/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16605912]

Which way to truth /lit/?

[Anonymous No.16605920]

>>16605912
None of the above

[Anonymous No.16605922]

>>16605912
disregard all these men and who inspired them and come to what was sent to the empty holy desert of the saracens. The noble Koran.

[Anonymous No.16605927]

>>16605912
Jung, and Lacan has *some* interesting ideas but primarily and in his whole anti-truth.

[Anonymous No.16605928]

>>16605920
cringe and go have sex

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16605934]

>>16605912
That’s not WR or Marcuse on the end. What’re you tryna pull?

[Anonymous No.16605956]

>>16605912
Can someone tell me why Lacan was such a big deal philosophy wise? Why were the french so obsessed with him?

[Anonymous No.16605959]

>>16605912
>Guys who were literally wrong about everything

[Anonymous No.16605973]

>>16605912
Jung. The other two are peak pseud.

[Anonymous No.16605974]

>>16605956
He is a sophistic fraud in the spirit of Derrida and company. Of course frogs are going to like him.

[Anonymous No.16605989]

>>16605912
not even a contest

[Anonymous No.16605990]

>>16605956
>>16605974
Why did Heidegger never seem to reject either Derrida or Lacan? He was very old.

[Anonymous No.16605993]

>>16605956
Basically revised Freudian thought to be less fixated on sex, things like reinterpreting the "phallus" as not a literal dick, but simply an expression of power more generally. Made psychoanalysis more applicable to a wider set of topics, not just the "everything boils down to family drama" mindset that prevails with American psychs. And re-centered the role of the superego or "big other," the societal code that tells the ego what is or isn't "acceptable" in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16606001]

>Cured my depression
>Gave me hope
>Gave me courage
>Calmed my anxiety
>Made me realize everybody misunderstands Christ because they can't let go of the flesh's desires and the ego.

[Anonymous No.16606031]

>>16605912
Jung is the only true path to enlightenment

[Anonymous No.16606063]

>>16606001
based

[Anonymous No.16606072]

>>16606001
So when are you gonna be kissing nigger feet?

[Anonymous No.16606088]

>>16606072
Shut up kike.

[Anonymous No.16606109]

*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.16606119]

>>16606088
You know, my feet are a little tired too, maybe you should kiss those too. You have to do it, It's literally in your holy book.

[Anonymous No.16606145]

>>16606031
Its almost depressing that him telling people to accept their spirituality and to strive for completeness over perfection is so groundbreaking

[Anonymous No.16606172]

>>16606031
How so?

[Anonymous No.16606234]

>>16606109
based

[Anonymous No.16606280]

>>16606109
was guattari gay

[Anonymous No.16606295]

>>16606072
>haha after a bare minimum of 100 years of trying to bring in pedophiles and corrupt the church one of the pope's washed a black guys feet. checkmate
Satan has worked his magic on you

[Anonymous No.16606305]

>>16606031
Jung is trash. Adding a bunch of woo woo to your teacher's theories is literally autistic. No wonder Freud shunned him

[Anonymous No.16606328]

>>16605912
They are all valid, preference usually tells more about the person in question.

[Anonymous No.16606331]

>>16605912
Jung is the only one who isn’t complete shit, Lacan is especially laughable

[Anonymous No.16606346]

>>16606119
Maybe if you read the Bible you'd stop LARPing and insulting that which you know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.16606349]

>>16606280
He had a wife

[Anonymous No.16606355]

>>16606088
>>16606295
Why do you guys think I'm Jewish lmfao? Other people have rightfully criticized Christianity for being a cucks religion. Christianity is one of the big reasons Europe is doomed.

