Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force? Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles. 3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force. 4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory. 7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
@@dominusbalial835 interesting. Do you have any example of what you have in mind or can you elaborate on what you're thinking of? Sounds like a worthy thing to do in future
It’s so sad that so many great thinkers of the past spent so much of their lives kissing the buttocks of science (as if it was pristine and unbiased)rigorous only to unknowingly see and comprehend how just like the religionists of their time and in the past…they are all licking the anus of what is the whore of Mammon, the lust for the political power and the inherent desire of the political- to assert control over reality through others! These letters prove to me actually why as much I have my leanings towards science and religion I found in my reading of Jung he was hypocritical to either… He made his daily bread “drinking” supposedly from the same well as science but really wanting instinctually to make sense of the religious…to drink something that was differently pleasurable in other ways. My take is that he hated the philosophers b/c he saw too much in their “neurosis”, his own neurosis by his choice of career…in a way he couldn’t keep from going beyond the knowable. My layman’s take of Dr. Jung with my basic Master’s level of psychology and my own issues settling on a vocation/career in life? He chose to be a Psychiatrist b/c he didn’t think of his capacity to earn a credible career (maybe one with affluence) following his passion for comparative religion when it may have probable tension (or conflict) with his father choice of vocation, as a village pastor and one that served at an insane asylum… I sense an issue there…maybe a desire to fight ancestral tendency (doing better than the humble career of his father)- for religion and the cultural (The father was a scholar of Oriental Languages)… Both fields wouldn’t allow to obtain the external individual validation he sought so he his transferred one personality to another, from his Pastor father to a surrogate father in Dr. Sigmund Freud, who would help him achieve that status, that one side of his personality sought. This video shows Jung as a hater like many people of a certain races or cultures don’t want to be associated b/c it doesn’t respect the individual external value they seek to convey to the world. Jung was at odds in himself and it’s understandable. My guess is that their was a bit of jealousy that these Philosophers accepted their career choice- while he may have compromised his since he was on the fence, between the knowable and the unknowable.
@@MichaelDamianPHD You don't know what I do or don't know about him do you? Are you saying I don't know anything about him because My opinion of him is different than yours? Eff off.
I beileve the ultimate driving force behind Jung contempt for philsophers was his fear of losing his sanity. (So, naturally, he disowned this fate by attributing it to other people.) He wanted to avoid being a philosopher so that he could avoid becomign like Nietzsche and he wanted to avoid being like Nietzsche so he could avoid the insane asylum. This possible fate was impressed very strongly on him after he read _Thus Spoke Zarathustra,_ if not before, and he beileved that his only defence against such a disaster was science -- and indeed he attributes his recovery from psychosis in 1913 to his scientific objectivity. Whether this really helped at all, it's absolutly pivotal to not that he beileved it to be the case. Jung was not attacking the philosophers. Jung #2 was attacking Jung #1.
He was taught to doubt his in-ner voice in his brain... guy should've trusted the voice in his heart. His shadow was just the "being" we all have, confused as being opposed or separate to the ego we develop. FYI Guys, the "shadow" can only grow deeper when one looks at the ground for too long. And the universe is Reciprocal, not Gravity-based. So don't be too much of a downer! Negativity breeds negativity. Likewise for positivity.
Agreed. He was acutely aware of the perils of the mind and knew how easily it could be to lose oneself should one venture too far. "Beware unearned wisdom." Jung
@@jaydenwilson9522I see what you mean but still when faced with the prospect of an absolute dissolution of the self one can't help but become a little fearful, 😅😶
@@TheSopheom dissolution of the "self"? re-read what I wrote. the self and the being are not separate dude... your one with it. your not defined by just oneself or thoseself
It is also ironic how most of Jung's work is more philosophical and mystical than scientific. For example, the Collective Unconscious is a theoretical construct that is impossible to prove scientifically, just as the unconscious is. While it can be said that a fear of snakes or falling or being burned or being completely alone is shared by almost all humans, these are also shared by almost all animals (including snakes) and insects. Jung being mostly rejected in modern psychology emphasizes how unscientific and philosophical Jung's (and Freud's) thinking was. It was not pragmatic. It did not lead to useful solutions. It leads to the same mystical and delusional thinking that Jung criticized philosophers for having. That does not mean everything he thought was worthless. The concepts of introvert and extrovert personalities, and neuroticism are key components of the OCEAN personality model. His thinking has the greatest significance to anthropology and literary criticism. Combining all aspects of spirituality, art, symbolism, mysticism (including Alchemy), religion, etc. into a coherent understanding of the human experience beyond the individual.
@@greporaYou're quite mistaken. Jungian psychology is extremely pragmatic and effective - as was Jung the analyst in his direct work of helping people get their lives in order. I don't expect people who aren't psychologists to understand that -- they never do, because they are entirely unfamiliar with the field. You show a threadbare understanding of what he contributed to the field. To say his work leads to mystical and delusional thinking is absurd -- and to say it creates the same thing he criticized about the philosophers is ridiculous. It shows you have no grasp of Jung's life and profound impact in the field. Also his character typology concepts are most fully reflected in the MyersBriggs typology which is far deeper and of much greater practical use than the almost useless OCEAN model. But let's be practical and ask, what's your profession or field, that you claim to be able to assess Jungian psychology so negatively?
@@MichaelDamianPHDi agree. But to not say that Jung had a flair towards the supernatural and spiritual is also a disservice. I think Jung is strongly appreciated in modern psychology. These comments are just very ironic when you think of Jungs red book and how he created the red book. To me, Jung just didn’t understand the method philosophers understand their emotions and existence. Jung was using the scientific method to understand the more mis understood parts of our existence.
@@MichaelDamianPHD what's the issue with OCEAN? I don't need you to write at length if that's bothersome but a video title would suffice. My issue is just with conscientiousness. It's obvious to me that Ocean's conception of it is purely interpersonal and highly conformist. It's an authoritarian take that doesn't question whether the hierachy the person is compliant with is just, moral or sustainable. I'd be considered very low conscientiousness even though I have all the pathologies of a high conscientious. Because I always think of the second, third and fourth order of consequences of my actions and what the results of fidelity to obligations would create in the world. That's why I left law school and have been demoralized ever since. I don't see any work in the modern age that doesn't feed the monsters. I'm low conscientious because I'm actually conscientious.
@@charlottewolery558 OCEAN, unlike Jungian typology, does not describe the full nuanced constellation of personality traits and how they function together. It just provides a scale rating of 5 factors without describing types. MyersBriggs/Jungian typology is based on the basic constituent temperament and functional preferences and shows how their combinations in a person creates very predictable and archetypal patterns of character. You learn very little about yourself through OCEAN. MyersBriggs shows you in nuanced detail how your personality functions and also how it can evolve.
"It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of--namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography" - Nietzsche (Beyond Good & Evil)
@@Unfunny_Username_389 He had his woo moments definitely. I don't buy synchronicity at all. I do think he did a good job of reverse engineering repression and shadow projection. But that's the nature of it - you can't see it in yourself.
@@Unfunny_Username_389 it seems to track for me. Like how much I used to dislike rednecks to the point that I didn't even want to listen to country music. And now I understand it's because I grew up in the country and was insecure about that. You tend to see in others what you dislike about yourself. I have to give Jung credit for teaching me about that.
empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. Empiricism is philosophy as well, so even if he was one, he would still be a philosopher.
There's an interview somewhere on RUclips where Jung talks about the tensions in his relationship with Freud and how Freud's lack of philosophical education led to him being too certain of his own ideas, whereas Jung describes himself as steeped in Kant and always doubting himself. Sounds like a blindspot in his self-awareness. We all have them.
Not only by sharing, but also by not insignificantly contributing to the systematization of the "stream system" of cultural protestantism, the philosophy of Immanuel Kant seems somehow a significant part of the Middle European "cultural code" since then. That is, many people seem to learn "Kantianism" mainly by being "steeped in Kant" via secondary sources (as part of "acculturisation" in general). This may also apply to C.G. Jung.
@@patrickclark3288 You don't understand. Jung was far more doubtful and broad-minded than Freud. To claim he was somehow blindly "certain" is false. He was quite brilliant and he had reason to be confident in his understanding and experience. So many people here just have no real knowledge of Jung or Jungian therapy, and they're judging Jung based on stereotypes and appearances.
Jung really does have a good point. The contemporary philosophies can become parlyzing especially to those who have similar dispositions as their authors. - Speaking from personal experience. (Instead of spinning in thought for 2 minutes, after reading Nietzsche I can now do it for hours and still get nowhere close to influencing a real life decision.) And I should say, nobody quite embodies the healthy grounded spirit better than Jung. Jung speaks from a place almost synonymous with the spirit you might talk with on magic mushrooms. Where you're beyond the mental gymnastics & illusions of words. I always feel I dont have to worry about picking up any unhealthy illusions or worldviews from Jung, unlike say, with Nietzsche. There is a certain trust i have with ol' Carl; he was a doctor for the human being, whereas the philosopher, often over-saturates the mind with distant truths and insights.
I value Jung’s work and encourage others to explore it, but ultimately Jung seems to have been as delusional and megalomaniacal as any would-be prophet. He drastically overestimated the importance of his own hallucinations and interpretations of their meaning. I do believe his analytical psychology can help you orient yourself in life if you believe in it, in much the same way as any religion or all-encompassing worldview can help (again, if you believe in it). But analytical psychology is neither objective nor scientific, and I don’t think it is necessarily beyond mental gymnastics, the illusions of words, or unhealthy worldviews.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs if you want happiness in this crazy world, you do not talk about moonbeams for the blind, tones for the deaf and you absolutely do not speak about sex to eunuchs, they just get angry.
@@koriqzia Haha I earnestly think that if he valued Jung's work a little more than subjective, he would see that analytical psychology brings as much of an attempt at science at something so esoteric. But it's resigned to useful subjective belief for what inherently cannot be scientific.
I am sorry but "Jung speaks from a place almost synonymous with the spirit you might talk with on magic mushrooms. Where you're beyond the mental gymnastics & illusions of words" is hilarious. Yeah talking to spirits while you're on mushrooms is totally scientific and grounded lol no illusions of words or any other illusions there whatsoever. Also, Nietzsche is just one philosopher with his own system. You can't use him to paint the whole philosophy the same color.
What a marvelous criticism, the philosopher and the psychoanalyst both work with the unknown and both take the other’s results personally. We are, as ever, left to decide for ourselves. This is the journey, I appreciate the analysis that I don’t have time to do. Thank you so much for producing these videos.
Having found myself in an existential hellpit during a period of my life, with retrospect, I understand where Jung is coming from. Most of the philosophy from the 19th century onward is just cynical wordplay intended to disembowel phenomenologically self-evident truths. All it does is reveal a predispositional distrust in the author which they satisfy from moment to moment with neurotic quibbling. They suffer from their own narcissism and poor moral constitution and they would love to convince others and themselves that 1. They're geniuses and 2. Their pedantic fussing is justified. Trust your perception and the ability of reality to correct it, meditate on or pray to God for virtue, be thankful.
