/lit/ - Literature

"On this empirical foundation every religion has erected its temple, and the two intolerant ones among them, Christianity and Islam, vie with each other in raising the totalitarian claim that their temple is the only right one. Though I know little of Catholic doctrine, that little is enough to make it an inalienable possession for me. And I know so much about Protestantism that I could never give it up. This lamentable indecision is what you, with so much psychological acumen, censure as a “complex.” Now with regard to this indecision I must tell you that I have consciously and deliberately decided for it. Since no man can serve two masters, I can submit neither to one creed nor to the other, but only to the one which stands above the conflict. Just as Christ is eternally being sacrificed, so also he hangs eternally between the two thieves. There are good Catholic and Protestant Christians. If the Church has suffered a schism, then I must be satisfied with being a Christian who finds himself in the same conflict Christendom is in. I cannot disavow my brother who, in good faith and for reasons I cannot invalidate with a good conscience, is of a different opinion. You yourself express the view that dire abuses within the Church played no small part in causing the schism. I can only agree with this and would draw your attention to the fact that a far more terrible schism has occurred in our own day, namely the Antichristian
movement which rules Russia and Germany.

The Church in both its denominations is causally implicated in this schism too. The cause, to be sure, is no longer the profligacy of the declining 15th century, but rather a loss of spiritual authority which, it seems to me, is due to the inability of the Churches to come to terms adequately with the scientific spirit. Science seeks the truth because it feels it does not possess it. The church possesses the truth and therefore does not seek it. The fact of Anti-Christianity posits a far deeper schism which is infinitely harder to hold together than Catholicism and Protestantism. This time it is a Yes and No to Christianity as such. When a crack runs through a house, the entire building is affected and not merely one half of it. The house is no longer as trustworthy as before. A conscientious builder does not try to convince the owner that the rooms on either side of the crack are still in an excellent condition, but will set to work on the crack and seek ways and means to mend it. The splendid and costly furnishings of the rooms will interest him only in so far as he is intent on saving the rooms. He has no time to wander around admiringly, exclaiming that they are the most beautiful in the world, when there is already a creaking in the beams. As a doctor I am interested only in one thing: how can the wound be healed?

cont.

"It is quite certain that the schism can never be repaired by each side extolling its advantages to the other instead of lamenting their woeful inability to establish peace. While mother and daughter bicker, there comes the enemy of both, the Antichrist, and shows these Christians who are squabbling about their truth what he can do-for in egotism he outbids everybody. Anyone who wants to, or has to, heal this conflict is faced with the hell of a mess: he sees that the European is only half a Christian. He will become a whole one only when he can also stand on his left leg. The doctor has to treat both sides, for the whole man suffers when he is sick and not merely the half. This is the reason why I try to establish facts on which the two sides can unite. (It is also the reason why I get kicks from both sides.) Every hardening of the denominational standpoint enlarges the crack and diminishes the moral and spiritual authority of Christianity, as everyone outside the Church can plainly see. But certain people are as though smitten with blindness. It is naturally much easier to cling obstinately to a credo and assert its absolute validity. In this way you avoid any personal conflict but fuel the general one instead. Usually this is called egotism, but I call it blindness and bigotry when one party still believes it can finally settle the other’s hash. Even the Antichrist, who is a past master of this method, deceives himself mightily in this respect ( thank God!).

As much as the Christian is bound to be convinced of the moral value of his own submission, he should not require or even expect it of others, for this totalitarian claim destroys his humility, even when it is cunningly hidden behind an impersonal mask. As a doctor I am continually concerned with the victims of the great schism of our time. For this reason I cannot, through one-sided denominationalism, throw the seekers of healing out on their necks, for they have come straight from the battlefield of the schism. The tertius gaudens of the domestic squabble is the Antichrist, who has not by a long shot sprung only from German Protestantism or the venality of the Church of the Czars, but also from the eminently Catholic soil of Italy and Spain. Every Church must beat its breast, as must every European: mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

cont.

"None is right, and therefore the scientifically minded man of today says: Let us go and seek the facts upon which all could unite, for opinions that have sprouted into totalitarian truths are the source of never ending strife which no one wants to end. I was amazed to see that you too have not understood the concept of the “self.” How on earth did you come by the idea that I can replace God, and by means of a concept? As a scientist I cannot after all assert that “God” does something, for how can I prove that the specific cause is “God”? For this I would need a proof of God, which we have long known can be nothing but a begging of the question. I can, if need be, still demonstrate the existence of a wholeness supraordinate to consciousness, but of its own nature it defies description.

