/lit/ - Literature

>>18081971
Yes

>>18081976
Why?

>>18081971
no

>>18081971
Jung >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peterson

>>18081986
>>18081995
Why?

>>18081971
absolutely. one of the most interesting guys of the last 1000 years easily

If you have no other introduction to 'alternative' thought sure (I wont call Jung esoteric.. his work is too babyish).

>>18081971
Reading Jung is the pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural.

>>18081971
Jung is like Guénon for retards, and Guénon is already seriously retarded.

>>18082812
Not at all.

You can tell who's read Jung in this thread and who hasn't.

>>18081971
Absolutely.

where do i start with jung

>>18082773
That hairline is odd

>>18081984
he penetrated uncharted areas of knowledge, but think before you accept his ideas

>>18081971
no

In bed right now.

Jung is worth reading, but I believe the real stuff is being hidden from us plebs.

Btw, read Jung's red book if you want to see what he really thought of himself. He saw himself as a prophet basically, but he had to act somber and objective in his mainstream publications. All his works read like there's a subtle *hint hint* around every corner. You can sense the restraint. He can't say what he wants to say directly because he knows how easy it is to be discredited as a kook.

>>18082058
Because Peterson is a charlatan/schizo. https://youtu.be/R1lmBtQd7NE?t=58

>>18084890
He's not a charlatan. He's a teacher and a psychologist. He's not a philosopher, but his talks are entry level, and a good place to start if you're new to philosophy. There's nothing wrong with JP. You're probably a philosophy major and his lectures and books are beneath your level of knowledge. He's entry level by design.

>>18084975
>He's not a philosopher, but his talks are entry level, and a good place to start if you're new to philosophy
He's a grifter who mis-represents philosophers to suit his own sophistry.

>>18084995
Do you have any examples of him misrepresenting philosophy?

>>18084975
Countless better introductions to philosophy have existed for centuries. Peterson holds no more value than a dummies guide to philosophy.

>>18082821
Is that your sole argument?

>>18084975
He's not entry level, he's wrong about almost everything he says.

>>18081971
Jung was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

>>18081971
no its not

>>18085010
I think most people familiar with him watched his lectures on youtube. He's just another college professor who uploaded some lectures online and wrote a book. I'll never understand people's hatred for him until I see an example of him saying something incorrect. He seems like a good teacher.

>>18085007
Unironically using cultural marxism and calling Foucault a marxist, means Peterson is a disingenuous fucking retard, and should be barred from teaching this drivel to anyone.

>>18085017
That's disappointing if true. But people always say that without giving an example.

Can someone post that jung reading chart? Please and thank you.

>>18085030
>Foucault began his career as a Marxist, having been influenced by his mentor, the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, as a student to join the French Communist Party

https://archive.is/wip/Q90w3
https://iep.utm.edu/fouc-pol/#:~:text=Foucault%20began%20his%20career%20as,join%20the%20French%20Communist%20Party.&text=Still%2C%20in%20his%20first%20book,his%20theoretical%20perspective%20remained%20Marxist.

And cultural marxism is real. There is a continuing academic and intellectual effort to subvert western culture, and we call it cultural marxism.

Only if you read Evola and have a firm understanding of alchemy first

>>18085034
His entire critique of postmodernism is based on the book "Explaining Postmodernism" by Stephen Hicks, which is a gross misrepresentation of not just Postmodernism, but basically the entire western canon (such as calling Kant anti-enlightenment).
A concrete example would be in this vid from 00:38-02:00
https://youtu.be/26fIBA7O5Ag?t=38

The only people who hate JP are lefties and women

>>18085048
You have been brainwashed. Foucault worked against marxism, even neo marxists like the Frankfurt school and Habermas.
You believing that "muh cultural marxism", which literally is a conspiracy theory closely related to antisemitism, shows that you just suck up everything these people say online. Marxism critiques postmodern capitalism, but if that is what you count as "western culture" then you're fucking brain dead, and should leave this board. "western values" is to you Twilight and mass produced, easily consumable trash, while what Adorno and others was fighting for was more shit like Goethe and other actual fucking non reproducible art and genuine culture.

>>18085080
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA this fucking kike

>>18085068
Okay, thanks. I need a better entry point to philosophy, but I don't know where to start. I guess the answer is "start with the greeks".

