Jung thread

He was way ahead of his time, people are only just waking up to how good Jung is.

>>9021444
By being wrong about everything.

>>9021444
Jung is a psuedoscientist on the same level as Deepak Chopra

By going way beyond what was reasonable to assume

He wrote so many arcane, borderline incomprehensible things, but at the same time he struck gold with the Archetypes theory

>>9021476
Idk, everything I've read of him has either personally resonated with past or current me at the time of reading, or revealed itself at a later point in time.

He admittedly started seriously examining metaphysical ideas at a later point in his life, but basically everything he's writtens expressly states the limits of what he believes he can rationally attempt to explain and what is beyond comprehension.

Everyone should be familiar with his symbolistic interpretation though.

>>9021444
Occult + Psychoanalysis makes interesting shit.

What works would you recommend by him /lit/? I know the basics about his theories but have never read anything by him so I'm looking for a good entry point.

>>9021532
Man and his Symbols is the best entry point.
It was written at the end of his life with the intention of introducing the public to his works. First chapter is written by him, the rest by close colleagues.

It might seem a bit disjointed for the first 100 or so pages, at least it did to me, but it was impossible to put down past a certain point.
Be sure to approach it with an open mind.

>>9021578

Thanks for the rec, that seems to be just what I'm looking for

>>9021460
he never made claims to science.

>>9021493
>>9021493
do you know how religious you sound right now?

>>9021493
i think i should dig more into the works of his collaborators for Man and His Symbols

>>9021734
Not him, but why is that a bad thing?
"Read some Nee-chee on Truth" before you criticise religiosity.

>>9021734
Your concept of religion probably includes several vital elements of Jungian psychology so I can see how you'd think that.

That said, reading anything from the western canon is basically pointless without fostering an understanding of religion.

>>9021746
read some neechee on religiosity before you criticise criticism of religiosity

>>9021734
Jung explains religion.

(Spoiler: it's not what you think it is.)

>>9021532
The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscous.

>>9021444
Every time I read Jung, or even spend some time thinking about him, I'm struck by some startling synchronicity that just underlines his relevance.

And I'm guessing those trips of yours are no coincidence ...

>>9021888
HOLY FUCK! SEE WHAT I MEAN!

>>9021888
lek

>>9021888
...

File: mte5ntu2mze2mjy4njkzmdaz.jpg (78KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x900px

>>9021888

Nice!

>>9021888
>>9021890
>>9021896
>>9021911
>>9021915
Kek, don't even know why I'm making a fuss about it t.b.h. It's a well-documented Jungian phenomenon. It's happened to me more times that I care to count.

>>9021444
>>9021888
It's worth noting how important multiples of four are in Jung's theory of the Self when considering these two sets of trips.

>>9021922

nice dubs

>>9021930
OK, stop it already!

Singles get.

>>9021926
Absolutely right, and extra spooky.

>>9021922
>It's a well-documented Jungian phenomenon.
Non-Jungians like to call it "confirmation bias".

>>9021960
Non-Jungians inhabit a different reality tunnel.

I've conducted years' worth of tarot experiments (complete with control mechanisms) that more than convinced me of the existence of synchronicity.

(Don't worry if you don't believe me. It's important to get comfortable in your own reality.)

>>9021972
please dont shit up the thread

>>9021460
He formed conclusions based on empirical observations. That's what a scientist does.

>>9021982
What do you call shitting up? Jung endorsed divinatory methods as a way to generate synchronicities. He also wrote a foreword for Wilhelm's translation of the I Ching, complete with a divination of his own.

>>9022013
none of his claims are falsifiable

>>9021888
>>9021444
>>9021926
holy fuck this thread got jung'd

>>9021888

omg. Witness'd

double

bump bc I also think Jung is right about everything
its like the best of existentialism and mysticism rolled into 1 philosopher

>>9021444
>444
There go the fish again.

I just read Undiscovered self and Synchronicity.

It's like this man read Nietzsche (studied under him), Schopenhauer and Spinoza and mashed them together into a kind of philosophy that seeks to pave the way for humanity to transcend. Brilliant man, he's onto something big.