This “self” never in all one’s life takes the place of God, though it may perhaps be a vessel for divine grace. Such regrettable misunderstandings are based on the assumption that I am an irreligious man who doesn’t believe in God, and to whom, therefore, one only needs to show the way to belief. These critics remind me of a certain Benedictine Father who, in the 18th century, wrote a book in which he demonstrated that Greek mythology was nothing but alchemy. The poor chap didn’t know that alchemy grew out of mythology. Thus, with commendable patience and undoubted goodwill (“He who loves his child chastises it”), and despite my stupendous and obdurate folly, you want to bring me to the goal and consummation of my life’s work, and whither do you lead me? To the very spot from which I started, namely to that still medieval Christianity, which failed not only four hundred years ago but is now more of a failure than ever and in the most terrible way.

The German Army is supposed to consist of Christians, and the larger half of it of Catholics at that. “Why don’t people read my books conscientiously? Why do they gloss over the facts? Germany dreams of world domination and is getting it in the neck with a vengeance. Likewise, Christianity dreams a noble dream of catholicity and is not only split up in itself but largely disowned even in its Western homeland. And people do not see that I am gathering for tomorrow the factual material which will be desperately needed if the European of the future is to be convinced of anything at all.


cont.

"The denominationalist is interested only in apologias and propaganda. Scientific responsibility means nothing to him. Nowadays he is invariably a laudator temporis acti. The kerygma of the early centuries poured forth new spirit and it worked like fire. But the salt has lost its savour and salts no more. Hence that granum salis is also missing which my critics would need in order to correct their projections and to open their drowsy eyes wide enough to see reality: nowhere and never have I denied God. I start from a positive Christianity which is as much Catholic as Protestant, and I endeavour in a scientifically responsible manner to point out those empirically graspable facts which make the justification of Christian and, in particular, Catholic dogma at least plausible, and besides that are best suited to give the scientific mind an access to understanding.

I expect no gratitude from spiritual and clerical pride, merely a little less blindness. I know, however, of a few high-ranking clerics who appreciate my labours. It is by no means in the interests of the Church if insufficient understanding ventures too far. People should read authors who take as positive a stance towards Christianity as I do rather more carefully and reflect before trying to convert them to what is already an object of their greatest concern. Have you never noticed that I do not write for ecclesiastical circles but for those who are extra ecclesiam? I join their company, deliberately and of my own free will outside the Church, and should I on that account be branded a heretic, I answer: 'The savourlessness of the salt serves the work of Antichrist.'

In my view it is utterly wrong to criticize my scientific work, which does not claim to be anything except scientific, from any other standpoint than that which alone is appropriate to the scientific method. Confessions of faith are, as we know, not the business of science. I would be sinning against the modesty proper to science if I said anything more, or other than, what can be gleaned from the facts. I once described the archetype as an imprint which presupposes an imprinter.

cont.

Science can never assert that the imprinter is “God,” since that can never be proved. Just as I restrict myself to the facts, any proper criticism that deserves a hearing must likewise concern itself with these facts, and either prove that they do not exist or that their interpretation runs counter to scientific principles. Should the facts be inconvenient for any kind of creed, then they are not to be got rid of by an authoritarian fiat or by faith. Anyone who tries to do so immobilizes himself and remains irretrievably behind world history. Instead of such purposeless criticism I would far rather have a scholarly Catholic collaborator who with understanding and goodwill would correct my theologically defective mode of expression, so that I could avoid everything that looks even remotely like a criticism, let alone a devaluation, of Church doctrine.

I am so profoundly convinced of the immeasurable significance of the Church that I would wish to spare her all unnecessary difficulties. You may discern from the length of my letter the interest I evince in your work, in spite of the fact that you have charged with excessive vehemence through a door I have long kept open.

Yours sincerely,

C. G. Jung"

Carl Jung, Letters Vol. 1, Pages 345-350

>science
Kek, what a charlatan

>>16647402
You should know that, for context, the science that Europeans of his time had in mind was of a very different nature than the science of Feynman and deGrasse Tyson. My understanding is that any rigorous pursuit of truth was deemed a science, and rightly so.

Read Lacan

>>16647357
>All critics of this kind have one thing in common: with a couple of more or less polite remarks they all without exception pass over the facts I have presented and verified, which do not interest them in the least, and want to convert me to their special credo. My dear Sir! My pursuit is science, not apologetics and not philosophy, and I have neither the capacity nor the desire to found a religion.

Which is ironic because that's precisely what he's doing. By saying or implying that all of these "religions" around him are false, and just like the other because each believes its god and its mythology to be true, he is denying the veracity of those religions and exalting the veracity of his religion. In short, he is no better than what he attacks.

