/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19996063]

Going off of /lit's/ love for Jung and started digging into Man and his Symbols. I'm only about 10% in and I'm getting major psuedo science vibes.

Not trying to instigate but is he really worth reading? What do you gain?

[Anonymous No.19996072]

>>19996063
The word pseudo-science means nothing. Theories without peer reviewed studies are pseudo? So be it, condemn the entire possibility of thought and reasoning beyond the empirical. Science itself relies on the trust of our senses, which by default are fallible.

[Anonymous No.19996078]

>>19996063
If you're hoping for rigorous scientific study into the meaning behind dreams, you've come to the wrong book.
If you wish to continue, know that these things are not empirically provable, and thus you must leave this condition for truth at the door.

[Anonymous No.19996087]

>>19996063
>psuedo science
midwit detected

[Anonymous No.19996092]

>>19996063
>What do you gain
You? Nothing. Don't bother.

[Anonymous No.19996097]

>>19996063
I'm getting major pseud vibes from this post
Don't bother reading Jung, go pick up Harry Potter

[Anonymous No.19996100]

>>19996063
>is he really worth reading?
No. Unless you're into magickxhe, which is also worthless.

[Anonymous No.19996129]

>>19996063

Judging from your post, reddit might be more your speed.

[Anonymous No.19996140]

>>19996063
Quite the debunked science he has but it's not as bad and preposterous as sex and gender is fluid meme. Go ahead and read more I enjoy his relating dreams to myths and tribal rituals and how we get ideas from dreams in general.

[Anonymous No.19996144]

>>19996063
Yes, and the "worth" you gain is subjective

[Anonymous No.19996158]

>>19996063
I've mostly been one for evidence and rationalism but had some weird shit happen during the time of reading Jung

For my own sanity I'm not sure I want to continue reading his stuff

[Anonymous No.19996162]

Anyone got a nice hardback edition they can recommend me to purchase?

[Anonymous No.19996187]

>>19996072
>The word pseudo-science means nothing

That's a bold statement. I was going to write a rebuttal but where do you even start on such a low IQ response?

>>19996078
>>19996087
>>19996092
>>19996097
>>19996129
>>19996140

Look, I know reddit has abused the "have a source?" argument and you're going through a rebellious phase but to completely dismiss the whole scientific process is juvenile. I'm sorry verifiable proof and replication ruin your fictitious world view. Plus, that's not even what I was asking at all.

I'm ready for your cliche, limp dick S O Y jack memes and green text quotes.

[Anonymous No.19996194]

>>19996158
I appreciate a real response. I'm open to continue reading him and I'm even more open to the fact that my presumptions are wrong about him.

[Anonymous No.19996215]

>>19996187
Go back

[Anonymous No.19996221]

>>19996215
go to hell

[Anonymous No.19996235]

>>19996187
>where do you even start with such a low IQ response
Glad you admit you subscribe to a scientific hierarchy of intelligence, there's nothing more you need to say. The point was that it isn't a foundation to criticise anything, because "pseudo-science" alone isn't a criticism. I was pointing out the flaw in that logic.

[Anonymous No.19996240]

>>19996063
like all psychoanalysts, Jung is essentially a fiction writer. Read it if you enjoy it, but yeah none of his claims can be justified by any sort of argument whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.19996243]

>I'm getting major psuedo science vibes.

[Anonymous No.19996247]

>>19996221
>go to hell

[Anonymous No.19996255]

>>19996063
trust your intiution, if it makes sense, then it does.
>major psuedo science vibes
I would say "go back to where you came from", however, if you want to find "evidence", then research every religion and doctrine in the world; You'll find the same principles. Such major coincidence can't have been the effects of a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.19996274]

>>19996235
>Theories without peer reviewed studies are pseudo?

I know what you're saying and it's retarded and I'm retarded for responding. Your argument is that a theory doesn't need empirical evidence to be worth considering. But aren't all serious theories based on some form of empirical evidence? Using your logic, I could literally conjure up anything that is unfalsifiable and I could argue "Science itself relies on the trust of our senses, which by default are fallible!". Do you see the limitations yet?