>>9022978
>Brilliant man, he's onto something big.
Why is he not a bigger thing in philosophy/literary departments? Honest question, it seems like all later philosophers and critics took after Freud and then you have postmodern faggots like Baudrillard, Lacan etc. and Lacanian analysis is it's whole own thing.

Jungians are kind of the weird hippie rejects of the humanities. I wonder why, few major artists cite Freud as an influence yet heaps tout the benefits Jungian psychology had on their work.

>>9022986
Freud is less work. No work at all, in fact. He managed to put together something that essentially functions as a template, in the form of an outlook that can be intuitively adopted and applied without the least need for creativity or self-involvement.

>>9022992
I always thought the archetypes/individuation type Jungian template seemed a lot more prevalent and easy to apply then Freudian ideas like the Oedipal complex, can you elaborate on what you mean?

>>9022160
They are absolutely falsifiable in the way this thread involves opinions saying they are false. And Jung would not have argued with your right to disagree with him.

He took his observations that we available to him and made models that helped him help people better. He is a pragmatist, in that his observations about the psyche were true if they were felt true for the client and offered them an opportunity to heal.

>>9021532
I honestly think Memories, Dreams, and Reflections is a great way to start. Wish I'd done it that way.

Really gives you a great sense of what you're dealing with and the underlying motivations behind the theories you can then chase up in more detail.

>>9021715
So wrong!

I'm currently reading Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, and it's really REALLY hard to understand.

But I think I get what he's talking about when he says that there are cognitive categories which are impossible to avoid, and that exist in all humans.(Like the notion of the Anima being some kind of archetypal mother; all cultures have some veneration for the feminine aspects of their humanity etc.).

That said, his writing is really esoteric, seems almost manic in a way.

bunp

“Over-civilization and barbarism are within an inch of each other. And a mark of both is the power of medicine-men.”

>>9023028

That's one of his easier works, actually.

But keep reading him; it's worth the effort.

File: 1393100957230.jpg (4KB, 160x151px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 160x151px

>>9023136
>That's one of his easier works, actually.

>>9021888
Praise kek!

>>9023192
Praise the trickster

>>9022986
>Why is he not a bigger thing in philosophy/literary departments?
The way his work interfaces with religion isn't likely to go down well in academia. Jung approved of religion, as a way of communing with the inner archetypes. He also studied various branches of the occult. I think academics just dismiss that as mumbo-jumbo, without bothering to understand where he's coming from.

There's another detail which will probably cause hangups among modern academics: Jung insists the psychic structures of men and women are fundamentally different. You can bet that causes a mass triggering in the universities ...

>>9021888
Praise kek! It's the same for me though, everytime i see his name, some weird thing happens

>>9023296
Both of those explanations make sense, it's probably due to both of those.

I feel like if Jung's ideas became more popular and we recognised the value of religion and the fundamental psychological differences of men and women, society would be radically improved.

But I'm just an autist on a Burmese finger puppet board so who am I to talk

>>9022986
Too esoteric, this whole synchronicity thing for example or his research of alchemy/occult things. I personally like his way of approaching these topics in a scientific way and not just denying their existence.
Take the collective unconsciousness most people would roll their eyes when hearing about it but it makes so much sense and it doesn't feel much different from the normal unconsciousness once you understand it.

>>9023334
The best explanation of the collective unconscious I ever heard explained that it's nothing mystical, it's like referring to the basic structure of the human arm as the 'collective arm,' except for the unconscious mind. I think that comparison makes the concept far more intuitive and believable, rather than obscure esoteric garbage.

>>9023338
That's a pretty good allegory for someone new to Jung

>>9023351
Exactly, if you're just getting into Jung you can easily misinterpret the Collective Unconscious to be some magical hivemind, which is far from the truth. Some friends I've tried to get into Jung have made that same mistake.

File: Julius+evola_67ac38_5128267.jpg (140KB, 780x683px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 780x683px

>>9022986
Same reason Marxism is so big in academia despite it not being anything near the most radical philosophy of its time--both tout a dirty "secret" of the world predicated on common bourgeoise ideology; i.e. they are a way for academics to gain power over the igonrant, rather than discover the power that is in themselves.

