/lit/ - Literature

>>16700427
Jordan Peterson's schizo myth bullshit is based on Jung.
His works lend themself to reactionary thought of some kind of "ur-myth", or pseudo mythology as Marcuse says.

>>16700470
Peterson is not taken seriously by Jungians, nor is he a proper Jungian. You cannot criticize Jung based on what an arbitrary burger e-celeb does "Lends itself" is different from being actually political. You are being as intellectually dishonest as Marcuse.

JUDEN

>>16700478
If several right wing intellectuals use his work, to further their own, then it lends itself to being reactionary.
Honestly I dont know much about Jung, I am mostly interested in Freud and Lacan.

>>16700494
>If several right wing intellectuals use his work, to further their own, then it lends itself to being reactionary.
Supposing this is true, then Plato, Kant, and Nietzshce and just about every philosopher "lends themselves" to politics, so the statement is meaningless. And Marcuse isn't even saying Jung's work "lends itself". He is saying it's outright reactionary, which is a dishonest and ridiculous thing to say.

>>16700514
Again, I havent read Jung so I dont know.
His description of archetypes and myths do sound like reactionary thinking, or can at least quickly be modified to fit right wing ideology.
Plato has influenced everyone, so his works are not particularly used by a certain group with a certain political ideology.

>>16700427

Jung’s philosophy allows for mystical experiences and ambiguity. He respects religion and doesn’t believe everything can be explained logically. He’s not obsessed with sex, violence or with bodily functions. None of this is right-wing, but it’s no wonder other philosophers hate him.

>>16700529
>Plato has influenced everyone, so his works are not particularly used by a certain group with a certain political ideology.
How conveniently you omitted Nietzsche. I suppose his work wasn't used by a particular political party, was it? Yeah, better not talk about it. Jung's descriptions of archetypes, as far as politics are concerned, do not differ that much from that of Plato.

>>16700547
His sister purposefully misinterpreted his works, so she could spread them to the nazi party.

>>16700532
There are plenty of philosophers who fit that description, anon. I also haven't heard any other philosopher say such irrational things about Jung. Marcuse's criticism was vague and rather out of blue. He doesn't even provide an argument, he just writes an ad hominem and moves on. How fitting, I suppose.

>>16700552
See what you said a while ago:
>If several right wing intellectuals use his work, to further their own, then it lends itself to being reactionary.
According to your own sentence, since his sister was able to use his work to further right-wing politics, then it lends itself to right-wing politics. You make such a ridiculous criticism of Jung while trying to come up with excuses for Nietzsche, at the expense of being self-contradictory.

>>16700566
There is a difference.
Right wingers dont misread Jung on purpose.
His sister intentionally did so with Nietszche.

>>16700585
>it only counts when I say it counts!
Not who yourw responding do but you sound like a petty retard

>>16700585
>Right wingers dont misread Jung on purpose.
You don't know that. Peterson's reading of Jung is not orthodox, and sometimes flat out wrong. Stop it already and admit Marcuse is being a shady shill.

>>16700587
>Everything is the same
Low IQ
You cant conflate the two
An example of a reactionary writer, whose works also influenced the left would be Carl Schmitt.
And his works arent being misread to produce these developments.
However Nietszches sister was literally a nazi supporter and manipulated his works to fit their agenda.

Is Jordan Peterson really a "right-winger"? He strikes me as an ordinary Cold War liberal democrat.

>>16700602
Well he believes in reactionary conspiracies like "cultural marxism". I dont think its on purpose, but its very ironic.

>>16700612
Isn't "cultural marxism" just a crude paleocon name for the New Left? paranoiac binary thinking aside, the march through the institutions isn't exactly fake.

>>16700622
It has roots in nazi propagandi, and anti marxism.
Anyone using the term now is unknowingly spouting old nazi propaganda.
Very ironic, considering Peterson thinks he is against nazis, evil and "chaos".

