Now that the dust has settled, did we like it?

Now that the dust has settled, did we like it?

Attached: man and his symbols.jpg (374x499, 61K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_dragon
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

new-age bs

What is a good entry point for philosophy?

Mysticism and quackery

Listening to Socrate's musings in the agora

Attached: images.jpg (257x196, 5K)

Start with the Greeks (not being ironical)
- Iliad
- Odessey
- Plato: Apology --> Crito --> Phaedo --> Meno --> Republic
-Herodotes - the histories (is useful with aristotle's politics)
- Aristotle: Ethics>Politics>On Poetry>The Organon>Physics>On the Soul>Metaphysics>Rhetoric

Then onto christianity:
- bible
- augustine: -confessions --> -city of god
- aquinas: - summa theologica

Then rationalists and empericists:
-descartes
-spinoza
-Leibniz
-Locke
-Burkely
-Hume

That's as far as i have got user goodluck it occupied a year and half ofmy time

It's a good introduction to some of his ideas but the chapters written by people other than Jung and von Franz aren't that great. Some of his collected works are much better but having read this and his biography previously it gave me some basis because he's got a very academic way of writing - having to show you how he reached his theory rather than just the ideas itself.

I'm still a bit undecided on Jung as a whole, he has many interesting ideas but I can't tell if he's actually found the common link between most religions and myths or he is just cherry picking aspects to fit his purpose. I'd say (at least for me) it's very hard to tell without a wealth of knowledge in the source material which I don't have time to read.

Thanks

>It's a good introduction to some of his ideas but the chapters written by people other than Jung and von Franz aren't that great.
Everything has been said. Although I still highly recommend this book to anyone looking to get into Jung. Haven't read his other intro works but I've almost read his entire bibliography, as well as Von Franz (Which I find the most interesting, but that's subjective as it's simply a matter of interests)
I'd recommend those interested in the Jungian aspects of Peterson's lectures to dive right into it, as like many other jungians, he only focuses on a few concepts, overseeing the rest. I'll be honest and say that from the few lectures I've watched from him, I've been underwhelmed. But Nietzsche and Jung are my favorite authors and I've read them extensively.
Calling new age bs and getting esoteric numbers

yeah this is where i am with jung, still really interesting and certain aspects seem undeniable, he was a genius for sure.

Also dont listen to this guy, it will depend on what interests you in philosophy, theres no reason to assume that the Greeks will interest you nearly as much as say the logical positivits or philosophers of mind of the 20th century.
Philosophy is incredibly broad and you dont need to understand Plato to understand Rudolf Carnap or something.
Willard van Quine, arguably the most important philosopher of the latter half of the 20th century famously said he doesnt care for the history of philosophy because hes able to grasp the important concepts of his branch of philosophy.

Plato and them greek homos are great, but they arent required to read philosophy.
Also Ignore the Illiad and such.

I dont think what youre saying is coherent.

Peterson is underwhelming. I'm not really familiar with his stuff but I know my jung really well, nietzsche as well although not on the level of the former. From what I've seen, Peterson focuses on very little from Jung. Only a few concepts which serves , understandable but don't think that's all there is to Jung. Jung is the first man to go beyond newtonian physics, that makes him the most important intellectual until the next one. Almost every quantum physicist is well versed in jungian psychology.
And he's an anglo, I don't want to spark any debate but that's a huge bias in itself.

is the dragon in asia not representative of some great fearful beast to be conqeured? Im asking sincerely, I don't really know shit about asia

How much time to do all

Read up on your jungian analysis of fairy tales (Von Franz) she touches quite a bit on why there are opposite meanings for symbols across earth.

Where did you hear that? Right is "good" in the east also.

Jung is the first man to go beyond newtonian physics, that makes him the most important intellectual until the next one. Almost every quantum physicist is well versed in jungian psychology.

Huh, can you elaborate on that?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_dragon

Dragons are used more as a symbol of goodness rather than the opposite, I think in Japan for example a dragon residing in a river would mean that the river was healthy.

>Almost every quantum physicist is well versed in jungian psychology.
rofl

Where did you hear that about quantum physicists?

that’s not the Greeks at all and you shouldn’t read Aristotle or the Bible

new age is like the prosperity gospel of the occult. Its a watered-down self-absorbed interpretation of the original ideas.