[Anonymous No.16606360]

>>16606349
oh

[Anonymous No.16606367]

>>16606328
this
jung
>neurotic men
freud
>sex maniacs and neurotic women
lacan
>schizophrenics

[Anonymous No.16606380]

>>16606367
these kind of classifications tell more about the person making them than the people it supposes to classify

[Anonymous No.16606395]

>>16606109
>When Deleuze would visit Guattari, he “avoided the unbearable madness at La Borde.” One dinner in particular with Felix was interrupted by a some chaos as La Borde. Deleuze’s response was less commendable:

We got a call from La Borde saying that a guy had set fire to the chateau chapel and run off into the woods. Gilles blanched, I froze, and Felix called for help to find this guy. At that point, Gilles said to me, ‘how can you stand those schizos’?”


based deleuze

[Anonymous No.16606406]

>>16606360
https://youtu.be/_z5vpzYTUkU

[Anonymous No.16606408]

the turgid little boy has already plugged a desiring-machine into a social machine, short-circuiting the parents

[Anonymous No.16606440]

>>16605956
He fit Freud into the structural linguistics that was popular at the time. Of course he would be a hit.

[Anonymous No.16606446]

>>16606380
these kinds of comments tell more about you

[Anonymous No.16606494]

>>16606072

[Anonymous No.16606629]

>>16605912
>duuuude penises and shit
none of them

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.16606889]

>>16605912
Through the Heart, and via the intellect.

The radical, and truthful, is situated in, and surfaces from, the North, between extrem(iti)es.

[Anonymous No.16607762]

>>16606367
Nice. I already intended to read all three. Why do you say Freud is for neurotic woman though?

[Anonymous No.16607791]

>>16607762
they are all fucking horny and sexually repressed

[Anonymous No.16607793]

>>16606305
>Adding a bunch of woo woo to your teacher's theories
Anon, Freud didn't even discover the complex, that was Jung. Jung did far more than Freud, and though he's not as all-encompassing as many make him out to be, he's far better than Freud and Lacan, even if the latter does have some very interesting things and touches upon topics Jung does not.

[Anonymous No.16607799]

>>16607793
which complex?

[Anonymous No.16607810]

>>16606355
When a civilisation suffers a decline, it will do so through and emblem in its particular nature. Rome collapsed in a thoroughly Roman-Pagan way, Western-Christian civilisation is suffering the decay of its religion, an emblem of collapse and greater strife, and we may well see the end of the present civilisation. Its pointless to blame Christianity for it.

[Anonymous No.16607837]

>>16607799
>which complex?
Bruh you do know there's a difference between categories/definitions and an example of them? Nevertheless if you were familiar with Jung you would know he describes and finds a vast array of complexes, far more than Freud and much more complex. Something that is instantly appealable to all in how he did it who are familiar with Freud, is that he didn't just relate everything back to sexuality and least of all the rest of the constrictive psychoanalytical frameworks of Freud like diagnosing everything and thereby a solution to what essentially amounts to as some "miracle" moment in childhood or whenever.

You do get "woo"(as you call it) retards that understand nothing about him and just hear words like "anime" and think "le feminine inside of me".

[Anonymous No.16607872]

>>16605912
Jung was very good looking. And he and Allen Dulles were boys.

[Anonymous No.16607908]

>>16605990
I remember a number of people saying Heidegger and Derrida aren't so far apart if you boil down their views. With Lacan maybe there was no need.

[Anonymous No.16607909]

>>16606001
I was like you but then I noticed that the incident with the Canaanite woman is one of the only times that Scriptural Jesus addresses the Gentile Question. After this it was humiliating for me to believe in a Christ directly reflected by the scriptures (as opposed to Christ as an image of Goodness collectively dreamed up by successive generations of Christian culture, JC is still very effective in this capacity). Kind of ruined it for me is what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.16607924]

>>16606305
>a bunch of woo woo
Intuitionlet extermination when?

[Anonymous No.16607926]

Can I read pic related if the only thing I've read on Jung is this: http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/carl-jung-summary/ ?

[Anonymous No.16607928]

>>16605934
>>16605920
>>16605912
have sex chapcels

[Anonymous No.16607931]

>>16605912

[Anonymous No.16607937]

>>16605912
Where to start with Lacan?

[Anonymous No.16607944]

>>16607937
The Lacanian Subject by Bruce Fink.

[Anonymous No.16607961]

C. J. Chung

[Anonymous No.16607992]

>>16607944
Thanks. Know where I can get an epub? libgen doesn't seem to have one and google isn't coming up with much.

[Anonymous No.16608003]

>>16607992
https://b-ok.lat/s/The%20Lacanian%20Subject%20bruce%20fink

they're all pdf btw

[Anonymous No.16608011]

>>16607909
What is your point?
What do you think Christ's reasoning was?