[Anonymous No.19996355]

>>19996274
>Using your logic, I could literally conjure up anything that is unfalsifiable and I could argue "Science itself relies on the trust of our senses, which by default are fallible!"
That's exactly what my point is, and most philosophy that deals with Rational thinking understands that empiricism can only get you so far. By your logic, all Kants ontological theory is pointless and is by default debunked because it cannot be backed up by science. This makes no sense regarding our understanding of epistemological logic and limits your understanding of reality itself. Do you consider anything possible or other than what science can prove as of now? If not, you have no business discussing psychology or philosophy and you should go back to your safe space that doesn't challenge what you believe is concrete fact.

[Anonymous No.19996358]

>>19996187
I don't care, faggot. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. Why are you seeking validation here? Go back

[Anonymous No.19996364]

>>19996158
Which of his books gave you synchronicities and other weird stuff? I want to go down the rabbit hole.

[Anonymous No.19996447]

>>19996063
>I'm only about 10% in and I'm getting major psuedo science vibes.

Kind of. I mean, the word "scientific" held at different meaning at Jung's time than now. At the time, it would be rightful to call them scientific, like writing at the beginnings of psychoanalysis were likewise held. Calling Jung's writing "scientific" is very much a product of its time.

Now, we should not regard Jung and Depth Psychology as pseudoscience, but simply not science. Psychology nowadays, specially in its clinical practice, it's an hybrid between different methodologies, one of which is scientific (and this in academic psychology).
Some of Jung, and I believe this includes the writing you're thinking of since you're 10% into The Man and His Symbols, can rightfully be considered to be Theory (in the humanities sense). (*)
The fact that "Jungian" writings (**) are not scientific shouldn't be a problem, I think. Scientific is on the one ground where all useful knowledge is to be found.
>Not trying to instigate but is he really worth reading? What do you gain?
Jung gives an integrating picture of humanity and how different societies develop their customs and myths, under a set of common patterns. The investigations of these patters, and the attempt to show that they come from a common place (myth-making capacities in people, collective unconscious, or ancient remnants) is a major part of the Jung we're talking about. (*)
And his depth psychology also gives a way for people improve their lives, which if you hit rock bottom is very likely to be effective (like any form of therapy, or psychology that give you at the very least a structure to stand on). Although an analyst is always recommended, it's not strictly necessary, there are many books now on how to practice jungian therapy on your own (***), which is not the best but it's free, and thus ideal for people who are skeptic about this kind of approach (which I believe it's a very reasonable thing to do, considering how mystical Jung can get). Whether you in the end decide to practice long term or not, with the intention of following Jung's ideas on the development on the self (I don't want to use "self-development" to avoid self-help vibes) is on you. In any case, I think it's worth a look, at the very least to know that it exist, and have it as a tool in your mind you may decide to use in the future.

I recommend Jacobi's The Psychology of C.G. Jung too.

(*) The book Beginning Theory is a good introduction. The Theory we're talking about is not possible to be prove scientifically, but it can still provide compelling arguments about how society came to be the way it is and what forces are in play.

(**) Of course meaning the Jung that propose over-reaching theories, archetype-stuff and so forth. Jung overall work is massive, and you can find strictly scientific work on his collected papers.

(***) I recommend Robert A. Johnson's Inner Work gives the most explicit instructions on how to practice Jung.

[Anonymous No.19996460]

>>19996355
so what's your distinction for classifying a theory as worthy vs. unworthy? How do you know Kant's theories won't be viewed in a similar manner as Heraclitus' "everything is fire" theory in a thousand years?

[Anonymous No.19996467]

>>19996063
>I'm only about 10% in and I'm getting major psuedo science vibes.
Kind of. I mean, the word "scientific" held at different meaning at Jung's time than now. At the time, it would be rightful to call them scientific, like writing at the beginnings of psychoanalysis were likewise held. Calling Jung's writing "scientific" is very much a product of its time.
Now, we should not regard Jung and Depth Psychology as pseudoscience, but simply not science. Psychology nowadays, specially in its clinical practice, it's an hybrid between different methodologies, one of which is scientific (and this in academic psychology).
Some of Jung, and I believe this includes the writing you're thinking of since you're 10% into The Man and His Symbols, can rightfully be considered to be Theory (in the humanities sense). (*)
The fact that "Jungian" writings (**) are not scientific shouldn't be a problem, I think. Scientific is not the one ground where all useful knowledge is to be found.

