>>16442529
Wasnt he writing in Switzerland

>>16442529
It wasn't that, the poster just doesn't understand that the quote comes from the same work where he links the archetypal activation of the wodan myth to the germans.

He's an illiterate fool is all.

>>16442515
Well could you at least give a sauce for this quote? I mean he was friends with Serrano towards the end of his life, I highly doubt he had these silly views of Hitler. Though he did connect an inferiority complex to the Germans, it was in no way this simplistic or wishfully insultingly put.

>>16442556
Civilization in Transition, the fifth or so chapter; "Fight with The Shadow".

*hits pipe*

Why tobacco leaf smoke smoke cause thinking gears to go BRRRRRRR in brain?

>>16442573
>Civilization in Transition
Should that be considered his last work?

>>16442476
>>16442573
Civilization in transition is basically a bunch of pop-essays he wrote to popularize his psychology, so he had to pay lip service to the tribe in order to secure his legacy. His actual views on Hitler can be known from his private letters and less known papers.
>>16442594
His last work is his comprehensive book on alchemy, Mysterium Coniunctionis

>>16442627
>His last work is his comprehensive book on alchemy, Mysterium Coniunctionis
Sure, but wouldn't this collection really count as the last book?

>>16442627
>Civilization in transition is basically a bunch of pop-essays he wrote to popularize his psychology, so he had to pay lip service to the tribe in order to secure his legacy. His actual views on Hitler can be known from his private letters and less known papers.
This, one would think he would take more chances to dump on Hitler if he really believed, after all that is quite popular, where he strictly limited it to calling him a "hero for the German people" in the interview instead.

>>16442639
If we want to look it that way, his chapter in Man and His Symbol is his last work (another work to popularize his system), which he finished a few days before his death.

>>16442677
Hero for the German people and hero of the German people mean different things and you've conflated one with the other.

Learn to read, retard.

>>16442679
I considered that, but I figured since he wrote it for laymen and he was at first completely against it, and it contains nothing original, and it's only one chapter-- that it shouldn't be counted as his last work.

>>16443671
I was using "for" in the sense of the German people's perspective. Are you incapable of seeing only a single grammatical clause, because you wont be able to understand Heraclitus.

>>16442476
Based, this perfectly describes the incel fascination with him. It’s specifically because he’s derided as evil, the polar opposite of everything adjusted people believe, that they worship him, not despite of.

>>16443713
ok incel

>>16443696
I read somewhere that he said he considered Mysterium Coniunctionis to be his last major contribution, though I don't remember the source.

>>16442476
Sure; European Civilization was collapsing and nobody was addressing that Death.

I find Jung very insightful.
>What did the greatest psychoanalytis in history mean by this?
That Hitlers postion in a Social Dynamic way to frame is that which Others Project to Him; Like how Donald Trump uses his Public Personae , and how Others Use that Personae for their Interests:
>I am the Don, Real Estate Extraordinaire
>He is trumpffff, the Idiot
>He is Donald Trump, God Emperor

So Jung is very straightforward telling Hitler is a Empty Mask, a Vase that the Public and those around him are filling the Void with their own Shadow, Unconscious.

>>16444113
More accurate example would've been Obama, the guy came from nowhere and believe nothing, was a complete blank slate for Americans to project their dreams on.

>>16443960
I see, thanks anon.

>>16442476
Psychoanalysis is a fraud, also Jung was a German-speaking American-style liberal. Don't expect anything different from him.

>>16444170
>Jung
>a liberal
When will this meme die?

>>16444126
>More accurate example would've been Obama
More accurate?
I think both are spot on now that you mention it.
Hitler actually got away with a NatSoc State, and would have Changed Europe forever.

But Obama did not get his Islamist Communist Utopia.

Almost though.

>>16444170
He did work for the CIA....but no, he is of the same thought with Marcuse; the Great Rejection.

He knew what was coming for us.

