>writes the most profound and important insights into the human psyche >"also btw magic is 100% real"
I think he is responsible for a lot of hippy dippy thinking and new agey nonsense, as was freud of course
>>25360948i mean yes, the second statement is actually part of the first. no contradiction here.
Do materialists ever get tired of taking Ls? Clearly not since they keep setting themselves up for new ones.
I mean, I know the instant reaction is to reject anything that's metaphysical since science took over in culture, but honestly there's so much that we aren't even able to prove, measure or possibly knowpersonally, rather than denying or defending magic, I'm more on the side that I'm entirely open to the idea of it existing.I don't know why this confuses and frightens the angl*id mind?
>>25360948Pioneers of their respective field are just the crazy ones willing to break from the ranks.
He was actually wrong about pretty much everything and the only thing I remember him saying is that divination works, I don't remember him saying that magic works. Believing in divination and believing in magic are related but quite different things.
>>25360948didnt he just say it was all a mental thing tho? anyways obligatory reading chart post
>>25360948It's all bullshit
>>25360948JUNG WAS A KANTIAN!!!!
>>25361026why though?what would be real compared to this?
is he wearing his glasses on his head so his brain can see better
>plagiarize the most profound and important insights into the human psyche from freud>"also btw magic is 100% real"ftfy
Very based behavior.
>>25361155>be freud>plagiarize the most profound and important insights into the human psyche from von Hartmann>"also btw it‘s 100% about buttholes"ftfy
Jungians are subhuman filth.
>>25360948>>writes the most profound and important insights into the human psyche>>"also btw magic is 100% real"Profound insigth in deed.
>>25360954>i mean
>>25361155If he were actually just plagiarizing Freud they wouldn't have had a falling out because that's exactly what Freud wanted him to do.
>>25360948define magic
>>25361021How is his shadow integration theory wrong?
>>25360948If I recall, his book about Synchronicity mentioned something that the best relationships also having the most compatible Zodiac signs. Sun, moon, Venus, etc
>>25360948Based and true. Hylics won't/can't understand.
>>25361257Freud was pozzled jewslop and proto-tranny programming. Jung was based and distance himself from Freud as soon as he saw what the endgoal of his outlook in life was.
>>25361025How come these charts always skip over The Undiscovered Self
>>25361262Above Natural.
>>25360948When you dissect and deconstruct all of humane concepts, You're left with a void and you start to notice a recurring pattern, Here you realize why our ancestors created religions and gods.One out of fear and one out of pattern recognition.
>clearly identified and systematized the invisible force that governs the entire physical universe>alchemy is 100% real btw
>>25361236Post physique
It is possible to be partially correct.
>>25361560Hasn't been discovered yet
>>25361265'Cause he hated blacks. Probably. Can't have a true duality cult by only worshipping the daysky and being afraid of the nightsky. Gotta appreciate both, gotta fear both.
>>25360980>I'm more on the side that I'm entirely open to the idea of it existing.Including Santa Claus and his many, hardworking, unionized elves?
>>25361746Ugh, physicalism should be kept to the bedroom and only within the holy bond of marriage.Don't hankypanky physicalize me when I'm trying to make gold as a job. I'm too busy then, can't be bothered.
>>25361746The world is not the mindless machine, born out of chance, guided by no hand and watched by no eye as the image makers want you to believe and unthink about.
>parapsychology scientifically proves magic is real for over 100 years>the only rebuttal to it is appeal to consensus fallacy (in fucking SCIENCE) and appeal to unjustified assumptions of materialist metaphysicsMagic IS real. There's no intellectually honest position to the contrary.
>>25360948Getting filtered by Jung´s spiritual and esoteric beliefs is a mark of beig a naormalfag
>>25360948Do you think magic is about shooting lightning from your hands?
>>25360951I never understood why people were either Team Freud or Team Jung. They're both charlatans.
>>25362677Jung was insane, but he believed what he wrote. Freud was a genuine con artist.
>>25362677Notice how anti-Jung people can never muster a serious criticism that shows they understand the theory? All they have are cheap dismissive pejoratives.
Jungians are the most persecuted species of today.
