Modern psychology is fucked specifically because we are ignoring the unconscious. And by that, I mean both the individuals and the subject matter.
>>25337532>because we are ignoring the unconsciousBecause it's harder to exploit if people are self-aware
>>25337536Sometimes I wonder if that's the real reason for why we cannot acknowledge psychology on anything but the surface-level of behavioral categorization.
>>25337539>uhhh, you're LITERALLY projecting
>>25337532psychologists exist to tell rich women they are right to murder babies and to monitor non rich people for the government. psychology exists to avoid thomistic concepts of passive intellect and habits in order to deny God so as to justify murdering babies by lying about not knowing that murdering babies is wrong then claiming that well we only do what is right in our own eyes therefore sin doesnt exist
>>25337539psyche + logos means SOUL GOD
>>25337560
>>25337536Based knower
Psychology would be significantly better if it was only based on the objective and used the proper full scientific method instead of constantly just making shit up. As it currently stands it's 20% actual science and 80% bullshit. That isn't viable.
>>25338072Read "against method"
>>25338079Not unless you give a very good reason why I should.
>>25338072Objectivity and using the proper full scientific method ultimately comes down to constantly making shit up. You'd know that if you had ever actually engaged with a field of the hard sciences.
>>25338085That is definitionally/logically incorrect.Your statement is nonsense.
>>25338089NTA but he's right. Quit being such an undergrad
The really grim thing is modern psychology is actually open about the mechanism of transference and do things to intentionally bring it about as a per-condition for therapy, but they no longer like jung include breaking it. For jungs transference (basically the inflation/diviniation of the psychologist by the patient as a means of engaging with the unconcious) is an important step but one that is for a purpose of overcoming it. Jung wrote letters to people telling them at the point they were at analysis was a negative and they should stop seeing someone and just engage with it individually, that's the point you are supposed to get to. The weird relationship with a psych is just a means of getting there. Modern psychology just keeps people in it, has no exit point. You just intentionally foster the transference in patients, get them on drugs and then drain them of money. it's incredbily bleak.
>>25338089>That is definitionally/logically incorrect.>Your statement is nonsense.
>>25338090>>25338094Make a real argument.
>>25338101You'll learn when you grow up. Or you won't, doesn't matter.
>>25338105OooohVague posting. Last retreat of the butthurt and cowardly.
>>25338093I should be glad I never went in analysis.But yeah, it always felt like a mockery of its origins, effectively anti-individuation.
>>25338093>Modern psychology just keeps people in it, has no exit point. You just intentionally foster the transference in patients, get them on drugs and then drain them of money.Or promote Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which is just a palliative to stave off psychic problems, and avoid actually dealing with them.
>>25337536Yep. This is why Jung is systematically dismissed as a “mystic” in popular academia. He hits right at the heart of all psychological malice at play today.
>>25338101did you think posting a picture of a scientific method diagram was going to lend you some credibility?
>>25338101>>25338089Retard lol
>>25339964Point: proper full scientific method ultimately comes down to constantly making shit upCounterpoint: image showing the scientific method does not in fact come down to constantly making shit upYou:>did you think posting a picture of a scientific method diagram was going to lend you some credibility?Me:>Is this guy legitimately retarded or just pretending to be retarded for the sake of argument?
>>25337532I think it's moreso that the bulk of "effective" psychology is under lock and key by various high and hidden entities.
>>25340227Do you think most anons know about the scientific method? These mfs can't even pass calculus and seethe at mathIts over.
>>25340227Have you ever read the allegory of the cave? It's very introductory and hacked to bits by meme-inspired interpretations, but if you understood it then you may begin to understand why you are being picked on.The miscommunication between you and others is because you have a huge misunderstanding on the nature of knowledge. So you say things like "based on the objective" and "20% actual science and 80% bullshit" that reveal that, even if you have seen the form of scientific method, you don't truly understand its function.The reason it is assumed you are young, is because you are supposed to be taught the epistemological (and ontological) underpinnings of modern science on your path to a degree. It is actually the nicest interpretation from them to assume you just haven’t been taught yet. The other interpretation is that you already tried and failed.To everyone who has actually approached a scientific field, you appear as one of the people in the allegory, staring at shadows on the wall of a cave. And they can't bring the fire to you, the only way to change is for you to go look yourself.And they, having looked at the fire, can no longer see, through the darkness, the puppetry keeping you fooled, so it is really hard to engage with those ideas. It is not easy to come down to your level of misunderstanding and that can be frustrating. To watch someone struggle in the dark, wishing you could show them the light but seeing them resist it every time. It is misguided from them, but the urge to call you stupid is just a coping mechanism for that frustration. If you are a big person, I hope you can find comfort in the idea that them calling you a fool originates from a place of wanting to help you.To summarise: It would take more effort than anyone can afford to respond to you in a way that would be beneficial to you, so you get called a fool instead.
>>25340547That is a lot of words to avoid making a rational argument, instead making a high effort insult that honestly just comes off as tryhard.