>>16444209
If you don't trust me then fucking read him you retard. Literally calls on Americans to save European culture from the dangers of reaction. Jung only looks based by comparison with Freud, the psychoanalytical framework is still both wrong and subversive.
>>16444228
His fundamental beliefs are just the same - in a liberal, democratic, republican and free citizen society. His qualms with the zombiefication of the masses is that in that way they won't be good citizens, not that their souls will be destroyed. Psychoanalysts always boil things down to the level of materialism.

>>16444390
You're very ignorant.

>>16444406
And you are very far below the average IQ.

>>16444390
>His fundamental beliefs are just the same - in a liberal, democratic, republican and free citizen society.
No.
He pushed for the Comprehension by Human Beings of Human Nature to better ourselves; akin to the Hellenic Culture that aimed to understand Human Tragedy, its causes and how to improve, avoid those mistakes.

We are Full Mast Towards a MadMax Timeline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeMlQEWEg2Q

>>16444390
>If you don't trust me then fucking read him you retard.
I have, he can be confused for a liberal but he most certainly is not. He literally blames America for many of the cultural degeneration's and mishaps of the time such as by its extroverted nature.

Jung might as well not be a psychoanalyst at all, if you're putting him in the same system as Freud.

>>16444537
>He pushed for the Comprehension by Human Beings of Human Nature to better ourselves; akin to the Hellenic Culture that aimed to understand Human Tragedy, its causes and how to improve, avoid those mistakes.
>Hellenic culture was all about the collective unconscious (the gutter of humanity) rather than about divine wisdom
Even the conceptualisation of the problem as that of pursuing a solution of "human tragedy" is painfully modern, liberal and humanist. The Greeks did not perceive life as tragedy, they perceived it as a gift and as pure being. The humanitarian take on the Classical period is nauseating.
>>16444553
>I have, he can be confused for a liberal but he most certainly is not. He literally blames America for many of the cultural degeneration's and mishaps of the time such as by its extroverted nature.
This does not change the fact that he fundamentally wanted Europe to be Americanised. He just wanted it to happen in the correct way.
>Jung might as well not be a psychoanalyst at all, if you're putting him in the same system as Freud.
I am aware of his superior skill and concepts. This does not change the fact that his system is an inversion of the traditional spiritual beliefs about human nature, the legitimacy of which he usurps for himself. The perennialists are the ones who carry that torch, he only borrows it in order to shine some of its light on liberalism.

>>16444591
>Even the conceptualisation of the problem as that of pursuing a solution of "human tragedy" is painfully modern, liberal and humanist.
>persuing a solution
>a solution
Nobody mentioned a solution.
Tragedy is a Medium to better comprehend the causes for our ills.

Can you midwit stop having a conversation with yourself?
>The Greeks did not perceive life as tragedy,
You said that; i did not.
>The humanitarian take on the Classical period is nauseating.
Nobody But You, have mentioned this.

>>16444650
>Nobody mentioned a solution.
You literally did, though:
>akin to the Hellenic Culture that aimed to understand Human Tragedy, its causes and how to improve, avoid those mistakes.
With that said, just to clear up any misconceptions, the Greeks didn't conceive of life as something to be used to endlessly wallow in self-pity and "understand" the crushing weight of that self-pity.
>Nobody But You, have mentioned this.
Thank you for repeating your self-own three times, just to drive the point home. Please drop Jung.

>>16444591
>This does not change the fact that he fundamentally wanted Europe to be Americanised. He just wanted it to happen in the correct way.
Not at all. Please name the work he says this in.

>This does not change the fact that his system is an inversion of the traditional spiritual beliefs about human nature, the legitimacy of which he usurps for himself.
What can do what Jung does? Nothing, no system can take the use of Jung's ideas and concepts, and you're fundamentally mistaking the capability or applicality of Jung's system with its over-arching spiritual concerns, he is not taking or merely "materialising"/psychologising perennialism anon, he is doing something unique which is really in anyway comparable to figures like Husserl. It's a common mistake however that Jung is inverting a traditional religious conception, he is merely capturing it, and in some ways defining it. Just look at this quote, does it seem like an inversion to you:
>“The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of his life. Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite can we avoid fixing our interests upon futilities, and upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance. Thus we demand that the world grant us recognition for qualities which we regard as personal possessions: our talent or our beauty. The more a man lays stress on false possessions, and the less sensitivity he has for what is essential, the less satisfying is his life. He feels limited because he has limited aims, and the result is envy and jealousy. If we understand and feel that here in this life we already have a link with the infinite, desires and attitudes change.”
Or
>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this “inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world. The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever “originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother, the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.
??? These are traditional mystical concepts, if anything(and of course that is not all Jung is), and figures like Plato or functionally similar have said the same for that reason. And as for any overarching spiritual ideal, for Jung it was to help man in his modern lifeless, belief-less despair, to save him from that, unlike his father.

