/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21368222]

Is he worth reading?

[Anonymous No.21368262]

>>21368222
I don't know, is he?

[Anonymous No.21368281]

>>21368262
I'll take that as a yes

[Anonymous No.21368310]

No, Freud's better

[Anonymous No.21368323]

Yes.

The Red Book, Aion, Mysterium C., Reflections, Answers to Job, and On Synchronicity are all classics.

[Anonymous No.21368395]

>>21368310
What makes you say that?

[Anonymous No.21368412]

>>21368222
I don't particularly care for him, but it doesn't hurt to give him a try.

[Anonymous No.21368472]

>>21368412
Can you explain why you dont care for him? I picked up a copy of his Structure and Dynamics of the psyche because a psychologist I like loves Jung and after reading about 50 pages it's been fun linking some of his ideas to my own psychology, but I'm worried that a lot of it will be outdated musings on how the mind works.

[Anonymous No.21368483]

>>21368222
You aren't sure if Carl Jung is worth reading, but you are positive that the random opinions of strangers on Carl Jung are worth reading?

[Anonymous No.21368494]

>>21368222
I'm pretty sure he is. At the very least it's much more worthwhile to read anything by Jung than literally any other self-help book

[Anonymous No.21368750]

>>21368222
first read Man and his symbols

[Anonymous No.21368760]

No, the only real field in psychology is neuropsychology.

[Anonymous No.21368773]

>>21368472
>I'm worried that a lot of it will be outdated musings on how the mind works
Word of advice: stop caring about what's "outdated" and what isn't, if you aren't a scholar and don't have any pretensions of becoming one. Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" is horribly outdated by historiographical standards, but it is incredibly current and universally relevant when taken on imaginative and philosophical grounds. The same works with Freud, who survives today as one of the most incredible essayists of the modern era, despite his psychological analyses having very little empirical value. I haven't read Jung, but the same could be true of him.

[Anonymous No.21368795]

>>21368760
Why? It seems that looking at which parts glow up on MRIs while a patient is conscious has absolutely zero significance for clinical psychology (which is the only use for psychology) because it can't say anything about root causes

[Anonymous No.21368799]

>>21368760
Fag who believes in objectivism

[Anonymous No.21368818]

>>21368760
What makes Jung incompatible with neuropsychology, exactly?

[Anonymous No.21368834]

>>21368773
Noted. This is a constructive way of looking at

[Anonymous No.21368843]

>>21368222
yes but you may get filtered if you aren't about getting weird with the wizardly mysticism that underpins all of his work (which is what makes him so based)

[Anonymous No.21368851]

>>21368310
why not read both

[Anonymous No.21368981]

>>21368310
tpbp
realtalk though there's nothing wrong with reading jung as long as you've read freud already

[Anonymous No.21368988]

>>21368981
What makes Freud better?

[Anonymous No.21368993]

>>21368988
Freud is the astronomy to Jungs astrology.

[Anonymous No.21369037]

>>21368323
>answers to Job
I like Jung except when he talks about the Bible, nothing but eisegesis, incorrect interpretations, assumptions, and foolishness. But he is a good author. I’ve always enjoyed him when he is not interpreting the Bible or making theological statements.

[Anonymous No.21369233]

>>21368993
I get Jung is considered a mystic, but didn't he really just say that due to the inherent nature of the human mind we have certain inborn motifs and instincts that we naturally categorize? Like they're a biologically rooted method of pattern recognition? That doesn't seem far fetched to me, unless you're referring to some other Jungian idea that legitimizes comparing him to an astrologer

[Anonymous No.21369504]

Seriously what was Jung's IQ?
Aion reads as if he had spent his life studying European history and theology, but he was a full time psychologist.
He apparently built some little manor by himeslf? He painted & drew?
The Red Book even if BS is a great read and clearly he shows he could have been a writer.

[Anonymous No.21369738]

>>21369504
I would guess somewhere in the 130 - 150 range, not that he would care too much about it.
He truly was an impressive guy when you put the pieces of his life together.

[Anonymous No.21370027]

>>21368222
checked

Of course he is, moreso than most writers.

>>21369504
I think he had an IQ of 160, but I could be misremembering it. He was, nevertheless, a very intelligent man, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.21370038]

>>21369504
You'd be surprised how much you can learn with a decent memory + reading a lot in your free time (ie, when you are not working and reading work-related material). His IQ would not necessarily be that high. You would expect him to have a high IQ if he was simultaneously solving advanced physics problems while working in psychiatry.

[Anonymous No.21370073]

>>21368222
no. cheap schlock and drivel.