>>25340547Good ol' nominalism and realism.Also relevant, since it's the basis for Jungian types.
Relevant>Science is the highest power of man, for we can do just what we can do, and when we try to deal with things which are beyond our comprehension, we are overstepping our competence. You see, there are plenty of secrets-only a few fools, morbid intellects, think we have solved all the riddles; anybody with even the smallest amount of imagination knows that the world is a great enigma, and psychology is one of the foremost enigmas.But Jung might be overestimating people here, not many have this smallest amount of imagination required.
>>25337635You are mixing psychoanalysis with therapy. Psychoanalysis' purpose is to completely destroy your mind. Those mechanisms that they keep you safe from yourself are destroyed, and after that fight a new being is born. Therapy tells you to ditch your boyfriend and kill babies. It feeds the ego, it doesn't destroy it. It's applying a bandage to a rotting wound.
>>25338083It is impossible to apply scientific method to psychology. How would you do it? Ask the patients if they are cured? As I said above, those who just got a bandage applied would say that they are, yet they problems are still there, they just had their egos inflated. So you would end with a psychology that doesn't fix your psyche at all. There is a reason for mental illness. It's not like a virus where an external danger invade us. This is an internal mechanism attempting to save us from our shadow.
>>25340800>So you would end with a psychology that doesn't fix your psyche at all.That's what we have today. No one is ever cured, only labelled and filled with meds at best so he can be a more or less functional cog in the machine, but still a broken mess of a human being.
>>25340791>Psychoanalysis' purpose is to completely destroy your mindNo wonder you're so wary of it - it would be an easy job in your case.
>>25340800>It is impossible to apply scientific method to psychologyThen it isn't science, isn't based on scientific principles, and isn't scientifically valid. >egos>psyche>our shadowSpooks. Woo woo made up nonsense that isn't objectively real.
>>25342223The demand for objectivity has become a ghastly screech among those who abandoned themselves to become part of the list. Objectivity does not, nor is it able to, exist without the subject and her perspective, and this one can never be listed on the whole. Not without creating a multidimensional library.
>>25342295Utter nonsense.
>>25342223The mind isn't objectively real either. The "woo woo nonsense" is an inevitable feature of psychology.This does not invalidate the discipline. The human mind is the most interesting and important thing we know of. An attempt to study it must be made, in spite of all the hazards.
>>25342306Nuh-uh. The possible world collapses into the subjective world. This is physics itself.
>>25342315>This is physics itself.Must have missed that day of physics class. Tell me, which principle of physics says "The possible world collapses into the subjective world"?
>>25342313The mind at least is empirically observable phenomenon. It's exact properties aren't objectively know, instead it's a emergent phenomenon from the brain. That much can be verified through observation and experimentation. The same can't be said of "the shadow" or other such Jung occultisms.
>>25342339Reductive materialism is the dumbest attitude you can possibly have towards psychology. In fact at some point you can't even call it psychology anymore, since you are collapsing it into neuroscience.You have to imagine our body is a car:As long you study it from an entirely empirical angle, you can eventually figure out its mechanics, as in, how the parts are connected to each other to make it so the car *can* move.But where's the driver? A car doesn't move without it. Why does the driver drive the car in such a way? Why another driver would move it in a different way even if it's essentially the same car? That's the question of psychology. Which of course has some inevitable overlap with philosophy or spirituality, since they try to express the same concepts and answer the same questions through symbols.
>>25342332>Tell me, which principle of physics says "The possible world collapses into the subjective world"?He means quantum physics I'm guessing.
>>25342965Quantum physics doesn't say that, so that can't be it.
>>25343014It's a reference to superpositions and observer effect.
>>25342945>psychology needs woo woo mysticism to workThen it isn't valid as a science by your own admission. It isn't valid as a medical practice either. I don't accept magical thinking on faith alone. I don't trust magical thinking as a reasonable or reliable method of treating illness.
>>25343019Nether of those support mystic nonsense at all.New agers apparently never actually picked up a quantum physics book. They make pop science ones that are legitimately good at explaining how quantum physics works to the ordinary person.
>>25343024No one cares about what you accept or not, psychic facts stay facts as much as anything else. But there again, nobody can force a blind man to see.
>>25343033Made up woo woo garbage aren't facts.Just because someone says any ol bullshit don't make it true.
>>25343041Do you even know what psychology is supposed to be studying, anyways?Everything that is experienced by the mind is psychic fact.
>>25343043You are literally insane. That much is obvious. You haven't the faintest idea of the difference between reality and imagination, fact and fiction, truth and falsehood.
>>25343051If you are finished screeching, feel free to gb2reddit.
>>25343051NTA something becomes real the moment it happens, regardless of our ability to classify it
>>25343054Apparently anon thinks that if something only happens in the mind, then it is simply "not real" and for some reason this entire aspect should be completely ignored.Of course it's a position much more insane than its opposite, for there is no known reality at all without an observing subject.
>>25343053Just because you make the assumption that I use reddit doesn't mean I have ever used the site.How about you get real and stop playing make believe while expecting everyone to play along.