>>18085080
You're right, I suck up everything they say online I didn't know they were wrong.

>closely related to antisemitism
interesting

>>18085084
>believes in cultural marxism
>"kike"

>>18084868
>He can't say what he wants to say directly because he knows how easy it is to be discredited as a kook.
What did he want to say? I read the Red Book and his other works but i never noticed it.

>>18084975
>, but his talks are entry level
Are there any good talks that are of higher level?

>>18085101
Read Plato's euthyphro, it's not very hard and written in a fun way.
After that, if you want to see how Peterson is wrong in key philosophical areas, you can watch this channel.
https://youtu.be/26fIBA7O5Ag

Also read Oxford's a very short introduction to philosophy, and please know that whenever someone grossly or oversimplifies a philosopher or thinker and says "HE OS EVERYTHING BAD WITH MODERN LIFE", just know that they're being really ducking stupid. Its usually done by those who want to reduce the complexity of their perceived opponents down to easy dismissal. Foucault is probably more useful for righoids and liberals than it is leftists in this modern political climate.

>>18085122
Try and watch Dr. Arthur Holmes and Gregory Sadler if you want lectures from actual philosophy professors. Also Rick Roderick.
I also know plenty other good youtube channels you can follow, but can't list them all here. Try and find what you like, explore around a bit. Crash course philosophy is not bad either, but not very in depth.

>>18085123
I genuinely appreciate your answer.

>>18085017
base

>>18085074
>The only people who hate JP are lefties and women
oh no. The Nazi's hate him as well because he tells people to solve their own shit first when goes heavily against the idea that the Jews are responsible for everything (they are)

>>18085142
No worries anon. I got plenty more if you want. This is a screenshot from the YouTube video I sent you, does this sound like Foucault liked identity politics?

>>18085150
Bro, I already linked the same thing.

>>18085150
Nope, doesn't sound like it.

Op just buy and read this textbook

>>18085150
Me again, showing anons that Peterson is literally wrong about postmodernism, and his biggest boogeyman Foucault is way more individualistic than Peterson is. Peterson identifies as a Christian, which is to Foucault, probably not to see yourself as something unique, but a metanarrative and an identity.

>>18085169
>identity is not your actual identity but rather identity acceptable by others

>>18085156
Sorry bro, didn't see your post. Keep up the good work, the internet needs to be scrubbed clean from Peterson's mind parasites in so many anons.

>>18085176
Thinking you belong in some arbitrary group with others is what Foucault is against. That is literally what marxism is though, with workers and bourgeois etc. Just like Christians etc, identify as Christians instead of unique individuals, they're all children of God with the same ideals and morals imposed on them.
Foucault is way more individualistic in this regard, as he explores and undermines meta narratives like that, in which identity groups is one of them.

>>18085123
Man, Peterson's use of the term is not accurate but it is a generalization meant to speak to the masses. It's just like when new atheists criticize the small everyday theist, not the big theist philosophers, or the same in the opposite direction, when theists criticise the sophist atheists who know nothing about philosophy instead of those who actually know what they're talking about.
I feel its a bit unfair to completely discard Peterson just because he uses "postmodern neo-marxist" term to talk about the everyday activists who brand everything as a class struggle, but instead of economic classes they use identity classes. And because of that they try to reinterpret every traditional foundation.

All this jerking off to accurate terminology of terms that can mean different things to different people just smells like snobbery and nothing else. Peterson is just a psychologist who is trying to help people and did succeed at that, even if he is mistaken about a few things. He's clearly not a philosopher.

>>18085301
It's not just the term that's inaccurate, it's also the generalization. The idea that these activists don't really mean what they say and are just unwilling pawns in some grand plot to destroy the West would be wrong no matter what term you slapped on it.

>>18085146
Nazis are lefties too

>>18085321
And I agree with that, that's why he sucks at talking about the collective but excels at talking about the individual. One does not need to be correct or wrong about everything. His main interest are also the moral question, religious archetypes and evolutionary psychology even if he is more well known for his activism.