Attached: mph-photo.jpg (245x307, 27K)

>criticizes new age
>posts Manly P. Hall

Jung realized Freud's theories didn't hold up in a clinical setting so with his own knowledge, intuition and his early experiences in the psychology of the occult, he went further and had to completely reinvent the scientific paradigm of his time. Jung intuitively knew there was an exchange of information happening outside the possibility of newtonian physics (synchronicity, archetypes..)

>Modern depth-psychology and consciousness research owe a great debt to the Swiss psychiatrist C. G. Jung. In a lifetime of systematic clinical work, Jung demonstrated that the Freudian model of the human psyche was too narrow and limited. He amassed convincing evidence showing that we must look much farther than personal biography and the individual unconscious if we are to even begin to grasp the true nature of the psyche. Among Jung’s best known contributions is the concept of the “collective unconscious,” an immense pool of information about human history and culture that is available to all of us in the depth of our psyches. Jung also identified the basic dynamic patterns or primordial organizing principles operating in the collective unconscious, as well as in the universe at large. He called them “archetypes” and described their effects on us as individuals and on human society as a whole[...] He discovered that individualized psychological events, such as dreams and visions, often form patterns of meaningful coincidence with various aspects of consensus reality that can not be explained in terms of cause and effect. This suggested that the world of the psyche and the material world are not two separate entities, but that they are intimately interwoven. Jung’s ideas thus challenge not only psychology but the Newtonian worldview of reality and the Western philosophy of science. They show that consciousness and matter are in constant interplay, informing and shaping each other in a way that the poet William Butler Yeats must have had in mind when he spoke of those events where “you cannot tell the dancer from the dance.”
Stanislav Grof, from the Holotropic Mind

Yeah quantum physics research happened (it still does) in switzerland, where and when Jung lived. Von Franz was friend with half of them lol.

he’s not new age his ideas are all from masonry and alchemy primary source texts and plotinus. Both he and Blavatsky read everything they talked about with prodigious attention and intent to synthesize a wisdom tradition.

Generally from what I've heard so far, MPH tends to be very matter-of-fact in his presentations and books. He's just an encyclopedia of mysteries and he never tells you about your personality or how to become rich or anything like that.

>Everyone attempting to find common themes and inform other people is new age.

>Jung’s fascination with physics actually began early in his career as a result of a series of dinners with Albert Einstein between 1909 and 1912.
>“It was Einstein who first started me thinking about a relativity of time as well as space, and their psychic conditionality…years later this stimulus led to my relation with the physicist Professor W. Pauli and to my thesis of psychic synchronicity.”
Jung
>Jung and Pauli were convinced that synchronistic events reveal an underlying unity of mind and matter, subjective and objective realities. Synchronicity was (and continues to be) a prime target for criticism of Jung that for decades bordered on outright dismissal by many in the scientific and academic communities.
Interesting as it showcases how conservative the scientific community can be. Now you'll be hardpressed to find a few dedicated autists who rant about quantum physics not being 'real science'.

>tfw Reich was the true successor of Freud but everyone immediately discounts him for his orgone theory

Attached: 1506688839909.jpg (400x400, 17K)

Yeah, all that stuff is satanic crap

No. It's unironically a gate to fascism.

both you pleb

>not Gross
Dude was a genius. He just was really bad at treating his patients.

... Sometimes I can't believe I'm sharing a board with people like you. Maybe read Jung? Jung is the antithesis to politicized children. He had a lot to say about the psychology behind politics, fascism... Just tell me how someone advocating for individualism paves the way for the second most anti individualist ideology that exists lmao? Fuck why do I waste time replying to such inane bullshit hahaha

>Pauli believed in jungian babble therefore quantum physicists (not a real category, by the way) are well versed in jungian babble
Ah yes. By this logic physicists are deist-hinduist-platonists because of Einstein, Bohr and Schrodinger.
>how conservative the scientific community can be.
The scientific community is super conservative regarding new theories. One of Einstein's university professors notoriusly didn't believe in the existence of atoms until Einstein himself proved it using brownian movement.

You're a child. Quit posting if it's only to add another meaningless reply to this thread. There are hundreds of physicists, astrophysicists, quantum(Did I need someone to point out that quantum physicist isn't a job lol?) who acknowledge Jung's works. Instead of being a contrarian why don't you provide examples and arguments?

can't really dump jung in with all the new age stuff then

I wasn't, it was more to help draw the line between new age hacks and occultists/metaphysicians.