>>16700602
Yes, so a liberal conservative

>>16700627
What's Nazi about it apart from the fact that Nazis and liberal capitalists are both anti-communist and therefore both deploy anti-communist propaganda? You might as well say that several anti-capitalist canards have their roots in "Nazi propaganda" too -- well, people do say this sometimes. Besides, I think the cultural Marxism thing has its roots more in the John Bircher right than in Nazism. It's basically a more paranoid form of the culture war discourse exemplified by Allan Bloom and other cultural conservatives.

>>16700622
No, it's a reference to Gramsci's theories of applying Marxist principles to culture because tl;dr fuck the lumpenproles for holding the vanguard party back.

>>16700602
No, he's a Liberal, as you've deduced.

>>16700532
Yeah, it's basically this. Jung says that there's more to life than the material. Marxists get upset at this as Marxists, like Liberals, believe the material to be the only thing that exists. It's literally just pic related.

>>16700637
Now that I'm seeing your pic related, I'm thinking libertarian-left isn't so bad. Based pic.

>>16700635
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

Actually never mind, I am a retard and remembered wrong.

>>16700647
>conspiracy theory
>oh but it's actually happening
>and its called cultural marxism because actual marxists refer to what they're doing as cultural marxism
this is the sort of thing that lead to the 109.

>>16700427
he's saying Jung is unscientific and a borderline occultist, which he is.

>>16700651
>believeing in conspiracies
>in 2020
sadly this is the norm now

>>16700656
Yeah, only marxism is scientific. Just listen to your science and keep waiting for capitalism to collapse lmao.

>>16700668
Capitalism, as it is, demands growth; growth at this level will consume everything.
>>16700656
Jung is occultist, but not un-scientific.
Jung full well knew the retardation of anyone who espouses political views as laid out in the dialectic.

>>16700427
Marcuse is a huge piece of shit.

>>16700692
Yeah, certainly looks like it. He calls Jung obscurantist while in the same paragraph he is using, big-sounding, ill-defined words. It's actually funny now that I think of it.

>>16700637
wtf i'm auth-right now, goodbye liber-left!

>>16700494
Jordan Peterson is a liberal.

>>16700668
Marxism is fake and gay.
>>16700682
>Jung is not un-scientific
There is nothing scientific about dream analysis and being un-scientific is the exact reason why he and his estate refused to publish The Red Book for so long.

I really like Jung. His theories are fun and interesting, but that's it.

>>16700547
Nietczhe being used by right wing politicians was because of the work his sister did after his death. She would write things and publish it in his name. Nietzche was critical of radical right wing politics

>>16700494
I can’t think of anything more left wing than jung. His whole shtick is about individuation, personal liberation.

>>16700736
>There is nothing scientific about dream analysis
All things are measurable; Jung was the only guy with the balls to attempt it.

>>16700656
It’s dream analysis, it should be so.

>>16700743
>individuation, personal liberation.
very right wing

>>16700427
Just look at their pictures. Marcuse looks like a seething wojak while Jung looks like a smirking pepe. You could also see a virgin-chad dichotomy lmao.

>>16700427
I think right wing of psychoanalysis is referring to the analysts that prefer cold hard analysation and less 'the analysing is the analyse understanding himself' mystical stuff. I'm not sure.

>>16700758
I'm thinking Marcuse never built his own fucking castle.

>>16700775
His own soul castle*
Imagine being such a Chad you build your own castle as shown to you in dream visions. This is almost xianxia stuff

>>16700427
After analysing and breaking down what Marcuse is saying, he is completely disingenuous with this critique and necessarily pretending as if he has understood Jung.

I mean even a basic purview of Jung's works beyond the phantasmagoric impression of some vague idea of a focus on mythology and meaningful imagery, would show that Marcuse has put know care or effort into Jung.

>>16700743
You've misunderstood what Individuation is. It's something far deeper than social outward taboo breaking and reactionaryism, or anything necessarily political at all, it has no place in politics or "le collectivism/individualism" unless the political systems in which they are used to designate have a deeper place in the Individual's psyche, such as National Socialism, and we all know Jung wasn't a mad liberal calling them collectivists and using other retarded terminology such as that.