>>18085028
yes anon, ppl are hating him for no reason. The stuff he wrote in his books are smth like clean your room and things like that, and some ppl want his books banned, kinda funny

>>18085348
>One does not need to be correct or wrong about everything.
I can agree with this but once politics come into the picture they can dominate the conversation. Like 99% of the criticism I see is about his politics or the political implications of his philosophy. If he didn't insist on involving himself in this stuff he would be a pretty uncontroversial self help, psychology guy.

>>18085383
Yeah, sadly I think its not just him who tends to delve into politics but others who amplify his message due to the outrage it brings. After all he got to be known due to this outrage, so politics would naturally follow him forever since then.
He doesn't even delve into activisim since he recovered but everyone goes insane over his return. All he does now is discuss ethics and psychology in his podcast, but who knows if he'll come back and start spouting some more political bullshit in the future.

>>18082607
ahahahah

>>18084975
hes literally crying about that 'the narrative' and 'the objective' can touch. think about it. that means fucking little moret than that some part of fiction might be true, like that we can draw real world lessons from fucking harry potter. jesus fucking christ nigger shit tits. why would anybody listen to this shit other than craving a father figure to tell them what to believe

>>18085383
Do you consider JP to be ok to listen to regarding
"moral question, religious archetypes and evolutionary psychology"

I very much enjoy his talks about the bible and how a lot of the myth is perhaps a metaphor for our thirst for knowledge/fear of the unknown but since I've not seen anything at all other than what he says I'm skeptical of it, especially considering how he crosses different fields many times to prove his points

>>18085301
his first lesson is to tell people to get their life together before they can help another. meanwhile his life is an addiction riddled, attention seeking mess.

>>18085455
Everything is a metaphor if youre retarded enough to believe it. That's the foundation to every religious archetype. No need to read Jung to figure that one out

>>18085457
That's not his first lesson, only his most talked about lesson. What he meant by it is that you shouldn't assume that the causes of your problems lie outside, but might be due to yourself.
The whole point of his badly worded rule is that one should be humble enough to not always blame others for your own problems.

>>18085455
I mean I wouldn't say I know that much about his stances on those topics. But I know a lot of people irl who feel that his stances in those areas have really helped them. And none of them knew much of anything about his politics. So yeah if his views in those fields helped you in anyway I can only really see that as a positive.

>>18083217
This is correct.
Jung was groundbreaking in a big way, but was wrong in more than a couple places as a result. If you think about everything you're reading you'll get much more out of it that just going "oh ok" because he's not always right and because when your own mind starts working through these things you get very enlightening results

>>18085455
As someone who likes JP, I think he's a decent guide or perspective to take into account, but never should be considered the ultimate authority. Those are very complicated fields in which different perspectives tell a very different story.

>>18085441
Because literally nobody else in their life, parent, teacher, relative, or mentor, has suggested any kind of idea like that to them in their entire life. Check your privilege if you had good instructors growing up, because most people have none and are handled and taught by that which makes itself apparent to them: news media, Twitter shitposts, tabloid "journals", but certainly no other book or idea has been introduced to them outside of a school curriculum.

>>18085477
well no shit, it doesnt require writing two books of shitty metaphors to figure that out. maybe he should take that rule a bit more seriously and stop writing self-help drivel

>>18085501
>well no shit, it doesnt require writing two books of shitty metaphors to figure that out
Yes, exactly. That's why his books have 24 rules and not just one.

>>18085491
>but never should be considered the ultimate authority. Those are very complicated fields in which different perspectives tell a very different story.
This is how I'm treating him and what he talks about for everything. I don't know how much he's helped me but I've found a lot of what he says to be fascinating and very easy to listen to

>>18085492
jp refusing to check his privilege is the reason why hes famous in the first place.

>>18085491
nice nuance, libbo

>>18085492
tfw JP is a media figure of twitter tier tabloid thoughts

Unironically JBP is my guy and changed my life

I do love the fella, acknowledge he is wrong and his fans are a little over the top but if you understood where I was coming from you would give him more credit.

>>18085535
you sound like a christian

>>18082058
Jung was actually a genius. And mostly so because of how he survived his mental breakdown.
Peterson is a social media face that uses Jung's ideas for his own attention.
People won't stop yelling about how Peterson is a genius or an alt-right demon but they're all wrong. He's just some guy who noticed jung and had a platform to talk about him, which slowly became him just talking about himself.