>higher selection pressures
>the most populous peoples on the planet
What did he mean by this

Over the past year reading Jung and doing psychedelics has been an incredible experience

But you haven't provided any proof

It’s hard to say that many things and we wrong about all of them, but you did it, user. Congrats.

Don't miss the stoics user - I've only read a little Seneca but damn it's great.

not all selection pressure is the same, a population can flourish while having to deal with a harsher environment and its behavior will adjust accordingly, asians are more fruitful, lower behavioral complexity and thus lower individuation
East has to respect nature because floods and typhoons, monsoon season and ring of fire. West is afraid of nature because mankind is relatively powerful by comparison. Any people at the mercy of the elements will have more respect for them. Floods don’t devestate Europe and there are no hurricanes or Typhoons, most Euros had to deal with north atlantic and med storms and that’s it. Just a theory.
Daodejing, Man of war on the right, man of peace on the left, left is a sign of peace, right is a sign of warfare and death

>Confuses "job" with "category"
>Asks me to provide proof while not providing any proof of his outlandish claims
>Changes his claim from "almost every quantum physicist is well versed in Jungian psychology" to "There are hundreds of physicists, astrophysicists, quantum who acknowledge Jung's works", thinks no one would notice.
>Calls me a contrarian despite him being the one making absurde claims
Jungian archetype: The Retard

There are two traditions of Dragons. One is the Asian dragon, likely brought to Persia and the West (forming the typical "fantasy dragon") by eurasian nomads. The second is the Indo-European serpent, which gives myths like the Hindu and Norse (Midgard) serpents (but the Hindu Naga is of Dravidian origin). The Hindu myth is also reflected in Zoroastrian tradition (and hence worked it's way into Armenia and Georgia). There's also cultures with no Dragons at all, like the SEA who only used to have the Hindu Garuda (a good creature), or the turkic people many of whose origin stories involves a giant bird or a wolf, but no dragon.

It is the Indo-European myth of serpent-slaying which has given the western meme of slaying.

This, so fucking much. Different cultures in the world and through history have ascribed very different meanings to things. Different social structures, family structures, different myths, different ideas of what "order", "rightness", "piety/faith" (some ascetic, some extremely anti-ascetic), and things like conflict resolution, etc. And of course, what exactly constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" is nowhere as uniform as Jungians or Peterson claim.

It's not just Asia (I assume you mean the East). Egyptians, Sumerians, Hindus, Hittites, Iranic peoples, SEA. These aren't lightweight civilizations, and many are original civilization-builders with highly literate societies. All of them saw the "essences" and "symbols" of the world is a deeply non-european fashion. Women being the source of order? power/change? literacy? A chief sky goddess? There's no fucking pattern in this shit, to assert that there is, is fucking retarded. Same thing with social structures and the gender roles, or hero myths. There's some commonalities ("women don't fight in wars", "gods of travelers or doorways exist", etc.), but tons of this shit is shaped into it's specific form by history and many factors other than biology/psychology.

Yes, there's probably some deep universal truths in the human mind, and I don't even mind the mystical assertion that maybe through some process of imminence or whatever, these reflect the universal nature of the universe. Whatever. The assertion that patterns found in cheerypicked history and cultures reflects something deep at all (besides the development of these cultures - which is very interesting on it's own), is retarded.

I support JP if all he's doing is shutting up equally historically and culturally uninformed "SJW"s and such. But his claims on the level of philosophy are rubbish.

> hurr east vs west
These aren't the only two civlizations, and neither are monolithic, certainly not enough to say there's some pattern with regards to selective pressures. Yes, East Asian culture is certainly highly grouped, but Turkic and Mongol people evolved in a completely different environment for example. Where do you group the near-eastern civilizations? Egypt? Iranic Eurasian nomads? Tibetans/related semi-nomads (who yes, had quite a different society and family structure to the Chinese - polyandry and such)? What about people in North Africa/Sahara? Shit's more complex than "east" and "west", even if you completely ignore largely inconsequential (but still important on a cultural anthropology level) people like hunter-gatherers, etc.

And much of Chinese philosophy has beginnings in South and Central Asia as well.

