/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11116586]

Tell me how he was wrong, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11116643]

"a religion of sorts—for spiritual dilettantes, who collect symbols and meanings as others collect paintings." - Philip Rieff

[Anonymous No.11116672]

>>11116643
Not an argument.

>>11116586
Jung has to be lived. People not in touch with their intuition and subconscious mind will scoff at him. Anyway, even if you take out the archetypes and collective unconscious — his most controversial, mystical, and well-known ideas — he was a pretty great psychologist just in terms of his psychological model and treatment of some patients.

[Anonymous No.11116679]

>>11116672
yikes

[Anonymous No.11116686]

>>11116679
Ultimate eunuch response.

[Anonymous No.11116701]

>>11116672
>only Jingians are in touch with their intuition and subconscious mind
This sums up the beliefs of lobsterkeks quite well

[Anonymous No.11116731]

>>11116586
>>11116586
Well what justification do you have that hes correct? Any empirical studies? Logical proofs?

Any attempt to get around this is a declaration of failure

>>11116679
Yikes is right

[Anonymous No.11116740]

>>11116643
>>11116679
>comes up with/integral to developing concepts we’re almost all influenced by today, especially psychologists and various artists (extraversion and introversion, complexes, persona and true self)
>notes similarities across myths of different cultures, dreams of patients, and fantasies of schizophrenic/psychotic patients
>”b-but — muh archetypes and collective unconscious are unverifiable mystical nonsense!!!”

Again, you don’t have to fully buy in to the archetypes and collective unconscious to appreciate him as a depth psychologist, appreciate him for the influence he’s had on artists, writers, and psychologists, and to see he was getting at something interesting with the similarities he noted between myths of different cultures and people’s dreams and fantasies. I also guarantee Jung is a smarter person than 90% of the people on this board who criticize him, and will have more influence on the history of ideas, art and psychology than any of them will ever have.

[Anonymous No.11116752]

>>11116740
>Tell me who he was wrong

>I wont say he was correct, just that he said interesting things

Laughable

[Anonymous No.11116756]

>>11116731
>Well what justification do you have that he’s correct according to my own strict limits of empirical proof which rule out completely verifying him?
Read Jung’s own works. Get to the primary sources, and see the examples he gave.

What proof do I have that Plato or Descartes or Kant are right? You don’t have to agree with everything they said or do scientific experiments to see they said pretty relevant and interesting stuff about the human psyche and the world. Jung was also probably more scientific than these people in that he came up with his ideas by actually being a psychologist and treating patients.

[Anonymous No.11116760]

>>11116752
Do you deny that people can generally be split into extroverted and introverted? That people can have complexes? That we have social masks we wear (a persona) to navigate in society? These are incredibly useful models which were hugely pioneered by Jung and can be seen by anyone bothering to do any psychological study, whether of themselves, others, or both.

[Anonymous No.11116762]

>>11116586
Because the eastern doctrines are actually correct and teach the truth. Teaching that there is merely psychological phenomena underlying then is a perversion of the truth.

[Anonymous No.11116768]

>>11116740
>90%

Try 99.9%

[Anonymous No.11116782]

>>11116768
That’s what I think too in all honesty but I wanted to be nice and control myself, hard to have a good discussion when you’re bombastically insulting people.

[Anonymous No.11116800]

>>11116762
>merely
Jung believed the psyche and matter interfaced on deeper levels of reality. He didn’t “reduce” it all to a “merely” psychological model. He can be reconciled with such teachings, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.11116810]

>>11116756
> my own strict limits of empirical proof

Logical proofs arent empirical.

[Anonymous No.11116820]

>>11116756
>What proof do I have that Plato or Descartes or Kant are right?

Arguments. Are you fucking kidding me

>what they said was interesting

For fuck sakes man

[Anonymous No.11116824]

>>11116760
>Do you deny that people can generally be split into extroverted and introverted?

Yes by claiming its a spectrum with an even distribution

Holy fuck

[Anonymous No.11116931]

>>11116782
Well, if Jung had an IQ around 160~170 it would just be a statistical inevitability rather than an insult.

