Jungian psychoanalysis vs. Traditionalism

[Anonymous No.20727716]

Who wins first place as the end-all Weltanschauung?

[Anonymous No.20727750]

>>20727716
For me, Jungian stuff has been more helpful practically

[Anonymous No.20727862]

>>20727750
Well obviously, its centered on man. But the traditional view supercedes it, placing practical knowledge at the bottom rungs of the hierarchy. Are there any grounds on which Traditionalism may be refuted?

By principle Jung seems to be the only thing I could never relinquish for Tradition. It stands above all other major creations of modern thought but is clearly incompatible with any true traditional thought.

[Anonymous No.20727975]

>>20727716
Example of some traditionalist work in terms of the mind?

[Anonymous No.20728937]

>>20727716
traditionalism only applies to a specific time and place, jungianians applies to all

[Anonymous No.20729578]

>>20727716
Jung sees far deeper, as a German thinker (inb4 Swiss). Traditionalism has a lot of value and interesting ideas but they also have a lot of pretense in the stead of thought. They also have like a lot of French and Italians and other completely unphilosophical nations and no Germans.

Plus Jung understood traditionalism, while they didn't understand him. To a real traditionalist, Jung is part of it.

[Anonymous No.20730220]

>>20727716
Weltanwhat?

[Anonymous No.20730221]

>>20727716
>This Pseudoscience vs. This other Pseudoscience
You might as well be arguing catholicism vs Muslimism.

[Anonymous No.20730316]

>>20730221
And in your view, what wouldn’t be pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.20730344]

Understanding Jung gives you a better understanding of traditionalism and a better understanding of the forces that move yourself and world at large. What in Jung is 'incompatible' with traditional throught?

[Anonymous No.20730375]

>>20730344
It's just the traditionalists who seethe at Jung using words like 'empiricism' and 'complex'.

[Anonymous No.20730384]

>>20730375
I'm struggling to imagine where Jung would ever even use these words in any context.

[Anonymous No.20730484]

>>20730384
'Complex' is a psychoanalytical concept invented by Jung and adopted by Freud. Jung's psychology was also empirical in approach because it's a science, though what he discovered was necessarily antithetical to most scientific minds. See the following for further clarification:

carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/09/30/carl-jung-foreword-to-mehlich-fichtes-psychology-and-its-relation-to-the-present/#.Yt3BmHZBzIU

[Anonymous No.20730522]

>>20730484
Maybe I've been reading too much about alchemy and archetypes but I never got the impression Jung took the concept of complexes particularly seriously himself.

[Anonymous No.20730581]

>>20730316
>Please explain Epistemology
If you have to ask: the answer is clearly beyond your intellectual capacity. These people had some interesting things to say but at the end of the day they are basically spewing religion without a God.

[Anonymous No.20730592]

>>20730484
It was scientific, not a science. It wasn't antithetical it was vidoeo that suffered the same replication crisis then as it does now.

[Anonymous No.20730593]

>>20730522
Jung's idea of complexes are different from Freud's. They aren't just insecurities, they're any 'complex' of emotions we have. So archetypes are at the bottom of complexes.

Jung went beyond psychoanalysis but he never rejected it. It's still important to read Freud to understand him.

[Anonymous No.20730602]

>>20730592
>It was scientific, not a science.
Maybe so but Jung still believed it was a science.

[Anonymous No.20730683]

>>20730581
what else is there?

[Anonymous No.20730705]

>>20730344
>What in Jung is 'incompatible' with traditional throught?
Uhhh idk the fact that it negates higher principle?
>>20730221
embarrassing
>>20730220
worldview

[Anonymous No.20730737]

>>20730705
>it negates higher principle
Okay. How?

[Anonymous No.20732013]

>>20727716
Both.

[Anonymous No.20732135]

>>20730705
>Pseudointelectual marches on inspite overwhelmingly being outed for spewing low iq nonsense.
>>20730737
>the fact
Like ALL Dunning Krigers he can't define his absolutes robustly. Might as well ask him to explain Rayleigh scattering or the W- "boson"
Op is a religious zealot without the realization/acceptance of the religious part.

[Anonymous No.20732154]

>>20730602
I could care less what he believed, I care what he could demonstrate and replicate. He couldn't do either. If you can't replicate the results: you aren't doing science.
>>20730683
Whatever you want there to be. Just don't confuse it for what's going on now.