The Gospel's are a collection of him BTFO rabbis.

What is the Gentile Question?
Is it in regards to those unaware of Christ?

If so I think there is a system in place after death where if you fail you get exiled into darkness, see the last few phrases of the parable of the talents KJV

[Anonymous No.16608028]

>>16608003
oops im retarded I thought you meant there were no results of the book on libgen

you can still convert pdf to epub

[Anonymous No.16608031]

>>16606395
Hilarious if true. What's the source ?

[Anonymous No.16608050]

>>16608028
>you can still convert pdf to epub
oh shit, of course. I'll do that.
Thanks again.

[Anonymous No.16608060]

>>16607908
I've heard that too but they just seem so different from the outset.

[Anonymous No.16608120]

>>16608011
No Christ literally said that non-jews and non-samaritans (ie half jews) were not worthy of his time and the Canaanite woman literally had to abase herself and call herself a dog before Christ laughed with his friends and said "Nah, you cool."

It was like if a white woman was trying to convince a bunch of Louis Farakhan types that she was woke. It's embarassing that Gentiles get so short a shrift in a religion whose greatness is owed to them. It is, as I said, humiliating, and shows that historical Jesus was never here for 'us', just for a population of Palestinian Jews to which I have no personal connection. This ruined the gospel of Mathew for me because the ecumenical rhetoric in the sermon on the mount is less re-assuring when you know that historical/scriptural jesus would have made you bark like a dog to amuse his heeb fisherman buddies.

[Anonymous No.16608238]

>>16608120
Didn't he actually heal her daughter afterwards?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16608269]

>>16607928
? ?

>>16607926
Nice cover

[Anonymous No.16608276]

>>16608238
Yep. After he said he wasn't here for her kind and made her desperately call herself a worthless dog. Not my kind of Saviour.

[Anonymous No.16608309]

>>16605912

[Anonymous No.16608314]

>>16606031
Jung is a quasi-spiritual faggot.

[Anonymous No.16608376]

>>16608120

That doesn’t make sense because Christ taught to spread the gospel and I never read him say within certain borders

Her initiation in conversation is similar to that of a dog which I think is the point - shrieking making a scene, instinctual, arrogance. I doubt a woman would suddenly break his seriousness and that he would convert that into humour.

I think Christ’s reply is more about going to the roots of the tree as it’ll eventually poor over into those who listen.

[Anonymous No.16608790]

>>16605912
Jung, not even a question

[Anonymous No.16608796]

>>16605912
Not psychoanalysis, which is all just hermeneutics of suspision aimed at dismantling truth and revealing it as ‘problematic’, a ‘symptom’ of a complex, bla bla bla

[Anonymous No.16608806]

>>16608376
He EXPLICITLY rejects her for not being Jewish:

Mathew:

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

[Anonymous No.16608809]

>>16608806
>>16608120

Cherry picking dumbo

[Anonymous No.16608815]

>>16606360
Don't listen to him. You just KNOW they fucked

[Anonymous No.16608817]

They are all hylics, psychoanalysis is satanic, no wonder Jung mistook the outward symbols for the endgame and turned an entire generation of men to filthy gnostics. Modernitypozzed vermin, all of them.

[Anonymous No.16608819]

>>16608809
What does that even mean. So these passages just "don't count" or something?

[Anonymous No.16608830]

>>16608819
It means you can’t cherrypick isolated instances and ignore the rest of the bible to make it say what you want.

[Anonymous No.16608836]

>>16608819
Are you dense?

[Anonymous No.16608843]

>>16608830
An "isolated incident"? So you are saying that this passage doesn't count then, okay. Because what it looks like to me is that you are speaking in vagueries like "JESUS BTFOS THA JOOS" and the other anon is giving you textual evidence that he prefers Jews over non Jews. All you are doing is ignoring this passage because it isn't "based" enough for you. Sad!