[Anonymous No.11116937]

>>11116824
Everything is on a spectrum. An even spectrum is something you very rarely find in nature though, and I'm pretty sure people who are balanced right on the edge between introversion and extroversion are the exception rather than the rule.

[Anonymous No.11116942]

>>11116643
Absolutely brutal

[Anonymous No.11117282]

>>11116731
I don't. I've never read him.

[Anonymous No.11117522]

>>11116672
>Jung has to be lived. People not in touch with their intuition and subconscious mind will scoff at him
lmao imagine being this duped

[Anonymous No.11117593]

>>11116768
He was on the same level as NEETche

[Anonymous No.11117595]

>>11116931
>IQdropping a guy's IQ that was was never tested
peak brainlet

[Anonymous No.11117605]

>>11116679
Is this the ultimate bugman expression?

[Anonymous No.11117614]

>>11117605
no that would be 'bugman'

[Anonymous No.11117622]

>>11117614
no u

[Anonymous No.11117642]

>>11117622
no u
*pours diatomaceous earth on you so you die*

[Anonymous No.11117648]

>>11116731
>Well what justification do you have that hes correct?
Jordan Peterson likes him so he must be right.

[Anonymous No.11117673]

>>11116586
he misinterprets collations of useful social programming heuristics as psychological archetypes and thought that genocide was ok because of this

[Anonymous No.11117703]

>>11117648
>My two cousins and I were riding an elevator down from the parking structure for the Chicago Theater last night. A few people got in with us and on the way down, one of the kind strangers asked us, "Seeing anything tonight?". We looked nervously at each other for a moment, and my cousin responded with a cautious "...yes.". We were so afraid to admit that we were there to see Dr. Peterson because of the backlash we expected just being in downtown Chicago expressing even the slightest interest in something that isn't related to Marxism.
lmao

[Anonymous No.11117705]

>>11116586
You're too Jung.

[Anonymous No.11117778]

>>11117593
That quote is in no way implying a moral endorsement of Hitler, if your intent in posting it was to discredit Jung, in which case you’re an absolute pseud. He’s simply expressing something anyone can feel and see. Hitler, in his bearing, passion, and behavior, has a quality of the mystical and magnetic surrounding him.

[Anonymous No.11118796]

>>11116731
>logical positivist trying to steer us away from necessary synthetic truths, ie. the most interesting stuff
heh, go reduce your faculties to electricity somewhere else you brainlet

[Anonymous No.11118945]

I have a question about Jung.

Did he believe that the 'Collective Unconscious' had a literal existence outside of individuals, as some timeless collective spiritual entity, or that it was just something that was localized entirely within individuals, as heritable memory from their specific ancestors?

I'm tempted to guess the latter but knowing what he believed about synchronicity, and his frequent gestures towards the spiritual, I wouldn't be surprised by the former and I would even prefer it. It seems like a valid stand-in for "God."

[Anonymous No.11119201]

>>11117673
>and thought that genocide was ok because of this
this is nice post

[Anonymous No.11120290]

>>11117522
Well done on proving his point.

[Anonymous No.11120296]

>>11117673
You literally meet archetypes in your dreams FFS.

[Anonymous No.11120437]

>>11118945
You've hit on the enigma which fascinates me most about Jung. Although it's been proven that memories can be inherited, experiments with divination have led me to conclude we can acquire any fact we choose (although the process can be hazardous and prone to error.)

This makes us all potentially omniscient, and thus something close to gods ourselves. Perhaps we're all facets of some universal consciousness which knows everything, as the pantheists believe.

[Anonymous No.11120464]

>>11117593
Absolutely hyperbased.

[Anonymous No.11120856]

>>11118945
You don't get the CU unless you understand the schizoid archetype. Read up.

[Anonymous No.11120921]

Jung regarded the Shadow to be merely integrated rather than overcome. This was Corbin's point of contention.
>The totality represented by their bi-unity is therefore “light upon light”; it can never be a composite of Ohrmazdian light and Ahrimanian darkness, or in psychological terms, of consciousness and its shadow (Corbin, The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism).

[Anonymous No.11120932]

>>11116586
He wasn't wrong, not significantly anyhow.

[Anonymous No.11122565]

bump