>>16444695
>the Greeks didn't conceive of life as something to be used to endlessly wallow in self-pity and "understand" the crushing weight of that self-pity.
>hank you for repeating your self-own three times,
>projection
Yes anon, we all know the Hellens were not Degenerates, and not Abrahamics.

>Please drop Jung.
>My Argument is that Jung triggers me, drop him
Kek, you have to go back.

>>16442476
Didn't this guy just make up everything straight from his own ass?

>>16444777
of course not

>>16444216
Jeez. That’s poverty of the most spiritual kind.

I like Jung but how the fuck am I supposed to understand his shit, let alone all the alchemy stuff. Too confusing for me.

>>16444805
Read up on anthropology and religious texts from across the globe

>>16444729
>Not at all. Please name the work he says this in.
It was a press interview I read in a archivist journal, I can't dig it up for you.
As to your quotes, that's all well and good - most of what is said is valuable. The real and essential problem is Jung's definition of "infinite", which is quantitative rather than qualitative. The "collective unconscious" is first of all, collective and second of all, unconscious. It may be numerically infinite (insofar as the concept refers to the mystical-emotional impulses of the human species), but it does not refer to anything of enduring or eternal quality. It's the exact opposite of, say, Plato's view of the One. The center of Jung's doctrine is the Many - it's also not a sort of light, but a rather dim and obscure thing. It's a direct inversion of traditional doctrines, which emphasise clarity, growth and qualitative development.
>>16444760
Can you write a coherent response or is this the limit of your intellectual ability.

>>16444805
Read Plato, Kant, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Wagner, and Nietzsche before reading him. Worked for me.

>>16444825
>Can you write a coherent response or is this the limit of your intellectual ability.
It's okay, we know you can't.

>>16444831
Literally just use the English language to actually write a response to what I said, if you are capable of conversing at all.

>>16444844
We know you can't.
So why are you even bothering?

>>16444825
>The center of Jung's doctrine is the Many
Not him, but there is a great confusion that I see people have of Jung that he somehow was offering a metaphysical doctrine, which is not true at all. Jung is completely and entirely a psychologist, and by that I mean he restricts himself to the inner phenomena, and phenomena of any sort is the Many. There seems to be inherent in his thoughts some metaphysical assumptions which come from the metaphysics of Schopenhauer, a Platonist who also had this "view of the One".

>>16444825
Jung's not professing a religion anon, it's a psychology foremost. Do you mean to tell me that one can't have a science, as philosophical as it is? However you're going to have to express more clearly what exactly you're defining Jung's use of the word "infinite" as, where you say it is a quantitative definition, all fine and well, but then you follow that statement with descriptions that one would think means qualitative. For example, how quite are the mystical-emotional impulses quantitative. As I see it, Jung is speaking of something directly metaphysical and may be called qualitative.

>It was a press interview I read in a archivist journal, I can't dig it up for you.
Come on man, what you're claiming he said goes against all his conceptions of myth and culture, and authenticity.

>>16444826
Preddy good list.

