There are roughly two approaches to psychology: the approach of "human psychology", for instance Nietzsche...

My name comes from a weekly club we had here on Greek writings a few years ago, everyone used it as a sort of joke, and many others besides me have used it since. It's Greek for "no one", the name Odysseus gave the Cyclops. It has been used by writers as the equivalent to "anonymous", hence our use of it. It has nothing to do with me individually, notice there is no trip

Then stop posting with it outside of your shitty club, I certainly haven't seen "many others" use it for years all over this board

No

Wow, your club is so special, YOU are so special. Oh and clever. Can I be part of your club?

>I have never read a paragraph of Nietzsche
>they forced me to read a sparknotes of crime and punishment once
>all schools of psychology are basically existential
You know, Sasha Grey could probably tell you why you're wrong. There's evidence she has a whole book on the topic.

Sorry, no riffraff, hoi polloi, plebs or proles, your breath reeks of rotten fens.

Nietzsche is the antichrist insofar as Christ is Socrates.

No, I've read both extensively. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

Sounds like a pretty boring club, tbpqfhwyfam.

Nietzsche is antichrist insofar as Christ accords with Christianity. Nietzsche's belief that Christianity is a Platonic development is quite flawed, though. While many Christians invoked Plato to various degrees (Chrysostom, for one, detested him), there is zero in fundamental Christian doctrine that is Platonic

Do you then reject Petersons notion that the initial creative force of the Christian God and the saving grace of Jesus was the Logos?

>your breath reeks of rotten fens.
Honestly, how did you know this?

Platonism is where the myth of the eternal soul comes from. It's not Jewish.

I identify the Logos with the person of Christ, and God's energies/grace as one and common to all three persons (just as God's essence is). So yeah, I reject it.

The idea of an eternal soul is present in the Psalms, and the resurrection is in the Prophets.

Not him, but I feel like the very idea of the Logos, the Word, puts too great a limit upon God, even God in the human incarnation of Jesus. The beginning of John's Gospel seems to me an attempt by a human being to express something beyond him, an attempt by a finite being to encompass the infinite. Naturally, it's bound to fail, and so John collapses into paradoxes, paradoxes about the Word being with God and also being God--word games and such. But I think this is all by design. I think, incidentally, this is why Chesterton likes paradoxes so much, and talks about them so much. I think John and Chesterton both hit on something fundamental about humans relating to God. Everything about us as humans is encompassed by God, yet God exceeds our limits. So our language breaks down when trying to adequately discuss and describe him. This is part of the power of mysticism, it offers an avenue of communication with the divine that succeeds where language fails. But language's attempts to encompass God seem to arrive at paradox because it's a way of expressing the limitless within language's limitations. Through the tangled mess of the paradox we perceive the Thing that transcends category and classification.

Thank you for your response.
>This is part of the power of mysticism, it offers an avenue of communication with the divine that succeeds where language fails.
What is that avenue? By which I don't mean the content of the communication, but the method.

>, an attempt by a finite being to encompass the infinite.
How, what?

John is not attempting to do that at all

Symbolism. Duality. Yin yang.

Sir, you have inflicted on me a powerful paranoia. This is no joke. Answer me please.

You know what? Honestly? I have no idea. I'm a pretty devout Catholic, and I've read some mystics over the years. I read Saint Teresa of Avila years ago. The mystics in their writings all seem to describe ways of becoming a better Catholic, a purer Catholic, a Catholic who more faithfully follows Christ and the teachings of the Church. But they never seem to describe how to actually attain mystical experiences. Or, if they do, I haven't read the texts that describe it.

Just now, though, I've had a thought: Christian mysticism is God-centered. Maybe a mystical encounter with God has to be something that God initiates? After all, here we're not talking about a dead religion and defunct practices. We're talking about a live wire to the divine, a wire that runs in both directions. Perhaps the purification of which the mystics speak is a means of preparing a person for a mysticism which is necessarily initiated by God Himself? It would explain the lack of description of method in their writings. It preserves God's supreme agency. The mystics seem all to say that if you make yourself a fit vessel for God's revelation, God will find you--in His own time.