>>9023410
I need to read Evola once I'm comfortable with Jung, is Ride the Tiger really a good place to start? I've read that somewhere.

>i.e. they are a way for academics to gain power over the igonrant, rather than discover the power that is in themselves.

oh god I think you may be onto something here lmao

What exactly is the individuation process?

>>9024431
Finding and accepting yourself. And by yourself it is meant the whole thing.

>>9024479
Could you explain further? How does one go about doing this according to Jung?

File: Aleister_Crowley.jpg (13KB, 220x304px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x304px

>>9021444
Checked.

That Jung lived obviates my existence.

I've read Man and His Symbols, The Gnostic Jung by Hoeller, some of von Franz and Edinger's works, and a good portion of Joseph Campbell's oeuvre. I'm excited to tear into Jung's essays on active imagination. This Swiss genius has done more for me as a writer than anyone else on Earth.

>>9024548
Integrating all the subpersonalities that were generated by past trauma, repression or dissociation.

>>9025053
How is this meant to be done?

>>9023006
>in the way this thread involves opinions saying they are false.

That's not what falsifiability is though. Is this a joke?

File: 6a00d83451c29169e2014e5f869706970c-pi.jpg (117KB, 774x809px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 774x809px

Is there a more scientific take on his works? I mean, trying to prove that archetypes are indeed the left overs of supressed instincts or sonething. I will start Psychology, so I accept suggestions of research area.

>>9025007
>von Franz
I was thinking about getting her books about fairy tale archetypes, y/n?

File: 1485468328696.png (51KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x562px

>>9021493

Everything Max Stirner wrote resonated with me.

He's persauding you into his way of thinking, if you adopt it, then of course everything you see will fit into his framework. Its very hard to refute the idea that morality obtained outside of the self isn't a spook or that property is only something one can defend, doesn't mean its neccessarily true.

>>9025887

I was going to ask what your incoherent ass is on about, but then I realized I don't care.

>>9025905

I'll put in terms your autistic mind can understand.

>read book
>author comes with an explanation for things
>because you buy into the explanation, you start using it to explain things, and like magic, everything seems to fit together because you now fit everything you see into the explanation rather than observing things as they are

Make sense?

>>9025920
>observing things as they are
stuck in the beginnig of the 20th century much?

>>9021926
huh

>>9025693
Look it depends on what satisfies you in terms of evidence. There is a huge gulf between those psychologists who think that their sessions with clients are valid evidence in support or against psychological theory.

Then there are researchers who dismiss that evidence and think that evidence is only valid if it is gathered under strict empirical methods.

Now, your idea of falsifiability is dependent on what you are willing to consider as evidence. If you take the first premise as OK, then a theory can be falsifiable by opinion. If you go into a session with a client and they are free to reject your interpretation, and you are willing to use this to revise or reject your theory, then how is it not falsifiable?

File: Nicklandroid.gif (2MB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 440x440px

are there any theorists work that would be a synthesis of Hegel and Jung's ideas? Lacan and Deleuze comes to mind but not really

>>9021476
m-m-m-m-m-mmmuh reason!
>>9022160
Why is that relevant? Joke of a philosophy.

Jung is babbys first psychoanalysis. Horoscope tier

>>9026026
Bait.

>>9026061
You wish. Although Jung would literally take being compared to horoscopes as compliment since he unironically believed in astrology

File: images.jpg (26KB, 559x263px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 559x263px

>>9026065
He thought that, to understand ones neuroses, you needed to take more than a personal approach and see your life from the context of your societal zeitgeist and mythology. This is very different to your purposeful attempt to equate his opinions to tabloid bullshit.

Since it turns out you might not be pretending to be retarded, I'd also add that to properly understand Jung you need to apply the same context, which means being quite familiar with the models of consciousness and development put forward by Freud and Adler and such, so he is by no means entry level.