>Not trying to instigate but is he really worth reading? What do you gain?
Jung gives an integrating picture of humanity and how different societies develop their customs and myths, under a set of common patterns. The investigations of these patters, and the attempt to show that they come from a common place (myth-making capacities in people, collective unconscious, or ancient remnants) is a major part of the Jung we're talking about. (*)
And his depth psychology also gives a way for people improve their lives, which if you hit rock bottom is very likely to be effective (like any form of therapy, or psychology that give you at the very least a structure to stand on). Although an analyst is always recommended, it's not strictly necessary, there are many books now on how to practice jungian therapy on your own (***), which is not the best but it's free, and thus ideal for people who are skeptic about this kind of approach (which I believe it's a very reasonable thing to do, considering how mystical Jung can get). Whether you in the end decide to practice long term or not, with the intention of following Jung's ideas on the development on the self (I don't want to use "self-development" to avoid self-help vibes) is on you. In any case, I think it's worth a look, at the very least to know that it exist, and have it as a tool in your mind you may decide to use in the future.


(*) The book Beginning Theory is a good introduction. The Theory we're talking about is not possible to be prove scientifically, but it can still provide compelling arguments about how society came to be the way it is and what forces are in play.
(**) Of course meaning the Jung that propose over-reaching theories, archetype-stuff and so forth. Jung overall work is massive, and you can find strictly scientific work on his collected papers.
(***) I recommend Robert A. Johnson's Inner Work gives the most explicit instructions on how to practice Jung.

[Anonymous No.19996639]

>>19996460
How do you know Kant's theories won't be viewed in a similar manner as Heraclitus' "everything is fire" theory in a thousand years?
They probably will, but that doesn't discredit the act of reasoning past empiricism. The biggest and most important revolutionary theories within the scientific field were originally condemned with such hostility and contempt that you would just as easily confuse them for your modern idea of "pseudo-science". To limit your reasoning to just provable scientific fact is to denounce the point of science altogether. Thought is built upon, that is the art of epistemology

[Anonymous No.19996666]

>>19996358
>I don't care
>continously replies to the thread

[Anonymous No.19996715]

>>19996063
>major pseudo science vibes
>literally calls itself a psychology book
Why did you even pick it up then?

[Anonymous No.19996906]

>>19996072
> condemn the entire possibility of thought and reasoning beyond the empirical
gladly

[Anonymous No.19996915]

>>19996906
All cringe r/eddit positivists need to go back

[Anonymous No.19996918]

>>19996063
>major psuedo science vibes.
yeah. post2015 /lit/ newfags like jung because jordan peterson does. Thats it.

[Anonymous No.19996930]

>>19996915
positivism =/= radical empiricism

[Anonymous No.19996974]

>>19996639
>The biggest and most important revolutionary theories within the scientific field were originally condemned with such hostility and contempt that you would just as easily confuse them for your modern idea of "pseudo-science".
I sympathise with your point of view however this point is doubtful. All radically new scientific theories (e.g. heliocentrism, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution), didn’t not necessarily came with a verification procedure (because the methodology or technology wasn’t always here) yet always had some observable implications. If new theories were looked down upon it generally has to do with the social process of determining truth, e.g. the fact that most people, especially the older people who tends to occupy position of authority, are reluctant to throw away a piece of what they thought to be the truth.
What is science and what is not is an open question. The criterion of falsifiability, though not completely clear and often criticised, is not a bad starting point for any practical science. For rational inquiry that does not offer any predictions, what matter is whether or not the axioms and reasoning are sound, to know what does it explain, and how does it change the way I think, or make decisions about things.

If the axioms and logic are approximate, if it doesn’t explain anything, and if it doesn’t change the way you think, then what is left is either poetry or meaningless babble.

AFAIK Jung like all the other early 20th psychologists isn’t too strong on the first aspect.

[Anonymous No.19997015]

>>19996930
There's nothing radical about being a reddit atheist who waits for fancy science guys to tell you what to believe about the universe. You're a midwit, just like the people who used to think the Earth was flat and the center universe. You wait for the actual intellectuals to tell you what to believe, which is perfectly fine, but you should understand that with such a lack of imagination for possibilities you are severely limiting your capacity for greater understanding

[Anonymous No.19997026]

>>19996467
Not op but I appreciated this post, will explore the sources you provided.