[Anonymous No.21370168]

>>21368773
good post

[Anonymous No.21370397]

>>21370038
>You'd be surprised how much you can learn with a decent memory + reading a lot in your free time (ie, when you are not working and reading work-related material)
any anti-work book recs?
>inb4 marx

[Anonymous No.21370593]

>>21370073
Why?

[Anonymous No.21370600]

>>21370593
Take Freud and add a non-subversive aryan element to it and there you have Jung.

[Anonymous No.21370731]

>>21370397
>Marx and Engels

[Anonymous No.21370742]

>>21370397
Why wouldn't you want to work? Man's natural state is to keep busy producing

[Anonymous No.21370830]

>>21370742
Not producing value for this rotten society is the lord's work and I do it with pride. Besides, I work for myself. I take care of my muscles with physical exercise, I read and I learn. If it is within your means to do so, not "working" is your moral responsibility.

[Anonymous No.21370857]

>>21368222
>had his own wizard tower
>was a more chad version of nietzsche
>cucked his wife regularly
>/fit/ as fuark and not a manlet
>called niggers lesser race
Yes.

[Anonymous No.21371417]

>>21368222
Where does he talk about determinism vs. free will? Some anon made a thread about this a few weeks ago, and he seemed annoyed that Jung wouldn't address determinism head on but would instead raise the subject merely to punt it. From what I recall, Jung rejected determinism but wouldn't really explain why.

So I've been googling Jung and determinism and finding very little. I've read the first section of The Undiscovered Self and it hasn't come up and a word search doesn't yield any of the usual suspects. Can anyone identify the particular texts where Jung so much as mentions the free will vs. determinism debate?

[Anonymous No.21371444]

>>21369233
liber novus is considered to many the work of an absolutely unhinged and schizoid person, so go figure

[Anonymous No.21371446]

>>21368993
that is a putdown to freud. his ouevre is well founded on "astrological" levels of intuition.

[Anonymous No.21371519]

>>21371417
In his essay Psychological Factors Determining Human Behavior he briefly touches on the topic:

>A discussion of the dynamic factors determining human behavior is obviously incomplete without mention of the will. The part the will plays, however, is a matter for dispute, and the whole problem is bound up with philosophical considerations, which in turn depend on the view one takes of the world. If the will is posited as free, then it is not tied to causality and there is nothing more to be said about it. But if it is regarded as predetermined and causally dependent upon the instincts, it is an epiphenomenon of secondary importance.

[Anonymous No.21371564]

>>21371519
Thanks! Seems like a position I've seen a lot--basically a refusal to engage with the issue. Just a cursory acknowledgment that the issue exists, and a suggestion that people will believe what they want to believe and what practical difference does it really make anyway? Very unsatisfying, but that's what I expected.

[Anonymous No.21371873]

>>21368222
I think so but Im retarded so maybe not.

[Anonymous No.21371956]

>>21371444
Who the fuck cares what blocks say about it, let them eat their anti depressants as they insist on soul crushing hyper rational nihilism

[Anonymous No.21372748]

>>21371564
In my opinion it's better than just lying and pretending he has a proper answer. While this is more entertaining and satisfying, it is less scientific, less intelligent, less truthful.

[Anonymous No.21372759]

>>21368222
the book "on dreams & psychological reflections" is one of the best books i've ever read in my life.

strictly speaking it's lectures edited into numbered sections, thomas merton style, but it feels very fluent and whole. strongly recommend

[Anonymous No.21372838]

>>21371564
He is a psychologist, not a philosopher. He is saying the issue is outside of his domain.

[Anonymous No.21373020]

>>21368993
I also think feminists suffer from hysteria

[Anonymous No.21373183]

>>21373020
Qrd?

[Anonymous No.21374102]

>>21370731
oh you
>>21370742
work is the task of slaves. it seems democracy has seeped well into your ideology. at what point was it in man's history that industriousness replaced leisure as a virtue? nowadays a man is ashamed when he isn't working, has no work, has no great title or income.
>inb4 you quote stoics or some masculine idealization of work
those are the ideal workers.
another thing i find unfortunate among all types so relentless to name man's natural state is that it's always merely some means to justify their own condition. but for you to go along you must need it, you ought to have your own sun to light your way and i will not take that from you. "God sells us all things at the price of labor" so said Da Vinci, but really that's /your/ christian god. for some others, our needs are a bit more diverse.

tl;dr man's natural state, perhaps. but not mine.

[Anonymous No.21374107]

>>21368310

[Anonymous No.21374108]

>>21369037
This, Answer to Job is truly retarded

[Anonymous No.21374121]

>>21374102
Would you rather just be a pampered fatass that does nothing all day like the people in Wall E? I think back to as a child where even before the full extent of my "conditioning" I was constantly playing, building, drawing, creating, naturally being productive. What's the alternative in your mind?