[Anonymous No.16609001]

>>16607837
If you actually read his writings, he purposely adds vague undefinable elements to his theory to cover for how absolutely debased they are

[Anonymous No.16609022]

>>16608314
being spiritual is ideal. a world wide ego death would put everything in place

[Anonymous No.16609040]

>>16608809
The burden is on you to make an unambiguous text-based case why the Scriptural Jesus gave a fuck about non-Jews. Spoiler alert, it will take a lot of vagaries, long shots and mental gymnastics. Besides, Mathew was written a (mere) 4 decades after Jesus' death, making him the most contemporary source we have for big JC.

I like Jesus the same way I like Superman. He's culturally important for the West. But historically speaking the real guy didn't give a fuck about you.

[Anonymous No.16609276]

>>16605912

[Anonymous No.16609322]

>>16605956>>16605974

>the french so obsessed
only roasties and super simps liked lacan

[Anonymous No.16609329]

>>16606001>>16606063
>>16608011

>gospel
>canon
pick 1

[Anonymous No.16609341]

>>16608806
I always took it as him testing her faith rather than him being racist, to be frank.

[Anonymous No.16609342]

>>16608120
To be fair, Christianity is a Jewish invention, made up for gentiles and not for jews.
Only Jews can follow Christ, because ti is what they say and they are the only authority on Christ.
Only the old texts can be followed and basing your life on earlier texts is just delusion.
>The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, between 26 and 36 AD. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean,[2][3][4][5] and was especially adversed in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.[2][3][4][6]

[Anonymous No.16609343]

>>16609276
If you like this guy you'll probably like Rémi Brague too.

[Anonymous No.16609347]

>>16608120#
To be fair, Christianity is a Jewish invention, made up for gentiles and not for jews.
Only Jews can follow Christ, because it is what they say and they are the only authority on Christ.
Only the early texts can be followed and basing your life on younger texts is just delusion.
>The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, between 26 and 36 AD. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean,[2][3][4][5] and was especially adversed in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.[2][3][4][6]

[Anonymous No.16609354]

>>16605956
He always shilled whatever thing was en vogue in the parisienne intellectual scene of his time.

[Anonymous No.16609362]

The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, between 26 and 36 AD. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean,[2][3][4][5] and was especially adversed in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.[2][3][4][6]

At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to as Jewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to scholars, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the then contemporary Second Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah.[7] Unless males were circumcised, they could not be God's People. The meeting was called to decide whether circumcision for gentile converts was requisite for community membership since certain individuals were teaching that "[u]nless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved".[8]

Circumcision as a mandate was associated with Abraham (see also Abrahamic covenant), but it is cited as "the custom of Moses" because Moses is considered the traditional giver of the Law as a whole. The circumcision mandate was made more official and binding in the Mosaic Law Covenant. In John 7:22 the words of Jesus are reported to be that Moses gave the people circumcision.

[Anonymous No.16609366]

>>16608276
In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[27] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly described as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[27] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[27] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus's life and in the Christian community.[28] Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[29] Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not only for the Jews.[28] The Gospel of John is the only gospel to call Jesus God, and in contrast to Mark, where Jesus hides his identity as messiah, in John he openly proclaims it

[Anonymous No.16609401]

>>16609366
If this is an argument that Christ presents an explicitly stated pro-Gentile mission in the scripture then please give the actual biblical quotes and not someone's secondhand summary.

>>16609347
Paul was the first one to evangelise Christianity to non-jews and he only did so years after Jesus was already dead. But the earliest Gospel that we have is Mathew, but three decades, and the Jesus of Mathew's gospel is EXPLICITLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY only concerned with preaching to and saving Jews.

>>16609341
He specifically says that her ethnicity excludes her and her dying daughter from his concern. This passage is only ambiguous if you make it that way in your head. The historical Jesus lived his entire life in Palestine and associated almost exclusively with Jews, what reason does the actual Scripture (which itself has been revised over centuries by early Christians) give us to assume that Jesus was trying to change the non-Jewish world? He never says anything like that, in fact he says the opposite.

[Anonymous No.16609444]

>>16609401
>, what reason does the actual Scripture (which itself has been revised over centuries by early Christians) give us to assume that Jesus was trying to change the non-Jewish world?

If you think the people who revised the scripture had such malicious intentions as changing the meaning of the scripture, they wouldn't have rewritten it in an argument-proof way so as to avoid these sorts of debates?