>>18085543
Not a Christian, wouldnt mind becoming one. Stuck on the archetypal belief but lacking true spirituality of believing Christ is the son of God

I was mostly saying as a far 20 something year old virgin that lacked more paternal role models, Peterson did wonders. He introduces me to interesting concepts and came off genuine. I still havent heard many solid criticism against him to be entirely honest.

>>18081971
Yes.

Jung is full of interesting ideas. A lot can be discounted. Jung died before the revolution in neuroimaging and the dawn of neuroscience, and developed his theories in the early 1900s when occultism was big, and ideas surrounding psychology were less grounded in material sciences.

That said, Jung is a true psychologist par excellence. Psychology is, "the discourse of the soul." Neurology is "the discourse of the sinew." Jung speaks to subjective experience, particularly its most extreme forms in psychotic breaks and numinous religious experiences, in their own terms.

Jung's idea of individuation, the process through which a person becomes complete (similar to Maslow's self-actualization, or Eastern enlightenment in some ways) is more fleshed out than many religious forms of thought. He gives you a roadmap to finding meaning in life. He struggled with religious doubts and the problems of philosophy all his life (he had read through Kant and Hegel at 15), and his work is an investigation of the important spiritual side of life, through an empirical mindset. For Jung, empiricism does not equal scientific. He is interested in data from subjective experience, similar to Husserl in some ways. This let's him open up discourse on psychology in a way behaviorists can't. So much of neuroscience and cognitive science is studying what we can measure, rather than studying what we actually want to know. Jung goes after what we want to know, even if his tools are less precise.

Jungian literary analysis is great in its own right. His student Robert A. Johnson's work He, on the Grail Myth, is a masterwork in 100 pages. By recognizing the power of myth, he opened up the classics to a new level of psychological analysis.

Jung's autobiography is a masterful example of a brilliant mind analyzing itself.

A lot of his theories have been disproven. He believed in the occultism of his times to a degree. His focus on the role of dreams hasn't been borne out vis-a-vis their apparent material origins, although active dreaming and imagining has been shown to help resolve mental health issues.

Jung's ideas on Christianity (he was deeply spiritual and Christian in his own way throughout his life), which only show up in his autobiography, are refreshing if you read theology for their sheer novelty. Jungian interpretations of the Bible (The Man Who Wrestled With God, Sanford) are also refreshing.

Just be prepared for some wonky shit if you go with the autobiography and recognize he meant it as his subjective experience, not science. Also, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on synchronicity when you get to Jung talking about it vis-a-vis Freud, because he doesn't explain it and you'll think he's talking about magic.

Like Descartes and other pioneers, he got a million things wrong and still shines for his novelty. He's also a boon for fiction writers, and is still popular with them.

>>18085301
That particular lecture is supposed to be a criticism of Derrida and Foucault in particular, yet he misrepresents their ideas, doesn't use any quotes or sources and just constantly calls them names.

>>18085560
Ran out of space.

On Peterson, I'd say he had the problem of getting a bit of Fame, and then jumping to talking on subjects he didn't have expertise on. He clearly didn't know Eastern European history of communist theory well, but felt the need to opine on it because of "muh culture war." His entry level rules are probably useful to some people. I hear Maps of Meaning is good. That said, he made a fool of himself leaping into politics, and obviously had problems with repudiating his fans who held far-right moral beliefs that contradicted his expressed philosophy. At best he didn't want to estrange vulnerable members of his flock through criticism. At worst, he compromised himself for fame.

If you want writers on Jung who are t Jung, read Robert A. Johnson, and John A. Sanford, or "Jung's Map of the Soul." For something in a similar vein but novel, check out Victor Frankel's Man's Search for Meaning, which is very short and absolutely wonderful. Peterson won't be near as useful or novel as these guys, particularly Frankel.

>>18085558
you dont need a role model for your desires! Go meet some women, they are far more interesting than religious gibberish

>>18085582
You'd think someone interested in Jungian thought would also at least see something of interest in folks like Derrida and Wittgenstein. I swear, the "Culture War" makes people lose IQ faster than huffing glue. Everything has to fit into Manichean boxes.