>>25343054Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and doesn't matter in context.
>>25343060solipsism is both invalid and stupid.
>>25343062Psychology isn't concerned with whether you literally use Reddit or not, only the fact that your mindset would be a perfect fit, so you should go there anyways and have such discussions with likeminded folks.>>25343071We are "esse in anima" chads here, that's not slopsism.>what's that?A concept that was briefly introduced in a random chapter of Psychological Types and not elaborated upon until a lecture given in the 1925 seminar.
>>25343074What a retard you are.
>>25343371I accept your concession.
>>25343373Concession of what?That you are retarded?
>>25343377I already accepted your concession.
>>25343373n.b. ‘i accept your concession’ is itself a concession.
>>25343397"No u" is a very definitive concession.
>>25343405which i guess would describe your own reply there. i have no dog in this race just pointing out your logic.
>>25337532I am on luvox, clonedine, geodon, and vraylar. What is your stack bros?
>>25343415Right, thanks for telling me you have nothing to say. Though I'm sure you will suddenly find something to keep going, despite having "no dog in the race".
>>25337532the inmates are running the asylum
>>25343430feels like your escalating.
>>25343424Fresh air and sunshine.
>>25343432Dude just desperately wants to have the last word no matter how retarded that last word is.
>>25343436Ironic.
>>25343439Is it tho?Is it ironic?
>>25343431>dark triadBut where's the 4th? We all know nothing is complete until we have at least 4.
>>25343436every judgement a confession.
>>25342339Jung's "occultisms" were gathered from the reports of his patients, throughout 40 years of psychotherapeutic practice. He kept seeing consistent patterns in their dreams, fantasies and thought processes which indicated a common substructure within the psyche. Their reports constitute empirical evidence.
Modern psychology ignores both the subconscious and the conscious and treats a patient as a programmable system of stimulus and response. The entire purpose of CBT is to stop you from thinking about things and deaden your capacity for introspection. I'd say it's consciousness denying its own existence but these people are too braindead and too deeply incurious to have any actual metaphysic or philosophy.
>>25343014Yes it does. The wave function collapses into a singularity under observation.>>25343027>New agers apparently never actually picked up a quantum physics bookMany such cases, apparently.
>>25343447>witch doctors gathered experience from interacting with hundreds of spirits and dozens of parents therefor their magic is supported by empirical evidence and is totally legitimate valid science that actually works and totally isn't made up nonsense>>25343446Only retards say something that even on the face of it isn't true.
>>25343457in this case it’s pretty 1:1. your judgements are naturally a window to your fixations.
>>25343447That, and also the study of various literary fields.
>>25343456https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
>>25343456>Yes it does. The wave function collapses into a singularity under observation.Wave function collapse takes place under many circumstances, one of which is observation. It's by no means clear that consciousness, subjectivity, observation, etc are the causal element(s) here.
Jungians are subhuman filth
>>25343469Thank god we aren't Jungians then.You can read him and see that he really has something to say without being a "Jungian".
>>25343473You can read him and see he clearly wasn't in any way shape or form a medical professional or scientist, and quite a shit philosopher.
>>25343475I can read him and take his ideas on their own without caring about labels or credentials. Can you? Or is it all about authority and creed?
>>25343475>but he wasn't peer reviewed>but his studies weren't statistically rigorous>uhhh that's unfalsifiableSilence.
>>25343479memes aren't a supstutute for rational argumentation. Again you prove time and time again that you are literally actually unironically retarded.
>>25343477It isn't about labels and credentials. His ideas are invalid, irrational, and deeply unscientific.
>>25343486>His ideas are invalid, irrational, and deeply unscientific.Feel free to demonstrate as much.
>>25343482>is that a heckin LOGICAL FALLACERINOPerish, bugman.
>>25343490>>25343491Feel free to stop being retarded first.
>>25343495What are you gonna do, give me a downdoot? Everybody you know thinks you're gay.
>>25343490Enjoy low effort slop. It's what you deserve. https://youtube.com/shorts/gjr-K9JjObU?si=TkIIdQGALEybdnDR
>>25343491>can't into logic>can't into reasoning>can't into math>doesn't like readingWhy are you like this?
>>25338085>>25338089>>25338090Better not tell him about Godel.
>>25343503I do not take the fact that somebody's work is not scientically rigorous as a serious criticism of their work, especially when their work is on a topic (subjectivity, the psychological self) that is completely outside the scope of things that can be discussed meaningfully from a third-person objective perspective, as is required for science. You may as well be telling me that Beethoven's piano works are bad because they don't taste good.
>>25343514>I don't care about reality or facts or truth>I only care about things based on how they make me feel>why is everyone calling me retarded?
>>25343522I don't question why people call me retarded. Do you question why everybody you know thinks that you're gay?
>>25343523>I don't question why people call me retardedProbably take it as granted by now.
Let's ignore the r*dditor already>>25343455I consider CBT the psychological equivalent of feeding somebody anti-hunger pills.Like yeah, you don't feel the hunger for a while but you are clearly weakening your organism and eventually starving either way. The point was that the patient is supposed to eat food.