Psychology isn't science and never will be. Anyone that tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

[Anonymous No.20732172]

>>20729578
evola understood him, plus evola was very fluent and well read in german

[Anonymous No.20732223]

>>20732172
Evola understood him better than Guenon but was still filtered because he, like Guenon, thought it was a danger to 'real traditionalism'.

[Anonymous No.20732380]

>>20729578
Schuon was German.

[Anonymous No.20732397]

>>20729578
Schuon was German.

[Anonymous No.20732496]

>>20728937
>traditionalism only applies to a specific time and place, jungianians applies to all
One of the most important aspects of Traditionalism is that it is supra-temporal.

[Anonymous No.20732507]

>>20732496
>it's supra-temporal because I say so

[Anonymous No.20732510]

>>20732223
How was he filtered? Evola completely BTFO Jung's interpretation of alchemy. Evola is just correct on alchemy and plebs don't even realize it. Most are probably filtered by his book on Hermeticism, which Jung cites.

[Anonymous No.20732511]

>>20729578
>No Germans
What's wrong with this?

[Anonymous No.20732516]

>>20732507
Just google "perennialism" you dickhead.

[Anonymous No.20732518]

>>20732507
>implying i came up with the definition of Traditionalism
DURR

[Anonymous No.20732818]

>>20732496
Nothing is supra-temporal

[Anonymous No.20732847]

>>20732510
>Evola completely BTFO Jung's interpretation of alchemy.
Not really. If you mean by semantics, however, sure. But Evola doesn't "BTFO" Jung in any shape or form: the nigredo is just shadow work, and the later stages is integrating the anima. I've read the Hermetic Tradition, nowhere in that book does Evola refute Jung other than provide another form of jargon to describe the same process.

[Anonymous No.20732882]

From my understanding of evola's work, he didn't like jung because he talked about the lesser progressing into the greater. Evola thought that the greater degraded into the lesser.

[Anonymous No.20732891]

>>20727716
neither

[Anonymous No.20732911]

>>20732882
No, they thought the exact same thing, namely, that the "lesser" progressed into the "greater".

Evola was just autistic about semantics, and wrote a better book about alchemy than what Jung had written over the course of a couple of books. However, their actual teachings and interpretations are the same for anyone who has read them both; anyone who says otherwise hasn't read either author, or is too stupid to realise that their systems are the same.

[Anonymous No.20732922]

>>20732911
I haven't read jungs work, so I can't ask questions about the jungian system. But if you read both of them, and think they are the same. Then alright.

[Anonymous No.20732940]

>>20727716
Jungian psychoanalysis is like teaching our ancestors their own religions, is modernist cope

[Anonymous No.20733078]

>>20727862
Traditionalism is a kind of modernism, although it pretends not to be. Jung embraces modernity, or rather the language of science, because he thinks it is inevitable. The Spirit of the Deep must be expressed in the terms of the Spirit of the Times, in order for it to be consciously understood. Otherwise its contents remain unconscious.

Traditionalism is ultimately an offshoot of Freemasonry. Jung is an 'African'—he is a spirit medium and a shaman.

[Anonymous No.20733297]

>>20733078
>religiosity
>>20732847
>>20732510
>Here we argue Bible versus

[Anonymous No.20733718]

>>20732154
>I care what he could demonstrate and replicate.
>Psychology isn't science and never will be

wait what, so how do we go about better understanding the human experience from a post-enlightenment perspective, surely you don't think we get there by measuring neurons and brain density?

>what's going on now.
Instead of being ambiguous for the sake of seeming interesting just tell us what you believe?

[Anonymous No.20733847]

>>20727716
The aspects of shared believe; stories myths and ethos of a collective group of people are an eternal function of human experience and development. The issue of enlightenment and empiricism is that while it brought us immense understanding of matter; things measured by space,mass and temporality, it has not properly incorporated human language. You cant use mathematical relationships to explain words or mythos, it is clearly an irrational, or dionysian endeavor within the world of art, poetry and religion. Religion, better described as a collective spiritual understanding is fundamentally incompatible with empiricism; and inversely empiricism is incompatible with human language. Its as simple as that, trying to reconcile both in a worldview is just not possible, you have to make concessions going either direction. We can still go further and even look at the rise and fall of nations and how to coincide with the embrace or rejection of either the spiritual or the material and how exactly geopolitical/historical conditions could have impacted them.

[Anonymous No.20733871]

>>20733847
sorry, I meant civilizations rather than nations as we are really discussing tradition and belief here.

