/jung/ general

Wrote out this long post about Jung and the >current year for the Peterson thread but it got deleted or something and I'm not gonna waste it cuz it took more than five minutes to write so here it is. Also just /jung/ general

If it was deleted then fuck off mods this is Veeky Forumserature I'm talking about currents of ideas which will influence primarily the arts, not politics.

This post is directed at anons who are criticizing the idea that Jungian concepts are beginning to define our zeitgeist in the same way Freudian concepts percolated through the twentieth century. There are too many of you to reply individually, so apologies for not replying directly.

Replying to this user because hopefully my response can shed some light on his question too.

I’m also far from an expert; I’m just shitposting so don’t take what I say too seriously.

I'm not claiming anything like that Jung's ideas as expressed in his work are scientifically accurate. They're not, but neither were Freud's. Yet Freud's account of anxiety and sexuality still defined the art and culture of the twentieth century, especially after 1918.

This should at least open you up to the possibility of a Jungian revival in the wider culture. Jungians have never seen the success of Freudians, or any other school of thought for that matter. They've been the black sheep of intellectual discourse for a long time, partly due to their optimism, which does not go well with post-war nihilism, and partly due the volkish connotations of discussing mythology seriously, again following the war. As the trauma of these events fades, we are becoming open again to these ideas (which are not inherently fascist in any way whatsoever by the way, contrary to what academic "marxists" will try to claim for the sake of keeping their job).

We’ve become disillusioned with disillusionment. This is the problem which has been floating in the air since the early 90s at least; there has been a general sense that the toppling of all the pillars which sustained the temples of our culture provided only a momentary catharsis, and not the emancipation we were promised. But as to the solution to this sense of having snapped out of the postmodern trance is by no means clear, and this has been the main problem of the last twenty years, with thinkers proposing different solutions, all of which seemed to lead us back into the postmodern mindset, or into modernism, or into romanticism, or into some queasy mix of all three. Rightfully, these movements were rejected (I’m talking about new sincerity, metamodernism--that whole gang).

1of3

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3WDmRAASuKc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Later_works:_The_Turn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Heidegger_and_the_ground_of_History
core.roehampton.ac.uk/repository2/content2/subs/d.steedman/d.steedman1970/Jung (1966) On the relation.pdf
theskepticsguide.org/one-third-of-atheists-agnostics-believe-in-an-afterlife
youtube.com/watch?v=mbxI_qVlHbc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

But this year, it seems to me that a change has occurred, not unrelated to the election of Trump and Brexit (neither of which I support by the way, so please don’t tell me to go back to /pol/). Something in the air, not quite yet fully formed, but well into its gestation, forced itself into the public awareness. This change is very difficult to describe; Because I think in synesthetic terms, I’d describe it as a shift from a dark red century to a light blue century, but I realize how radically unhelpful that is, so I’ll try and formulate it a little differently.

The awareness that the groundlessness which postmodern ideas create is bad for your mental and spiritual health is obvious to everyone with a shred of honesty and self-reflection. People are anxious and miserable without something to hold onto and all the great emancipatory ideas, telling people they are radically free to be whatever way they want, that gender is a construct and they should be whoever they want, that order is useless and they should destroy it wherever they find it, that love is oppressive and they should fuck whoever they want regardless of whether there is any emotional content to the encounter, all of these freedoms (surprise, surprise, considering the bottomlessness of the unconstrained human subject) promote nothing more than a deep existential vertigo.

And so, the people who want rid of the headaches, shakes, fevers and sickness, if they’re smart, seek structure. Obviously the old structures, if they’d been properly constructed, wouldn’t have been able to be so easily pulled down in the first place, and that’s something the radicals ought to keep in mind before they drag us kicking and screaming back to state religion and divine right of kings.

However, the intuition is correct. We are limited creatures and we can only think in limited ways. The structures which the various hubristic movements of (I’d say roughly) the post-1600s systematically pulled down, were not so easily replaced as those movements presumed, and perhaps that’s because we are inherently religious creatures, with certain inherent political attitudes coded into us (whether we agree with hem consciously or not).