>>25343524No, I just tell them to either prove it scientifically to within acceptable confidence intervals compared to a double-blind control and subject their work to rigorous peer review and replication or stfu, obviously that's the only way to talk about anything. For instsnce, I've conducted an extensive survey of everybody you know and they all think you're gay.
>>25343529> r*dditor I see you were projecting when it comes to being gay. Probably also use redit too since you keep bringing it up unprompted. I mean you kept insisting every judgment is a confession, which one could only believe if they believed it about themself. So all your random aligations seem to be self confessions by your own logic.
>>25343529That is a very good analogy, yeah.
>>25343539You've been arguing with at least two, likely three different anons. The one who keeps calling you gay is obviously just antagonising you for fun.
>>25343537And there you go bringing up homosexuality unprompted.This seems to be your self confession at work.
>>25343542>I am not a samefagSure buddy.
>>25343512You don't know Godel.>>25343514That's fine, there are trade offs to these domains, and limits.
>>25343545The only thing I have to confess is that one time me and the boys stole my neighbour's pears for no reason. We didn't even eat them, I had better pears at home. It was pretty fucked up, I think about that a lot.
>>25343552>That's fine, there are trade offs to these domains, and limits.Exactly. Methodologies are fundamentally tools and are not necessarily appropriate for tasks they weren't designed for. You can chop down a tree with a hammer, but not well. That doesn't undermine the value of the hammer.
>>25343552No, not really, but I know he became a platonist. Something about the incompleteness theorem and showing that certain axioms can't be proven and must be taken for granted, and this being related in some way to the platonic forms. I doubt you've read and actually understood any of his original papers either.
>>25343556So if you know that, why are you arguing with someone who thinks everything that is real can be measured on a ruler? Or the mystic who thinks using a calculator is a great sin? To an atomist, everything is atoms, like a hammer, everything is a nail. To a mystic everything is a symbol. So on and so forth. Tools are great when they are remmebered as tools/functions. They become horrid when they are treated as identities. Many such cases.Oh well, good luck anon.
One of those days I'm writing my own Red Book. If only because I'm very curious about the unconscious.
>>25343565>if you know that, why are you arguing with someone who thinks everything that is real can be measured on a ruler? Or the mystic who thinks using a calculator is a great sin?Honestly I'm just killing time on the shitter at work, I have no serious intentions here. It's a good tool for this specific task.
>>25343560I am a platonist, but you're using Godel in the meme way. I get the spirit of what you're saying, but it isnt a rebuttal of empirical not to empirical fields like physics or psychology. They don’t say “you can never prove anything in science". Yeah the other anon was being annoying about criticizing psychology but Godels theorems apply to formal arithmetic systems. Not every system. I do love Platonism so i see the connection, but come on brah.
>>25343469You should hear what they say about you.
>>25343574NTA but while we are on the topic of Plato and Jung, could we say the archetypes are supposed to be platonic forms by definition?That seems to be the idea to me, especially since we only ever see the "shadow"(not in the Jungian sense) of an archetype.
>>25343574Yeah I know I'm just some dumbass midwit from a small hick town but whatever, it's just for fun.>They don’t say “you can never prove anything in science"I don't think I was really saying that either, I think you're strawmanning me a bit there, I think I was just implying that it's hard for anything empirical to not have some kind of a priori assumptions at its foundation. Wouldn't a a platonist agree? Obviously some shit can be proven, Godel wasn't saying that either, just saying that there is always some axiom or theorem that cannot be proven itself within the logic of that own system. But feel free to tell me how retarded I am again, lol.
>>25343582I do not know much about Jung anon, i haven't read anything by the man, but he sounds interesting. He's on my list.>archetypeThis has something to do with the collective unconscious no? I only know tidbits but dont want to do the man injustice.
>>25343027>The Science of the gaps will bring us back to Newtonian determinism, trust the Science of the gapsThere is no possible mathematical formula that explains a deterministic (ie. a truth following your dogma and religion) collapse of the wave function. Indeed, the more we have measured, the more it is confirmed that everything is in a wave function until observed by consciousness. There are even delayed experiments and the information changes depending on whether a conscious observer will check the data or not. Sorry bud, this reality won't render its assets if they are not needed.
>>25343586If we define an archetype the same as a form, then you can easily say that the collective unconscious is the psychological equivalent of the world of forms.That aside, you might have some fun with the first chapters of Psychological Types especially, he goes into the problem of universals and nominalism vs realism - connecting it to his two attitude-types, famously known as extraversion and introversion.
>>25343582Jung actually says something like this in Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, he compares the archetypes to platonic forms that are pre-existing within our psyche. He also invokes Kant in the sense of our understanding of the world being only through our phenomenological experience, and that the archetypes are pre-existing structures within that mental framework, analagous to the forms. At least that is how I understood it, correct me if I'm wrong.