[Anonymous No.19997032]

>>19996063
Everything ultimately boils down to a cyclical universe, death feeds life. If you don’t like it then get outta here!

[Anonymous No.19997108]

>>19996906
You are essentially thought in a concrete box receiving translated sensory input sent to tv monitors surrounding you.
You never will interact directly with the world around you; you will always be receiving fallible translations.
You can try arguing against that but I don't accept criticism.

[Anonymous No.19997119]

>>19996187
you are a midwit

[Anonymous No.19997154]

>>19997026
I hope you liked them. I had more books to recommend, about I was at the character limit.

The two best books to start Jung are, in my opinion, "Two Essays on Analytical Psychology" and "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" if you want to jump into something a bit more esoteric and broad.
Jung autobiography, Memories, Dreams, & Reflection is also a great part to start.


There are many secondary readings you can do, and it's easy to get lost in the many books devoted to Jung.
The book I recommend the most to start is "Jung: A Very short Introduction" by Anthony Stevens. I know this series of books are rather unequal in quality, but I find the Jung book excellent, and provides both a general biography and an introduction to his psychology, with plenty of books at the end for further readings.
Another great one is "The Psychology of C.G. Jung" by Jolande Jacobi. Jacobi met Jung when she was 37 and went to pursue a studies in psychology, earning a PhD eleven years later at age 48, and then travelled to Zurich to be trained by Jung. Ten years later played a role, along with Marie-Louise von Franz, in the foundation of C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich.
Her books simplify Jung a lot, but this is great for a start. As a late bloomer, she understand what where other people may find difficulties when reading Jung.
Robert .A Johnson is a more contemporary author (he died in 2018, age 97). Most of his books are accessible to everyone. I already mentioned "Inner Work", but also worth reading is "Owning your Own Shadow".

As for lectures, I recommend Jordan Peterson. Memes aside, he very much thinks everything from a Jungian standpoint. I recommend specially Maps of Meaning.

[Anonymous No.19997255]

>>19997015
>reddit! atheist! trannies!
you don’t even know what positivism, empiricism or even science mean, you dumb fucking retard. genuinely bin yourself.

[Anonymous No.19997400]

>>19996639
>Heraclitus' "everything is fire" theory
Refute this right now

[Anonymous No.19997701]

>>19996187
you absolutely have to go back you fucking tard

[Anonymous No.19997725]

>>19996467
Robert Johnson's "Inner Work" is a great recommendation, good stuff anon

[Anonymous No.19997853]

>>19997119
>>19997701

How does feel that your best insults were created by greater men than yourself? Does reddit really occupy that much of your thoughts?

[Anonymous No.19997891]

>>19996467
great post, thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous No.19998004]

>>19996072
brainlet take

[Anonymous No.19998013]

>>19997015
Real midwits recognize real midwits. Preach it brother.

[Anonymous No.19998034]

>>19998013
I understand (correctly) that there are many things that we can't even begin to quantify, but I don't discount their existence simply because it can't be. We can't even begin to explore ideas or anything remotely interesting if we're limited to peer reviewed studies (which are heavily gate kept anyways). This issue isn't a matter of high or low iq, but rather high or low social trust and socialization. Even the most intelligent people can be conditioned to turn their brains off as soon as topics are considered that they have been trained not to consider

[Anonymous No.19998244]

>>19996063
Greetings, midwit!

[Anonymous No.19998384]

>>19996063
Perhaps the mind is a place best explored with something other than modern science, confidence intervals, and p values.

[Anonymous No.19998743]

>>19996063
Nobody ITT is going to take you seriously because you've already come off as a redditor but I'll give you an honest answer.
Jung is deeply philosophical and requires a decent level of abstract thinking in order to understand. People call him "pseudo-scientific", "unscientific", "irrelevant", but the only reason for this is that people who study sciences tend to suck at philosophy, and people who suck at philosophy tend to lack self-awareness, and in order to understand Jung you absolutely need to have self-awareness because when you first begin to study him you're basically studying yourself.
Science is useful for describing the content of empirical categories but it cannot provide any understanding of the categories themselves, only their phenomena. By this I mean you can empirically analyze the objective world with science but you can't use science to reveal why your consciousness (not to be confused with your brain) creates the world the way it does. Science can give you a hypothesis of why our motivations evolved but it cannot give you a description of how subjectivity is structured.
Consciousness has a structure. The main principle of consciousness is that what you experience is a manifestation of value. Everything that enters your attention gate enters because it is categorized as relevant (it corresponds to a value). Science has no answer as to how we are born with a priori values (without them perception is impossible). Jung's archetypes are descriptions of those values. An archetype is literally a value category. Your personality is made of archetypes because your consciousness is a network of values.
Hope this helps. If you want I'll explain further.