>>16700637
>Thelma in auth-right

>>16700775
Extremely based. I wish one day I could build one as well.

>>16700877
>>16700784
>The Bollingen Tower is a structure built by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. In appearance, it is a small castle with four towers. It is located in the village of Bollingen on the shore of the Obersee (upper lake) basin of Lake Zürich.
>Jung bought the land in 1922 after the death of his mother. In 1923 he built a two-storey round tower on this land. It was a stone structure suitable to be lived in. Additions to this tower were constructed in 1927, 1931, and 1935, resulting in a building that has four connected parts.[1]
>A second storey was added to the 1927 addition after the death of Jung's wife in 1955, signifying "an extension of consciousness achieved in old age."

Carl Fucking Jung wouldn't even let another man lay a damn brick for him.

>>16700529
>His description of archetypes and myths do sound like reactionary thinking, or can at least quickly be modified to fit right wing ideology.
Essentialism =/= reactionary thinking, for one.
Nor is Jung particularly essentialist. Is his work gendered? Yes, but so are the majority of mythologies, which he bases his theories on.
Right-wingers and left-wingers alike read philosophy from their own political perspective and utilize it to their own ends, generally disregarding the author's main concerns.
Remember Jung is a central figure in the new age hippie movements. Alan Watts drew heavily upon Jung. These were in their time the vanguard of the vanguard of the left.
I really, really hate the praxis of political labelling and the transient framing of concurrent discourse getting primacy in the discussion of intellectual matters, especially when it concerns bygone authors. It's vapid and unconstructive.

Jung in his Red Book
>The most masculine man needs women, and he is consequently their slave. Become a woman yourself, and you will be saved from slavery to woman.... It is good for you once to put on women's clothes: people will laugh at you, but through becoming a woman you attain freedom from women and their tyranny. The acceptance of femininity leads to completion. The same is valid for the woman who accepts her masculinity.
Jung's ideas of wholeness don't really sound like something a reactionary ("incel") would talk about. It should be taken for granted that an author can be read as a multiplicity (wasn't that the point of the postmoderns). Whlie you're not explicitly ignoring this idea it's surreptitously implied that Jung makes for a reactionary writer. Please refrain from making inferences of the sort. While not harmful it's ignorant.

>>16701069
I'll have to stress here that the quote from Jung isn't to be read literally. You do not have to transition to become whole. As always he's talking in terms of symbolism and from within the framework of analytical psychology.

>>16701069
>>16701080
Oh, also, consider that Jung was an out-spoken anti-fascist in the sense that he thought fascism and nationalism (part of the more general "-isms") arose from the spontaneous emergence of mass psychoses which were detrimental to the development of the individual. This was something Neumann, Jung's 'favorite' student also stressed heavily at the end of his book "Origins and History of Consciousness." I really do not get how you get off saying Jung can be reasonably taken to be a reactionary. My jimmies have been seriously rustled, fight fascism all you want but leave my poor psychoanalytic bois out of your politics unless you intend to treat them with intellectual rigor.

Neumann (who was a Jew)
>Not only power, money, and lust, but religion, art, and politics as exclusive determinants in the form of parties, nations, sects, movements and "-isms" of every description take possession of the masses and destroy the individual. Far be it from us to compare the predatory industrial man and power politician with the man who is dedicated to an idea; for the latter is possessed by the archetypes that shape the future of mankind, and to this driving daemon he sacrifices his life. (...) The disintegration of personality caused by an idea is no less dangerous than the disintegration caused by empty, personalistic power-strivings. The results of both can be seen in the disastrous massing together and recollectivization of modern man.
>Modern mass propaganda seeks - in part quite consciously - to restore the old group unity (...) This it does - as was particularly to be observed in National Socialism - by enlisting the aid of the symbols and archetypes.
baka

>>16701114
>This was something Neumann, Jung's 'favorite' student
This is not true. Jung:
>There have been so many pupils of mine who have fabricated every sort of rubbish from what they took over from me. I have never said that I stand “uncompromisingly” behind Neumann. There is naturally no question of that. It should be obvious that I have my reservations. If you want to understand Neumann properly you must realize that he is writing in the spiritual vacuum of Tel-Aviv. Nothing can come out of that place for the moment except a monologue. He writes as he fancies.