I read the letter in regards to Heidegger, Jung compares Heidegger to both James Joyce and the French Surrealists. Which I think gives a clue to his real opinion. Joyce he took very seriously, as many of his colleagues recommended it. And he met Joyce personally as well as his daughter. But then upon reading Ulysses he could be complimentary of its literary skill, but frustrated by its lack of meaning. It is a book of open associations, you can read into it, but it purposely evades personal meaning. It is to be enjoyed by delighting in word play not thinking too much. I think a similar issue could be said of his encounter with French Surrealism, but even more so. I remember talking to a really earnest Expressive Syrian painter who said when he discovered surrealism for the first time he saw it as a lie, meaning dishonest. Full of strange juxtapositions, but lacking the real meaning of an authentic dream. As a Young person discovering Surrealism I loved its novelty but came to a similar conclusion. It often promises meaning but it’s true intention is to evoke the unease of no immediate meaning. Surrealists even said the were more interested in effects of unheimlich “the uncanny” of Freud than specific meaning. So this uncanny effect I remember so much in 1980’s goth videos. It did not have meaning it had uncanniness. But back to MH, I personally have a similar revulsion of Heidegger as Jung has, but mainly because I expected much more than Heidegger ever provides. In ancient times figures like Parmenides and Heraclitus were considered spiritual philosophers of a world unseen. There was a vitality in it, because people were trying to gain a sense of vitality and virtue in their being in relationship to Being itself. Real ontological experimentation can be found in the human potential movement derived from Wilhelm Reich, Gestalt therapy. I can very much appreciate Jung’s love for meaning. In a psychological sense it provides stability, it provides an anchor. But the real aesthetic currents around him were more interested in the experience of being alive rather than meaning itself. And this is something that was more elusive to Jung, IMO. In other words, you can have experiences, you can describe the quality of experience, you can be conscious of experience, but meaning is an attempt to create order out of natural chaos, it is STASIS. Those suffering from neurosis can use meaning as a grounding. But it is not a replacement for the experience of being alive.
"I read the letter in regards to Heidegger, Jung compares Heidegger to both James Joyce and the French Surrealists. Which I think gives a clue to his real opinion." A very silly opinion, in that case. Heidegger has nothing to do with either.
@@huugosorsselsson4122 I think Jung was saying Surrealism has little to do with the psychological unconscious, for example Dali never dreamt a flaming giraffe. (But interestingly he bought an Yves Tanguy painting). And Joyce is not mythological, at least not what Jung expected. But Campbell obviously disagreed with Jung. And his objection to Heidegger should be obvious, Heidegger rejected Kant a priori a posteriori relationships because it is a Cartesian subject/object dichotomy. And for Jung it was a central scheme to making sense of anything. So the accusation is this is non-empirical, the subject object dichotomy is necessary for knowledge of things. Etc. So the accusation is not really the unconscious (surrealism), not real mythology (Joyce) not real phenomenology (Heidegger).
@@huugosorsselsson4122 I will also add for me, Paul Tillich provides a link between Heidegger and Jung, but that is because I come from a liberal Christian Church, where Tillich was a way to preserve religious sentiments without resorting to literalism. You may know Heidegger better, but I think I understand Jung’s complaint.
I was obsessed with books and everything intellectual (philosophy, physics, religion, history) since my childhood and it turned out that I was indeed a neurotic 😢 I also skipped life because of that 😢😢😢
Jung would've got on famously with one particular philosopher. Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was of precisely the same opinion. He was also a fascinating study for the psychologist.
I find it ironic that wittgenstein grew to hate a certain philosoper like arthur schopenhaur and calling him a shallow thinker in his later year while also admitting during his letter around 1930+ that he based his foundation and thinking mostly from a lot of philosopher including arthur schopenhaur, i guess deep down even if he dissagree he still value some aspect of arthur other work.
I appreciated this video. The claim that Jung was possessed by his shadow when engaging with the reality and consequences of the thought of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, that is undoubtedly true. The more I read Jung, the more I see his personality and opinions burst through in sometimes unflattering ways. However, I feel that there is some deep wisdom in rejecting the consumption of philosophical text after Kant. Maybe my mind is plagued by the same spirit of Jung’s shadow, but I sometimes feel strongly that the strategy to “look at what’s looking” or “get beyond God” and understand the complete map of the human perspective not only results in misery and isolation, but also abandons the well-being of humanity. The wedding feast, the sense that all is well under God, and the spirit of benevolence to celebrate the life that has been entrusted to us, this is something foreign to modern man. Human beings have a tendency to open Pandora’s box, without realizing our unique impotency -that if we resist our God-given place in nature and the world, we misalign ourselves, and start to walk on transgressive ground- whether or not there is really a spirit or living God behind this dilemma is besides the point. Going past the boundaries is always a godforsaken place. Maybe this is why Jung felt he could not travel to the places Heidegger and Kierkegaard went. I sometimes like to think that rather than be a great philosopher like Heidegger, Jung actually had unconscious energy in him to be a Saint. There is a scene in memory dreams reflections where he had a very negative experience when he was a young boy, being terrified by the sight of a Jesuit priest walking towards him. It seems to me that this really shaped his view, quite unintentionally, of the whole religious reality of Switzerland and Europe of the time.
These philosophers made a deep theological claim declaring to go beyond God. A claim their followers devour in the midst hypocritical way, decrying accepting things on faith without thought.
I dont think the truth and the most fundamental questions are beyond our reach, it is possible to discover it, and I think that humanity Will at some point, not Just Humanity but any intelligent creature. I am dedicating my life in search for truth, I had many progress, although my ideas are aways changing, and I really think I am discover everything and that I am knowing God.
I think Jung's disdain and aggression towards "godless" or post-modern "everything is subjective" thinkers isn't necessarily the result of a shadow obsession. The way I see it, Jung knew by heart and experience that "truth" exists which can't co-exist with subjectivist line of thinking, because a relative truth is merely an excuse, rather than truth in nature. Through my own experiences, I gradually turned from a purely empyrical point of view towards that of Jung, which pays respects to our rich subconscious ancestral knowledge and the magnetic force towards goodness that can be described as the "inner voice" or "God", whichever you prefer. The unmeasurable nature of these archetypal contents makes empyricists growl, which fits the term ""wrestling with God", in my estimation. I don't look down on Jung for expressing anger towards those who wrestle with God, maybe because I've became the same way, to some extent. I'm certainly biased, but if anyone is interested in this discussion, I'd be happy to contribute with this summary: Jung's dislike in post-Kant philosophers was at the very least partially correct, not completely originated from his own shadow.
@@Rimas.Kirslys "a relative truth is merely an excuse, rather than truth in nature" Is it? What is the truth of our conversation? Is it not relative to me and relative to you? If it is not then i ask myself how it can be called the truth og *our* conversation if it has no meaningfull connection to us at all. Subjectivity does not mean the nonexistence of thing but that acknowledgement of a more complex truth that is neither here nor there but inbetween.
It’s its or is it? Therein lies the question… :) the one the mother of science, the other a great great great great great great grandchild… philosophy not unlike psychology is whatever we bring to it… which is also the tragedy of our perceived knowledge @@Seacrestered
With all due respect, without philosophy there would not have been psychology. Without philosophy today there would be no psychology. But there is an argument to be made that all thought is virtual. Which sadly would include psychology @fumikumi5173
At about 17 minutes the narration speculates about Jung's dichotomy between scientist and philosopher, seeming to forget that, one can be both, but more importantly, Jung was a physician, a neuropsychiatrist, one of the most famous, meaning he had access to pathology other practitioners read about in textbooks. So, he wasn't masturbating out of a dilemma of lack of experience (see the life of Kant, Nietzsche, etc for lives unspent). He was speaking from the perspective of someone with actual experiences of observing anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, pain and terminal illness. He is saying the Philosophers are in a Cave of their own Making. He's right.
What makes me curious is... Wouldn't most of philosophers' way of thinking be considered "irrational" according to cognitive psychology standards? What I mean is, I imagine Nietzsche entering a session, and the therapist tagging all most his thoughts as lacking objectivity, usefulness or others. That seems to be quite curious to me because cognitive psychology has a lot of philosophic principles, so I never knew what to think about this.
Well, when it comes to cognitive restructuring and other similar things, there are lots of philosophical presumptions involved. I know that when people think of psychology sometimes Skinner working with rats comes to their minds but I can tell you there is much more than that, especially in humanistic, existential and contextual therapies (this last one is evidence-based) where they even get things from existentialism, phenomenology, pragmatism and zen philosophy@@ThriftyCHNR
Yes, but the reasons why they work are heuristic and based on signals. It's a hard problem with a hard solution. Even if it means talking about fluff.@@fernandoginer5068
It's "unintuitive", studying advanced philosophy involves a lot of thinking that would be unnatural to laymen. This may be the same for some complex subjects
I wanted to watch this video as it came out and never got round to it until now. That summer felt very confusing and out of control, and in the process my interest in philosophy (Camus in particular) gradually shifted to an interest in psychology, orientated (instead of books) around addressing personal stuff, and some volunteer work I've been doing ever since. I hope now this video can help guide me towards not making it a matter of either/or (pardon the pun), and trying to make my searches as honest as I can get them to be.
I concur, it would seem that Jung’s criticism of philosophy was possibly and almost certainly a self-criticism. He himself was very philosophical, though his profession forced him to walk the line of objectivity. I appreciate that about him.
@@hemlocke7359 I agree , for him to truly hate , there must have been love behind it , as his rule of thumb with projection , it is not them that he really hated nor philosophy itself but just the part in them that he fear was in himself His hate was his was of individuating from himself , from the womb in his mind that gave birth to personality number two
Thank you so much for this. One of THE best philosophy channels hands down. All stuff that I WOULD have liked to work on myself, but wouldn’t have been willing to put in 😮so much time and effort on, as you have. I feel that one has to go straight to the primary sources (philosopher or psychoanalyst) to get to the truth. But this is VERY hard; and so the majority - INCLUDING the “young minds” (but even the older generations can be such babies) - simply rely on “others/experts” for “knowledge” which increasingly becomes something we just consume along with fast food and exercise etc. It’s a miracle that we then have “healthy” options in this consumption process, such as your channel, which goes straight to the primary sources and presents to the audience materials (“food for thought” haha) which they can themselves categorize as “truth” “biased opinion” etc . (I’ll subscribe to Patreon once my own financial situation improves!)
I really appreciate you taking the time to write this out. It means so much to me to get messages like this and I wouldn't be making videos if it wasn't for this kind of support. Thank you
I think Jung is the one person who came closest to integrating philosophy into applied psychology. He did become in my opinion both philosopher and scientist, but his philosophy was really different than others during the 19th and 20th century. I think he was angered that many philosophers remained so detached all the way from just general real life and failed to ground their thinking into any robust empirical truth. The brain also has 2 parts and so think what Jung described of himself is just the two parts of his brain working imo. I also think he was a legit genius and modern existential thinkers were too, but Jung was living at the border of colliding opposites compared to those he criticized, which probably made him border line insane as well. His works are so much different from anything else that we are still left in a really deep confusion about it and not many managed to successfully build on them. Some might think therefore, that he was just wrong, but I think his 20+ volumes of works and his influence in psychological thinking speaks for themselves. That said his works were not perfect or complete and he did have a hard time trying to reconcile the two dividing parts of his approach. It’s similar to how we try to reconcile the ego with the unconscious. I don’t think he ever wanted to choose and he wanted to have the best of both worlds. He was tilting way more into science, but that was because he was afraid of losing his mind which he mentioned a lot. He also says something in his biography book that he needed people around him to remind him that he still lives in general reality and not get lost in his works and in the abstract and go insane. I don’t know if he managed to do it and was angry at those who were more radical in their approach and further from empirical science or he tried to compensate his similar tendencies with science to not go insane and happened to overcompensate, which for this reason necessary resulted in his heavy reaction for what he feared. Also, this is not a well educated take on my part, but I think Jung was heavily influenced by Eastern traditions and those philosophers thinking could have been irreconcilable with some of those approaches. I think even if he had his flaws, he was the most successful in creating an applied philosophy of human nature and tried to base it in empirical science. That kind of interdisciplinary approach is something we really still need today to see where all the knowledge overlaps in the studies of us humans and be less lost. I think Jung might have felt he still had to choose science and was kind of hurt that his tilt to science stopped him from fully living out one of his deep desires. Probably his weirdest work: Red Book is also a matter of division, as some say that’s a book about a person completely losing his mind, while others (including Jung) claim it’s something the world isn’t quite prepared for yet.