Rather spooky, isn't it? But that's God, the REAL God, the God of thunder and lightning.

There's a toilet licking whore who's read more of either than you.

Pretty much all of Christianity is ritual. The whole worship service is based around other ancient mediterranean cults.

Oh, come on, now. Just look at it:

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

>There came a man who was sent from God. His name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe. He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

>The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. 11He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but born of God.

>The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The very first sentence is a paradox. The whole opening is John trying to wrap his head around this tremendous mystery, which is absolutely real and yet surpasses his understanding. John knows it's real, because he walked with Jesus and knows the Truth of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Yet he knows he doesn't understand the how of it. So he tries to encompass Truth in words through mystery and paradox. It's a Truth that he grasps through faith, and which his reason cannot fully appreciate, yet he tries here to render it in reasonable terms.

Then that toilet licking whore is about to get a licking around her toilet hole.

It's from Shakespeare. Coriolanus talking to the plebeians

Thank you, can you narrow it down? I now know this play contains the secrets of my destiny.

Dude, read writings popular with the Orthodox. Like The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Saint Isaac of Syria's homilies, and Saint Symeon the New Theologian. And the Philokalia. Gregory Palamas. Saint Seraphim of Sarov, etc. We have tons of writings on how to have mystical encounters, we're the yellow brick road of that

>John trying to wrap his head around this tremendous mystery
He's conveying the mysticism of it. What you Catholics call "sacraments" we call "mysteries". What you call "sacramental" we call "mystical". We even call the Last Supper "the mystical supper".

John was a mystic, not a scholastic. He's revealing a profound mystery to wonder at, not a rational explanation of the Godhead

It's a play, it's not very long in terms of written works.

It's based on Jewish temple worship

Well, your stupid little club may have just saved my stupid little life.

Are you suicidal?

Nah, I don't mean saved in that sort of way. Just added a crucial piece to the puzzle.

This makes no sense to me.

What the hell is Jung in your interpretation? He is a Nietzschean mystic.

No one gives a rats ass about which spook you identify with which spook, sonny. Can you please take this nonsense to /x/?

>be me
>be confused and intrigued by the fact that psychology used to refer to what kierkegaard and nietzsche did and not what wundt, james, and skinner did
>finally find a thread where the distinction is noted in some way
>mfw it's nothing but people trolling the OP for some god-forsaken reason
WHY DO YOU FAGGOTS ALWAYS RUIN THIS SHIT FOR ME?

Jung is obviously not in the sense used here, of humans as collections of individual mysteries who have peculiar, mysterious psychologies that cannot necessarily be fixed and understood according to a general scheme, but must be understood through personal encounter (this almost a Patristic psychology). Jung understands human psychology as a general phenomenon which is merely particularized in individuals; for Dostoevsky, the common factor is rather the Infinite Mystery which each person is a reflection (the Patristic conception of "image of God"), however distorted; and so like God Himself, a human person is a special mystery that becomes more mysterious and beautiful the deeper you look, whose psychology is a riddle unto itself.

There is actually a holy psychology in Orthodoxy as well, Saint Maximos the Confessor's idea of "logoi": our individual "blueprints" are literally God, that is God had the blueprint for each of us, always, and these blueprints are a part of him, not created or formulated. And each one is unique and special, an infinite mystery (and "mystery" is the Orthodox term for Catholics and Protestants call "sacrament").

Psychology evolved from philosophy about 150 years ago with founders such as James and Wundt. But psychology the word means study of the soul (i.e., mind, etc...) and so people often apply it thinkers who specifically dealt with these topics as well. A lot of philosophers "did" psychology, it's just that these days psychology is connotated more with systematic study rather than introspection. In this thread, however, it's not the reason OP is being roasted, it's just because he started with an unfounded, frankly weird premise about the two writers in question.

I'm 90% sure I'm the only one who's posted in this thread who has a lot of firsthand experience of the works of both writers. My premise is derived from actually reading as opposed to regurgitating memes, which upsets those who don't find my conversation something that can be broken down and discussed in the same rehash they've seen and repeated countless times.

The premise, true or not, is quite simple to address if you're decently read in both authors