2of3

Which brings us to Jung, and to a lesser extent the traditionalists, all of whom give us the most useful tools our modern age could want: namely, the tools, in Jung, that of the archetypes, which will allow us to rehabilitate and reconstruct the old structures in new form, in such a way that they can withstand the attacks which collapsed them the first time round. The archetypes give us a lens through which to view the ancient and modern as continuous, not divergent, and this is the only thing which can wrest from us the anxieties produced by the methodologies of suspicion foisted upon the culture by the 19th and 20th century. Whether his ideas are scientifically correct, or “outdated”, has nothing to do with this. Either it is a useful lens through which to view the world (which it has been in my case, and certainly seems to have been in most other cases, certainly a healthier and more productive lens than all the post-structuralist ideas people buy into, which quite literally will destroy your life if you take them seriously (which is why no one smart, not even their original theorists, takes them seriously)) or it will prove useless. Time will tell, I guess.

Jung will be more relevant than Freud in dealing with this century; the same can be said for Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, the latter of whom defined the 20th century to a large extent, and hopefully for Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, but that’s personal preference, and JP seems to prefer Nietzsche anyway.

That’s how I see it anyway.

3of3

Not the user you'd be replying to, but I find myself in a similar page.

The masters of suspicion didn't give us enough tools to explain things such as the rise of religiosity, or how to fill the existential void left by all that skepticism.

I could only think of Heidegger being the token sane man, saying that no one is without religion:
youtube.com/watch?v=3WDmRAASuKc

Actually a good post

I will consider

Thanks for the video

I don't know all that much about Heidegger (his actual work is way over my head), but from what I've been able to understand from secondary material his ideas are right up my alley.

Does he have any discussion of mythology at all? Or psychology for that matter (I can imagine his encounters with Freud's work might have been a little constrained and tainted by other considerations unfortunately)?

ty user youre very kind

Heidegger didn't complete Being and Time (yes, it's unfinished business) because he underwent a Turn (Kehre) and discovered poetry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Later_works:_The_Turn

>Poetry reveals being in the way in which, if it is genuine poetry, it commences something new.

Also check out this because I find it profoundly relevant for today:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Heidegger_and_the_ground_of_History

Basically I think I'll keep Jung around for the past, and Heidegger for the future - which is actually very close to the present.

>telling people they are radically free to be whatever way they want, that gender is a construct and they should be whoever they want, that order is useless and they should destroy it wherever they find it, that love is oppressive and they should fuck whoever they want regardless of whether there is any emotional content to the encounter, all of these freedoms

That seems like a bit of a straw man to me, when was this ever the case, except for a brief period in the late 60s and early 70s? Compare the common "progressive" academic rhethoric now to the rhethoric at the height of the student revolt, the discourse has been totally de-radicalized. I really don't buy that all the old structures have been thoroughly destroyed by radical emancipation and post-structuralism, they've really been somewhat transformed or hidden and are still in place.

Of course, I agree that we are in an ongoing value crisis but I think it far pre-dates any postwar movements. You talk about the old structures as if they've been so easily pulled down, but the old world lasted for at least a thousand years in a fairly stable form (overall, of course it was never really statistic). Compare that to the hectic clusterfuck that the post-1789 years have been. I would agree with Heidegger here (based on his lectures on technology) that there is something in technology which is somehow responsible for this ongoing value crisis.

core.roehampton.ac.uk/repository2/content2/subs/d.steedman/d.steedman1970/Jung (1966) On the relation.pdf

From "On The Relation of Analytical Psychology to Art"
>In order to do justice to a work of art, analytical psychology must rid itself entirely of medical prejudice; for a work of art is not a disease
>When Plato, for instance, puts the whole problem of the theory of knowledge in his parable of the cave, or when Christ expresses the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven in parables, these are genuine and true symbols, that is, attempts to express something for which no verbal concept yet exists. If we were to interpret Plato's metaphor in Freudian terms we would naturally arrive at the uterus, and would have proved that even a mind like Plato's was still stuck on a primitive level of infantile sexuality.
>There are no inborn ideas, but there are inborn possibilities of ideas that set bounds to even the boldest fantasy and keep our fantasy activity within certain categories
>The impact of an archetype, whether it takes the form of immediate experience or is expressed through the spoken word, stirs us because it summons up a voice that is stronger than our own. Whoever speaks in primordial images speaks with a thousand voices; he enthrals and overpowers, while at the same time he lifts the idea he is seeking to express out of the occasional and the transitory into the realm of the ever-enduring.

What do we think?