If any of you have tried to read “Being and Time” by Heidegger you’ll know what Jung meant. It reads like “And the being of Being, starkly contrasted from the Being that Being knows. In the Total Being the act of being becomes itself into being”
Well, "Sein und Zeit" isn´t an easy read, not even in German, agreed. But the "ontological difference" isn´t by far the only topic M. Heidegger touched in his Opus magnum - which, b.t.w., remained a fragment. Inspired by his doctor-father, Edmund Husserl, Heidegger tried to develop something like a fundamental ontology (Fundamentalontologie) of the life-world (Lebenswelt). Husserl criticized this as an anthropology, which, alas, had inauthentically left the core-field of "phenomenology as a strict science" behind. However, the later Husserl revised his stance and took up the topic/concept/problematic of the life-world himself - namely in his "Crisis"-texts, that is. All these phenomenological, often quite meditative "ways of thinking" (Denkwege) demand intense times of study, which C.G. Jung, it seems, was not ready and willing to invest. So, in fact, he more or less by-passed this other important contemporary "stream-system". - Interesting enough, both, Heidegger and Jung, seem to have read some essays/books by the Rinzai-Zen scholar D.T. Suzuki, and showed themselves quite impressed. Irony of history, isn´t it?
I couldn't get through a few pages of "Being and Time" no matter how I tried. Kant's "critique of Pure Reason" was a slow and difficult read, but was suprisingly comprensible. Husserl's Cartesian Meditation was the same. But Heidegger's work was just esoteric word salad to me.
@@nenoman3855 Heidegger´s writings are often no easy read. His "ontology of basics" (Fundamentalontologie) feels a bit like "Euro-Daoism" and needs some deceiphering to, eventually, get some deep-phenomenological meaning out of it. Often it is useful to read "secondary literature" (e.g., K. Seeland, S. Heine), which does some hermeneutic work in order to get some glimpses of the basix matrix, built around concepts, like: "aletheia", "[yin-yang-ish] reveiling-conceiling", "ontological differerence", the ´man´", the "clearing of being", "human beings as the guardians of being[-here]", "language as the house of being[-here]", the "existential of care", "resolute advancing", and so forth. And sure, in some respects it is "esoteric" in the sense of "cofidential teaching", a bit like zen-ish "transmimssion from heart to heart". That´s some of the "[´openly-hidden´] sense" I got out some personal studies on Heidegger.
Great video James. I find it interesting the Jung had such a stringent structure that everything needed to fit into, not allowing the unproven scientifically topics to have any type validity but rather criticize the philosophers, allowing himself to feel superior as you stated. Was it his conflicting personalities, 1 and 2, then with the help of the ego, that allow, what it appears to be and to me, his narcissistic self to appear? Maybe it was his true self emerging as his insecurities were heightened by the fame of he other philosophers? One wonders what might have come from Jung if he would have allowed the 2 struggling personalities to have had fluid interactions that could have allowed a further expansion of thought and exploration, then again, what could have been lost if that did happen..... Just some thoughts.
He didn't hate philosophers. He did, however, have a strong dislike for manipulation, especially for the purposes of making money i.e. clickbait. I can see from the title that you can't be older than 25, if that. You'll understand once you gain some life experience.
Fascinating! This critique of Jung’s that you highlight - quite brilliantly - here reminds me a lot of Wittgenstein (particularly the early Wittgenstein). Quite ironically, Wittgenstein could hardly be placed in the “non-neurotic” camp. Thus, does Jung join him there? I think it’s true that a lot of more modern - especially existential - philosophy tends to be quite abstract and - what Nietzsche would call - Apollonian. That’s the trouble with tackling perhaps fathomless ideas like freedom, meaning, and life and death, which are so extremely difficult to capture and communicate in language. However, is trying to theorise around these concepts and discuss them so wrong and foolhardy? Must we swear solely to a Wittgensteinian silence “whereof we cannot speak”? I love the work of Camus and the Stoics who seemed to be able to touch these topics whilst keeping at least a few tip-toes on the ground of reality. How interesting to see Jung, who hitherto I thought of as very measured, have such an emotional reaction to these philosophers. Thank you for a great video! ❤
Another excellent piece. Your ability to convey these ideas at the layman level have allowed me to develop and expand on some of my own personal musings and exploration of my being. It's like philosophy is the poetry witout rhyme to science. Forgive me if that makes no sense.
Thanks for this man:) It's such a refreshing outlook. My early life traumas gave me a bunch anxieties that were neurosis' in their expression, and that's why I've been so philosophically oriented. I've just been trying to work out my pain. As I relax into healthy recovery, mainly by gradually allowing the processing of grief, my philosophical outlook becomes less about word puzzles, and much more about quality of loving myself and life itself. It's not that I give up philosophical interest, but seeing the qualities neurosis in healing, I find the quality superior to neurotic obsessiveness. The quality of peace can't be valued except as it is experienced, and witnessing it, I find I suspect deeply upset philosophies as unresolved and unhealed in nature.
Freud was much kinder to philosophers than Jung was. After he'd constructed his duel theory of the instincts in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," Otto Rank pointed out to him the similarities between his theory and Schopenhauer's philosophy, and Freud said something like, "Why shouldn't a bold and original thinker formulate something that has taken us painstaking years of empirical research to realize?"
Fascinating. I find Jung's failure to mention Descartes interesting, given the quote you used at 15:26 goes on to read like something that Descartes could have written. Additionally, the quote at around 17:31 is kind of hilarious: "I can put up with any amount of criticism so long as it is based on facts or real knowledge. But what I have experienced in the way of philosophical criticism of my concept of the collective unconscious, for instance, was characterized by lamentable ignorance on the one hand and intellectual prejudice on the other." OK, CJ, but if the "Collective Unconscious" is a "concept," then it is simply your way of organizing your thoughts in a way that a philosopher would, rather than the scientific creation of a theory or even a hypothesis. So, to get angry at philosophers that address it on its own terms, is to prove that you really are "the damnedest dilettante that ever lived;" more interested in the acclaim than engaging with the topic with real commitment and knowledge. The irony is that Jung seems desperate to complete the splitting between philosophy and psychology that had only started in the late 19th century with the likes of Wundt. Indeed, I frequently say that William James is better read as a psychologist and Freud is better read as a philosopher.
Heidegger was a Nazi and only became an "Existentialist" (whatever that is ) when he saw which way the wind was blowing. Jung., by contrast, favoured individualism and dedicated himself to the relief of personal suffering through self-knowledge as opposed to suicidal nationalism and shallow cowardly opportunism.🤔(Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉
Jung’s work is grounded on philosophy through the I Ching, Eastern and Middle Eastern mysticism also corresponding to Goethe as well. Personally, Jung regurgitated a lot of work from older scholars and put himself at the centre of it all. His reliance on Philemon, the grand Philosopher and also using Gnosticism to expand on the role of opposites was philosophy in its own right. The rise of Continental Philospohy and Empiricism was enough to show how much he didn’t understand the process. His neuroses was in the foundation of his analytical experience which was layered with a childhood of mysticism and over Protestantism through his own family. I followed Jung but in hindsight he was building a new religion of the Self for the late 20th century. The misunderstanding of his work is evident in the Jungians who followed from his school. They rarely agreed with one another and we’re prone to intellectual cliques. Again Jung saw himself as the centre of this new world, but was then disproved by the work of Tolkien and fantasy. His work on symbols and it’s meaning to humans is amazing but his want for an empirical truth drove him further from empiricism which was what Freud was getting at with Jung. Freud loved the Greeks so Jung had to go deeper than that and found his peace in medieval Christianity and Zoroastrianism. In turn, Jung proved he was just as human as each of us. In the words of Nietszche “Human all too human”.
This is all very evident in the Red Book. He was a keen master of being unaware of his own projections. Jung saw himself as Philemon and then as Christ. 7 sermons to the dead another great example of Jung’s writing which is flamboyantly similar to Joyce which of course was written around the same time. Jung was an artist and his analytical psychologist did not accept this so he ascribed an ancient heroic journey to it.
Carl Jung is just silly. If Jung had read any Nietzsche he would have known that he was copying what Nietzsche had already said! It was Nietzsche who said, in works like "Beyond Good and Evil," that philosophers were often doing little more than expressing their personality flaws. Nietzsche was trying to be clear that he was, in part, wearing his subjectivity on his sleeve and telling others to do the same, more or less.
To Jung's credit, he has every reason to attack philosophy in an age where we can begin to quantify and measure aspects of Nature and the psyche. Philosophy has always been at a disadvantage because it is not concerned with 'proving' its precepts scientifically by actually challenging them and putting them to the test. I believe Jung was at heart a philosopher (or an alchemist, which is the philosophy that predated philosophy) but had the good sense not to lose himself in ontological propositions that could only be argued about. He sought a more facts-based worldview. Interestingly, Jung was conflicted in his youth as to what he was going to do professionally, and says in his autobiography that he ultimately chose medicine because the new field of psychology was interested in 'diseases of the personality,' and he wanted something to help him understand himself. Even though tension existed between No.1 and No. 2 within himself, I would argue that the very fact that he was aware of the struggle sets him head and shoulders above the philosophers, so that he was able to create a system that married science and philosophy into something greater than both of those things. It probably isn't just a 'neurotic projection of his own unconscious subjective prejudices.' Because he did everything he could to ground No. 2's intuitions within No. 1's scientific framework. And people now respect Jung and his ideas way more than ever.
This on so many levels wrong. Please do a better job. Schelling, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer had a big impact on him. In his book: memories, dreams, reflections when he talks about the influence Schopenhauer and Kant had on his thinking but also how he disagreed with schopenhauer's answer to the will to life using Kant's theory of knowledge.
Well It's more along the lines of Jung seeing how existentialist philosophers and those who follow this philosophy all believe that the physical material world is all there is and that the sciences is the only way to understand our objective reality but this is however contradicted by the fact that their own philosophical beliefs aren't even based off the scientific method but instead through their own personal experiences and emotions (mosty anixety) which therefore makes the foundations of their philosophy subjective opposite from the objective conclusions composed by science. Long story short existentialist make great leaps that go against the very principles of science and the scientific method whilst hold science to the highest regard. Jung himself isn't contradicting nor projecting because he believes that science is not the only way we can learn about the reality around us.
There's actually a couple of follow-ups in the works! One on the anti-semitic accusations against Jung and another about racism in his thinking. Part of a "if you see the Buddha on the road kill him" kind of series
The philosopher struggling with himself is part of what makes their work so compelling. I'm not sure philosophy without internal struggle on the part of the author would be anything but abject jibboresh. All of Western philosophy is really the autobiography of the author, but is also, in a sense, a biography of us all.
but why? I always hear people accusing him of not understanding postmodernism, so I was very much reminded of him as well, but I never heard anyone explain why that is?
@@vincentlaw1415 I can't explain it here, but you can feel the vitriol in JBP's heart while he is talking about the "postmodern types." I criticise postmodernism because it can't offer anything sustainable, but a wave of PM was necessary to call out the modern ideas. JBP is only hyperfocussed on the extremists and prejudiced about the whole thing.
@@vincentlaw1415it's always felt as if he had a political agenda and vendetta against the left wing. He has been questioned about it. He is also aware of his shadows to some extent. I guess people are just people: they are flawed.
@@khaga007 if you had listen to his content from the beginning to now, you'd know exactly why he has this agenda. He studied totalitarian systems on both sides of the political spectrum and witnessed a rise of marxism in the 60s, by french post modern philosophers which openly admitted that they're marxists, they even tried to normalize pedophilia through the sexual revolution, to just name an example. If you understand post modern and marxist theory, you know exactly how they justified such perversion. Time and politics confirmed his warnings almost a 100%. So when people call him out for his agenda, I only have to ask: So what? Have you been sleeping under a rock for the last 8 years?