>While studying astrology I have applied it to concrete cases many times. ... The experiment is most suggestive to a versatile mind, unreliable in the hands of the unimaginative, and dangerous in the hands of a fool, as those intuitive methods always are. If intelligently used the experiment is useful in cases where it is a matter of an opaque structure. It often provides surprising insights. The most definite limit of the experiment is lack of intelligence and literal-mindedness of the observer. ... Undoubtedly astrology today is flourishing as never before in the past, but it is still most unsatisfactorily explored despite very frequent use. It is an apt tool only when used intelligently. It is not at all foolproof and when used by a rationalistic and narrow mind it is a definite nuisance. - C. G. Jung: Letters, volume 2, 1951-1961, pages 463-464, letter to Robert L. Kroon, 15 November 1958

Woah what a smart guy

>>9026073
See >>9026074, he outright claims it has an applicative use. But as usual with pseudo mystics only with the esoteric elite.
The issue is ultimately his praxes for what you are implying is simple context is nothing but contrived monolithic framings which undermines his entire analytic worth. There is no such thing as mythology

>>9026084
>There is no such thing as mythology
haha what

>>9021444
I just started reading "Man and His Symbols" and it's really engaging. I can't believe I waited this long to read it, really.

How does Carl Jung make the case of a "shadow," and that people often psychologically project their shadow aspect?

>>9026153
Mythology is a retroactive construction, it has no subconscious existence but is simply pure metadiscourse.

>>9026384
>concepts that were created in the past have no impact on people's current lives

If you strip back the unnecessary jargon you spout, your position is fucking ridiculous.

>>9025672

whether you like it or not in your mid 20s

>>9026419
The "jargon" is clearly not unnecessary if you end up at such a misreading. The point is Jung privileges the influence of narratives that are only prescriptively significant rather than analysing what is in fact a amalgomous and arbitrary background of countless imaginative experiences that are specific to each individual.
That's to say Jungians are talking about fucking Zeus when Homer Simpson is a million times more important to people today.

File: 1463807849956.jpg (59KB, 718x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 718x960px

>>9026467

>this sophomoric twat seriously thinks he has more insight than Jung

>>9026467
But Jungian concepts can still easily be found in popular culture, and many Jungians address this. Look at what Campbell has written about Star Wars. Of course Lucas was directly influenced by his monomyth but the same principle applies elsewhere.

Jungians do privilege mythological narratives over relevant, contemporary culture, but that doesn't mean that those contemporary narratives negate Jungian ideas.

>>9021444
that guy doesn't look very young

>>9021444
Because he was not a jew.

>>9026509
Yeah I am, thanks for noticing

>>9026541
Anything can be "found" in popular media, you could do a long post-colonial reading of Spongebob and it'd have as much analytic worth as describing the specific eternal archetype that Jar Jar Bink's represents. The point is whether its actually analytically useful, whether there is an actual correspondancy between what is going on in peoples heads and your interpretation. This is where Jung falls apart, his priviledging of prescribed significance is pure fetishization, he operates on a perverse desire not to actually deal with the traumatic and the incongruent in how fucked up, chaotic and indignified our mental life actually is but its exact opposite, its repression. By way of clean comforting nostalgia and an infantile adoration of the arbitrarily sanctified

File: 1471138567667.jpg (1MB, 4558x4542px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4558x4542px

>>9026636

>Yeah I am, thanks for noticing

Keep desperately LARPing the lone wolf genius over this wafer-thin contrarian purview of yours but just know that you post just like every other adolescent try hard that overreaches here.

>>9026677
Duly noted

>>9021888
I can't believe another person has experienced the same. This some white devil occult shit nigga.

>>9021460
Go read modern man in search of a soul. Jung is completely conscious of what rigor is necessary to show something to be true, why science is necessary for that and the limitations of his hypotheses.

Idiots like you who can't understand that it's possible to have great ideas that are before the time that science can prove them to be true or not, and that this is still useful.

>>9026467
>a amalgomous and arbitrary background of countless imaginative experiences that are specific to each individual

this is probably an illusion though. I'm pretty sure we're all essentially the same on some primal level that could probably be understood through our relationship to symbols that just happen to go by different names. I'm pretty sure this is what Jung was getting at.

>>9026985
Jung was proposing the exact opposite, he established a radical divide between the primal stages of development and the symbolic and its in this very insistence of the uniformity of experience that rendered it that way. Rather than ever seeing the emergent relationship to symbols in terms of our fundamental drives and power system context he tries to establish instead a self referential lineage in which symbols beget symbols ad nauseum.
Because the very notion of their lack of any fundamental rational and undivided origin is too traumatic for him and his admirers to recognize

>>9025672
Psychoanalysis.