>>25343584>retarded I am again, lolMaybe I was a bit mean. Im sorry anon, genuinely. You're not retarded, contrary to this board's culture, I dont think many people are dumb, that would be unbelievably arrogant and obnoxious. A far cry from the stated 'goal' of philo sophia. So I am sorry.
>>25343591Sounds about right, since I got the same idea either way, before he even got into the topic himself.
>>25343589We can even post-process the collapse. Once a photon is observed, it's entire history will also be processed. We are in a procedurally generated world. Not a static one. However, we as players can get soft-locked by our own myths and patterns. Especially taboos and dogma are prone to doing this.
>>25343589>Sorry bud, this reality won't render its assets if they are not needed.lmao this is exactly the analogy I was thinking about a few days ago, it's similar enough to those games where what's behind the character/camera is either not rendered at all, or in a way that saves up processing powers(e.g. lower geometry, low-res textures if at all). Enjoy your synchronicity.
>>25343594Yeah it's just funny how I read about it the other day so appreciate the discussion and it helps to reinforce the concept for me. Astute of you either way anon, whether Jung is really right or not. Truth be told I'm probably going to have to re-read the first three chapters of the Jung I'm reading right now, just to try and wrap my head around it a bit better. It's very interesting but I'm not afraid to admit a challenge for me.
>>25343457>the Christcuck is confused and frightened.
>>25343592lol, it's all good, you weren't really that bad. I appreciate this not devolving into another shitfest of ad-hominem attacks, etc though. I also appreciate the input either way, my experience reading and understanding has been pretty hit or miss these days, and sometimes I read certain peoples thoughts and responses on these forums and feel like a totally inarticulate retard. But such is life, it's just part of the process I guess. There will always be limits, 'tis what it is.
>>25343584You're right, I did strawman you a bit there. Sorry for that. You weren't saying 'nothing can be proven.' You were making the much more reasonable point that any empirical framework rests on unprovable a priori assumptions. As a Platonist, I absolutely agree that some truths are just there as starting pointsThe only reason I pushed back that Gödel's specific theorem is often dragged in as a rhetorical hammer for this general point, when the general point doesn't actually need Gödel. basic Humean induction problems already do the job. Gödel adds mathematical mystique, but also smuggles in precision that doesn't quite map onto empirical science.Despite describing myself as a Platonist, I genuinely critique 'excessive mysticism' and totalizing systems and frameworks that aren't suited for a specific domain. That said, I was too dismissive. You're not retarded. You're making a real philosophical point. So I do apologize, I shouldn't be so cranky lol.
>>25343601Just pulling random shit from your ass it seems.
>>25343599Don't worry too much about that, Jung is painfully repetitive so you will engrave those concepts in your mind one way or the other.I'm reading the Nietzsche's seminar right now and 90% of this stuff is reinforcing the same concepts either way, applying them to Zarathustra and Nietzsche himself in this case.The 10% is more specific connections, clarifications and cool lore bits.
>>25343602>you feel like totally inarticulate retardThe fact that you're self aware and actual read puts you ahead of many on this board. Im serious. Im going to leave this board soon. But I do wish you good luck anon, i must go now,Again, sorry for the atittude back there. I wish you much luck on your journey, :)
>>25343602>>25343606Appending my first reply to your other comment to this as well. It's fine, I get cranky sometimes too. I appreciate some of the distinctions you've made as way of finding more concise ways of supporting the argument-and giving me some specific thinkers/concepts to look into- because I really am trying to clarify and broaden my knowledge on these kind of subjects. I'm still relatively new to philosophy and I must concede you know much more about it than me. I feel like I'm on somewhat of the right track, though I have a lot further to go before I can make decisive judgments on whether I'm a realist or a nominalist, etc
>>25343619>decisive judgments on whether I'm a realist or a nominalistThere are things like "moderate realism" or you could go with Jung's own position, which he calls "esse in anima".>Our idea is of esse in anima. This principle recognizes the objectivity of a world outside ourselves, but it holds that of this world we can never perceive anything but the image that is formed in our minds. We never see an object as such, but we see an image which we project out upon the object. We positively know that this image is only imperfectly similar to things as they are. >The esse in anima admits the subjective nature of our world perception, at the same time maintaining the assumption emphatically that the subjective image is the indispensable link between the individual entity, or entity of consciousness, and the unknown strange object. I even hold that this case of the subjective image is the very first manifestation of a sort of transcendent function that derives from the tension between the entity of consciousness and the strange object.>Everything I said about the image of the so-called external reality I have to say also about the images of the collective unconscious: namely, they refer to the influences of absolutely existing external objects, and they are the psychic reactions to them, the only difference between the image of external reality and the archetype being that the former is conscious and the latter unconscious.