[Anonymous No.21374682]

>>21374121
that you even ask for an alternative already betrays the difference in our state of mind. you're still speaking in a language that's "for the people". i'm not speaking for your sake, good fellow. for all you or i know, you're already very much on the right track. but what's medicine for you is poison for me.
>Would you rather just be a pampered fatass that does nothing all day like the people in Wall E?
do you see what i mean? you're creative when it comes to productive work, but when it comes to leisure you've lost all imagination here. why, it even seems foreign to you that there be types of leisure that elevate a man, that require long periods of inactivity, or in your terms, un-productivity. as was once put, boredom is that windless calm that precedes good voyages. such long stretches of time are unavailable to workers, a class that has grown much larger as time has passed i.e. the employee. all the playing, building, and drawing you mentioned does not need to fall under work, in fact, it almost sounds as if you've co-opted the activities of leisure and named them "work". but playing is no longer playing if it has to produce, if the producing gets in the way of the playing.

[Anonymous No.21374832]

>>21374682
I certainly don't argue for an absence of leisure, but would you disagree that work is required to enjoy leisure just as coldness must exist for hotness to exist? When I earlier mentioned drawing and playing as a child, I meant to liken those to an immature form of work in that you're channeling your innate drive towards creativity and activity (do you agree this drive exists?) towards a goal directed activity. When you're older, a more mature version of this same phenomenon can be called work I would argue, in which you're using the same drive that propels a child to create to make money and to contribute to society as an adult. I don't have thr greatest grasp of philosophy or argumentation so these definitions may be shaky, but I'm curious what your ideal daily schedule would look like apparently absent of "work."

[Anonymous No.21375010]

>>21374832
>would you disagree that work is required to enjoy leisure
no, i would not.
>just as coldness must exist for hotness to exist
yes, i would.
>When you're older, a more mature version of this same phenomenon can be called work I would argue
i would say the opposite. it's a more regressed form. said elsewhere, adults are just atrophied children. leisure is the higher form of work, work the base. while work is required to enjoy leisure to its highest, no amount of leisure is necessitated in work. work exists on the lower level, and the higher levels subsume the lower. they are not opposites, but higher and lower forms.
>an immature form of work in that you're channeling your innate drive towards creativity and activity (do you agree this drive exists?) /towards a goal directed activity./
children have no such goals. they do not shake the rattle with a goal in mind. they are closer to pure, instantaneous doing (closer to play), whereas we require goals, means and ends (closer to work).
>in which you're using the same drive that propels a child to create to make money and to contribute to society as an adult
they are not the same. adults represent a break in development from children. in one place it is said, from the age of 5 to 20 years is but a small step, but from birth to 1 year, an appalling distance. in other ways, Picasso says it took him 5 years to paint like Michelangelo, and a whole lifetime to paint like a child. children don't spare a single thought to making money or contributing to society mechanically.

>but I'm curious what your ideal daily schedule would look like apparently absent of "work."
the absence of work broadly defined would merely be the absence of anything done out of necessity. children don't play because they need to, they just do. there's no degree of separation, no need for lifestyle fit, no working around a schedule. it's the adult who introduces these things. aimless walks, short-lived hobbies, and whatever else sticks--there's really not much point in naming precisely the infinite things to be done in pursuit of leisure, of higher play. do children complain when you hand them a stick and they treat it a sword? or babies who find interest in anything, whether it's something an adult calls a toy or not a toy? i could tell you i wanted to learn the piano, but that's too rigid. too much like something an adult would come up with. i would want to /play/ the piano. much different. the action is disentangled from the goal, becomes unnecessary, and thus, free. and so we come back full circle to how work is done by slaves-- the unfree.

>I certainly don't argue for an absence of leisure
and so with everything said thus far, you in fact do. work is the absence of leisure. enjoying work puts it closer to leisure, yes, but the nature of work and its requirements make it so this is unnecessary, and so, never makes the right conditions for leisure. on the whole, work is hostile to leisure on its own.

[Anonymous No.21375078]

>>21375010
We seem to disagree on the nature of adulthood and an adult's capacity to derive satisfaction from responsibility.

[Anonymous No.21375127]

>>21375078
no. at bottom it's a question of taste. thoughts being the shadows of emotions, i get the clear feeling you enjoy your work. as for me, it's run its course in the short-term. there's more i'd like to do that work gives no time for, so naturally i muster all the thoughts in that direction. in yet a different time there may still be higher moods for work, but for now i work with what i have. later bud

[Anonymous No.21375737]

>>21368222
this mf never read spengler