[Anonymous No.16609480]

>>16608817
>Something something modernity bad material evil demons
t. hasn't integrated the anima
Jung explicitly said he didn't lay claim to any specific metaphysic
Go cope somewhere else faggot

[Anonymous No.16609482]

>>16605912
by thinking for yourself, dumbass OP

[Anonymous No.16609484]

>>16607791
Same with neurotic men?

[Anonymous No.16609514]

>>16607791
Sexual repression is a meme. It doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16609549]

>>16609444
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the people who revised our scripture had a vested interest in making Jesus appear to have a holy mission for all of mankind instead of just the Jews. Despite this vested interest they did not place words in his mouth about saving the gentiles. This speaks highly of them and their ability to faithfully transmit the historical events on which Christianity is based. I'm not casting aspersions on the Scriptures, I'm saying that its a shame they reveal Christ to have been essentially ethnocentric

[Anonymous No.16609628]

>>16609514
>people who're so afraid of sexuality that they repress it
whats so strange?

[Anonymous No.16609672]

>>16609628
It's just another meme way of psychic hermeneutics, reducing multi-faceted issues to merely not cooming enough, or not cooming at all.

[Anonymous No.16609685]

>>16605934
>Reich
Literally a scam artist selling snake oil through mail order.

[Anonymous No.16609771]

>>16609672
>It's just another meme way of psychic hermeneutics, reducing multi-faceted issues to merely not cooming enough, or not cooming at all.
What's reductive is your interpretation of the psychoanalytic conception of Eros
Not even Freud was as reductive in his analysis of sexuality
There wouldn't be fraternities, monestaries, incels, tradcaths and in general disdain for the sensual and material without there being something to gain by ascetic renunciation of it
None of the psychoanalysts, as far as I know, have ever taken the standpoint of "you need to coom more". Even fucking Alan Watts, head chief of the new age woo hoo movements who put sensuality on the upmost fucking pedestal considered that kind of view of sexuality (coom or no coom) to be a false dichotomy. It's just a meme between the nu-left pseudo-eunuch basedboys and MGTOW/nofap misogynist ascetic cults to debate cooming as some sort of either/or thing.

[Anonymous No.16609842]

>>16609771
This garbage permanently distorted public perception around psychoanalysis as a whole.

[Anonymous No.16609843]

>>16607810
It's pointless to engage with these people full stop.
>I have diagnosed the malaise of modernity
>Now let me attack the one institution in the West that is even nominally against progressive-ism and alienate this massive (and growing) base of reactionaries.
>That'll stick it to the globalists!

[Anonymous No.16610035]

>>16609842
How so?

[Anonymous No.16610169]

>>16609843
Christians are globalists of another kind

[Anonymous No.16610611]

>>16605934
>reich
oh no no no

[Anonymous No.16610817]

>>16605920
>not following Marxism-Leninism-Lacanism
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16610824]

>>16605934
>Marcuse
Yes we know you're a liberal but the rest of us aren't thank you kindly

[Anonymous No.16611390]

>>16608806
No wonder. You're reading the NIV, which give off a different vibe, the woman doesn't beg in the KJV, and ultimately after asking thrice she had her wish granted, she was not rejected. I compared this dialogue using the KJV, NIV, Reina Valera (because I understand spanish).

The spanish translation converts into: I have come for the lost sheep of the COUNTRY/NATION of Isreal.

I think you're interpreting this as if he is directly going towards the religious but if you read the discourses he is actually targeting the non-religious, read how the woman enters the conversation, she is not lost, she knows who she is talking to.

[Anonymous No.16611471]

>>16609401
>If this is an argument that Christ presents an explicitly stated pro-Gentile mission in the scripture then please give the actual biblical quotes and not someone's secondhand summary.

Matthew 10:14 KJV
11And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 12And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 16Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

Show me where he says don't travel too far, because the word of God is not for Jews.....He doesn't specify it is implied, you are expected to broaden out

[Anonymous No.16611481]

>>16607791
Jung fucked though

[Anonymous No.16611807]

>>16605912

>Which way to truth /lit/?
Are Freud and Lacan mutually exclusive? I don't know much about psychoanalysis, never really did much psychology reading.