>If people want to know what I think about these things they have my books, and everyone is free to listen to my views. They could just as well read my books instead of getting worked up about Neumann.

Letters of C. G. Jung: Volume I, page 518.

>>16701124
My b, I always had the idea he were. Honestly not sure where the notion came from, now that I think about it.

>>16701114
>Jung thought nationalism and Fascism "arose from the spontaneous emergence of mass psychoses which were detrimental to the development of the individual"
>Neumann
What a shallow interpretation of Jung, it's like you've just read Man and His Symbols.

>>16701124
Jung was just a very polite dude, he didn't want to publicly start a split between him and Neumann.

>>16701167
Suppose it should do me well to specify that the nationalism referred to here is quite apart from any 'traditionalism' and only concerns itself with those recently appearing in the western zeitgeist. Am I wrong to think that Jung saw the nietzschean death of the christian god as giving rise to a spiritual vacuum? Which furthermore lead to the influx of new spiritual influences (yoga for one) and the spontaneous seizing of the people by the archetypes?

>>16700427
Are you obtuse? Jung is all about traditional myths, symbolic meaning, and the psychological value of art and religion. Marxism is the rejection of any tradition or symbolic meaning that is anti-revolutionary. All art becomes political. For normal people, obscurantism is where people use a writing style to make themselves sound smarter than they are. For Marcuse, obscurantism is synonymous with mysticism and estoericism.
You don't need to be a genius to figure this out.

>>16700470
Can you fucking dickheads stop referring to Peterson as a Jungian.

He isn't, he's never made that claim himself, his work is no reflection of Jungs and nobody else who even knows the slightest of Jung's work would never consider him to be one.

This is literally a perpetuated lie.

>>16701233
>Am I wrong to think that Jung saw the nietzschean death of the christian god as giving rise to a spiritual vacuum?
Evidently no, but the idea of nihilism is far more complex, in all its varied-manifested ways, than "le collective meaninglessness".

>Which furthermore lead to the influx of new spiritual influences (yoga for one) and the spontaneous seizing of the people by the archetypes?
I would put Yoga as something specific prior and therefore smaller to the influence of Eastern spiritualism on the West in "accordance with its own decline in religion" as Jung put it, but something both Jung and Heidegger recognised, nihilism could only be overcame in the West by a dialogue with itself, whatever it uses from the East will only be useful when made Western as it has been. And it is wrong to think the East holds the answer for the West rather than just temporary help.

As for "the spontaneous seizing of the people by archetypes" that is something also far more complex than what your post intentionally or not limits it to. And it's soulless moderns who reduce the origin of that idea in
Jung, to "collective meaninglessness means open to new collective meaning".

>>16700427
This is a great description of psychoanalysis in general.

>>16701327
>As for "the spontaneous seizing of the people by archetypes" that is something also far more complex than what your post intentionally or not limits it to
Well I was unsure if I wanted to expand on it more than I already did. To get my point across to a person that explicitly stated they're not familiar with Jung I had to truncate a lot. It'd also seem pretty autistic not to given I already made three posts out of sheer inertia. There's nothing I find contentious about what you're saying here, it's just that spewing psychoanalytic jargon at an unknowing wouldn't do me much good. Consequently your replying to my post with an intellectual disagreement struck me as somewhat out of the blue and had me figure you were trying to make the case that my original point was wrong.

>>16700622
In practice, it basically just means intersectionality, which certain groups on the right view as either an extension of marxist class warfare or its replacement. Since many contemporary marxists seem to be quite into intersectionality, having popularized the term 'class reductionist', you can probably see why they might think this.

>>16700427
How can he unironically call Jung an obscurantist mystic when he believes in not one, but TWO systems that use such rational, scientific terms as "the consciousness of the working class", "dialectical materialism", "castration anxiety", and "the end of history"?