[Anonymous No.19998770]

>>19996063
He wrote that book specifically for a mass audience. So that's probably why you're getting "psued" vibes. Read his collected works if you want to see Jung express his ideas with less constraint.
And his redbook if you want no contraints

[Anonymous No.19998788]

>>19996974
>Gets 10% into babby's first Jung book
>Can't into
>Filtered
>Thinks of himself as superior to the author
>Comes looking for validation
>Fails
C O P E

[Anonymous No.19998856]

>>19998743
Nice

[Anonymous No.19998903]

>>19996063
You need to be sold on German idealism, or monadism, the One etc. before reading Jung or Freud. If you aren't, then they wont be worth your time except as historical pieces.

[Anonymous No.19998907]

>>19996063
>being a baconian cultist is better than being a jungian cultist because.... it just is okay!

[Anonymous No.19998909]

>>19998907
To see a troll rile up so many people… makes me more understanding as to why this site has so many incels

[Anonymous No.19998915]

Carl Jung was based. His contribution to the Western spiritual tradition was immense.

[Anonymous No.19998920]

>>19997108
Based

[Anonymous No.20000460]

>>19998743
>>19998770
Thanks for the legitimate replies. You're the reason this place is still somewhat bearable.

[Anonymous No.20000628]

>>19996194
I think the problem you have with jung is actually a problem with psychology in general since it is a field that relies highly on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence that science tries to stick to. to this point i would like to point out that empirical evidence is not a prerequisite for doing science. All you need to do is use the scientific method to get to a conclusion which can take any form. in man and his symbols i think jung and his associates outline very well their hypothesis and their method for gathering data. The conclusions and the justification for those conclusions, come from the outcome of treating patients using the techniques developed in the hypothesis stage. If the results are not convincing for you then the whole of his thought should be discarded until you are confronted with new evidence but i think you should at least engage with all of the material before you make any judgement. and if you are worried about the reproducibility of his case studies i would urge you to look into pic related.

[Anonymous No.20001278]

>>19996063
Read Modern Man in Search of a Soul

[Anonymous No.20001287]

>>20001278

[Anonymous No.20001288]

>>19996364
Bumping this question

[Anonymous No.20001298]

>>20000628
>psychology in general since it is a field that relies highly on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence that science tries to stick to
not true in modern psych at all
research in psychology needs to follow the scientific method, and if it does not have the proper control and statistical analysis behind it is considered to be not psychology (could be philosophy of the mind, or anthropological studies)

[Anonymous No.20001374]

>>20001298
I said that psych does follow the scientific method. what i see is the problem most people have with psych studies (and why they may think their methods and results feel like pseudoscience) is because the data they use is anecdotal (statements about the results) rather than empirical (numbers and figures). This usually strikes people as an issue because anecdotal data relies (in their eyes) on subjective experience and thus will be impossible to recreate if tested elsewhere (which is why i brought up reproducibility).

[Anonymous No.20001436]

>>19996063
It is pseudo-science but that’s not a bad thing.
The problem with pseudo-science is that people overinflate its value in objective real-world applications. Read good pseudo-scientists like Jung (most of psychology is pseudo-science) as a way to explore ideas that can’t simply be tested via scientific methods, at least easily. Feel for what seems “right” to your intuition and experiences, but always examine it back through logical processes and don’t go schizo with it. People like Jung are valuable when they aren’t taken as gospel; he has tons of good and cool ideas, but only the ignorant would think he was infallible.

[Anonymous No.20001461]

>>19996918
JP likes Jung because /lit/ does, bucko.

[Anonymous No.20001481]

>>19996187
>Look, I know reddit has abused the "have a source?" argument and you're going through a rebellious phase but to completely dismiss the whole scientific process is juvenile

I can do the scientific process in my garage. The difference between science and basedence is the latter relies on credentialism whereas science does not.