>>18081971
Jung is post-menopausal spinster New Age core
>>18081995
Lobsterman is incel loser core
You decide
Either way get the fuck off /lit/

>>18085594
I've had sex with women now. Peterson helped on that.

I don't think they are more interesting than religion. I regret so much of the sex I've had and wish I pursued religion more. I think you keep trying to peg me as some /pol/ browsing tradcath zoomer but I'm not friend. Sex is over hyped and unfulfilling. There surely has to be something more to this life than just making a girl dress up and do weird fetishes for me

>>18082812
Guenon is Crowley for retards

>>18085606
Crawly is Spare brains for retards

>>18085609
>Crowley is Spare for retards

Interesting take

Don't waste your time on Philosophy, read literature

>>18085605
There's definitely more to women and life than sex. Trying finding a girl who you can have a deep emotional connection with. That's pretty fulfilling.

>>18085605
I said desire, not sex. Sex is indeed overhyped and unfulfilling, unless you find somebody actually interesting to do it with. If youre after weird fetishes, the catholic church or islam is likely your best bet.

>>18085638
>>18085633
>>18085605
You're all completely wrong

>>18085638
You said to meet some women anon and I'm saying it hasnt solved much of my problems. I dont think I need a role model but part of self improvement to me was letting my ego down a bit and accepting help.

You come off as a leftist type who is completely averse to religion anon
>>18085633
Sure, I need to do that still
>>18085641
Why is there a small group of people on /lit/ that love the idea of hedonism?

>>18085653
Dont worry, I am just as averse to atheism and leftism.

You mentioned virginity and superficial sex, probably the most modern equivalent of religion. Propagated to the point of half the world beating their meat until they sleep.

If your problems are in principle solvable by a formula like self help or religion, then you dont need another's propaganda for it. Just work through it piecemeal, with the people you care for.

>>18085726
I was with you until the last sentence. What do you mean my friend? I'm not saying I ever needed Peterson, maybe I would of been fine on my own, just that he sped the process up.
>Dont worry, I am just as averse to atheism and leftism.
Interesting, so what are you into? Whats your outlook on life and politics like? I was way off with you

Peterson is for those with a mental age of 14
Jung is for 18 year olds

>>18085084
You're retarded yes

>>18085758
If anything Jung said that his works are meant for people who're older than 40-50 and younger people should use either Freud or Adler for their problems.

>>18085588
>Victor Frankel's Man's Search for Meaning
He faked being in the holocaust. Lying Jewish fraud.

>>18085750
I mean to say that the 'wonders' peterson provided you, were done by you, not him. People who know you well, even the ones you hate, will give more apt advise if that's what youre after.

If I had to boil down my outlook on life, I mainly believe we should get rid of the excessive amounts of propaganda (propaganda such as atheism, but also religion), and we should use technology to free ourselves from unnecessary and compulsory work (unlike keynesians or neoliberals argue for).

Can Peterson even be considered a Jungian? He talks a lot about Jungian concepts but seems to miss them entirely.

>>18085798
?

Frankel was confirmably at Theresienstadt and then Auschwitz for the final months of its operation. His wife, mother, father, and brother all confirmably died in the Holocaust.

Don't know where you're getting that, unless you're one of those people who think the entire Holocaust was made up, or just typhoid. He was indeed Jewish. You seem to think that's some sort of slur against him. I prefer to judge writers on the merit of their work, not identity politics.

>>18082812
>>18085084
>>18085409
>>18085604
>>18085606
>>18085758
Oh wow, another /lit/ thread full of criticisms of a thinker with absolutely no reference to their thought. You'd think you'd be able to muster some sort of commentary on a hugely influential writer, based on what you think they did wrong, or how they got people on the wrong track, which would elucidate a positive position that the thinker highlights by their deficits. Instead you get "x is for retards, incels, children, etc." with zero or very very surface level and often totally incorrect interpretations of the contents of the world discussed.

Unsurprisingly, the actually fleshed out critiques are against Peterson, probably because he does videos.

I swear, so much of /lit/ hasn't read the books they comment on. At best they watched a YouTuber shit on a person they didn't read. Thus, they might have some surface level understanding of the problems.of substance dualism, and with that they can handwave and say, "Descartes is for retards!"