I agree with you on multiple points.First off, this did almost certainly begin long before the 20th century. In fact, I date it earlier than you, beginning with the first martyrs of science, like Bruno, who inaugurated it as a religious worldview by their deaths.

Secondly, I also agree that these structures have not been pulled down completely, because they cannot be pulled down completely without the extinction of life on earth. They are what compose us as extant subjects. They have been transmuted and obscured into various ideologies and belief systems. However, there is a side effect to this, and that is that the structures in this form do not provide the sustenance that they do in their authentic forms. The transmutation of christian mythical structures into various splinters of left and right wing ideology leads to each member overvaluing one aspect of the original mythical structure, off-balancing it.

And I really do disagree that it's a strawman, at least in my experience. Whether people readily admit to believing these things, this is what is being taught in humanities departments in the west. In my university I know plenty of people who hold these beliefs explicitly and many many more who act like they hold these beliefs even if they don't say it.

>The transmutation of christian mythical structures into various splinters of left and right wing ideology leads to each member overvaluing one aspect of the original mythical structure, off-balancing it.

I would agree with this.

>In my university I know plenty of people who hold these beliefs explicitly

But do they actually hold power? Look at all the people how espoused much more radical thoughts in the 60s and now hold all the important positions in academia. Most of them are culturally as non-radical and conservative (in the literal sense of the word) as you can get. Granted i'm not from the US and I study in departments (history and phil) which haven't been swept in the same way by Idpol discourse as other humanity departments. But I think it's important to not overstate something which is probably a very contained phenomenon. Does a signifcant portion of society really deeply hold these beliefs? I doubt it. In ten or fifteen years time most of the these oh-so radical 20 year old feminists will probably fall into the evil institution of marriage and live like their parents, as is the usual cycle. I wouldn't say that this stuff didn't have any effect on our collective cultural consciousness but again, compare the narrative of 68 and the narrative of today and you'll see that there has been the opposite of an radicalization.

can someone give me the basic gestalt of OP's shitpost?

>youtube.com/watch?v=3WDmRAASuKc
The last translated sentence is problematic. Heidegger was playing with equivocation there.

1. "displaced" and "crazy" being homonyms in this particular sentence
2. "Everyone is in a certain way beyond themselves" is a better translation than "transcends themselves" IMO

So we aren't dealing with a spiritual Heidegger here but a witty one. Thought I'd let you know.

Aren't "über sich hinaus (gehen)" and "verrückt" (as in displaced) specific heideggerian terminology? I don't think he was trying to be witty there. Not that there ever has been a lot of humor in Heidis work.

I'm not from the US, but I am in my first year in an English department populated by professors who fervently believe to the letter in the infallibility of postmodern tenets, like death of the author and the pervasiveness of power relations through quite literally everything. It's been frankly quite shocking to me, and not at all what I excepted when I signed up for the course. These are folk who will teach a course on Robinson Crusoe and talk only about those parts of the book concerning the animals (who are obviously oppressed by their even being categorised as animals).

I also do philisophy in an analytical department and these problems do not persists in the older lecturers but I've encountered younger tutors who dabble in this kind of thinking and the majority of the students are of this kind of view.

The pervasiveness of this style of thinking amongst young humanities students is definitely something which is difficult to understate. Whether they will change as they get older is an interesting question. I suspect many will, since, like I said before, you simply can't take these ideas seriously, for your own sake.

And I think the idea that the old structures are useless and outdated is very much pervasive throughout the whole culture--in both STEM and the humanities.

But I don't want to turn this into a rant about university; we've got enough of that on this website. It's difficult to separate my own personal disappointment with my chosen field from any analysis I might do of the larger artistic culture.

>post-1600 the structures which provided people with meaning, like religion and mythology, were eroded by a series of increasing hostile movements
>this has resulted in our modern situation, where nothing has replaced these structures, leading to people being groundless and suffering vertigo of unconstrained freedom of being
>Jung is ideal to fix this because his theory of archetypes lets us reinterpret these old structures in a mor stable and modern way, making them sturdier and more resilient to attack
>for this reason, Jung will undergo a revival in scholarly interest in the next few years and will have something to do with defining the intellectual climate of the first half of the 21st century.