[Anonymous No.20001542]

I've read Campbell and tried to read Jung, because archetypes and mythological structures are really interesting. But I just can't relate to any of it. I don't understand how so much importance can be placed on dreams. I don't think I've ever had a really vivid or significant dream in my life, but they act like everyone is having them all the time and they are a fundamental part of how we understand reality.

I want to believe, but dreams and synchronicity are just not part of my experience.

[Anonymous No.20001548]

>>20001542
Stop smoking weed and start taking melatonin

[Anonymous No.20001555]

>>20001548
Not him but I don't.

[Anonymous No.20001573]

>>20001548
I have never smoked weed.

[Anonymous No.20002381]

>>20001481
>I can do the scientific process in my garage
Yeah no shit. The appeal of the method is that it can be applied anywhere.

[Anonymous No.20002418]

>>19996187
What are you even asking faggot?

[Anonymous No.20002445]

>>19996063
If a man studies only pseudoscience; he will be smarter than any man who studied none.

Why?

Because pseudoscience contains facts in it. Pseudoscience also contains a story which aids in the learning of the information.

So what is science? Science is simply a collection of facts. It can be nothing else. Yes, learning the collection of facts is useful, but even in science we see a corrupting of language itself. Go look at any medical study and all the UB47 and ITF6 type biology terms ruins understanding of the subject. If the whole point of learning science is to learn studying science only makes us know less.

Don't think pseudoscience is useless.

[Anonymous No.20002508]

>>20001542
You might be an unironic NPC. Just today I had a dream where I was talking with Einstein at his house. He was really old but despite that was in good heath and had a cute Russian gf to do household chores. We also talked about Noam Chomsky.

I could explain what I think the dream was communicating, but it would be a waste of time since its symbolism is deeply subjective and wouldn't make sense to anyone but me

[Anonymous No.20002564]

>>20002508
Maybe its just how you perceive your dreams. I have had similar dreams with certain people and random pieces of context from real life, but I would say it was just a mish-mash of random events and things in my dream, whereas you would perceive there to be a symbolic meaning behind your dream.

[Anonymous No.20002683]

>>20002564
I agree that profound dreams are rare, although they do occasionally come. I also don't keep a dream diary, so my own ability to analyze my dreams are pretty amateur. Often the easiest to spot symbols are the mundane things like for example, I watched a video with Noam Chomsky yesterday, and then in my dream I talk about him with Einstein.

The dream provided a space and situation in which I could consult with my subconscious about something that came up in that video.

It only seems like Jung constantly witnesses profound dreams because he did analysis with many different people, and so naturally built a backlog. He also had quite an active imagination himself. But I would be willing to bet that most of his dreams, and most dreams he observed from patients, were of the mundane variant that I described

[Anonymous No.20002883]

>>20001542
In terms of personality psychology , you may just be low in the trait Openness.

[Anonymous No.20003040]

>>19996063
once you realize the limitations of science, and how crude and myopic it really is, you can go beyond into the complex and the speculative. Consider that orbital mechanics cannot provide analytic functions to describe the interactions between 3 or more celestial bodies. That should be warning enough that scientific knowledge does not have answers for 99.9999999999999% of phenomena in the universe.

[Anonymous No.20003745]

Virgin Freud vs Chad Jung

[Anonymous No.20004297]

>>20003040
>Consider that orbital mechanics cannot provide analytic functions to describe the interactions between 3 or more celestial bodies.
and? there’s an entire world of dynamic systems that you can make up that have no closed form expression. In fact, most of them don’t. Yet you can predict their behaviours with reasonable accuracy with a set of differential equations.

>scientific knowledge does not have answers for 99.9999999999999% of phenomena in the universe
Please explain why Jung theory is knowledge (versus an explanation of some phenomenas that seems to vaguely makes sense but has no correspondance to reality)

[Anonymous No.20004583]

>>19996063
It does seem interesting and has been on my plan to read for a while, particularly the history/society based stuff, but I don't have much actual discussion to offer. Am also interested in Spengler.

[Anonymous No.20004598]

>>20004583
>but i dont have much actual discussion
glad you posted to tell us you have nothing to post. but next time just writw bump. it will save you some time.

[Anonymous No.20005628]

Just to kick the hornet's nest a little more.

It seems the dividing line here is the utility of modern day science. My stance is that philosophy - in any form - should be the foundation for the WHY and the compass for where to begin a search. Science should be addressing the HOW.