Being flippant and smug, whole advancing no argument doesn't make you seem smart, it makes you look like the retard.

>>18085869
Didn't read lol
Nice blog fgt

>>18085501
>>18085457
Rekt. This is what happens when you're too busy being cynical and enjoying the smell of your own farts. You guys are so hyper critical and obsessed with counter culture yet I don't see your work on the shelves or your name being mentioned anywhere.

What is the best place to start with Jung to understand all his ideas?

>>18085869
Endless reading is profoundly Jewish. Western thinkers spoke. The Greeks spoke in dialogue. YouTube is the modern forum for speeches.

While would I seek out old work that aren't relevant to our dire times. Intellectuals like Fuentes and Tucker are speaking truth to today's struggles. And our fight is bigger than the fights of the past. All civilization is under siege. I don't need to read Jewish lies to sort that out you soi cuck.

>>18085884
Hard to say. Aspects of the masculine was a good starting point for me as it was directly relatable to me as a man.

>>18085869
I'm glad someone else noticed. Their cynicism is a cover to hide the fact that they have achieved nothing.

>>18085869
Seethe at their superior capacity to judge with ease

>>18085912
>While would I seek out old work that aren't relevant to our dire times.
Because some of them are, pic related

>>18085869
you do the same as what you accuse them of. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>18081971
Jung is the family dollar Freud

>>18085949
Quite the reverse

>>18085923
>Aspects of the masculine was a good starting point for me as it was directly relatable to me as a man.
Heh, sounds appealing to me as well. Why not.

>>18081971
Absolutely.
>>18085949
Top joke post m8, good one.

>>18084833

What the fuck is this book about? Just picked it up after Symbols and Memories and have no clue what he's talking about.

>>18085827
Jews are known to be liars and manipulators to an extent they are raised with such ideas ingrained within their minds as a survial mechanism. Jung even pointed this out in his work that the jews possess an entirely differeny collective unconscious than Europeans and strictly Germans.

I theorize that everyone in this world creates a psychological framework or dynamic that gives them sensible or ostensible power in this world a sort of mechanistic stucture of hierarchy and power.

To the jews that power dynamic mostly lies in establishing themselves as parasites in a functioning society and as a result of that they need to justify their position in that society by means of lies and deception because they know they cant be exposed if they want to survive.

They also know that as a soceity progresses it will eventually produce a group gestalt of people who reject the jewish tyranny and lies imposed on them which is why the jews cultivate the myth of the holocaust in order to cultivate the masses into an ingnorant herd who will not only defend their slave masters but also welcome in the next batch of goyim slaves who will replace them.

Essentially from my perspective the jews have evolved psychopathic behaviour into their religion and genetics because they have no soil of their own. I would imagine not all jews are like this but its something to be grounded into your psychology that you should never trust jews because they likely practice secret oral tradition and use written words and media in the open to brainwash people.

>>18086040
>>18086005
>simpletons

>>18086052
Jung had high esteem for Jewish thought and thought they understood the numinous "dark" side of God better than Christians. He relates instructing a young Jewish woman to focus more on her religion as the solution to a neurosis in his autobiography.

You'd think there were enough antisemite thinkers who were nonetheless brilliant for Nazis to claim, but instead they have to go after claiming people who hated anti-semitism heart and soul (e.g. Nietzsche) and try to claim them too.

>>18085869
Here we have another retard thinking Peterson is some authoritative intellectual figure just because of popularity among the masses of drooling buffoons

>>18086074
>you don't understand, I need an excuse to have sex with my mother

>>18086145
You're misreading what I wrote. I said the responses on Peterson at least had substance, probably because he is mostly known for videos.

Jung is known for incredibly dense works, which is why I find it unlikely that the people dismissing him have read a single one.

>>18085869
>Doing the same thing

I offered a response on what I thought Jung get right, and where he has been proved wrong or goes off the rails >>18085560

>>18085080
>Conspiracy theory

https://web.archive.org/web/20071201151812/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Try using wayback once in your life Marx-tard

WASH.

YOUR.

FUCKING.

PENIS.

>>18085080
Everything in this post is true except for the crying about antisemitism. "Cultural Marxism" is a bit of a clumsy term but it's not an entirely inaccurate description of Western Marxism/Frankfurt School