/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22738451]

>Read Hegel and have no idea what the fuck he's talking about
>Study Carl Jung for a few years
>Come back to Hegel
>Makes complete sense and is easy to understand
lmao, thank you Jung.

[Anonymous No.22738454]

>Makes complete sense and is easy to understand
you are lying

[Anonymous No.22738475]

>>22738454
Challenge me, if you dare.

[Anonymous No.22738533]

>>22738451
jung hated all philosophers after kant
to "understand hegel" you need to at least accomodate his german predecessors, like fichte schelling and kant himself.

[Anonymous No.22738788]

>>22738533
Jung was just self-unconscious in that he was constantly divided between being an empirical scientists and a philosopher. He dismissed contemporary philosophers as rubbish without reading them because he was semi-consciously regretful about a type of life that he didn’t live. If he had thought about it more or had more time I am sure he would have appreciated Heidegger and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.22739967]

>>22738451
>hegel
>making sense
That wasn't the point

[Anonymous No.22740265]

>>22738475
Explain Absolute Knowing right now. Explain Hegel's view of Kant's noumena-phenomena distinction right now.

[Anonymous No.22740292]

>>22739967
This. The true way to understand Hegel is by stating incorrect interpretations of Hegel on 4chan, inviting others to respond in kind, and letting the thread converge on yet another incorrect interpretation of Hegel.

The true dialectic is the frens we make along the way.

[Anonymous No.22740384]

>>22740265
Absolute knowing is just the problem of infinite semiosis.

I dunno what the other shit is. Noumena and phenomena are in a dyadic and reciprocal relationship, so whatever kant says about one just add a minus to the start of the proposition and you'll get a positive description of the other lmao.

Fuck I love having a 150 iq

[Anonymous No.22740405]

>>22738533
Jung read and appreciated all of the German Idealists (even if Schopenhauer was the big influence), Hartmann, Nietzsche, Bergson and probably quite a few others. He had a divided appreciation of Heidegger but in the end he did accept his importance.

[Anonymous No.22740429]

>>22738451
If philosophy is hard to understand then it is bad philosophy. Modern philosophy like pic related and the books by Bernardo Kastrup are easy to understand. Indeed, NDEs are irrefutable proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so undeniably real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"I saw how life never ends. I remembered the process of reincarnation is endless, wonderful and truly eternal. I witnessed my own spiritual evolution and saw that I had existed long before this present incarnation (where I am now a male human). For me, watching the process of living life, after life, after life unfold, was mind-blowing! I undeniably observed that I had lived an innumerable amount of lives. My NDE clearly showed me that these bodies (we now inhabit) are not the first and only time we have existed! I saw that our soul and spirit is ancient! I also observed that there is no such thing as death."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

>muh brain chemistry

Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

>muh DMT causes it

Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

[Anonymous No.22740433]

>>22740405
I think he was probably afraid of becoming a lunatic, like almost all philosophers.

Jungs inner struggle was balancing metaphysics with psychoanalytic pragmatism. He held dear all sorts of unusual ideas, like that of telepathy or psychokensis. It was simply tempered by a scientific bent.

[Anonymous No.22740439]

>>22740433
>becoming a lunatic, like almost all philosophers.
kek

>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science there occur determinations quite different from those in ordinary consciousness and in so-called ordinary common sense-which is not exactly sound understanding but an understanding educated up to abstractions and to a belief, or rather a superstitious belief, in abstractions.

[Anonymous No.22740538]

>>22740384
You didn't read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.22740632]

>>22740384
>I dunno what the other shit is
How the fuck do you read Hegel without getting to his refutation of Kant's noumena-phenonena distinction? It's the key to Hegel's system of phenomenology, what he wrote is gibberish if you don't get this.