"If all you do is think, you only think about thoughts. This leads to a rabbit hole of infinite depth and pulchritude, and there will be no meaning found there which can connectto the real world. This is the definition of psychosis, however in effete circles it is called 'philosophy', which hijacks the proper place of that queen of all disciplines which is , simply put, the art of describing the world in such a way that our dreams are sufficient enough to simulate reality that we do not need to die or suffer grievous injury in order to discover new things." -- A. Watts.
Above my paygrade but I did read Kaufmann in college on my own, and have admired Jung over Freud forever. Jung wrote an introduction to the I Ching translation by a German (Wilhelm), revealing his interest in metaphysics, or an oracle in this case. Jung's protestations about philosophers seems excessive, as though he felt challenged or even threatened by their works. Could it be as human as Jung's desire to be on the top of the heap, a heap that Freud and the philosophers would have to live in Jung's world? Jung seems not to have taken philosophers with any respect. He was willing to judge them even with little true investigation. All very interesting stuff. Thank you.
I think he was right honestly. A lot of philosophy took a nose-dive into darkness when it went into non-realism with things like Nietzschean subjectivism, Kierkegaardian existentialism & absurdism, postmodernist rejection of objective truth, etc.
Wouldn't neurotic thinking be deeply important to philosophy and not to its detriment? It allows people to open gaps in systems that undermine the current status quo and allow for change. Jung himself was obsessed with being "scientific" yet he somehow sees science as a fully defined rigid signifier, when in fact it's incredibly hard to define science consistently. Philosophy under psychosis doesn't even make sense, or at least all I can think of it as being is an old man who just spouts wisdoms at people because he already knows "everything".
That quote about Hegel is fascinating to me, because after familiarizing myself a bit with Hegel over the past few years I came to see Hegel and Jung as something like mirror images of each other. Hell, without trying to be a lazy reductionist, I nevertheless think a case can be made that Jung's work was German Idealism psychologized. Again, I'm not saying that is a particularly good argument to make, but merely that an argument CAN BE made for it.
I think the irony of this is that, sure, Jung approached his philosophy (which is a philosophy of psychology, but a philosophy nonetheless) through the lens of science, but still through his own particular lens. Jung was clearly an insanely creative and intelligent individual and his delvings into his own psyche aren't so different from the similar projections/delvings that the philosophers he denigrates, really, other than he wasn't content to merely extrapolate his own experiences and thoughts and wordgames into his discipline but constructed 'empirical' means of exploring his theories. ('Empirical' deserves to be in quotes since there are vast swaths of his theories that are really just that -- theories, with the asterisk that there is arguably no way to empirically test many of his theories -- for example, the utility of dreams, the development of complexes and neuroses and psychosis, etc.) All a possibly prolix way of saying I think Jung wasn't as different from these philosophers as he maybe felt he was -- perhaps somewhat defensively.
Me thinks, the average ("archetypical") philosopher was too "rationalistic" for C.G. Jung. His psychonauting brought him, indeed, into a closer-than-average contact with what one may summarily call proto-lingual "symbolic worlds" - therefore also his interest for Eastern "systems" of thinking/wisdom, as manifested, e.g., by his preface to the "Goldene Blüte" (transl. from the Chinese by R. Wilhelm) - or, the earliest (1925[?]), if I remember right, his preface to the introduction into Zen-Buddhism (then still more or less "terra incognita" for Westerners) by Ohasama Shuei.
A lot of people applying Jungs ideas onto himself. Although Jung has oulndt have minded that himself, but its amusing to see how the man who singlehandedly not only pioneered but also healed nimerous people, without resorting to amy medications, and opened up a new thought into the hollow recess of the human mind, is being held as a man oblivious of his own personalities. His work will always speak louder than the failed lives of those "infliential philosophers" who most lead a miersable unfullfilled miserable lives.
Jung said was he was steeped in Kant's philosophy ( not necessarily anyone else's ), while Freud had no philosophical training at all, which resulted in a communication problem. That's not a criticism of Freud in itself, but he went on to say he had a problem with what he called Freud's " disregard for the historical conditions of Man." i.e., Freud assumed we are born as a blank slate, while Jung insisted we are born with a specific psychic pattern, inherited from our ancestors, and that this needed to be taken into consideration in analysis. Freud only believed in a personal unconscious, while Jung believed the personal unconscious ultimately widened out into the collective unconscious.
You are slandering Jung by saying he slandered these "philosophers". Jung was simply telling the most honest and unadulterated version of the truth that we unfortunately never get to hear. The fact that his words are so off putting should be an indication that there's a big problem with the things he was describing.
It is funny that at a conference where a fellow scholar appealed to Heideggerian language was laughable to him. For in a couple of weeks I am presenting a paper on Heidegger's disclosure of Dasein. The whole time I can only imagine hearing Jung's laughter in the background.
I don't know of a single philosopher or great thinker who has not vehemently attacked other philosophers. Why single out Jung here? Perhaps he has managed to hit a nerve? In any case, trying to psychoanalyse Jung may be a tad beyond your remit, my puny RUclips friend 😉
Well Jung isn't a philosopher. Next to that jung is on the bounds of psychology passing over to a science and leaving the realm of philosophy(which it still hasn't fully reached with it's low standards for science). Yet he still is on the cusp, to the point that psychotherapy is criticised the same way as he criticised philosophy. And for good reason that is. Psychotherapy is not supported by science after all. So what this does as well is show how jung can be be used to attack... well, jung. That being said, pretty sure he just picks jung to talk about his ideas and not attack him. It doesn't sound like a critique after all. I personally however think Jung is a hack. Who copied most of Freud's homework. Who just wrongly copied most from Nietzsche(and adding penis envy for some unimaginable reason). But this video does not.
He's being singled out because the youtuber wanted to explain his views. Psychoanalyzing a person you know nothing about is a bit beyond your merit, strangely goofy stranger 😉
Jung deserves a lot of credit for his work on synchronicity but.... " He has been in India, and there was a man - a man the like of whom happens only once in a while. Maharshi Raman was alive. And wherever Jung went in India, almost everywhere people suggested to him, “Why are you wasting your time here and there, going to Varanasi and Bombay? Why don’t you go to Maharshi Raman?” People knew that he is a great psychoanalyst, world-famous. “You should go to Maharshi Raman, who has gone beyond the mind. Sitting by his side you may have a few glimpses. You may come away a totally changed person.” But Jung avoided him, he did not go there. On the contrary, back home he started writing against Eastern mysticism. And Jung started talking this nonsense in self-defense. He said, “That’s why I avoided Maharshi Raman, because Eastern methods are not suitable to us. The West needs its own yoga, the West needs its own meditations.” What difference can there be in being aware? Whether you are in the East or in the West, awareness will be the same - and that is the essential core of meditation. They are great interpreters of dreams… the whole world of the psychoanalyst is the world of dreams. And as far as the enlightened person is concerned, for him the whole world is nothing but a dream. For the psychoanalyst, dreams are his whole world, and for the enlightened person the whole world is nothing but a dream."
@@PsychedelicAnxietymost of it is translated well. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, etc. They all use a fair bit of flowery language, and there's nothing wrong with that, they didn't intend for every single person to immediately understand all of their writings, far from it.
@@YamiAi Those people certainly do. Jung less so. Translation, especially to English, will have a likely beautifying factor. As you search for an obscure English equivalent of some obscure German word, people are going to say you’re just being fancy with your words. Jung has prose-y moments - and I mean like for a sentence or two at a time - but is otherwise a straightforward writer.
Wow this is Spicy!! Its aready at 19k after one day! Good on Ya Sir!! You may require more Camino sojourns 🤘 Happy to see. And quite the frothy mix in the comments! Thank you for making philosophy on RUclips happen.
I can never find the passage in _Jung's Semnair on Nietzsche's Zarathustra_ but he felt that he was in some sense fated to come across it; it was what he needed to hear.
It would be interesting to balance the video to consider what Jung says about The Night Song (Thus Spoke Zarathustra), I don't remember if in the Red Book or in the seminar on Nietzsche, but Jung reveals there an almost mystical admiration for Nietzsche.
It is well to remember something John Maynard Keynes said: “Practical men, who believe themselves to be exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." I hold that in an analogous way, whether he relished it or not, Carl Jung's mind owed much-perhaps nearly everything-to the philosophers he claimed to abjure. (I do see merit in his views discussed here, though.)
Peterson has a curious fixation with Jung. First, he did a lot of research to prove him wrong but, in some moment of that investigations, he changed his mind and now considers him to be a genius.
It's certainly a form of exploration of the psyche, personally and subjectively, which Jung did a quite a bit of (the black books, Philemon, ect) and which is responsible for and the pinnacle of his researches, and is a massive part of the theoretical foundation of his branch of psychology - analytic psychology. What're you talking about? Why wouldn't an empiricist-psychologist not explore their own psyche by whatever means?
@@Originatorofthevideoessay this idea is fundemantally flawed. you cant explore your own psyche as it is when you are on any drugs. Its like the thing with quantum mechanics. If you need to give external energy to a given process to view it, the state you're going to explore is not the original process, but how you altered it. If you've ever done shrooms or dmt or acid or whatever you should recon that you are not you naymore. It has therapeutical effects because it alters your mind. jung produced even more bs than freud. Freud at least had an eye on broader societal factors on the psyche but jung just stayed within the "individual" and its archetypes and other esoteric bs. And finally if you think analytic psychology is still a current theme you missed decades of psychological discourse
@@yetthesunstillshines What? Exploration of the psyche under any circumstances still has its merits no matter what. Doesn't matter if it's changed, that's simply how it must be done. Throwing light on anything about the psyche is always important. The mind isn't a laboratory, with laboratory conditions, it can only be approximated and worked carefully to approximate empirical conditions. You simply have to try to describe the subjective experiences. Doing drugs allows the one facility to do that because they have experienced it. That itself is useful. I don't care about the discourse since Jung. Great thinkers are dropped and picked up later on, some thrown into obscurity than revivified decades. It's only a matter of time. Everyone's opinion, including my own, is relative and could proven more correct or less in the coming decades.
I never said that psychedelic research has no point at all. The point is you can't gain a useful, empirical insight for a complex and also very young field of science. Especially when the "insights" someone gets out of his experience try to proof one's owns prejudices Look at jungs reputation in research now. Like Freud you appreciate his pioneering but except that mostly prejudiced garbage Jean Paul sartre as another exmolw tried to gain insights about the internal constitution of the ego on mescaline. But he himself said that it was a stupid idea. when foucault, on nthe other hand, did acid in death valley and had some experiences that progressed his theories - he was lucky that the drug was helpful coincidentally. But Foucault was a philosopher and not a psychologist in any regard. And finally not everyone's opinion is relative. Relativistic theory of science says that we might describe understand or use things differently depending on cultural and historical framing. But the things themselves don't change. Therefor when once proven wrong, theorys aren't rehabilitated. At least I don't know any such case. At least not in a case s extreme as Jungs. I'm a Relativist myself but I don't use it as a cheap exit when I'm wrong and have nothing else to say.