>>25343610Yeah it's really hard to explain, it's sort of like I'll feel like I've grasped something and then he'll refer to it again from a slightly different conceptual angle, or in a way that seems like a self-contradiction but that is more likely just me lacking vantage or getting too tired. Again this is just in the sense of me trying to wrap my head around his ideas in good faith and not necessarily making my judgments on their validity yet. Fuck, I wish I had a better example right now but I'm really tired and don't feel like digging through the book right now, I'm just going to be honest. I'll try though: I think I was sort of getting confused in the chapter about the Mother archetype/Mother complex in trying to understand which specific variation of the complex arises from the particular neurosis/behavior each individuals mother had in terms of the over/underdevelopment of the Eros. I sort of settled on feeling like its the complex interplay between the own individual's psyche vs. the mother's, and that because of this, both an over/underbearing mother can potentially cause either/or in the individual, and that this process also starts a hereditary and reinforcing cycle between successive generations, and as he says, we have to take each case individually and it is important not to try to take these ideas too generally. And maybe some further confusion regarding where the overlap or line of demarcation happens between what is the inherited archetype meets the neurosis of the individual parent? Again, correct me or further elucidate this for me if you think I'm way off, lol. But yeah, I did get your sense too that plowing ahead I'll kind of gain a more intuitive grasp through repetition.
>>25343619Thats fine, I just felt so bad...I thought it was the usual shitposting board, the usual back and forth flinging. But nope, someone lowers their guard aYeah emotionally it got to me. I do not think you're a mid wit, I think you just begun and we've all had, including me moments and thoughts that weren't necessarily accurate or clear. In the beginning, I had nobody and I embarrassingly thought for quite some time Kant was John Stuart Mill for some unknown reason lol, but what helped me wasnt some snarky asshole who tore me down. Anyways, you're doing pretty good. Theres a good philosophy book you might enjoy. Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth: From Ancient Egypt to NeoplatonismBook by Algis Uždavinys. Its a nice little book that made me appreciate philosophy more. >why am I apologizing so muchMaybe I need to read Carl Jung more lol.
>>25343633>There are things like "moderate realism"Yeah I should have probably said I'm aware of this stance to some degree but still not decided, fuck, I am terrible at representing myself or fully clarifying where I'm at sometimes, but again, no biggie. Regardless I think that's kind of where I'm at now, but I keep interrogating it and going back and forth sometimes. I'm not really sure that I'll ever settle or have a consensus on this, as I have yet to see for myself what I feel like is the smoking gun. I'm not even sure that I believe some of these things can be answered, but it is fun to think about either way.
>>25343598Thanks. Good to find peers.
>>25343633Also this is very Kantian, or so it seems to me, which I feel like I largely agree with. Or I feel like there is an element to solipsism that is at least true-not that only our minds literally exist-but in the sense that we only have our own minds to filter the world with; we can never objectively understand another person's mind and feelings no matter how well we think we are communicating or connecting with them.
>>25343636>he'll refer to it again from a slightly different conceptual angle, or in a way that seems like a self-contradiction but that is more likely just me lacking vantage or getting too tired.Nah it's fine, I had a lot of that too. He does do that a lot, even if many times it's because his terminology is very ambiguous.One example out of the top of my mind is how he uses "collective" both to refer to the social collective, or in a more universal sense(related to the collective unconscious and archetypes, which would exist pre-society).> as he says, we have to take each case individually and it is important not to try to take these ideas too generally.This. He makes this point whenever he interprets dreams several times, you can't really separate the dream content from the dreamer, same would be true for anything related to archetypes/complexes.>>25343642>I'm not even sure that I believe some of these things can be answeredJung would probably say that eventually you will get stuck in at very least two possible opposites, and the only way out would be the creation of an unifying symbol, because both views will appear equally correct despite denying each other on principle.iirc he uses an example involving Jesus being tempted by the Devil's with a lust for power, and the symbol to bridge those two is the "Kingdom of Heaven".>>25343648Or this point of view is technically also an example of what I just said.
>>25343658>>25343648>Or this point of view is technically also an example of what I just said.Yeah maybe I'm not doing quite as bad as I think, again, if I'm understanding you correctly, lol. My confidence levels with this kind of material just tend to kind of waver; I'm pretty new to it.Appreciate your input either way, thanks.
>>25343658>because both views will appear equally correct despite denying each other on principle.iirc he uses an example involving Jesus being tempted by the Devil's with a lust for power, and the symbol to bridge those two is the "Kingdom of Heaven".> sometimes enjoy transcendental Monism is about Single One, The Good beyond Being and the physical world. > sometimes enjoy pantheism is about the imminent nature of the One as all things>end up as a frustrated panentheism who cant make up their mindCan Jung help me? I
>>25343658>Jung would probably say that eventually you will get stuck in at very least two possible opposites, and the only way out would be the creation of an unifying symbol, because both views will appear equally correct despite denying each other on principle.Would you say then that this refers to some integration of the anima, as in the process of individuation, as he seems to muse on the anima as containting the unity between opposites (in a yin-yang sense, roughly) and also in a more broader sense the opposition of chaos and order?
>>25343619>whether I'm a realist or a nominalist, Why not the middle path? One can have an ontological subjectivity and yet adhere to empirical realism.