>>16444852
>still crying
I guess I owned you too hard or something, my bad.
>>16444859
Everything has inherent metaphysics and this is especially relevant as he is using important traditional elements as props for his theories, whereas these elements already belong to an integral and whole tradition.
>>16444875
I am aware that he's not professing a religion, but his type of psychology in fact serves as a form of substitute of it, which is what makes it stand out both in positive and negative ways.
>For example, how quite are the mystical-emotional impulses quantitative.
My point is that vaguely "mystical" and emotional experiences are easily accessible to anyone. If you want to, you can find something to contemplate and by exciting your emotions, generate some of those yourself. Their ties to the individual are tenuous and can be evoked either intentionally or unintentionally by outside factors without great effort. The issue is that Jung's concepts slash the connection between the individual and a transcendent, qualitative and superior source of truth, causing any mysticism to instead reflect what is below, rather than what is above - namely, the chaotic and irrational background of daily life which is least qualified to guide the life of man.
>Come on man, what you're claiming he said goes against all his conceptions of myth and culture, and authenticity.
I am just being honest, if you don't believe me feel free to dismiss it - I have no evidence but my word, so it's not like I have any cause to be upset here.

>>16444926
>I guess I owned you too hard or something, my bad.
Lol, Strawmaning is not an argument.

>>16444940
>Lol, Strawmaning is not an argument.
Yes, apparently not arguing at all was the real argument all along. What an unstoppable rhetorical genius you are.

>>16444926
>Everything has inherent metaphysics and this is especially relevant as he is using important traditional elements as props for his theories, whereas these elements already belong to an integral and whole tradition.
This is where I'm saying the confusion lies. If we accept the Kantian thesis, there is a noumenal realm (Schopenhauer's Will and Plato's One) and a phenomenal realm (the representation of the the Will/ the One). The representation is in turn divided into the inner and outer intuitions (forgive me if I'm not using the exact Kantian terms, it's been a while since I read him). Where Psychology concerns itself is these inner intuitions. All these Kantian/Schopenhauerian/Platonists assumptions seem inherent in Jung's psychology, or at least he is influenced by them. It is not that he is using anything as "props", rather as a psychologist his field of inquiry is restricted to a certain part of phenomena; going out of that restriction would not be psychology anymore, but metaphysics. If you want metaphysics, read a metaphysician. If you want psychology, read Jung. But criticizing a psychologist for being a psychologist and not a metaphysician does not make sense.

>>16444216
the burger cultural elite KEK

>>16444926
>My point is that vaguely "mystical" and emotional experiences are easily accessible to anyone. If you want to, you can find something to contemplate and by exciting your emotions, generate some of those yourself. Their ties to the individual are tenuous and can be evoked either intentionally or unintentionally by outside factors without great effort. The issue is that Jung's concepts slash the connection between the individual and a transcendent, qualitative and superior source of truth, causing any mysticism to instead reflect what is below, rather than what is above - namely, the chaotic and irrational background of daily life which is least qualified to guide the life of man.
I disagree, he says after all that Christianity and Buddhism secondarily are the greatest religions, he is supposing that he has captured at least part of the essence of the mysticism and religiosity of man, but this frame by no means exceeds the content in which it depicts which is traditional religion and mysticism. And again, Jung makes no public claims about the exact origin or nature of life and its experiences, only that you MUST recognise it as existing above and separate to you. That is, you must recognise something at least higher, and deeper than yourself-- to contrast what their exact nature is anyhow. Archetypal positions and understandings.

>>16444967
>Yes, apparently not arguing at all was the real argument all along. What an unstoppable rhetorical genius you are.
Don't praise yourself to much.

>>16442555
No.
OPs quote is clearly from after the war.

>>16444985
Psychoanalysis is not just mere psychology - whatever that means, I reject the discipline as a whole, though I admit some achievements of neuropsychology. Psychoanalysis traces phenomena to specific causes, which lie in the "subconscious". This is the inversion that I am referring to. Whereas traditionally you would speak of symbols that allude to something above (such as the One), Jungian psychology points below (the irrational subconscious), but it aesthetically obscures this by packaging these irrational subconscious impulses in the clothing of "archetypes" that often bear traditional meaning and typically act as symbols. In Jungian psychology, their value is negated and they point towards their own antithesis rather than towards the transcendent.
Even if you say that conceptually these are two different fields - metaphysics and psychology - psychoanalysis deliberately and forcefully intrudes on and reduces metaphysics to manifestations of mere subconscious phenomena.