The title of this video drew me in, but it is deceptive. Jung didn't "hate philosophers." He enjoyed the work produced by some, but he criticized some individual philosophers. The Great Empiricist (Aristotle) was Jung's foundation, and Kant was Jung's dry inspiration. Jung's psychoanalysis of the flaws of some (humorless) German philosophers is justified, as their ideas could damage society (especially Hegel and his Nazi fans) ... A doctor told me that doctors study medicine because they think there's something wrong with them. A psychologist told me that psychologists study psychology because they think there's something wrong with them. Philosophy is "the Queen of the Sciences", and philosophers study wisdom and "understanding." So, it follows that likewise, philosophers study philosophy because they think there's something wrong with their understanding or wisdom. But there are some "bad" philosophers who do not increase understanding, but obfuscate it with baseless speculation. In this sense these philosophers are guilty of what Jung said about going beyond their field of expertise. In particular, early phenomenologists and existentialists were less interested in The Great Unknowables (like the nature of "existence-ness" or "who created Time"), and more interested in how to perceive reality. The fact that Heidegger had to use his "hermeneutic circle" to explain "Dasein" -- instead of using shareable logic -- suggests he enjoyed feeding his readers his word salad.
What Jung struggled with was the consequence of the times he emerged. Those being one of peak rationalism and of industrial and scientific reductionism combined with a form of industrial concretisation. The nullification of the industrial world over the mytho-poetic and the metsphysical is what he wrestled with. Science through it's widely accepted status became "just science" and was no longer magical, but utilurarian and a process used for corporate and material profit. Any alchemical or metaphtsical concept was reserved only for the rare few who still understood the connection. Those being the "elitest" "philosopher kings" that presided over the social structures through freemasonry, the Club of Rome, and the Fabian Socialists. He struggled with reaching that shamanic connection with his unconcious because collectively it had been severed by design. The schism then became: Science can rationally explain 'how' things work or the way that they are. Philosophy and metaphysics can show you the why behind the how things work. But even here the philosophers of the times and even Jung had to operate within linguistics, within concepts. And what resided within the unconcsious tha Jung tapped into resides outside that form of concretisation. And that's the common dichotomy that everyone us faced with; rest in the divine presence and grace, the Edenic state, or become knotted in the tangles of the weeds. Whilst Jung saw the tangles as being the pull of the material trappings, what he struggled with was the chains of gold rather than the chains of iron. And while he saw those golden chains within the philosophical shortcomings of others, he addmitedly hadn't overcome his own. His method took him as far a the realisation of synchroncities and the astral planes, but took him no further due to his insistence on rationalising and systemising into a form of concretisation. He was an alchemist without a chemistry set, and a shaman without drum. But he does serve as the bridge between the ancestral magic of the deep, the alchemist, the philosopher, the scientist, and the psychologist. If anything Jung revived the voices of the ancestors and returned them to the West through his shamanic process. His progress would have been more profound were he have been able to let go of the need to be an analyst and pursued his method and practice more deeply. Still he remains today as one of the most essential figures in the revival of alchemy, shamanism, and the necessary semantical bridge between modern science and the metaphysics of religion and philosophy. Something which organised religions had failed to deliver, and something which the scientific community had widely discarded. He wrestled deeply with this as unbeknown to him, he was literally repairing the bridge between the anima mundi and a culture which had abandoned it through dogmatic religious rites and rational science. The mytho-poetic language of dreams and their prophetic and intuitive purpose had been written off as just a process and mechsnism of the mind, nothing more. The result of which gave rise to the exisyentialists which wrestled with the angst of awareness and the finite and linear journey of life through the abstract horrors of industrialism, reductionism, and a dead faith which lacked all enthusiasmos, transcendance, numininence, enlightenment, or kateleptic ascent. The war for any being wishing to walk "in the realm of God" as Jung described is the one which has to abandon any association with a type of dogmatic authoritarisnism, and hubris of assumption, even one's own and instead be able to walk with love and compassion and the awareness to hear the intuition of their own soul guidance. Jung succumbed to the same temptation of the solidity of his own systemisation and concretisation, but never reached a full trascendance. He was an awakening being, but not enlightened or in possession of the philosophers stone. He required a guided practice from a true master in order to complete the work. A highly advanced eastern guru, bodhisatva, mystic, or shaman would have moved his practice and progress out from the schism he found hard to grapple with and reconcile.
I think Jung's criticism would be pretty wildly accepted if more people would acquaint themselves with philosophers and their ideas. I mean, didn't science pretty much rendered philosophy useless? Studying philosophy means pretty much studying 'the history of ideas and people who had those ideas' right? Is there any philosophy developed after existentialism? What kind of answers do philosophers provide that science can't do?
The scientific method is a form of philosophy. No of course it didn't render philosophy as useless, we still don't have answers to some of the most major questions in human history, questions that the scientific method can never answer.
Very interesting. I’m always fascinated by intelligent critiques of Jung. Inspires me to examine Kierkegaard especially because I find Jung’s critiques compelling. I think he was more often right than wrong. The split between he and Freud was one of the great tragedies of the 20th century imo. Part of continuing splitting of consciousness into divided halves that seems to characterise civilisation
And all of this ironically coming from Jung, who's a philosopher. Jung fancies himself a scientist, but he's deluding himself. He's not. Oh, the irony.
By this logic at the start he is also philosophizing … very interesting … psychology is concrete philosophy. Philosophy was what started every other branch of thought… they were split into math science history etc . That’s how we now have subjects .
The personality no.1 seems to reflect masculine nature, while personality no.2 reflects feminine. I mean this in the sense that in some people, that balancing point is far more central than in others. While some are inherently drawn to one side or the other, there are those who struggle to understand the dual nature of the masculine and feminine energies within themselves. Finding ones own ideal balance, and learning to allow those seemingly contrasting aspects of the self to flow in and through one another for the greatest benefit of the internal environment. The crystaline and rigid structure of the masculine mind space operate in ways that seem foreign to the abstract and fluid essence of the feminine. It can be confusing when both exist simultaneously, as it becomes difficult to discern whether ones own mind works in a fluid way, or in an ordered way. Though, having dealt with this issue myself quite a bit, I can say that neither is counter to the other unless they are allowed or forced to be. There are ways to encourage inner balance and allow these different structures and functions of thought to exist and operate simultaneously, and I would argue that they are most effective when unified under a complete and purposeful whole. This idea can be seen in Alchemy and other historical ideologies that stress the importance of the unification of opposites, such as the male and female. Revealing that all the while, they were not opposites, but halves of a whole separated by misdirected perceptions.
> barely reads any philosophy > dismisses all philosophers as wordy crybabies > still brags about his knowledge of philosophy > admittedly a wannabe philosopher Jung wrote the /lit/ "pseud" playbook. It's kind of a testament to how the human mind hasn't changed, even though we've changed everything around us.
This is probably one of the funniest "serious" videos I've ever seen in my life. Jung literally telling existentialist philosophers to "take your meds". 2:51 sent me
The gulf between mysticism & philosophy is vast. Mysticism begins when the heart opens; whether the opening is gentle or wrenching. Philosophy chops things up thru analysis & can be very dry. Mysticism out of balance can lead to insanity, but it's never dry. It's transformational: not reductive.
isn't mysticism just blindly following some dogmas said by a dude millennia earlier with no theory of "why" whatsoever and without any question? humans are naturally inclined to question and when you submit yourself to one dogma you are forced to not think outside the box, it's a barrier to critical thinking.
LittleMushroomGuy I dont hate Jung. I teach philosophy and personal development. I utilise Yung in many of my classes. I think the ultimate irony, is that Jung was a philosopher in numerous ways. His ontology speaks for itself. As was his utilitization of intuition. I would also note that Neitzsche actually was mentally ill, and Soren was right to address this as a framework for his unique (and useful) insight. There are also mutliple ways to philosophize which bare fruit, especially with the emmergence of quantum physics, we are learning that pure empiricism without a philolsophical critique limits the scientist. This works both ways, and experimental philosophy is a testement to that
I definitely think of Jung as the most recent major philosopher oddly. But I guess I can definitely get on bored with philosophers and the weird stances that can be taken. For example to see some philosophers who actually are nihilistic, there are basically mentally ill philosophies on life that are attributed to the respective philosophers as if they are important ideas. It’s like the quotes about life being meaningless, for instance, sometimes attributed to a great mind, and you can see how a bad philosophy still gets recognized because of some dead end reached in philosophical inquiry. But I’m still on the fence with philosophy being a pointless endeavor as Jung stated. I think a key takeaway from Jung’s perspective, for myself, is some sort of sense of perfection Jung has, that is both true, he was a great man, but he was also human. Jung seems to sort of take a stance of authority on philosophy but I think his point is weakened by himself coming across as a narcissist in ways. Anyway notice Jung is saying, “those guys just don’t get it, but I do”. Even if true on some level it seems like he is sort of missing some points about the pursuit of truth in philosophy. Again, I think Jung has very important points, but comes from a perspective of perfection, if I’m not mistaken.
@@ЛеонДојчиновски Read the Sutras of the Tripitaka. Is full of gods-devas, Naga-dragon-serpents and miracles The Buddha is literally call Bhagwag or Bhagavato literally "Divine Lord"
Hmm, it seems to me that Jung was kind of practical minded, when it came to the human experience and troubles. Seeing philosophy as wholly unhelpful. I don't know if he was truly scientific vs. more like a pragmatic one that actually deep inside cared more about the utility of belief and thus good health of the mind and body than sterile hard to hear truth. He also seems to misunderstand that Kierkegaard, although he was crazy in love with Regina, didn't think he was the correct match for her.. as she was very young and he was already in his 40's I believe. He didn't want to take the relationship to an end, or rob regina of a better love and life that he believed she could have. In his mind and heart, he loved her so much that he did what was best for her, not himself. Thus showing her the ultimate sign of unconditional love. It hurt him deeply and he was deeply saddened. Yet it was the right thing to do in his feelings and mind and analysis..
Entelechy is a philosophical concept that originated in ancient Greek thought and has been used by various philosophers throughout history. At its core, entelechy refers to the idea of an inner potential or driving force that moves things toward their natural end or goal. The term "entelechy" was first used by Aristotle, who believed that everything in nature has an inherent potential or goal that it strives to achieve. For example, an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, and it will naturally strive toward this goal if given the proper conditions and environment. The concept of entelechy was later developed by the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who used it to describe a pre-existing inner principle that determines the nature and behavior of all things. According to Leibniz, this inner principle is what gives a thing its identity and makes it what it is. In modern times, the concept of entelechy has been used in various fields, including psychology and biology. The psychologist Carl Jung, for example, used the concept of entelechy to describe the inherent potential for growth and development within the human psyche. Similarly, the biologist Hans Driesch used the concept of entelechy to describe the innate developmental potential within living organisms. Overall, the concept of entelechy emphasizes the idea that everything in nature has a purpose or goal that it naturally strives toward. It suggests that there is an inner driving force within all things that moves them toward their natural end or potential, and that this force can be harnessed and understood through careful observation and study.
I wonder what thoughts you might have on how this relates to the archetypes we find ourselves resonating with. Basically, archetypes, as I understand, are patterns of behavior, that have repeated themselves throughout history. Perhaps if I have the potential or the “entelechy” to become an academic, I might find myself naturally acting the “absent minded professor” archetype. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent-minded_professor#:~:text=The%20absent%2Dminded%20professor%20is,leading%20to%20forgetfulness%20and%20mistakes. I have always been aloof, with my head in the clouds, and I suspect this might be a contributor to my interest in academia. Let me know what you think, and also, let me know if you think that ignoring something you have the potential or “entelechy” to do can result in negative behavior. Regards.
It seem fairly obvious that during Jung's early career, he cared more about his reputation and how others in his field and in the broader scientific community would receive him and his work, but the older he got the more he eschewed such egocentricity and embraced what would later become his true vocation, that being the gradual development of his theories concerning the collective unconscious and the process of individuation, which by all accounts were much more borderline religious and philosophical concepts than those produced by many of his contemporaries. By the end of his life and career, he seems to have more or less abandoned the pretense of being an absolute empiricist, due to the very nature his research, and accepted the fact that in order to truly explore and comprehend the nature of human psychology, one must be willing to go beyond what can be evidently proven via the use of the scientific method.