For me, it's Lacan

Fuck off materialist scum

You are right, it's his usual terminology, not him trying to be witty. His use of "verrückt" is similar to Hegel's use of "Aufhebung" in that he consciously uses ambiguity in language, it's not meant to be humourous.

>using not believing in magic as an insult

Either Christianity makes a comeback or the West is replaced by Muslims.

Jung is one of the strongest secular thinker to rescue Christianity from nihilist and Statists atheists.

Right now, Peterson is changing the world by relying a lot on Jung's works.

>They're not, but neither were Freud's.
[citation needed]
Freud's were an actual attempt towards an accurate reflection of reality.
Jung's were an interior language game based on abstraction and arbitrary reification of idealised notions.
> They've been the black sheep of intellectual discourse for a long time
More like one of a large horde of dismissed obsolete and laughable horseshit
> we are becoming open again to these ideas
"We" are? Depression and irreligiousity is growing significantly with every younger generation in the West
> all of which seemed to lead us back into the postmodern mindset
Because "postmodernism" is correct
> I’d describe it as a shift from a dark red century to a light blue century
Cringe
> is bad for your mental health
So what if its true
>spiritual health
Lmao
> We are limited creatures and we can only think in limited ways.
Some more than others clearly
> that of the archetypes
For something to be a "tool" it actually has to have applicable use. Archetypes are not a tool its a language game where nothing is achieved but a refraction of subjects into atemporal rigid predefined categories. The categories themselves are defined with poor if any justification and laughably specific to Jung's own imaginative background. Its subscribers fall for its supposed universality because they mistake the ability to exercise as its applicability when it's really a reflection of its innately arbitrary and irrelevant logic.
The equivalent of wearing red sunglasses and thinking it let's you see the truth that the entire world is actually tinted red. So much for your "lens"

> can withstand the attacks
Except they won't and I will tear them down that spooky horseshit very easily

I won't bother talking about the rest since you just start disorientatedly repeating yourself

Where should I start with Jung
What book

>there has been a general sense that the toppling of all the pillars which sustained the temples of our culture provided only a momentary catharsis, and not the emancipation we were promised.
There lied almost a hundred years between Newton and the critique of pure reason. A Jungian revival would be by analogy like going back to school metaphysics in new clothing rather than Kant's critiques. More empty ideas and phrases. You seem to want this. You want the old structures but in new form so they can withstand criticism better. I'm not convinced why the old structures in whatever form should be preferrable.

I don't buy that a significant group of people are becoming neurotic as a result of pomo ideology. It is far more likely that people are becoming neurotic, if we look at developments in the timeframe you mention, as a result of overconsumption of high speed information, high speed violence and high speed sex resulting in brain death, as well as being stuck in increasingly mind numbing jobs. The reason we haven't seen paradigm shifting philosophical treatises as well as transcendental and edifying works of art for near centuries isn't because everyone got spooked by the frenchies it's because the suckers were busy publishing their middle-brow essays and reviews at gun point. It's pathology of living under late capitalism as far as the eye can see!

And now forget about the last twenty years of decadence and focus on what people on your side like Peterson are endorsing. American pragmatism a la Rorty is the best philosophical effort you can muster up -- 200 years after Kant! Two hunna!
Do you think you can do better than this? Commit Hume fetishism then to the flames! Commit Rorty then to the flames! Yes to Kant -- No to Hegel, Marx and Shitzek. You have thousands of phd theses on Hegel and pragmatism every year you crazy monkeys like what the fuck are you doing didn't you read your critiques? Hegel was objectively *leans into mic* wrong! INTO THE FLAMES IT GOES!

wew

>all the great emancipatory ideas, telling people they are radically free to be whatever way they want, that gender is a construct and they should be whoever they want, that order is useless and they should destroy it wherever they find it, that love is oppressive and they should fuck whoever they want regardless of whether there is any emotional content to the encounter, all of these freedoms
This is just imo but I think you are seriously overestimating how many people buy this and whether this has had a significant impact on culture. We are talking about a minority of disoriented students and their mediocre professors here. It's not even about normies. Chad and Stacy don't give a fuck. not to mention any intellectual worth their salt.

No to Jung -- Yes to Trump. Or no to Trump and yes to Jung. Just send more sand people in the general direction of Germany. You'll have your hero archetype alright.

>like death of the author and the pervasiveness of power relations through quite literally everything.