>>25343669>My confidence levels with this kind of material just tend to kind of waver; I'm pretty new to it.It's not that bad once you realize just how much you will keep hearing about the same concepts over and over again. At some point they will be drilled in unconsciously, if only because you can't ever separate his ideas from the entire foundation.>>25343671>Can Jung help me?If you can bring him back to life lol.All I can tell you is that the tension is expected, but you can't really have somebody else solve it for you.>>25343681It's basically the closest thing to an universal principle in Jung. It's a "Psychology of the opposites" where eventually two things end up in a open conflict, and the only way out is whatever manages to create a synthesis. Unironically pic related gets it extremely well.So yes, that has to do with the conscious masculine and the Anima, Chaos and Order, Yin-Yang, whatever else is involved.
>>25343690That's largely what I'm doing, I feel.I just can't help but have this constant debate and oscillation in my head about where mathematics really lies in reality. Platonism seems to offer the best answer, but some part of me just has a hard time accepting that somehow mathematical structures can exist outside of time and space and then by some mechanism that still appears mysterious and unelucidated both instantiate and affect phyiscal things. And then on the opposite end, I can't really fathom how a purely materialist/nominalist stance can form what appear to be patterns/mathematical structures/universal laws without some kind of input. Of course I question if the universal laws are only apparently more rigid and static than the things that are in flux, and undergo entropy, etc, but then again, what accounts for this difference? If the universe is only prone to forming patterns that are habits of a sort that undergo some kind of eventual decay or disintegration, what priviledges some of these over others? Again back to the forms or mathematics underlying reality, but I end up in infinite regressions or seemingly circular logic. Open to any suggestions or insights, but most often when I bring this up people just get snarky or offer a response that doesn't really propose anything. Then again, some part of me is just open to things just always existing on some level, just being a priori. Alas, I remaind lost.
>>25343692lol you're making fun of me a bit I think, but it's fine, it's all in jest. Thanks for clarifying-I guess-lol.
>>25343702>this constant debate and oscillation in my head I think that's good to a certain degree..But you have asked one of the hardest questions in philosophy and each tradition or school of thought gives different answers and methods. Like for instance, and im deviating a bit, advaita vedanta's answer was silence, platonism and neoplatonic thought talked of theurgy and apophaticism, emmanationism and Methexis (participation) etc.>end up in infinite regressions or seemingly circular logic.Yeah Adi shankara and the advaita vedantians talk about this issue. But the way I see it, its part of the journey perhaps, I still do not know, but its important to focus on cultivating good habits and being healthy (sometjing i foolishly took for granted, impeded my ability to think clearly) and I like you am going to wrestle with it as the other anon mentioned above 'no one can solve it for you'. But I haven't read Carl Jung, he seems interesting. What would you recommend. There is too much to know about these topicsAlthough Charles Sander Pierce is someone recommended to me. I havent read him yet but he seems like someone along these lines.
>>25343690Also yeah, the whole point is that both views are one-sided.Jung used it to bring up his ideas of two main types, extraverted and introverted, you can probably guess which one matches which view.And the whole point is that the extravert contains an unconscious/less differentiated introversion as well - opposite way around for the introvert who contains extraversion in the same way.In attempting to bridge the two views, we end up with the "Transcendent Function". If you instead try to pick only one, then the opposite eventually erupts in a neurotic fashion.
>>25343769>you have asked one of the hardest questions in philosophyhaha, no kidding, and I really don't blame anyone for not being able to help me if the compendium of a millenia of the greatest thinkers are still in debate/stumpedThanks for the recs though I'll look into it more, I'm really just interested in hearing different viewpoints and ideas on the matter, it fascinates me. In regards to Jung I'm still pretty new to it all as well. I've only read some of Man and His Symbols and I'm working through Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious currently. I'm enjoying both but the former is a lot more chill but is admittedly an attempt to make the ideas more accessible (ie. it is by multiple authors with Jung providing only the introductory chapter, etc.) It's much more challenging (at least for me) getting it from the horse's mouth but I'm finding it pretty rewarding so far, even just as an intellectual exercise. I find some of his ideas pretty compelling, particularly on projection regarding not only individual traits but on mythology/religious dogmas throughout history as well. Crazy coincidence but just this morning I was reading a bit about Charles Sander Pierce and his philosophy regarding architectonics, but admittedly again it was just an encyclopedia article, introductory at best. I'm probably going to look deeper though because it is also pretty engaging, particularly his sense of mathematics being superordinate to philosophy, in that we use the abstract concepts we derive in mathematics to make informed philosphical judgments, and then how this subbranches into philosphy itself, where he states that the heirarchy is phenomenology -> Normative Science -> Metaphysics. I find the distinction he makes that this categories aren't necessarily embedded or directly subsuming each other in each case, particularly in regards to the ordinancy of mathematics above philosophy, as it is mathematics that provides the prior vision of general principles that are then realized by the science of philosophy. However, in his systematization, regarding the Normative Sciences, Aesthetics, Ethics and Logic are subsumed subbrances. You get the idea.