Only 2 mins in but how is freude not adept at philosophy? Freude's ideas about the subconscious and the competing drives as different kinds of personalities in the body comes from Hegel. And you cant understsnd Hegel unless youre top tier adept in philosophy.
"What do you want to be?" "Am I not already?" "No. You must become." "Become what?" "Useful to society." "To what purpose?" "So that society might function most effectively." "To what degree must I subordinate myself to the needs of society?" "At the present time, at least 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. This labor you give to society is not a gift, but a trade. In exchange for your labors you will receive currency, allowing you to purchase necessities to maintain your life and comfort." "And the other 8 hours a day, presuming a need for 8 hours of sleep?" "At least some measure of those you must dedicate to the care of your wife and children. An amount that will be constantly shifting and changing." "And finally, I get the leftovers for myself?" "Yes. The remaining hours you may use as you please." "So society gets first claim on my life. Then my wife and children. The leftovers, the hours which I am most fatigued and mentally exhausted these are mine to fill as I wish." “Yes! Now you understand what you must do with your life and why is not enough to simply be; you must become.”
💚 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
💬 Discord: discord.gg/cA6fS5tJ
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
2:42 Beyond their proper bounds
7:21 A bunch of neurotics
11:06 The Unlived Jung
15:48 Philosophy: Jung's Shadow
Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force?
Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles.
3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force.
4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.
7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
You should make a art transcript for your videos I like a lot of them and would like to explore them for myself.
@@dominusbalial835 interesting. Do you have any example of what you have in mind or can you elaborate on what you're thinking of? Sounds like a worthy thing to do in future
@@TheLivingPhilosophydiscord invite liknk has expired
It’s so sad that so many great thinkers of the past spent so much of their lives kissing the buttocks of science (as if it was pristine and unbiased)rigorous only to unknowingly see and comprehend how just like the religionists of their time and in the past…they are all licking the anus of what is the whore of Mammon, the lust for the political power and the inherent desire of the political- to assert control over reality through others!
These letters prove to me actually why as much I have my leanings towards science and religion I found in my reading of Jung he was hypocritical to either…
He made his daily bread “drinking” supposedly from the same well as science but really wanting instinctually to make sense of the religious…to drink something that was differently pleasurable in other ways.
My take is that he hated the philosophers b/c he saw too much in their “neurosis”, his own neurosis by his choice of career…in a way he couldn’t keep from going beyond the knowable.
My layman’s take of Dr. Jung with my basic Master’s level of psychology and my own issues settling on a vocation/career in life?
He chose to be a Psychiatrist b/c he didn’t think of his capacity to earn a credible career (maybe one with affluence) following his passion for comparative religion when it may have probable tension (or conflict) with his father choice of vocation, as a village pastor and one that served at an insane asylum…
I sense an issue there…maybe a desire to fight ancestral tendency (doing better than the humble career of his father)- for religion and the cultural (The father was a scholar of Oriental Languages)…
Both fields wouldn’t allow to obtain the external individual validation he sought so he his transferred one personality to another, from his Pastor father to a surrogate father in Dr. Sigmund Freud, who would help him achieve that status, that one side of his personality sought.
This video shows Jung as a hater like many people of a certain races or cultures don’t want to be associated b/c it doesn’t respect the individual external value they seek to convey to the world.
Jung was at odds in himself and it’s understandable.
My guess is that their was a bit of jealousy that these Philosophers accepted their career choice- while he may have compromised his since he was on the fence, between the knowable and the unknowable.
"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves" - Carl Gustav Jung
That's why he was so irritated by philosophers, because he was guilty of all the things he accused them of.
He took that from Martin Buber...
hahaha spot on
@@MichaelDamianPHD Fact is you are not a mindreader and a PHD behind your name doesn't preclude you from being a jackass.
@@MichaelDamianPHD You don't know what I do or don't know about him do you? Are you saying I don't know anything about him because My opinion of him is different than yours? Eff off.
I beileve the ultimate driving force behind Jung contempt for philsophers was his fear of losing his sanity. (So, naturally, he disowned this fate by attributing it to other people.)
He wanted to avoid being a philosopher so that he could avoid becomign like Nietzsche and he wanted to avoid being like Nietzsche so he could avoid the insane asylum.
This possible fate was impressed very strongly on him after he read _Thus Spoke Zarathustra,_ if not before, and he beileved that his only defence against such a disaster was science -- and indeed he attributes his recovery from psychosis in 1913 to his scientific objectivity. Whether this really helped at all, it's absolutly pivotal to not that he beileved it to be the case.
Jung was not attacking the philosophers. Jung #2 was attacking Jung #1.
That's a hot take I love it
He was taught to doubt his in-ner voice in his brain... guy should've trusted the voice in his heart.
His shadow was just the "being" we all have, confused as being opposed or separate to the ego we develop.
FYI Guys, the "shadow" can only grow deeper when one looks at the ground for too long. And the universe is Reciprocal, not Gravity-based. So don't be too much of a downer! Negativity breeds negativity. Likewise for positivity.
Agreed. He was acutely aware of the perils of the mind and knew how easily it could be to lose oneself should one venture too far. "Beware unearned wisdom." Jung
@@jaydenwilson9522I see what you mean but still when faced with the prospect of an absolute dissolution of the self one can't help but become a little fearful, 😅😶
@@TheSopheom dissolution of the "self"? re-read what I wrote. the self and the being are not separate dude... your one with it.
your not defined by just oneself or thoseself
Almost ironic, how Jung is mostly rejected in modern psychology, but more greatly appreciated among philosophers.
It is also ironic how most of Jung's work is more philosophical and mystical than scientific. For example, the Collective Unconscious is a theoretical construct that is impossible to prove scientifically, just as the unconscious is. While it can be said that a fear of snakes or falling or being burned or being completely alone is shared by almost all humans, these are also shared by almost all animals (including snakes) and insects.
Jung being mostly rejected in modern psychology emphasizes how unscientific and philosophical Jung's (and Freud's) thinking was. It was not pragmatic. It did not lead to useful solutions. It leads to the same mystical and delusional thinking that Jung criticized philosophers for having. That does not mean everything he thought was worthless. The concepts of introvert and extrovert personalities, and neuroticism are key components of the OCEAN personality model.
His thinking has the greatest significance to anthropology and literary criticism. Combining all aspects of spirituality, art, symbolism, mysticism (including Alchemy), religion, etc. into a coherent understanding of the human experience beyond the individual.
@@greporaYou're quite mistaken. Jungian psychology is extremely pragmatic and effective - as was Jung the analyst in his direct work of helping people get their lives in order. I don't expect people who aren't psychologists to understand that -- they never do, because they are entirely unfamiliar with the field.
You show a threadbare understanding of what he contributed to the field. To say his work leads to mystical and delusional thinking is absurd -- and to say it creates the same thing he criticized about the philosophers is ridiculous. It shows you have no grasp of Jung's life and profound impact in the field.
Also his character typology concepts are most fully reflected in the MyersBriggs typology which is far deeper and of much greater practical use than the almost useless OCEAN model. But let's be practical and ask, what's your profession or field, that you claim to be able to assess Jungian psychology so negatively?
@@MichaelDamianPHDi agree. But to not say that Jung had a flair towards the supernatural and spiritual is also a disservice.
I think Jung is strongly appreciated in modern psychology.
These comments are just very ironic when you think of Jungs red book and how he created the red book. To me, Jung just didn’t understand the method philosophers understand their emotions and existence. Jung was using the scientific method to understand the more mis understood parts of our existence.
@@MichaelDamianPHD what's the issue with OCEAN? I don't need you to write at length if that's bothersome but a video title would suffice.
My issue is just with conscientiousness. It's obvious to me that Ocean's conception of it is purely interpersonal and highly conformist. It's an authoritarian take that doesn't question whether the hierachy the person is compliant with is just, moral or sustainable. I'd be considered very low conscientiousness even though I have all the pathologies of a high conscientious. Because I always think of the second, third and fourth order of consequences of my actions and what the results of fidelity to obligations would create in the world. That's why I left law school and have been demoralized ever since.
I don't see any work in the modern age that doesn't feed the monsters. I'm low conscientious because I'm actually conscientious.
@@charlottewolery558 OCEAN, unlike Jungian typology, does not describe the full nuanced constellation of personality traits and how they function together. It just provides a scale rating of 5 factors without describing types. MyersBriggs/Jungian typology is based on the basic constituent temperament and functional preferences and shows how their combinations in a person creates very predictable and archetypal patterns of character. You learn very little about yourself through OCEAN. MyersBriggs shows you in nuanced detail how your personality functions and also how it can evolve.
"It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of--namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography" - Nietzsche (Beyond Good & Evil)
Just because everyone has biases doesn't mean we are all equal. Reality is singular and some get closer to it than others.
So then, after reading this from Nietzsche Jung asked the question: "What is this unconscious in philosophers?"
Strange to me since I actually think of Jung as a philosopher.
Precisely - he's not exactly an empiricist, is he??
@@Unfunny_Username_389 He had his woo moments definitely. I don't buy synchronicity at all. I do think he did a good job of reverse engineering repression and shadow projection. But that's the nature of it - you can't see it in yourself.
@@MusicMissionary Interesting - I need to get up to speed on those concepts / theories.
@@Unfunny_Username_389 it seems to track for me. Like how much I used to dislike rednecks to the point that I didn't even want to listen to country music. And now I understand it's because I grew up in the country and was insecure about that. You tend to see in others what you dislike about yourself. I have to give Jung credit for teaching me about that.
empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.
Empiricism is philosophy as well, so even if he was one, he would still be a philosopher.
There's an interview somewhere on RUclips where Jung talks about the tensions in his relationship with Freud and how Freud's lack of philosophical education led to him being too certain of his own ideas, whereas Jung describes himself as steeped in Kant and always doubting himself. Sounds like a blindspot in his self-awareness. We all have them.
Not only by sharing, but also by not insignificantly contributing to the systematization of the "stream system" of cultural protestantism, the philosophy of Immanuel Kant seems somehow a significant part of the Middle European "cultural code" since then. That is, many people seem to learn "Kantianism" mainly by being "steeped in Kant" via secondary sources (as part of "acculturisation" in general). This may also apply to C.G. Jung.
hello, what is the systematization of the stream system of cultural protestantism?@@gunterappoldt3037
A blindspot in Jung's self-awareness? This makes no sense.
@@MichaelDamianPHD seems pretty certain of his own ideas to me based on what I've read/heard.
@@patrickclark3288 You don't understand. Jung was far more doubtful and broad-minded than Freud. To claim he was somehow blindly "certain" is false. He was quite brilliant and he had reason to be confident in his understanding and experience. So many people here just have no real knowledge of Jung or Jungian therapy, and they're judging Jung based on stereotypes and appearances.
Jung really does have a good point. The contemporary philosophies can become parlyzing especially to those who have similar dispositions as their authors. - Speaking from personal experience. (Instead of spinning in thought for 2 minutes, after reading Nietzsche I can now do it for hours and still get nowhere close to influencing a real life decision.)
And I should say, nobody quite embodies the healthy grounded spirit better than Jung. Jung speaks from a place almost synonymous with the spirit you might talk with on magic mushrooms. Where you're beyond the mental gymnastics & illusions of words.
I always feel I dont have to worry about picking up any unhealthy illusions or worldviews from Jung, unlike say, with Nietzsche. There is a certain trust i have with ol' Carl; he was a doctor for the human being, whereas the philosopher, often over-saturates the mind with distant truths and insights.
He doesn't, Jung's psycology is just as imaginative as any form of philosophy.