Both of these ideas are indisputably correct to the point of being common sensical.
You sound like you should stop presuming all these people more educated than you are wrong just because what they say makes you feel sad and actually try learning what they're talking about dipshit

Man and his symbols

>he's a lightweight synesthesiac who sees Freud's philosophy as dark red and Jung's as light blue too

what the fuck op, are you Me? I literally had this exact thought yesterday.

You sound like someone who finds horoscopes convincing

>Both of these ideas are indisputably correct to the point of being common sensical.

No, they are by and large held to be indisputably correct, but they are by no means indisputable. Your post seems to be pretty good evidence for the other anons point desu.

Then what is your refutation of either?
You really believe that an author has unquestionable retroactive authority over the interpretation of a work or that the Foucaultian notion of power as a delocalized nexus of constant mutual impositions and resistences?
There are many things held as informally indisputable for good reason especially when you give no reason to think otherwise

This may sound spicy, obnoxiously provocative, but I don't think that Jung is a Christian thinker, but a pagan one (and the same goes for Peterson, GOD BLESS'IM). I think this analysis comes from Zizek:

Jung's highest conception of God is a two-faced God, a being which is capable of doing both good and evil. We can see this in Jung's idea of the shadow self, as well as in Peterson's idea that you have to know what you're capable of (the depths to which you can sink) to be able to be truly good (not just out of cowardice, but out of magnanimity). Zizek (and I imagine Chesterton) would say that this fails to reach the deepest theological insight of Christianity: God is capable of self-doubt. In the moment before Jesus died, from the Christian perspective, he, (GOD!!), was an atheist.

And perhaps this revolutionary concept of radical self-doubt (rather than the obscene myth of the mommy-gf) is the key to Hamlet's persona, as well. Maybe Hamlet looms so large in our literature, not because he wants to fuck his Mom, but because he doesn't believe in himself.

That last paragraph isn't connected to anything. My point is that Jungians are not yet Christians, but Pagans.

>My point is that Jungians are not yet Christians, but Pagans
People say this about Catholicism.

Do you consider Catholicism Christian?

People only say that about Catholicism for dumb superficial reasons

Yet doesn't that apply to Jungians? Pagan-inspired Christianity like Catholicism.

What I'm saying is what they usual point is are simply historical contingences and rituals like the pantheon of Saints and veneration of Mary which actually hold extremely little importance to Catholic Theology and are just historical rituals.
Whereas Jung's imaginative framework is extremely Pagan in character

I'm not too annoyed by the idea of the death of the author. the only reason it annoys me is because it's a Franco-Maudlinite rehashing of an idea from Plato (artists don't know what they do).

The idea that power relations exist everywhere is of course true (in the sense that, between two people, one is more powerful than the other). But what OP probably takes issue with is the disgusting idea that they are everywhere the primary motivation for everything people do. In an office, yes, most of the time you have to do what your boss says. But in love, in friendship--in anything that makes life worth living--it's disgusting to say that those things are essentially founded on power struggles, not merely because it's incorrect, but because in ideas like that the French hatred for everything beautiful and pure, the feverish French passion for destroying all human dignity makes itself manifest in its purest form. FUCK THE FRENCH REEE!!!!

If you still believe Jung wasn't a devout Christian you obviously haven't read the recently published Red Book.

>rituals like the pantheon of Saints and veneration of Mary which actually hold extremely little importance to Catholic Theology

You definitely shouldn't be commenting on Catholicism, this is objectively wrong on so many levels.

ya definitely. I mean if some peasant in the woods is venerating the Virgin Mary statue or whatever without knowing the checks and balances, that person is a pagan. But the catholic structure of belief is totally Christian, OG Christian

Your conception of power relations as a simplistic dichotomy of superior and inferior is not what Post-modernists speak of.

>this is objectively wrong on so many levels.

Duh if ya say so bud

yes, you're right, it's not merely a power reading like on DBZ, the idea is that it's like, in practice. like it's always happening. Among two people, one will always be dominating the other, due to various structures of power in their greater society

Even the very notion of domination is multifaceted. There is implicit relationships of strength, wealth, knowledge, cultural supremacy and so on.
Its like if you had a big black bull over to your house you know he could break your neck at any moment but at the same time you could ring the cops and tell them he was tresspassing at any time. This is a power relationship in play just from two dudes standing in a room.