>>25343819>Man and His Symbols and I'm working through Archetypes and the Collective UnconsciousThanks man>projection regarding not only individual traits but on mythology/religious dogmasThat's honestly one of the things I got curious about. >encyclopedia articleThat's fair, like Godel, Pierce is pretty dense and heavy from the looks of things but interesting nonetheless. >ordinancy of mathematics above philosophy, as it is mathematics that provides the prior vision of general principles that are then realized by the science of philosophy.I reason why I'm returning to platonism and taking Euclid and pythagorean ideas alof more seriously this time. For even Plato emphasized the importance of learning Geometry prior. Its starting to be a little more clear for me. (F, being cocky really set me back lol)But yeah anon. Its been pretty..wait. I think I've talked with you before? Idk i mentioned field theory to someone. Anyways I gotta go. Its been fun chatting to you and thanks for the recs. Good luck on your journey, Lux et Veritas. May the One guide your path.
>>25343819Oh forgot to mention. Carl Jung talks about dream work correct? Coincidentally I've been doing that more often and its what spurred me to take a further interest in the man.
>>25337532>Modern psychology is fucked specifically because we are ignoring the unconsciousThe unconscious is unobservable, unfalsifiable pseudoscience, and psychology was little better than fortune telling while the likes of Freud and Jung held sway over it. Until you have a repeatable experiment that can prove some part of the "unconscious" as a real thing, you can join the likes of palm readers and phrenologists in the dustbin of discarded quackery.
>>25343862No anon, we aren't doing this again. Settle down with the other r*dditor over there.
>>25343867Don't you have to concert your crystal ball first? Maybe burn some incense and go into a magical trance?
>>25343849>>25343856Yeah, I haven't got to the dream stuff as much yet but I know he does get into it, can't speak on it as much though.Not sure what you mean in regards to maybe speaking before, I don't really know much about field theory. I have a vague notion of what a field is in mathematics I guess but I'm not really sure if that's what you're getting at.Anyway, I've been thinking about reading Euclid's Elements at some point.
>>25343862>The unconscious is unobservable, unfalsifiable pseudoscienceYou know that moment when you notice an insect crawling up your arm? That's an example of an unconscious sensory impression becoming conscious.Other examples of unconscious content include memories you've forgotten, personality traits you've suppressed, and last night's dream about being ass-raped that you're pretending you didn't have.
I've a feeling(actually intuition) that when Jung speaks of Intuition and potential, he might be thinking about quantum mechanics incidentally. Now our eyes can't see that, since it's settled as soon it's observed, but what if we have a function to "see" superpositions?
>>25343890Oh one little author and book i forgot to mention. Its what helped me change my attitude considerably and still working on it was this author named Jon Peniel. You dont have to believe him and he is a pretty unique author and wouldnt be well known but he does mention alot of topics but the biggest thing I got from it was the difference between Goodness, practice (testing ideas, doing good deeds etc) and Knowledge, Spiritual Knowledge as well. I could've personally saved a ton of time by being alot more humble. Philosophy is a beautiful subject, so its good to slow down and read each author carefully and iteratively. Anyways take care. :).
>>25343965>saved a ton of time by being alot more humble.>Philosophy is a beautiful subject, so its good to slow down and read each author carefully and iteratively.If you can forgive a bit of criticism, you're still a pretty condescending and presumptuous person, but we all need to work on that. Oh well, sorry, it's just mildly irking me how you've been talking down to me the whole time, but maybe you just need to think a bit more on how others can do things you can't or have things to show you you hadn't considered. Just being honest, man. At least you are somewhat aware of your arrogance, but yeah, the way you trailed off before saying what you meant or implying that I'm not really aware of how to read slowly and thoughtfully is kind of annoying. Again, it's your choice. I'm also just having a pretty shitty day. I probably shouldn't let this place get to me but I'm tired of people's condescension in general.
>>25344025Fair enough.I wish you well anon.
>>25337532>Modern psychology is fucked specifically because we are ignoring the unconscious.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain#Combination_of_both_testshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_neglectgo fuck yourself. The unconscious is incognizable. And neglect biases are being studied.
>>25344054>The unconscious is incognizableBy definition, but that does not mean you get to ignore it.
>>25344047So you do get off on talking down to people.What a sad person you ultimately are, and you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.
>>25344054>The unconscious is incognizableIt doesn't want to be. It is constantly trying to break into consciousness, and occasionally succeeds.The unconscious is a living thing with its own drives and purposes. Attempts to suppress it result in neurotic symptoms (such as your unprompted fit of angry and aimless linkposting ...)
>>25338089Anon is right. >>25338085is too vague to fit into whatever camp you are thinking of, without being able to fit into another, because work like this depends on how things are all defined. Semantic jockeying is never more than bait.
>>25344081whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
>>25344610Words have meanings and logic behind them. Objectivity and the scientific method do not mean just making shit up as the anon you claim is right said. That is stupid.
>>25344401>It doesn't want to be. It is constantly trying to break into consciousness, and occasionally succeeds.>The unconscious is a living thing with its own drives and purposes. Attempts to suppress it result in neurotic symptomsLiterally prove it.
>>25339878this is a fucking interesting thesis, cheers