>>25361265The problem is that he based his theory on the lunatics he treated and his goal is therapeutic. The aim is to produce an increased mental balance and quality of life by mixing together the conscious and unconscious elements of the individual's life. He filters all the evidence and traditional ideas he interacts with through this lens and this blinds him to the fact that traditional approaches to the integration of the personality involved the clarification, purification and perfection of the conscious personality which does not so much merge with the subconscious as destroys and absorbs it, one way or another. And this is also something which, traditionally, is an ideal state attained only by an elite few. It is not something that can be attained by the average man, and certainly not by the lunatic. In the field of psychological care, Jung's ideas may be valuable, but in trying to extend them beyond this to some kind of universal value to human development, Jung fails. His approach was made by interacting with lunatics, and for the benefit of lunatics. It is not generally applicable, and its view is not perfect or complete.
hon hon hon! je suis le mogger!
>>25362740Because they've constantly made fools of themselves, yes
people don't understand jungian types.it's not about "do you like playing sports? are you organized?"it's about your dominant natural compulsion. the direction and nature of it. a compulsion for conceptual novelty is Ne, a compulsion for organizing one's own thinking is Ti, and so forth.
>>25362740Truly the gamers of psychology.
>>25363739You don't understand Jungian types either if you are sticking to the modern trash. What you seem to be descirbing here is more akin to the concept of ego drives in Enneagram instead.I'd recommend you give a look to Psychological Types and related material such as the 1925 seminar, some of the interviews like the Jung-Evans one(but not exclusively, there's a little more in "C.G. Jung Speaking"), and his letters also had something important when he speaks of Freud/Adler's types.von Franz's book on the "Inferior Function" also exists for a speedrun round, but don't take the type descriptions too literally.>>25363752You kid but the more I read Jung, the more it feels like he would be somebody who would post on this site regularly.
>>25360948obligatory death to psychiatry-niggers.
>>25360951>hylic babblengmi
>>25364095I have read Jung, yes. I should have been more clear: Jung's types are cognitive compulsions, in contrast to the Enneagram, which are defense mechanisms. The path of least resistance for your brain.
>>25362740That Egyptian on Twitter frequently hates on them.
>>25364460>Jung's types are cognitive compulsionsNah.[TW: extreme summarized summary incoming!]Psychological Types was about how some people are primarily influenced(and seek to establish themselves as individuals) from without(objects, people, events, the external world in general) - against people who are more influenced from within(abstractions, fantasy, dreams, inner images in general).The intended conclusion was to bring to light how it's not entirely possible to reduce psychology to only what Freud was doing with his primitive object-relations theory, but it also cannot be entirely reduced to Adler's power complex... so actually they were both partially right, but entirely one-sided in their approach.It's also very important to highlight "primarly" here, because the extraverted type also has a more secondary, compensatory, rudimentary introversion subordinated to its extraversion - and the introverted type is the opposite way around.And it doesn't end here... both the introvert and extravert can also be thinking, feeling, sensation or intuition types.The four functions are like a compass for consciousness are something interesting and not properly understood at all nowadays.The idea is that consciousness needs to establish at least 4 things:>there is something, from Sensation, that is alerted by the activity of the senses>this something is X, from Thinking, typically what we refer as comprehension or understanding>X feels good or bad, from Feeling, or how we relate to the things>X possibly came from Y and could become Z, from Intuition, that is not seen directly or consciously deduced from given premises, it's realized in the form of a hunch of unconscious originFor a complete orientation to reality. This X can be literally anything.We need all four and we cannot possibly remove one, but we cannot differentiate them in consciousness on the same level, so there will be a superior function, an auxiliary that could be more or less differentiated and pairs with the former - then on the other side an inferior function which stays barely above the primal/collective level, is influenced by the opposite attitude of consciousness(so for an introvert, it will take an extraverted character) and also has its own auxiliart
>>25360948>writes the most profound and importantHe didn’t
Synchronicity is real and demonstrates mind and matter spring from a pan psychic, panetheistic Godhead. Materialists are addicted to their nihilism.
>>25360948
>>25360980Many things could exist in theory and unfortunately science would probably filter out some true beliefs.But I thing the strength of science is that it's restrictive. It's very easy to create a plausible sounding and internally coherent hypothesis, there are tons of them. That's also why there will never be consensus in philosophy, you have all those highly intelligent people who are extremely good at creating coherent theories, but there's no restrictions.
>>25361565I saw something similar when I took mushrooms.