I don't have to refute them. It doesn't matter if they are correct or not, the point is the user you replied to claimed that these concepts are pervasive in contemporary academia, which you seem to affirm with your post that:

>Both of these ideas are indisputably correct to the point of being common sensical.

>It doesn't matter if they are correct or not

>Jung's highest conception of God is a two-faced God, a being which is capable of doing both good and evil.
Isaiah 45:7
>I form light and create darkness,
>I make weal and create woe;
>I the Lord do all these things.

That God creates evil is the mainstream, standard Jewish interpretation (especially in theology after the Holocaust), which rejects the apocalyptic dualism with Satan as a separate source of evil, the serpent in Eden as Satan, etc. Jung simply notes that Satan is a creation of God, and everybody who reads Job sees that in it, God is Satan's boss.

You have to realize that when a Kierkegaard speaks of Fear and Trembling he also means Fear, when an Otto speaks of Mysterium Tremendum et Fascinans he also means Mysterium and Tremendum, and when an Otto again speaks of a Totally Other he also means Other.

The rest of the post has nothing to do with proving Jung or Jungians as Pagan.

A less plebby way would be to say Jung was simply influenced by the Jewish theology, Hermeticism, and the understanding of "Gnosticism" of his time.

As for Peterson's own theology, he's well within the orthodoxy of Protestantism.

>not believing in magic
>in a /Jung/ thread

Wrong neighbourhood nigga

>Freud's were an actual attempt towards an accurate reflection of reality.
Sigmund Freud was a literal brainlet who got hard romanticizing materialist pessimism. Bring up someone whose most well known work isn't essentially a 21st century teenager writing about their dreams and what they probably mean.
"Huh I dreamed of drinking water, and when I got up, I was actually thirsty! :^)"

Sorry to tell you son but reality is materialist and depressing

>Reality is materialist and depressing
Okay. Now which reality, and which dimension since we exist on a little under a dozen? Or are you referencing your own reality, as in, the one I don't exist on.
You should go to the gym and exert yourself in physical activities. You'll find it releases many of your pathologies. Oh wait, you do MMA right?

>dimensions

lel alright reddit

>doesn't understand even the basics of superstring theory
Is this why people don't understand Jung? They create a mass of misinformation they consider the ground floor when it's actually entry level garbage?

We have a general for Sci-fi and fantasy friend

Where do I start with Jung? Do I need pre-reading?

Start with his unironic investigations into the occult

You're just making yourself look more embarrassing. Or do you actually believe the most accepted theories of physics are science fiction?

>Or do you actually believe the most accepted theories of physics are science fiction?

When it comes to theoretical physics yeah, its all up in the air to anyone with even casual scientific literacy

And now you're supporting the original point I was trying to make.
Nice.

Alright

But the pagan gods are the same as the Christian God, user.

/thread

Really appreciated this post

can you link me to something the proves string theory and not just 2 or 3 inferring from negation?
genuinely curious.

>implying this goober knows fuck all about string theory

>[citation needed]

>irreligiousity is growing significantly
>Lmao
One fedora out of three believes in the afterlife
theskepticsguide.org/one-third-of-atheists-agnostics-believe-in-an-afterlife

It is theism that is fucking off, but there is more to religion that theism, surely a fedora such as you should be worried that superstition is moving in the opposite direction to theism

>a refraction of subjects into atemporal rigid predefined categories
Jung is inductive, not deductive

>Archetypes are not a tool
This is the literature board

I really don't give a shit about what box teenagers pick in a survey. The importance of religion is the extent to which it can be a motivating and organizational force for which I don't see recovery happening in the developed world, far the opposite. Call me when these people actually start filling those empty pews again.

this thread was cool until all this dense stop-liking-what-i-don't-like faggots came to piss on it
i'm with you op

>The importance of religion is the extent to which it can be a motivating and organizational force
Your fedora is so large you can't see the rest of the psychology, sociology, or even economy of religion.

>Call me when these people actually start filling those empty pews again.
Secularization is a myth.

Plenty of space in for your mystical nonsense if you don't want any intellectual scrutiny

>intellectual scrutiny
kek
everybody get a load of this pretentious faggot

>Your fedora is so large you can't see the rest of the psychology, sociology, or even economy of religion.

i'm sayin that the christian idea of a self-doubting God goes beyond the idea of a God with two faces. It doesn't invalidate it, just expands on it

>Sigmund Freud was a literal brainlet who got hard romanticizing materialist pessimism.

what would make someone believe this?