I value Jung’s work and encourage others to explore it, but ultimately Jung seems to have been as delusional and megalomaniacal as any would-be prophet. He drastically overestimated the importance of his own hallucinations and interpretations of their meaning. I do believe his analytical psychology can help you orient yourself in life if you believe in it, in much the same way as any religion or all-encompassing worldview can help (again, if you believe in it). But analytical psychology is neither objective nor scientific, and I don’t think it is necessarily beyond mental gymnastics, the illusions of words, or unhealthy worldviews.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs if you want happiness in this crazy world, you do not talk about moonbeams for the blind, tones for the deaf and you absolutely do not speak about sex to eunuchs, they just get angry.
@@koriqzia Haha I earnestly think that if he valued Jung's work a little more than subjective, he would see that analytical psychology brings as much of an attempt at science at something so esoteric. But it's resigned to useful subjective belief for what inherently cannot be scientific.
I am sorry but "Jung speaks from a place almost synonymous with the spirit you might talk with on magic mushrooms. Where you're beyond the mental gymnastics & illusions of words" is hilarious. Yeah talking to spirits while you're on mushrooms is totally scientific and grounded lol no illusions of words or any other illusions there whatsoever. Also, Nietzsche is just one philosopher with his own system. You can't use him to paint the whole philosophy the same color.
Jung is the best, he resonates goodness and phenomenal insight. I love how he can speak his mind with humor❤
What a marvelous criticism, the philosopher and the psychoanalyst both work with the unknown and both take the other’s results personally. We are, as ever, left to decide for ourselves. This is the journey, I appreciate the analysis that I don’t have time to do. Thank you so much for producing these videos.
Having found myself in an existential hellpit during a period of my life, with retrospect, I understand where Jung is coming from. Most of the philosophy from the 19th century onward is just cynical wordplay intended to disembowel phenomenologically self-evident truths. All it does is reveal a predispositional distrust in the author which they satisfy from moment to moment with neurotic quibbling. They suffer from their own narcissism and poor moral constitution and they would love to convince others and themselves that 1. They're geniuses and 2. Their pedantic fussing is justified.
Trust your perception and the ability of reality to correct it, meditate on or pray to God for virtue, be thankful.
I read the letter in regards to Heidegger, Jung compares Heidegger to both James Joyce and the French Surrealists. Which I think gives a clue to his real opinion.
Joyce he took very seriously, as many of his colleagues recommended it. And he met Joyce personally as well as his daughter.
But then upon reading Ulysses he could be complimentary of its literary skill, but frustrated by its lack of meaning. It is a book of open associations, you can read into it, but it purposely evades personal meaning. It is to be enjoyed by delighting in word play not thinking too much.
I think a similar issue could be said of his encounter with French Surrealism, but even more so.
I remember talking to a really earnest Expressive Syrian painter who said when he discovered surrealism for the first time he saw it as a lie, meaning dishonest. Full of strange juxtapositions, but lacking the real meaning of an authentic dream.
As a Young person discovering Surrealism I loved its novelty but came to a similar conclusion. It often promises meaning but it’s true intention is to evoke the unease of no immediate meaning. Surrealists even said the were more interested in effects of unheimlich “the uncanny” of Freud than specific meaning.
So this uncanny effect I remember so much in 1980’s goth videos. It did not have meaning it had uncanniness.
But back to MH, I personally have a similar revulsion of Heidegger as Jung has, but mainly because I expected much more than Heidegger ever provides.
In ancient times figures like Parmenides and Heraclitus were considered spiritual philosophers of a world unseen. There was a vitality in it, because people were trying to gain a sense of vitality and virtue in their being in relationship to Being itself.
Real ontological experimentation can be found in the human potential movement derived from Wilhelm Reich, Gestalt therapy.
I can very much appreciate Jung’s love for meaning. In a psychological sense it provides stability, it provides an anchor.
But the real aesthetic currents around him were more interested in the experience of being alive rather than meaning itself. And this is something that was more elusive to Jung, IMO.
In other words, you can have experiences, you can describe the quality of experience, you can be conscious of experience, but meaning is an attempt to create order out of natural chaos, it is STASIS.
Those suffering from neurosis can use meaning as a grounding. But it is not a replacement for the experience of being alive.
Well said
I appreciate the time you took to write this out. It's at least unusually qualitative for a RUclips comment.
"I read the letter in regards to Heidegger, Jung compares Heidegger to both James Joyce and the French Surrealists. Which I think gives a clue to his real opinion."
A very silly opinion, in that case. Heidegger has nothing to do with either.
@@huugosorsselsson4122 I think Jung was saying Surrealism has little to do with the psychological unconscious, for example Dali never dreamt a flaming giraffe. (But interestingly he bought an Yves Tanguy painting).
And Joyce is not mythological, at least not what Jung expected. But Campbell obviously disagreed with Jung.
And his objection to Heidegger should be obvious, Heidegger rejected Kant a priori a posteriori relationships because it is a Cartesian subject/object dichotomy.
And for Jung it was a central scheme to making sense of anything. So the accusation is this is non-empirical, the subject object dichotomy is necessary for knowledge of things. Etc.
So the accusation is not really the unconscious (surrealism), not real mythology (Joyce) not real phenomenology (Heidegger).
@@huugosorsselsson4122 I will also add for me, Paul Tillich provides a link between Heidegger and Jung, but that is because I come from a liberal Christian Church, where Tillich was a way to preserve religious sentiments without resorting to literalism. You may know Heidegger better, but I think I understand Jung’s complaint.
I was obsessed with books and everything intellectual (philosophy, physics, religion, history) since my childhood and it turned out that I was indeed a neurotic 😢 I also skipped life because of that 😢😢😢
There's still time left! Jump in at the deep end 😂
Well, ye didn't read them calmly
A different lif is by no means wasted.
Good luck on your own journey.
@@guzylad5 I read many of them twice and thrice 😢
Not missing much unless you have money or are useful for getting someone else more money
Jung would've got on famously with one particular philosopher. Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was of precisely the same opinion. He was also a fascinating study for the psychologist.
Wittgenstein: "Kierkegaard was by far the most profound thinker of the 19th century. Kierkegaard was a saint."
I find it ironic that wittgenstein grew to hate a certain philosoper like arthur schopenhaur and calling him a shallow thinker in his later year while also admitting during his letter around 1930+ that he based his foundation and thinking mostly from a lot of philosopher including arthur schopenhaur, i guess deep down even if he dissagree he still value some aspect of arthur other work.
It's always good when someone's ideas work so well that they can help to expose their author
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I appreciated this video.
The claim that Jung was possessed by his shadow when engaging with the reality and consequences of the thought of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, that is undoubtedly true. The more I read Jung, the more I see his personality and opinions burst through in sometimes unflattering ways.
However, I feel that there is some deep wisdom in rejecting the consumption of philosophical text after Kant. Maybe my mind is plagued by the same spirit of Jung’s shadow, but I sometimes feel strongly that the strategy to “look at what’s looking” or “get beyond God” and understand the complete map of the human perspective not only results in misery and isolation, but also abandons the well-being of humanity. The wedding feast, the sense that all is well under God, and the spirit of benevolence to celebrate the life that has been entrusted to us, this is something foreign to modern man. Human beings have a tendency to open Pandora’s box, without realizing our unique impotency -that if we resist our God-given place in nature and the world, we misalign ourselves, and start to walk on transgressive ground- whether or not there is really a spirit or living God behind this dilemma is besides the point. Going past the boundaries is always a godforsaken place. Maybe this is why Jung felt he could not travel to the places Heidegger and Kierkegaard went.
I sometimes like to think that rather than be a great philosopher like Heidegger, Jung actually had unconscious energy in him to be a Saint. There is a scene in memory dreams reflections where he had a very negative experience when he was a young boy, being terrified by the sight of a Jesuit priest walking towards him. It seems to me that this really shaped his view, quite unintentionally, of the whole religious reality of Switzerland and Europe of the time.
These philosophers made a deep theological claim declaring to go beyond God. A claim their followers devour in the midst hypocritical way, decrying accepting things on faith without thought.
I dont think the truth and the most fundamental questions are beyond our reach, it is possible to discover it, and I think that humanity Will at some point, not Just Humanity but any intelligent creature.
I am dedicating my life in search for truth, I had many progress, although my ideas are aways changing, and I really think I am discover everything and that I am knowing God.
I think Jung's disdain and aggression towards "godless" or post-modern "everything is subjective" thinkers isn't necessarily the result of a shadow obsession.
The way I see it, Jung knew by heart and experience that "truth" exists which can't co-exist with subjectivist line of thinking, because a relative truth is merely an excuse, rather than truth in nature.
Through my own experiences, I gradually turned from a purely empyrical point of view towards that of Jung, which pays respects to our rich subconscious ancestral knowledge and the magnetic force towards goodness that can be described as the "inner voice" or "God", whichever you prefer. The unmeasurable nature of these archetypal contents makes empyricists growl, which fits the term ""wrestling with God", in my estimation.
I don't look down on Jung for expressing anger towards those who wrestle with God, maybe because I've became the same way, to some extent. I'm certainly biased, but if anyone is interested in this discussion, I'd be happy to contribute with this summary:
Jung's dislike in post-Kant philosophers was at the very least partially correct, not completely originated from his own shadow.
@@Rimas.Kirslys
"a relative truth is merely an excuse, rather than truth in nature"
Is it? What is the truth of our conversation? Is it not relative to me and relative to you? If it is not then i ask myself how it can be called the truth og *our* conversation if it has no meaningfull connection to us at all. Subjectivity does not mean the nonexistence of thing but that acknowledgement of a more complex truth that is neither here nor there but inbetween.
To go beyond god you need something. We aren aware that we still lack it.
Philosophy is the mother of all science, and it’s pursuit is way way older than psychology
It’s its or is it? Therein lies the question… :) the one the mother of science, the other a great great great great great great grandchild… philosophy not unlike psychology is whatever we bring to it… which is also the tragedy of our perceived knowledge @@Seacrestered
With all due respect, without philosophy there would not have been psychology. Without philosophy today there would be no psychology. But there is an argument to be made that all thought is virtual. Which sadly would include psychology @fumikumi5173
At about 17 minutes the narration speculates about Jung's dichotomy between scientist and philosopher, seeming to forget that, one can be both, but more importantly, Jung was a physician, a neuropsychiatrist, one of the most famous, meaning he had access to pathology other practitioners read about in textbooks. So, he wasn't masturbating out of a dilemma of lack of experience (see the life of Kant, Nietzsche, etc for lives unspent). He was speaking from the perspective of someone with actual experiences of observing anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, pain and terminal illness. He is saying the Philosophers are in a Cave of their own Making. He's right.
He was right.
What makes me curious is... Wouldn't most of philosophers' way of thinking be considered "irrational" according to cognitive psychology standards? What I mean is, I imagine Nietzsche entering a session, and the therapist tagging all most his thoughts as lacking objectivity, usefulness or others.
That seems to be quite curious to me because cognitive psychology has a lot of philosophic principles, so I never knew what to think about this.
Yes for the most part it would be considered irrational.
psychology is not supposed to have philosophical principles. It's supposed to be as mechanical and behavioral as possible.
Well, when it comes to cognitive restructuring and other similar things, there are lots of philosophical presumptions involved.
I know that when people think of psychology sometimes Skinner working with rats comes to their minds but I can tell you there is much more than that, especially in humanistic, existential and contextual therapies (this last one is evidence-based) where they even get things from existentialism, phenomenology, pragmatism and zen philosophy@@ThriftyCHNR
Yes, but the reasons why they work are heuristic and based on signals. It's a hard problem with a hard solution. Even if it means talking about fluff.@@fernandoginer5068
It's "unintuitive", studying advanced philosophy involves a lot of thinking that would be unnatural to laymen. This may be the same for some complex subjects
I wanted to watch this video as it came out and never got round to it until now. That summer felt very confusing and out of control, and in the process my interest in philosophy (Camus in particular) gradually shifted to an interest in psychology, orientated (instead of books) around addressing personal stuff, and some volunteer work I've been doing ever since. I hope now this video can help guide me towards not making it a matter of either/or (pardon the pun), and trying to make my searches as honest as I can get them to be.