>>9021972
Give me a reading, Anon.

>reading a racist fascist piece of shit

>>9021888
Thank you ,based Kek

>>9025920
It's called a schema.

>>9027176
>Literally spied against the Nazis in WWII

Wew lad

>"During the second world war, [Jung] also worked for the Office of Strategic Services, America's first intelligence agency, having been recruited by Allen Dulles, its Central European representative, who wrote about Jung's “deep antipathy to what Nazism and Fascism stood for”. Jung's analysis, written in 1945, of how best to get the German population to accept defeat was read by many, including General Eisenhower."

>>9022160
Wouldn't mean they aren't worth thinking about

Reminder that you can always be honest with yourself when applying Jung to your own experience.

>>9022986
Logical Positivists have stymied the study of the mind and subjective human experience for at least a century

>>9021888
Holy shit, it's Freud's shelf all over again.

It's worth noting that Pauli (yes, the famous quantum physicist) exchanged letters with Jung about synchronicity.
They're wonderfully condescending towards plebeians through it all.
http://xdel.ru/downloads/Pauli-Jung%20Letters%20-%20Atom%20and%20Archetype.pdf

>>9028030
>scientist

The original claim was that Jung was a scientist. He is not and that is my only point.

>>9027385
Turn coating as soon as its clear the war is lost after working on Nazi payrolls for decades isn't spying

>>9027113
No. As soon as people were conscious, they were conscious of symbols. If the psyche is anything, it is a collection of mental representations of reality a.k.a. symbols.

You seem to have confused yourself somewhere.

>>9021444
where to start with jung I just got a kindle and readings been so fun lately.

File: 30127858.jpg (103KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x598px

>>9026384
In the dawn there is a man progressing over the plain by means of holes which he is making in the ground. He uses an implement with two handles and he chucks it into the hole and he enkindles the stone in the hole with his steel hole by hole striking the fire out of the rock which God has put there. On the plain behind him are the wanderers in search of bones and those who do not search and they move haltingly in the light like mechanisms whose movements are monitored with escapement and pallet so that they appear restrained by a prudence or reflectiveness which has no inner reality and they cross in their progress one by one that track of holes that runs to the rim of the visible ground and which seems less the pursuit of some continuance than the verification of a principle, a validation of sequence and causality as if each round and perfect hole owed its existence to the one before it there on that prairie upon which are the bones and the gatherers of bones and those who do not gather. He strikes fire in the hole and draws out his steel. Then they all move on again.

In my degree I do a lot of systems theory and computational neuroscience and a lot of what he says could be extrapolated to our current models, but so can a lot of things
The mind is basically a machine that combines symbols up to a high level of abstraction and not actually much else

>>9029242
This is from Blood Meridian isn't it? Why post this?

>>9021444
with knowledge, not invention, psychology is fraud

File: Guide tp Evola.png (2MB, 994x4724px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 994x4724px

>>9023452

Jung is a completely useless hack. Contributed nothing.

>>9029379
Objectively false, you know he contributed much to many people. You're just not one of them.

Could someone please explain to me what the shadow is?

>>9028101
I mean it kind of is in the most literal definition.

>>9029403
"Makes me feel good" isn't an intellectual contribution

>>9029443
What does feeling good have to do with the fact that he's been very influential as an intellectual?

>>9029450
Because when you're counting spreading sentimental horseshit as contributing you're butchering what anon meant by the word

>>9029459
But you're the only one in this thread talking about sentimental horseshit, you're the one who started talking about feeling good.

>>9029354
Think about the post mine is responding to.

>>9029471
Hardly, the entire premise of Jung's enterprise is the white washing of uncomfortable truths of the ubiquitous sexual aspect of desire with embarrassing fairy tales

>>9029443
>>9029459
>implyung Jung's universe is not scary, unnerving, and chaotic.