Thanks for your time, user.

To anyone: What is inherently unhealthy about a post-modern worldview? What values come attached to the archetypal framework that make it a more hygienic option?

Furthermore, how does one go "back", to placing any kind of meta-narrative at the core of their worldview, without having an unshaking feeling they are deluding themselves? How can the framework of archetypes also include doubt in itself in its own model?

This I think is actually necessary now. You can't just pretend that post-modernism didn't happen, it needs to be included and transcended.

>What is inherently unhealthy about a post-modern worldview?

Its in the same way discovering Santa wasn't real was an "unhealthy" discovery

>What is inherently unhealthy about a post-modern worldview?
It fills people with pessimism, nihilism, irresponsibility and depression.

Of course, if you think the certainty of depression is better than the chance of being wrong, by all means, go ahead!

>What values come attached to the archetypal framework that make it a more hygienic option?
For starters it gets people to approach literature in a different way.

You hear words like "complex" in psychology, "trickster" in the study of mythology, "archetype" in fiction writing and analysis because a rascal called Carl G. Jung introduced those.

>how does one go "back", to placing any kind of meta-narrative at the core of their worldview, without having an unshaking feeling they are deluding themselves?
This particular person is you. The meta-narrative is you. You don't go back, you go forward. Individuation.

>Of course, if you think the certainty of depression is better than the chance of being wrong, by all means, go ahead!

Woah, admitting to having 0 (zero) intellectual integrity

>You can't just pretend that post-modernism didn't happen, it needs to be included and transcended.
The arts are already tired of that bullshit, so here's the Metamodernist Manifesto:

1.
We recognise oscillation to be the natural order of the world.
2.
We must liberate ourselves from the inertia resulting from a century of modernist ideological naivety and the cynical insincerity of its antonymous bastard child.
3.
Movement shall henceforth be enabled by way of an oscillation between positions, with diametrically opposed ideas operating like the pulsating polarities of a colossal electric machine, propelling the world into action.
4.
We acknowledge the limitations inherent to all movement and experience, and the futility of any attempt to transcend the boundaries set forth therein. The essential incompleteness of a system should necessitate an adherence, not in order to achieve a given end or be slaves to its course, but rather perchance to glimpse by proxy some hidden exteriority. Existence is enriched if we set about our task as if those limits might be exceeded, for such action unfolds the world.
5.
All things are caught within the irrevocable slide towards a state of maximum entropic dissemblance. Artistic creation is contingent upon the origination or revelation of difference therein. Affect at its zenith is the unmediated experience of difference in itself. It must be art’s role to explore the promise of its own paradoxical ambition by coaxing excess towards presence.
6.
The present is a symptom of the twin birth of immediacy and obsolescence. Today, we are nostalgists as much as we are futurists. The new technology enables the simultaneous experience and enactment of events from a multiplicity of positions. Far from signalling its demise, these emergent networks facilitate the democratisation of history, illuminating the forking paths along which its grand narratives may navigate the here and now.
7.
Just as science strives for poetic elegance, artists might assume a quest for truth. All information is grounds for knowledge, whether empirical or aphoristic, no matter its truth-value. We should embrace the scientific-poetic synthesis and informed naivety of a magical realism. Error breeds sense.
8.
We propose a pragmatic romanticism unhindered by ideological anchorage. Thus, metamodernism shall be defined as the mercurial condition between and beyond irony and sincerity, naivety and knowingness, relativism and truth, optimism and doubt, in pursuit of a plurality of disparate and elusive horizons. We must go forth and oscillate!

(I have to say that the expression "romantic pragmatism" almost sold me by itself)

>one six year old meme manifesto now represents "The Arts"

No, it's simply seeing a worldview for what it is: provisional and approximate.

Hail praxis, progress and revision.

Santa was just a minor side character though

No, I didn't say that, frogposter.

>ending up doubling down on post-modernism in an attempt to reject it

>I didn't say that
>proposition: The arts are already tired of that bullshit
>so here's (supporting evidence): six year old meme manifesto

>Metamodernist Manifesto
if shia labeouf is with you, i'm with you
youtube.com/watch?v=mbxI_qVlHbc

Post-modernism likes to pretend it is post-modernism that worldviews have to be tested against.