[Anonymous No.20005697]

>>20002445
Did your tarot cards reveal this you? You're not a Pisces or Scorpio by any chance are you?

[Anonymous No.20005701]

>>20001288
red book

[Anonymous No.20005756]

What are the essential works of Jung? People say to save the Red Book for last. I've already read OP's, Psychology and Religion, and began Psychology and Alchemy yesterday.
I don't really care about the unscientific nature of his works, I just find his ideas interesting enough to consider. Plus reading Man and his Symbols gave me at least an appreciation for world religions. Not saying I necessarily try to bend them to the jungian perspective but I wouldn't even have considered looking into hinduism without reading Jung for example. Technically I haven't really looked into it that much but I know of some of the basic metaphysical claims and concepts like the trimurti, Brahman, Om etc, which I got from the introduction of my copy of the Upanishads but I haven't read the text proper yet. Ordered the bhagavad-gita on a whim after my reading session because I might as well and I know it's considered the summarized thinking of the Upanishads so I guess it's for context, too.
Not a fan of everything he has to say, though. The synchronicity bit from what I remember of it sounded a lot like grasping at straws. Well I mostly remember him illustrating it early on in Man and his Symbols with a clock stopping at the moment of some dude's death or something. I'm fuzzy on how it's detailed later on but still.

[Anonymous No.20005766]

>>20005756

[Anonymous No.20005770]

>>20005756
>>20005766

[Anonymous No.20005810]

>>20005766
>>20005770
Thanks for the charts

[Anonymous No.20006319]

Want to read these in German but the German editions are so fucking expensive what is this jewery
Meanwhile the English edition of MAHS is 10 bucks new

[Anonymous No.20006403]

>>19996063
seems like you got filtered hard

[Anonymous No.20006425]

>>20001542
If you want dreams, start taking turmeric with black pepper daily, preferably with unfiltered apple cider vinegar for your gut health.

[Anonymous No.20006758]

>>20005766
>>20005770
I actually read the Red Book pretty early on in my studies. But that was because the Jungian mystic on /b/ told me to do so in order to understand my own unconscious active imagination practice. I’ve now read Aion and a good deal of his other works, so I’d say I’m due for a re-read.

[Anonymous No.20006831]

>>20006425
but Jordan Peterson said apple cider is the devil

[Anonymous No.20006843]

>>20006831
No he didn’t, you retard. He personally has a host of autoimmune disorders that make it so he can’t consume most foods. He’s very up front that he and his daughter’s diet are very specific remedies for their very rare circumstances. Nowhere do either of them recommend going all meat except in those cases.

[Anonymous No.20006867]

>>19996063
Imo Jung's work is scientific and empirical in the sense that it's a kind of subjective science. Jung isn't asking you to simply believe something unfalsifiable, he's encouraging you to see for yourself.
Science in its common form/definition is necessarily quantitative, whereas people like Jung try to tackle the qualitative.

As a secondary kinda adjacent recommendation, Bernado Kastrup's book Decoding Jung's Metaphysics might be an interesting short read for you, but supplement it with other sources too as Kastrup is explicating his own view as much as he is Jung's.

[Anonymous No.20007010]

Jung is trash, Freud is far superior in basically every single way

[Anonymous No.20007023]

Also there is no such thing as pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.20007027]

>>20007010
Freud was an atheist faggot

[Anonymous No.20007037]

>>20007027
He accurately pointed out that religion is a death cope. Seethe more cope fag.

[Anonymous No.20007041]

>>20006831
8/8. Yet for those who actually want to know, unfiltered apple cider vinegar is packed with enzymes and is a bit acidic which really promotes digestion and gut health. Jordan spoke about apple cider to my recollection. Anyhow, check out healthy keto. It is great for mind and body.

[Anonymous No.20007066]

>>20007010
Freud was coomer trash. He would literally fap himself to death if he was born a zoomer.

[Anonymous No.20007067]

>>19997015
Comte is positivism. James and Peirce are radical empiricists

[Anonymous No.20007071]

>>20007037
>A Jew pointing out anything accurate
Sure, pal

[Anonymous No.20007751]

>>19996906
How do you empirically prove empirical data?
>just trust the scientists bro. they have a phd, they are automatically trustworthy and correct