I love Jung, I truly do. He is a great read and I've went to a lot of his books, he has inspired me on a lot of levels, specially in a certain moment of my life. That being said, at one point I distanced myself from his thoughts and turned to other reads. When I came back, I read him in a completely different way. Most notably when it comes to the practice of psychoanalysis (within or without the clinic), if you go through Lacan, you'd realize how Jung took a route of his own in psychology, at the limit to occultism (I'm not complaining) and missed out on truly key factors on language, transference and power relationships. I found out his reading of Freud was very shallow at certain points, which came to me as total surprise at that moment. Jung's contact with the divine and with archetypes can be explained in a total transverse way, as an encounter with the Other, and it is not at all excluded from Freud's theory, even if Freud himself could have denied in the face of his stubborn way, but it's totally in tune with sexual relationships (in a psychanalytic sense: difference, encounter, libido, etc). In lacanian terms, Jung worked almost totally through the Imaginary. There is the frequent saying that to Freud, if you dream with a key or a sword, those are phallic objects, while Jung is there to question: then why did you dream of a key and not a sword or vice-versa? That is to question on the Imaginary. Although it can bring interesting results, it can also miss the point that it doesn't matter what object it was other than how it relates to the dreamer. It doesn't matter even if you know what it is, or what factually has happened, the logic that occurs in the person's mind is the most poignant aspect of anything that is told. It doesn't mean that Jung doesn't get there, that he doesn't bring the patient to that place. Jung is certainlly more cunning than other psychanalysts on associating images and symbols in a broad and deep sense of them, but this can also can produce the weird effect of occasionally stepping in front of the patient with an interpretation, or miss out on the particularities of each case, each person or session. I don't mean to dismiss Jung entirely, specially because, from my perception, he must have been a wonderful person and an incredible analyst, but after I read other things, I had the feeling that he writes about these experiences by giving voice to a dance of images and symbols, whereas the coreography itself is left aside.

>>9029503
To any extent to which that is true (and it rarely is not) it is itself is just a childish fantasy, like wanting to find ghosts in the house next door

>>9029500
>>9029518
Studying "fairy tales" is not the same thing as creating them, anon.

Its like you haven't read any of his work on the shadow, or his championing of Freud's work in bringing to light the worst parts of humanity, or his work on evil.

You come across as someone who has no idea about Jung at all, or someone whose counter to religion is something along the lines of
>as if there's a man with a beard in the sky huuuurrrr retard

>>9029500
>He fell for Freud's sexuality meme
Freud's entire premise was the projection of his own perversions onto his patients and ultimately his work.

>>9029556
>I know, I was there in the room with him and his patients

>>9029575
>he had to be presented with thoughts, which he had, so far, shown no signs of possessing
Freud speaking of one of his most famous case studies, Little Hans.

>>9029505
Thank you for this post - the fact that you've gone beyond Jung into Freud and Lacan and have returned not to refute Jung but have gained a richer understanding of him is inspiring.

Please tell me everything you've read to get to that point of understanding

>>9029546
>or someone whose counter to religion is something along the lines of
>>as if there's a man with a beard in the sky huuuurrrr retard

And this is the problem with Jung, there may be important insights into humanity by studying religions but this criticism is still totally true, it is stupid bullshit in the end of the day even if there's analytic insights to be gained from seeing why people believe this stupid bullshit

>>9029611
Interesting! Can you give me more on either side for context? Is that the guy who had fantasies about rats?

>>9029617
Kek can't even believe how much I nailed it.

>>9027176
I'd say Jung was a Burkean Conservative personally.

>>9029505
>Jung's contact with the divine and with archetypes can be explained in a total transverse way, as an encounter with the Other, and it is not at all excluded from Freud's theory, even if Freud himself could have denied in the face of his stubborn way, but it's totally in tune with sexual relationships (in a psychanalytic sense: difference, encounter, libido, etc). In lacanian terms, Jung worked almost totally through the Imaginary. There is the frequent saying that to Freud, if you dream with a key or a sword, those are phallic objects, while Jung is there to question: then why did you dream of a key and not a sword or vice-versa?
Yeah, that's exactly the problem lots of people have with Freud and, ironically, also with Jung.