It isn't. Praxis is. This is true for post-modernism too.

i wish there was porn of this

There's evidence that events such as these consistently ruin parent-child relationships.

"Praxis" isn't a worldview dipshit, its a classical term with no fixed definition that casually parrelels the concept of Hegel's and by extension Marx's notion of Dialectics

why do phisolophy if your brains aren't real

>"Praxis" isn't a worldview
Exactly. To be precise I mean Aristotle's.

Dude Aristotle believed in geocentrism, I don't think he's exactly the standard from which to test credibility of new propositions anymore

We found out geocentrism isn't the best for astrophysics, by testing the theory against praxis, certainly not out of post-modernism.

But because of understanding the provisional nature of a worldview in which the Earth is at the center, and replacing it with another, provisional worldview in which the Earth isn't. And then other revolutions came, but not simply from attacking what came before, but replacing and improving upon it.

It's a work in progress.

It may be a work in progress but there is a lot that has been established for which we can see no recourse for it ever changing.
The "provisional" nature of the fact the Earth is not the centre of the solar system is provisional in the most casual sense of the word.
It is one thing to assume a continueing progress towards truth and quite another to take that as casting any expectation of finitude on any proposition or concept in particular

Agree with everything you say, user. At the core of the post-modern disease lies disillusionment with religion itself. This doesn't mean we need to go back to the outdated concepts of christianity (or islam, as the middle east seems to be doing), but rather that we must conceive of a new and better frame for our spiritual feelings.
I think Spinoza gave a good start, and certainly his pantheistic conception of god is both admirable and compatible with the modern views, but sadly no one really expanded on it.
There's the views of the hermeticists and theurgists, who gave the onset of incorporating science, but never quite succeeded.
I say all this from the viewpoint of someone already believing in the divine, though where that belief originated is the more important question. I was starting a new life and reading Gene Wolfe and Tolstoy at the time (both writers who infuse their work with religion), but where specifically the start of belief came from is hard to say. Perhaps the ability to conceive of something higher and at the same time compatible with reality is something we are naturally inclined to.

Surely Eintein's relativity showed that a view of geocentrism is just as valid as a view of Sol-centrism or any other?

In terms of the Universe by some disigenuous stretch of the term centre yes, but not in terms of the solar system, or galaxy or supercluster.

I have never seen so much written with so little said.

>certainty of depression
Citation needed. Ever heard of the Existential Hero?

>This particular person is you. The meta-narrative is you. You don't go back, you go forward. Individuation.
And I recognise that this is true of everyone else. Sonder. Post-modernism.

>there is a lot that has been established for which we can see no recourse for it ever changing
Said almost everybody until the next paradigm shift.

>The "provisional" nature of the fact
Not the fact, the theory, that explains how that works. You dethrone the earth and start with the sun as the centre, not of just the solar system, but the universe, and then move on to the next theory, and dethrone the sun, now it turns out that there are stars bigger than the sun and exoplanets around them...

Gravity is the reason why, and it may not change in praxis, but it keeps being redefined in theory. Over and over again. That is because praxis is what the theoretical, which is provisional, must be tested again. As always.

>Ever heard of the Existential Hero?
Can't say I've ever seen one. Mind naming someone who isn't some fictional character and that also happens to be one?

>And I recognise that this is true of everyone else
Meta-narrative alert! Alert! Quick! Call the Ministry of Love!

>Post-modernism.
Are you sure?
>Foucault clearly opposed the idea of a hidden authentic self, which he critically referred to as the “Californian cult of the self”
Californian cultist detected.

>Mind naming someone who isn't some fictional character and that also happens to be one?
Dr X

There are lots of definitions of Existentialism, and not much uniformity beyond: a world without meaning and a person's responsibility to "make" his/her own life. If the definition(s) you're looking at don't include the term "absurd," move on. It's key.
An existential hero then, at least as a literary archetype, is one who sees human life as essentially absurd and ultimately meaningless, but tries to live into meaning regardless, tries to live with his existential angst, looking for meaning in connections with people and in the details of just moving through daily life. It is a small sounding achievement, perhaps, but not to a true existentialist. It is a bravery of endurance and small actions, not necessarily perceivable to anyone...but done nevertheless.