[Anonymous No.20733880]

>>20729578
Schuon was Jewish.

[Anonymous No.20734429]

>>20732496
in practice it isnt

[Anonymous No.20734431]

>>20727862
>Jung seems to be the only thing I could never relinquish for Tradition

What's Tradition? That Guenon said annihilationism is best?

[Anonymous No.20734436]

>>20727716
jung clears fr fr

[Anonymous No.20734437]

>>20727716
Reject Guenon and embrace Henry Corbin, who was influenced partly by Jung. Jung said one of Corbin's writings on him was the only time someone ever truly understood him.

Corbin has more interesting takes on Islam too, which Guenon actually didn't know much about. On the other hand, Corbin doesn't much care about Hinduism and Shankara.

[Anonymous No.20734676]

>>20733847
Jung never tried to construct an absolute empirical worldview, and didn't pretend as if the empirical side he was coming from 'explained' all of the phenomena. He outright states the contradictory nature of a science of the mind from within the mind.

[Anonymous No.20734912]

>>20730737
>In assuming its modern form, science has lost not only in depth
but also, one might say, in stability, for its attachment to principles
enabled it to share in their immutability to the extent that its subject-matter allowed, whereas being now completely confined to the
world of change, it can find nothing in it that is stable, and no fixed .
point on which to base itself; no longer starting from any absolute
certainty, it is reduced to probabilities and approximations, or to
purely hypothetical constructions that are the product of mere individual fantasy.

in what way is psychoanalytic theory attached to the absolute? What Jung deals with is specifically the contents of the psyche. Although he does give value to "God" and all myth he only treats them so as symbols, not as existent truth. it seems to fall under the category of "profane."
>>20732135
this is 4chan. its not that serious. i didnt claim to be a prodigy, if that wasnt clear when i typed "Uhhhhh idk--."
>Might as well ask him to explain Rayleigh scattering or the W- "boson"
You just sound like a pretentious faggot anon

[Anonymous No.20734918]

>>20734912
goddamn that wrap text

[Anonymous No.20735436]

>>20727716
Jung thought that after the Death of God we could all sit around the collective campfire creating mythological tales that would allow us to cope until we found a more substantial God(probably something like the collective being of all beings).

But, so far we are only really producing Marvel Movies and Harry Potter so RIP humanity for now.

Not sure why you think Jung was against Tradition, he just wanted us to revitalize and update it.

[Anonymous No.20735583]

>>20735436
>Not sure why you think Jung was against Tradition

Because Guenonians think if your philosophy doesn't preach annihilation it's against Tradition. They see Jung as a potential threat.

[Anonymous No.20736310]

I'm going to ask here because I don't want to make a new thread - where can I read about the psychology of self-hatred? Specifically emasculation, feelings of social alienation, sexual ineptitude.

[Anonymous No.20736336]

>>20727975
> Example of some traditionalist work in terms of the mind?
There is none, the closest thing would be articles on the Advaita Vedanta theory of mind such as linked below, which is the metaphysics that the Traditionalist school most often roots itself in.

https://www.academia.edu/81836850/Absolute_Space_and_the_Structure_of_Consciousness_in_Advaita_Vedānta_Philosophy?f_ri=9040

[Anonymous No.20736376]

>>20734437
> Corbin has more interesting takes on Islam too, which Guenon actually didn't know much about. On the other hand, Corbin doesn't much care about Hinduism and Shankara.
Corbin knew embarrassingly little about Hinduism and Shankara, in one speech on the topic of ‘oriental non-dualism’ that was transcribed as an essay and which is available online, Corbin repeats a number of elementary mistakes and misconceptions about non-dual Vedanta, and at one point equivocates its position with the “no-self” position of Buddhism, even though Shankara actually posited a near-identical model of consciousness as Suhrawardi (whom Corbin salivates over) several centuries before Suhrawardi. Corbin may be a valuable source when it comes to studying shiism or the ashraqi school but he is evidently clueless about the metaphysics to the east of the Islamic world.

[Anonymous No.20737143]

>>20735436
>Jung was against Tradition
im claiming its the other way around

[Anonymous No.20737146]

>>20727716
Pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.20737183]

>>20736376
Shankara is the no-self position of Buddhism though. Advaitins live their entire lives in denial about this.

You can't say he was wrong simply because he didn't drink the kool aid.

[Anonymous No.20737566]

>>20737146
Pic related