>>16445001
His conceptualisation of "depth" or "height" is the point of objection. I think I successfully summarised my perspective on why for another anon here >>16445029.
>>16445005
>"i'm not owned i'm not owned i'm not owned"
I wish I could get Jung to analyse your psyche right now desu

I don't think Hitler actually was that, but he certainly represented that to most people, and in that sense yeah Jung is right.

>>16445029
Again, according to the Kantian thesis, behind the inner phenomena as well as the outer phenomena lies noumenon, a One, if you will. It was an idea introduced by Schopenhauer that this noumenon had a psychological aspect too, hence the term unconscious. You can safely regard Jungian psychology as a study of the inner phenomena. Jung makes no assertion about the metaphysical nature of the archetypes (which Schopenhauer does, as he claims they exist beyond time and space, and become manifested in the inner and outer phenomena). You are correct in your analysis that Jungian psychology looks at these things from below, but this is because it is a "psychology", an empirical discipline dedicated to the study of the inner phenomena, which has its worth, although it shouldn't be mistaken for a metaphysics. I find that the border could be best kept in mind when Jung is contrasted with his metaphysican precursor Schopenhauer.

>>16442476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs3HK3pxVAY

3 hrs of Jung kino

>>16445040
>His conceptualisation of "depth" or "height" is the point of objection.
They were merely examples given by me, and cannot be denied to be archetypal characteristics or potentials in the minds of man.

>I think I successfully summarised my perspective on why for another anon here >16445029.
But Jung is merely taking the symbolic phenomena as it is, you cannot deny that sometimes a symbol can be directly inspiring to an individual because of unconscious causes, but no doubt for greater religious ones as well which connect to an outer religious truth, but are still suited to human nature in our perception of it hence "collective unconscious". Another thing, Jung doesn't call the subconscious merely an irrational thing of desires and repressed contents like Freud, the unconscious can be the most rational or the least it is something you cannot apply strict specificities to as all-encompassing of it, because of how much more it encompasses than normal daily conscious life. Jung doesn't deny the transcendent, he is asking it in that prior quote I made. But nevertheless the meaning of life as phenomena he is analysing-- that is not a bad thing in itself, and because Jung makes no public assumptions about it's greater metaphysical character it is evidently not a bad thing. But rather a good thing insofar it stands as the discovery of life and man.

>>16445060
The issue is that it isn't a simple and casual observation and categorisation for its own sake, the observation and categorisation are done for a purpose. That purpose is to reduce human action to causes that lie in this subconscious (in the Jungian case dressed in old and illustrious symbols). Psychoanalysis claims the right to diagnose problems, find their sources and prescribe solutions. This, factually, asserts the prime metaphysical importance of the Jungian system on the level of action and comprehension in daily life.

>>16445075
My objection is that it does not assist in the discovery of life and man, but rather obscures those. Jungian symbols point nowhere but to an incomprehensible, chaotic and meaningless abyss - even if you add the reservation that the subconscious may be rational, there are no rules or means of control or structure that can be established and maintained with consistency within it. Life is broken down into elementary and spontaneous products of the mind with no connection to anything else but themselves within a completely incomprehensible and unending stream.

>>16445099
I don't see how any of this is really tackling Jung, anon. It's no more chaotic than that known religious phenomenon.

>>16445079
Let me ask this question. Would you suppose this criticism applies to Schopenhauer as well? The Schopenhauerian doctrine asserts that the One is manifested in the representation as the Will, as action, as movement of all sorts, as the source of instincts and motives. Assuming Jungian psychology were to be grounded in this metaphysics, would your problem still persist?

>>16444826
I would add Freud and the Bible to that list

>>16445109
>Freud
I would actually advise against reading Freud. He confuses more than it helps with reading Jung.

>>16442576
based grug

>>16445040
>>"i'm not owned i'm not owned i'm not owned"
>If I disagree with someone and strawman their argument: that is enough to own them.

>>16444826
Yeah that's what I started doing a year ago, haven't gotten very far lol.

>>16444812
The anthropology part I haven't thought about, shows how far into Jung I've gotten.