> As a scientist I have to guard against believing that I am in possession of a final truth
And yet these individuals prescribe, and present "our best hypotheses" and "our best theories," which is usually what religions offer, anyway. All knowledge of a transcendental God would be imperfect or analogous from a human standpoint, but that's not important because the purpose of re-ligion is reconnection with that God, not intellectualism.

I am not attacking Jung here, but rather any atheist that upholds science and uses the Ricky Gervais argument of "all religions are fake except yours, huh? It's just yours that's magically real, and all the others are fake"

>>16647433
Practice communism

>>16647433
We have no tolerance for sophists here. Fuck off.
>>16647442
I think you might be misreading him, anon. See:
>As a Christian, of course, I take my stand on the Christian truth, so it is superfluous to want to convert me to that. In my writings I naturally remain below the heights of every religious system, for I always go only as far as the psychological facts I have experienced permit me.

>>16647449
/fast/ is in that direction
>>/fit/

>>16647461
Read the last sentence. I only included that sentence because I noticed him talking about his Christianity

>>16647467
Have you seen most modern Communists? Better recommend him /ck/

>>16647414
Not the anon you're replying to, but no doubt Jung didn't think Science (even as you define the word) as the only means of truth, but he very explicitly focused on scientific facts partly out of person interest and orientation and also partly out of the recognition for that substantial basis now at the time of his writing, and in the many years to come. Not so much because the modern doctrine of scientism would be so faux-popular, but that the openness and undeniability of the facts would give direct sentiment and recognition of the truth.

>>16647442
>By saying or implying that all of these "religions" around him are false,
ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED DID YOU EVEN READ THE LETTER OR ANY OF HIS WORKS YOU STUPID FUCKING APE BRAINED NIGGER HOW CAN YOU NOT READ???????

>>16647494
>Read the last sentence. I only included that sentence because I noticed him talking about his Christianity
I sympathize with your anti-atheist sentiments, but I think his argument is different from the argument of those people. He is saying since his area of research concerns the spiritual realm, religious and spiritual people of different doctrines and religions are quick to reject him on the basis that he is approaching the spiritual realm from a scientific/empirical standpoint, and not the standpoint of their specific faith. He says that while he has a faith of his own, his research concerns another dimension, namely the purely scientific. And as I said above, the word scientific here does not refer to the New Science that is associated with New Atheism, rather more closely, it is science as conceived of by people like Kant. This is from another letter which expounds on this:
>You must surely have noticed that my principal concern is psychology and not theology. So when I treat of the concept of God I am referring exclusively to its psychology and not to its hypostasis. I have voiced this scientifically necessary epistemological proviso many times in my writings. I must also confess that I have never yet been taken for an atheist by my readers, because for educated people today the principles of the theory of knowledge have already become pretty much part of their flesh and blood. Certainly in Kant’s time there were still a few theologians who cherished the regrettable error that Kant was an atheist, but even then there was a bigger educated public who were capable of distinguishing between criticism of the concept of God and belief in God.

>>16647506
I'd agree. Jung certainly did not think of the scientific as the only vehicle to the truth. He also seems to confirm what you said in the letter above:
>And people do not see that I am gathering for tomorrow the factual material which will be desperately needed if the European of the future is to be convinced of anything at all.

jung is just a 20th century jordan Peterson.
a psychologist that is really just a basic self help daddy for midwits, using a grab bag of dumbdowned esoteric and religious symbolism/themes

>>16647585
Exactly. I honestly don't know how the other anon could misunderstand Jung as "calling other religions false".

>>16647357
I don’t even wanna read that. Crypto atheist sounds ridiculous to me. You must not be in touch with the human spirit to say something like that about Jung.

>>16647614
Lol fuck off retard.

>>16647357
I have a question for the Jung bros and Christians on this board. Am I a fraud for being part of the Catholic church even though my conception of God is very Jungian? I was raised Catholic but fell out of the faith in my late teens. I've rediscovered religion in light of reading a lot of spiritual authors, Jung included. I've been going to church again and I appreciate the teachings are rituals of the Catholic church, but I can't help but feel like a charlatan. I remember reading a letter that a bishop wrote to Jung saying that someone cannot be both a Catholic and a Jungian, but that was just the opinion of one bishop. I don't know if I'm explaining my internal conflict correctly but I think you probably understand what I'm getting at. Any thoughts?

read rieff's chapter on him in Triumph of the Therapeutic

>>16647669
I am a secret Protestant but Catholic organisation I bow down to.

Super interesting. Thanks for the good read OP.