>>16701441
Freudian/Lacanian psychoanalysis is 100% religious mysticism for materialists.

Wow. I can hear OP crying.

>>16701512
do you feel a sense of camaraderie towards comrade Marcuse? kys whore

>>16701551
I barely know anything about his ideas. Lots of seething going on in that OP though

>>16700743
>individuation is for libruls

Thanks for reminding me why I don't come here anymore.

>>16700427
>caring what a literal CIA asset has to say

>>16700585
Modern right wingers are obsessed with Nietzsche despite his scorn for nationalism

>>16700656
Freud and Lacan are equally “unscientific”

>>16700427
>fuck Jung he’s an obscurantist unscientific mystic
>but we should listen to this guy who says he discovered a secret universal life force of orgasm energy that we can use to fight UFOs

>>16702082

>>16700427
The more fundamental the idea, the more derivative frameworks like "left wing/right wing" will attempt to bastardize and claim it. Jung's work points to a more foundational system than "muh politics" and as such it is either ignored, lambasted, or cherry-picked for support of otherwise empty and ephemeral perspectives.

In other words, haters gonna hate because they got nothing and they want to force clay into a shape and then say, "see! It's this shape! That's what it is!"

But it is still clay, and OP is still a faggot.

>>16702032
But Lacan used mathematical metaphors and outdated linguistic paradigms to substantiate his work.

>>16700637
Culture and tradition are literally the only reason I live, but politically I do think economy is by far the most important thing and left liberals are deluded

>>16700470
>>16700478
I see no problem with Peterson, argue with me how he is not a right Jungian, or even better, why you dislike him?

>>16701001
Damn that looks great

>>16700752
Yes, French Revolution is right-wing.

>>16700427
Jung literally makes you like myths and religion, so its's reactionary. Archetypes are apollonian, thus conservative. Marcuse is dionisian.

>>16700637
libertarian left and authoritarian right being seen positively on the same political scale image? never thought i'd see the day

bump

Whenever one should even catch a thought as to defame Carl Fucking Jung, one simple question needs to be ask to yourself:
Have you built a fucking castle with your own two hands?

>>16703891
>BY HIMSELF
Haha. Really? That’s nice.

>>16700427
who fucking cares marcuse made propaganda for the cia aimed at deconstructing american values in order to usher in neoliberalism, it turns out that /pol/ conspiracy has some truth. jung was no doubt an occultist tho and i guess you could say an obscurantist. but there's nothing wrong with being obscure, strict logicism is a bugman thing anyway.

>>16700427
>Herbert Marcuse was born July 19, 1898, in Berlin, to Carl Marcuse and Gertrud Kreslawsky. His family was Jewish.
I, for one, am shocked!

Cuntfly dislikes Jung. Another confirmation of Jung's basedness if anyone was still in doubt.

>>16703940
Not true.
Likely not one to fall for his mysticism, but not saying I dislike him him either.

I picked up Man and His symbols today.

>>16703951
I hope you enjoy it, anon. Also don't shy away from checking out his more advanced work if you found that book to be too introductory. The most important part is the first chapter, anyway.

>>16701308
Everything he talks about is steeped in the archetypal psycho-myths that permeate our collective unconcious.

>>16701512
>>16701609
>>16703924
>>16703945
can you just go away please? have you ever accomplished anything in your life? I doubt it. I've never seen you post a long, thoughtful argument for your position in all the time I've been on /lit/. What's the point of reading if you're too lazy and/or inept to convey the knowledge and opinions you gain from doing so? If you put actual effort into clearly, articulately arguing for your perspective I think you would become a well-respected poster on /lit/ but no, you choose to waste everyone's time with snide remarks and empty words.

>>16700427
>How the fuck is Jung related to politics, let alone be 'right-wing' and 'reactionary'?
bro

>>16701393
I guess we don't really disagree with much anyway.

>>16700736
>There is nothing scientific about dream analysis
So was he better off not attempting to gauge them at all?