>>9029658
>Haha I predicted you would have a good criticism of my nonsense, I win! No response needed

File: Lacan.jpg (114KB, 528x381px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 528x381px

>>9029728
Which is why there is only one way forward

>>9029378
thanks man

>>9029733
You don't want to debate, you just want to jerk off to your strawman.

>>9029867
Thats some atomic grade irony you got there

>>9029872
I keep it in my sleeve for special occasions.

But seriously, in the context of this discussion I have no interest in debating Jung with someone who is actually arguing against "sky man" or "fairly tales".

Jung is on another level that those. It's like saying that McDonald's is bad and therefore you've argued against all food.

>>9029880
He may aspire to another level but as long as he still insists in some profound truth in what is so obviously contingent and absurd without first putting it through a fundamental deconstruction then the argument is perfectly legitimate.

>>9029917
Well he doesn't insist on an objective profound truth, he puts forward models by which people come to truth.

He does deconstruct these ideas, very much so. He is open to materialist as well as metaphysical explanations for phenomena.

You are so clearly not arguing against Jung, but some Gestalt of a bunch of supernatural ideas and beliefs you hate.

>>9029930
Not when Jung's project is intrinsically linked to an apologetic insistence of the worth of any and all hegemonic fantasies. Being open minded towards mysticism is a fundamental compromisation of any intellectual credibility, trying to masquerade it in a butchered definition of metaphysics is no hiding place.

>>9029999
>have a mystical experience
>it doesn't exist

Sick quads, idiot.

File: 1310596052572.jpg (11KB, 253x226px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 253x226px

>>9021888

>>9021444
Please don't be this dumb. Please don't be this retarded.

Holy shit.

>>9031209
are you struggling?

>>9023410
>>9023452
>>9025007

Evola, Jung, Crowley

How come this board is descending into esotheric and pseudoscientific bullshit lately?

>>9031231
Not really. Are you?

File: 1485420745435.jpg (94KB, 852x958px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 852x958px

>>9031426
Because this is the literature board, not the science board. If we can talk about fiction then we can talk about "esotheric[sic] and pseudoscientific bullshit".

>>9031445
There's a difference between rejecting pseudoscience and wanting to have a science board, numb nut. By calling it literature you can justify every retarded statement that wants to be taken seriously as an analysis on society and the nature of humanity. Those people claimed to be scientists and theoreticians or intelectuals and gurus while they essentially were frauds and simply reckless or negligent and careless in what they put out as 'truths' they discovered.

File: 1483144397301.webm (3MB, 720x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x400px

>>9031469
>By calling it literature you can justify every retarded statement that wants to be taken seriously as an analysis on society and the nature of humanity.
Any "retarded statement" is an analysis on the nature of humanity. Sorry, but analysis is not a sacred cow that can never be wrong. If you want scientific rigor go to /sci/; talk about whatever lack of rigor you think these texts have, fine, but don't pretend /lit/ has somehow degraded because it's discussing literature you don't like.

>>9031494
Based Cao Cao.

File: 1485405266786.jpg (65KB, 411x412px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 411x412px

>>9027176

>>9031494
A system of discourse that is inherently flawed in its rational justification is a degradation of the average quality of works being promoted here. You can talk about whatever the fuck you like if its in a book but don't act like Deepak Chopra tier nonsense is anything but smearing shit on the wall compared to real thinkers

>>9031758
>real thinkers

And who are those?

>>9031758
Hey butthurt materialist, seeing as you seem to have nothing better to do, you missed this one
>>9030023

>>9031469
There are thousands of people sharing their metaphysical musings and philosophical models for the world. These select few you have a problem with did not force people to buy their books or enjoy their thoughts - people just did.

Would you also slam Kant, Hegel, or other classic philosophers for being non-empirical?

>>9031758
You seem to not understand the issue (or not want to). You're not talking about literature here. You're insulting other positions on the base of being different from yours and using the public wellbeing of the board as an excuse. You're shitposting, complaining about board culture and meta--what's worse you've brought me and the others who've replied to you down with you and wasted our time. Again, go ahead if you want to debunk these authors, cite everything you can, present their arguments and how they are flawed, present counterpositions, and so on... or do you not know what you're talking about?