>>16647669
I don't think it is even a question of Jungianism. If you take a close look at the other people at your church (more so, perhaps, the younger people), this sense is very present, regardless of their specific outlook and philosophy. I think it's a question of modernity and the modern world in general, which in all respects seems to devalue religion and spirituality. I don't have a good advice for you, since I feel the same way too, but I would say if you at least feel that religious warmth you should probably continue practicing your religion.

>>16647442
>>16647442
the fact that you know ricky gervais well enough to quote him means you need to go back
also my stance is that unless you practice a religion yourself, then any and all intercourse with other faiths will be dishonest, because the honest christian knows that he believes not because of proof or certainly, but because of faith and absurdity, in the same way all other religions believe, and in that way he garners an appreciation to other religions that the unenlightened atheist cannot

>>16647669
>>16647719
If you believe in it, then practice it. If you are authentic to it, then practice it.

Have courage dear anons.

>>16647669
i would talk with your priest about the things that you struggle with, and if you cannot come to terms with them find a church that you can freely worship at without any gripes of conscience, this is your soul and salvation were talking about, this isnt something to make compromises over, Jesus says in revelation he will spit out the lukewarm water. Don't be lukewarm.
>>16647680
depends in what regards your protestant, but if you don't believe in their eucharistic teachings or other essential stuff like mary and saint worship (prayers and such) then i would leave, because it is actively hurting yourself, not them, because you assume their protocol and dogma when youre in their church

>>16647357
>All critics of this kind have one thing in common: with a couple of more or less polite remarks they all without exception pass over the facts I have presented and verified, which do not interest them in the least, and want to convert me to their special credo.

>The Church in both its denominations is causally implicated in this schism too. The cause, to be sure, is no longer the profligacy of the declining 15th century, but rather a loss of spiritual authority which, it seems to me, is due to the inability of the Churches to come to terms adequately with the scientific spirit. Science seeks the truth because it feels it does not possess it. The church possesses the truth and therefore does not seek it.

Sounds familiar. Thanks for sharing.

bump

>>16647669
Talk to your priest that's why you have a priest. He probably knows Jung already.

>>16647357
>My pursuit is science,
yes intellectuals keep craving to be viewed as stem fags

pass on this asshole

>>16648842
stemfags actually stole our scientific inquiry and turned it into bugman crypto-religion. fuck off

>>16648851
I'm neutral on all this but I want to continue the fuck off train, so fuck the fuck off bitch.

>>16648881
no u fuck off

>>16647669
Jung said himself he was glad he was a phuchilogist and not a philosopher or theologean, if so he would have to justify his theories through reason, jungs conception if God is completely incompatible with Christianity, the collective unconscious is completely unbased and is nothing like the metaphysical God of Christian tradition, educate yourself further and you will look at jung for what he is, just a friend of religion

>>16648992
Phychologist

>>16647414
>You should know that, for context, the science that Europeans of his time had in mind was of a very different nature than the science of Feynman and deGrasse Tyson.
No it wasn't, modern science began with the scientific revolution, by the 20th century science had become a distinct discipline and does not include just any rigorous pursuit of truth (which is not to imply that Jung's pseodoscience has anything to do with rigor).

>>16648992
That's an incredibly reductive view of what Jung was doing. He himself didn't pretend what he was doing was absolute, and he was absolutely right when he was saying it is a frame of perception of the psyche, and not the complete truth of it.

>>16647414
You are so fucking stupid.

>>16647511
oh look it's a brainlet peterson poster

>>16647461
>We have no tolerance for sophists here. Fuck off.

said the guy who believes anything the fraud that is Jung said, LOL

Almost 60 years after his death and people still don't even have the most basic concepts of Jung understood, any understanding at all is completely from hearsay and third parties who speak of Jung.

I'm convinced he'll be debated about for another 100 years before someone else comes along who builds upon his work to advance it forward into a new epoch, you don't see someone like Freud so hotly debated, which may suggest Jung was clearly getting somewhere far enough to strike a nerve on most people who disregard him outright.

>>16649929
>you don't see someone like Freud so hotly debated, which may suggest Jung was clearly getting somewhere far enough to strike a nerve on most people who disregard him outright.

On the latter point, certainly possible, but as far as Freud goes, the best indicator of monumental and sustained influence is to be dismissed as obvious in where one was right and wrong about everything else, ala Aristotle, Plato, and Freud.

>>16648851
>our scientific inquiry
You are identifying with a community you have no real involvement in. You're no different than a Sportsball team fanatic.

>>16649938
Oh I agree, Freud laid a foundation in hindsight now seems so obvious and even with particular theories that seem novel and outdated after better deviations, in the end it all comes back to Freud and the likes of Adler in the same ontological way philosophy has its deep roots in the fundamentals of the greeks.

>>16649964
dude fuck your mother lmao