[Anonymous No.16611997]

>>16611390
doesn't verbally beg*

[Anonymous No.16612417]

>>16605912
None of them have surpassed Carl Gustav Carus.

[Anonymous No.16612434]

>>16605912
Modern science is beginning to vindicate Jung so I’ll go with him

[Anonymous No.16612461]

>>16611481
6' 2'' chad coming through

[Anonymous No.16612594]

>>16609484
yeah but unlike the men, they can get laid
>>16612461
>>16611481
well, he was a student of freud after all

[Anonymous No.16612602]

>>16609514
then why don't you fuck?

[Anonymous No.16612608]

>>16612434
>Modern science is beginning to vindicate Jung so I’ll go with him
care to expand on that?

[Anonymous No.16612854]

Uberboyo?

[Anonymous No.16613042]

>>16605922
Lol go cut of a teachers head

[Anonymous No.16613060]

>>16612854
Basado

[Anonymous No.16613096]

>>16605934
kys tranny

[Anonymous No.16613295]

>>16608269
kys tranny

[Anonymous No.16613314]

>that time Jung btfo’d Freud with his ghost powers

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16613348]

>>16609685
He hurt you, did he?

>>16610824
You the resident tankie? I can see no other reason for this salacious remark.
Haven’t delved too deeply into the guy, but being against the Soviet sham doesn’t always mark one as a CIA puppet.

>>16612461
Clearly grabbing her buttock

[Anonymous No.16613588]

>>16613348
>t. orgone poisoning victim

[Anonymous No.16613616]

>>16605912
always pick the aryan

[Anonymous No.16613772]

>>16607837
Hmm. Fried studied primatology and was referencing that.

Evolutionary science still does. Not sure if you get what complexes you are talking about

[Anonymous No.16613870]

>>16605912
>>16605920
Best of both worlds

[Anonymous No.16614300]

>>16611471
This is what I'm saying, it always takes broad interpretations of his statements in order to conclude that scriptural jesus believed that he came for the whole world. He believed that his eschatology would be concluded in the lifetime of his apostles, and said so to them. So its not likely that he expected them to physically walk too far out of Palestine. What is more we don't NEED to interpret his ideas as ethnocentrically Jewish because in Mathew he explicitly states that he's only come for Jews.

So its like the question of Fundamentalists vs Moderates - sure you can have a broad interpretation of certain passages and ignore other inconvenient ones and come to any conclusion you like, but at the end of the day those who are most literal with the text (except for parables of course) stand on the firmest ground. Scriptural Jesus says he's only here for the Jews, okay, so he was only there for the Jews.

I didn't want to accept this either but its right on the page. Doesn't need poetic license or nothin

[Anonymous No.16614372]

>>16611390

NO. No way. I posted the New Revised Standard Version which is the most used English translation in academia. I did NOT use NIV.

>read how the woman enters the conversation, she is not lost, she knows who she is coming to

>if you read the the discourses

Vagaries and assumptions. And no its not a translation issue either, Bart Erhman is a New Testament scholar, he's taught at Moody, Princeton and UNC and he endorses pro-Jewish/Jewish-exclusive Jesus as the most historically accurate. Jesus saw himself as a Jew amongst Jew come to save and rule over Jews.

[Anonymous No.16614460]

>>16605912
Well there's the way to the truth, and then there's the truth

Jung was the best up there though.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYYIIins No.16614477]

COME THIS WAY —THE ONLY WAY.

[Anonymous No.16615205]

>>16612461
Why hes so smug?

[Jesus No.16615212]

>>16605912
only death, faggot.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16615244]

>>16615205
>>16613348

[Anonymous No.16615264]

I don't know about Jung but Freud and Lacan treated things like a science and were find with you proving them wrong if you did it right.

[Anonymous No.16615267]

>>16615244
you aren't funny, whore. fuck off

[Anonymous No.16615268]

>>16605956
Its Hegel applied to Freud

[Anonymous No.16615407]

>>16605912
None of them. They would like to have you believe that all your problems are your own doing, and have you spend the rest of your days navel gazing, lost in your own thoughts. Never even thinking of affecting change because your thoughts are in flux, let alone affecting change in your situation.