I should also mention that there's 'serpent-like' creatures in almost every mythology (see: tiamat, etc.), but I meant "there's two traditions of Dragons in question here". In Europe and the Near East, much of these got syncretized.

>Like when he talks about dragons, every attribute he connects to them can be found in reverse in different parts of Asia.
Then they've taken upon themselves the side of the demonic. We fight demons, not help them. Indra kills Vritra, Hercules kills the Hydra, Theseus kills the Minotaur, St Michael kills Satan, Christ harrows Hell, the Theotokos Clothed in the Sun kills the Red Dragon. If you side with the chthonic then die too.

>Anyone care to explain to me why Im wrong or right in better detail?
You're missing the partisan nature of unseen warfare and the agency of men to choose the evil side.

Attached: revelation-126.jpg (1100x600, 209K)

From what I have read so far Jung's contribution is more based in alleviating suffering through delusion and irrational thinking in line with our ancestors. It doesn't matter whether his philosopy is infallible since there is truth in imagination contributing to meaning.

I think the problem is that Jung's method works fine and dandy as long as it's kept to its niche in European society (or the method itself is transplanted and and used to analyze other societies independent of the results of analyzing Europe) and that results in confusion. Just because symbols have deeper meaning doesn't mean the same symbol can't have two completely unrelated deeper meanings.

Perhaps Peterson makes this mistake unknowingly; perhaps Peterson is afraid to say it because lolracism; who knows.

nigga you wrong as hell

philosophy builds upon itself, you'll miss half of kneechee's ideas if you didn't start with the greeks and built it from there

>I think the problem is that Jung's method works fine and dandy as long as it's kept to its niche in European society
I'd agree with that. The issue is, even European society changes (cast in point: the radical change in these symbols due to christianity). Now, I'm not advocating for some radical restructuring of society or "lol fuck culture" bullshit that some leftists do, but it's important to analyze how different cultures do things, not just European modern ones, because society has and will change a ton due to the rapid advance of technology. We evolved for hunter-gathering, and most of these "european structures" are actually relatively modern. That's not to say they are bad. But rather, they will undoubtedly change and evolve as our societies do.

Jungian analysis is actually pretty damn cool as a concept. I'd be interested in exactly what you say: a transplanting of the method to analyze different archetypes everywhere, and this is actually what's done in sociology and anthropology. The difference is, Jung (and Peterson, and even Von Franz as someone mentioned before - no her shit might be more culturally aware than Jung but it still has the same flaws) and especially Peterson (who seems more politically motivated than say, Jung was - the latter was by no means a traditionalist), make the critical step of taking these interesting analyses of cultures and myths and finding patterns in them - to taking these patterns as reflecting in a very reductionist way, both biological nature and sometimes some mystical, universal nature of reality.

The issue with this step, is that it not only invalidates other culture's and viewpoints' ways of thinking, but implies quite heavily, that the current cultural structure is in some way, the "correct", "universal", and "unique" one, which is the closest to biology or something (insert naturalistic fallacy here if you want to make this statement stronger). Nah, as you mention there's deep meaning in symbols but you have to be really careful when making claims to universality of these meanings.

It also just makes the study of this stuff boring and without the interesting subtleties of history and culture. But Peterson honestly doesn't seem too interested in that - he'd rather have his universal, clean formalism - and this isn't really totally his fault, it makes sense he'd be biased this way as a psychologist. I don't really think he's racist, just not that informed about stuff outside his discipline in a deep fashion (this also includes his fairly....lackluster understanding of modern philosophy). On a related note, his presentation of Buddhism and Hinduism really fucking triggers me.

Read his Wotan essay, it sort of is a gate to fascism, the idea of a race memory and a telos for a race Jung helped build upon with his work and he erred heavily towards spiritual anti-Semitism right around the start of the war. This, despite his extensive friendships and assocations with Jews who he had said he was close with for most of his adult life, which says a lot about an INDIVIDUATED person's character that they would make those people suffer like that and submit to Fascism like a herd animal in total contradiction to most of his work on the individual.
>Just tell me how someone advocating for individualism paves the way for the second most anti individualist ideology that exists lmao? Fuck why do I waste time replying to such inane bullshit hahaha
you should calm down, learn to restrain your text message diction and consider not mocking people who are just going to ignore you. Bad form, redditesque, or just juvenile behavior, however you'd like to view it

>not reading Epictetus and Plotinus