They were neurotics and that was their contribution for the Garden are we
I concur, it would seem that Jung’s criticism of philosophy was possibly and almost certainly a self-criticism. He himself was very philosophical, though his profession forced him to walk the line of objectivity. I appreciate that about him.
@@hemlocke7359 I agree , for him to truly hate , there must have been love behind it , as his rule of thumb with projection , it is not them that he really hated nor philosophy itself but just the part in them that he fear was in himself
His hate was his was of individuating from himself , from the womb in his mind that gave birth to personality number two
What?
What?
@@VigiliusHaufniensis where exactly are you confused, friend?
Thank you so much for this. One of THE best philosophy channels hands down. All stuff that I WOULD have liked to work on myself, but wouldn’t have been willing to put in 😮so much time and effort on, as you have. I feel that one has to go straight to the primary sources (philosopher or psychoanalyst) to get to the truth. But this is VERY hard; and so the majority - INCLUDING the “young minds” (but even the older generations can be such babies) - simply rely on “others/experts” for “knowledge” which increasingly becomes something we just consume along with fast food and exercise etc. It’s a miracle that we then have “healthy” options in this consumption process, such as your channel, which goes straight to the primary sources and presents to the audience materials (“food for thought” haha) which they can themselves categorize as “truth” “biased opinion” etc . (I’ll subscribe to Patreon once my own financial situation improves!)
I really appreciate you taking the time to write this out. It means so much to me to get messages like this and I wouldn't be making videos if it wasn't for this kind of support. Thank you
I think Jung is the one person who came closest to integrating philosophy into applied psychology. He did become in my opinion both philosopher and scientist, but his philosophy was really different than others during the 19th and 20th century. I think he was angered that many philosophers remained so detached all the way from just general real life and failed to ground their thinking into any robust empirical truth. The brain also has 2 parts and so think what Jung described of himself is just the two parts of his brain working imo. I also think he was a legit genius and modern existential thinkers were too, but Jung was living at the border of colliding opposites compared to those he criticized, which probably made him border line insane as well. His works are so much different from anything else that we are still left in a really deep confusion about it and not many managed to successfully build on them. Some might think therefore, that he was just wrong, but I think his 20+ volumes of works and his influence in psychological thinking speaks for themselves. That said his works were not perfect or complete and he did have a hard time trying to reconcile the two dividing parts of his approach. It’s similar to how we try to reconcile the ego with the unconscious. I don’t think he ever wanted to choose and he wanted to have the best of both worlds. He was tilting way more into science, but that was because he was afraid of losing his mind which he mentioned a lot. He also says something in his biography book that he needed people around him to remind him that he still lives in general reality and not get lost in his works and in the abstract and go insane. I don’t know if he managed to do it and was angry at those who were more radical in their approach and further from empirical science or he tried to compensate his similar tendencies with science to not go insane and happened to overcompensate, which for this reason necessary resulted in his heavy reaction for what he feared. Also, this is not a well educated take on my part, but I think Jung was heavily influenced by Eastern traditions and those philosophers thinking could have been irreconcilable with some of those approaches.
I think even if he had his flaws, he was the most successful in creating an applied philosophy of human nature and tried to base it in empirical science. That kind of interdisciplinary approach is something we really still need today to see where all the knowledge overlaps in the studies of us humans and be less lost. I think Jung might have felt he still had to choose science and was kind of hurt that his tilt to science stopped him from fully living out one of his deep desires.
Probably his weirdest work: Red Book is also a matter of division, as some say that’s a book about a person completely losing his mind, while others (including Jung) claim it’s something the world isn’t quite prepared for yet.
If any of you have tried to read “Being and Time” by Heidegger you’ll know what Jung meant.
It reads like “And the being of Being, starkly contrasted from the Being that Being knows. In the Total Being the act of being becomes itself into being”
Every time anybody writes about Being, same thing.
You don't know nothingh aboutr it ,it's like look Trump son being embarrassed and release his ignorant, I love that
Well, "Sein und Zeit" isn´t an easy read, not even in German, agreed. But the "ontological difference" isn´t by far the only topic M. Heidegger touched in his Opus magnum - which, b.t.w., remained a fragment. Inspired by his doctor-father, Edmund Husserl, Heidegger tried to develop something like a fundamental ontology (Fundamentalontologie) of the life-world (Lebenswelt). Husserl criticized this as an anthropology, which, alas, had inauthentically left the core-field of "phenomenology as a strict science" behind. However, the later Husserl revised his stance and took up the topic/concept/problematic of the life-world himself - namely in his "Crisis"-texts, that is. All these phenomenological, often quite meditative "ways of thinking" (Denkwege) demand intense times of study, which C.G. Jung, it seems, was not ready and willing to invest. So, in fact, he more or less by-passed this other important contemporary "stream-system". - Interesting enough, both, Heidegger and Jung, seem to have read some essays/books by the Rinzai-Zen scholar D.T. Suzuki, and showed themselves quite impressed. Irony of history, isn´t it?
I couldn't get through a few pages of "Being and Time" no matter how I tried. Kant's "critique of Pure Reason" was a slow and difficult read, but was suprisingly comprensible. Husserl's Cartesian Meditation was the same. But Heidegger's work was just esoteric word salad to me.
@@nenoman3855 Heidegger´s writings are often no easy read. His "ontology of basics" (Fundamentalontologie) feels a bit like "Euro-Daoism" and needs some deceiphering to, eventually, get some deep-phenomenological meaning out of it.
Often it is useful to read "secondary literature" (e.g., K. Seeland, S. Heine), which does some hermeneutic work in order to get some glimpses of the basix matrix, built around concepts, like: "aletheia", "[yin-yang-ish] reveiling-conceiling", "ontological differerence", the ´man´", the "clearing of being", "human beings as the guardians of being[-here]", "language as the house of being[-here]", the "existential of care", "resolute advancing", and so forth.
And sure, in some respects it is "esoteric" in the sense of "cofidential teaching", a bit like zen-ish "transmimssion from heart to heart".
That´s some of the "[´openly-hidden´] sense" I got out some personal studies on Heidegger.
Great video James. I find it interesting the Jung had such a stringent structure that everything needed to fit into, not allowing the unproven scientifically topics to have any type validity but rather criticize the philosophers, allowing himself to feel superior as you stated. Was it his conflicting personalities, 1 and 2, then with the help of the ego, that allow, what it appears to be and to me, his narcissistic self to appear? Maybe it was his true self emerging as his insecurities were heightened by the fame of he other philosophers? One wonders what might have come from Jung if he would have allowed the 2 struggling personalities to have had fluid interactions that could have allowed a further expansion of thought and exploration, then again, what could have been lost if that did happen..... Just some thoughts.
He didn't hate philosophers. He did, however, have a strong dislike for manipulation, especially for the purposes of making money i.e. clickbait. I can see from the title that you can't be older than 25, if that. You'll understand once you gain some life experience.
Fascinating! This critique of Jung’s that you highlight - quite brilliantly - here reminds me a lot of Wittgenstein (particularly the early Wittgenstein). Quite ironically, Wittgenstein could hardly be placed in the “non-neurotic” camp. Thus, does Jung join him there?
I think it’s true that a lot of more modern - especially existential - philosophy tends to be quite abstract and - what Nietzsche would call - Apollonian. That’s the trouble with tackling perhaps fathomless ideas like freedom, meaning, and life and death, which are so extremely difficult to capture and communicate in language. However, is trying to theorise around these concepts and discuss them so wrong and foolhardy? Must we swear solely to a Wittgensteinian silence “whereof we cannot speak”?
I love the work of Camus and the Stoics who seemed to be able to touch these topics whilst keeping at least a few tip-toes on the ground of reality. How interesting to see Jung, who hitherto I thought of as very measured, have such an emotional reaction to these philosophers. Thank you for a great video! ❤
Another excellent piece. Your ability to convey these ideas at the layman level have allowed me to develop and expand on some of my own personal musings and exploration of my being.
It's like philosophy is the poetry witout rhyme to science. Forgive me if that makes no sense.
How can you hate philosophers if you were a philosopher yourself?
Every philosopher hates every other philosopher.
Thanks for this man:) It's such a refreshing outlook. My early life traumas gave me a bunch anxieties that were neurosis' in their expression, and that's why I've been so philosophically oriented. I've just been trying to work out my pain.
As I relax into healthy recovery, mainly by gradually allowing the processing of grief, my philosophical outlook becomes less about word puzzles, and much more about quality of loving myself and life itself. It's not that I give up philosophical interest, but seeing the qualities neurosis in healing, I find the quality superior to neurotic obsessiveness. The quality of peace can't be valued except as it is experienced, and witnessing it, I find I suspect deeply upset philosophies as unresolved and unhealed in nature.
Freud was much kinder to philosophers than Jung was. After he'd constructed his duel theory of the instincts in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," Otto Rank pointed out to him the similarities between his theory and Schopenhauer's philosophy, and Freud said something like, "Why shouldn't a bold and original thinker formulate something that has taken us painstaking years of empirical research to realize?"
Fascinating.
I find Jung's failure to mention Descartes interesting, given the quote you used at 15:26 goes on to read like something that Descartes could have written.
Additionally, the quote at around 17:31 is kind of hilarious:
"I can put up with any amount of criticism so long as it is based on facts or real knowledge. But what I have experienced in the way of philosophical criticism of my concept of the collective unconscious, for instance, was characterized by lamentable ignorance on the one hand and intellectual prejudice on the other."
OK, CJ, but if the "Collective Unconscious" is a "concept," then it is simply your way of organizing your thoughts in a way that a philosopher would, rather than the scientific creation of a theory or even a hypothesis. So, to get angry at philosophers that address it on its own terms, is to prove that you really are "the damnedest dilettante that ever lived;" more interested in the acclaim than engaging with the topic with real commitment and knowledge.
The irony is that Jung seems desperate to complete the splitting between philosophy and psychology that had only started in the late 19th century with the likes of Wundt. Indeed, I frequently say that William James is better read as a psychologist and Freud is better read as a philosopher.
Heidegger was a Nazi and only became an "Existentialist" (whatever that is ) when he saw which way the wind was blowing. Jung., by contrast, favoured individualism and dedicated himself to the relief of personal suffering through self-knowledge as opposed to suicidal nationalism and shallow cowardly opportunism.🤔(Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉
Jung’s work is grounded on philosophy through the I Ching, Eastern and Middle Eastern mysticism also corresponding to Goethe as well.
Personally, Jung regurgitated a lot of work from older scholars and put himself at the centre of it all. His reliance on Philemon, the grand Philosopher and also using Gnosticism to expand on the role of opposites was philosophy in its own right. The rise of Continental Philospohy and Empiricism was enough to show how much he didn’t understand the process.
His neuroses was in the foundation of his analytical experience which was layered with a childhood of mysticism and over Protestantism through his own family.
I followed Jung but in hindsight he was building a new religion of the Self for the late 20th century. The misunderstanding of his work is evident in the Jungians who followed from his school. They rarely agreed with one another and we’re prone to intellectual cliques.
Again Jung saw himself as the centre of this new world, but was then disproved by the work of Tolkien and fantasy.
His work on symbols and it’s meaning to humans is amazing but his want for an empirical truth drove him further from empiricism which was what Freud was getting at with Jung.
Freud loved the Greeks so Jung had to go deeper than that and found his peace in medieval Christianity and Zoroastrianism.
In turn, Jung proved he was just as human as each of us. In the words of Nietszche “Human all too human”.
This is all very evident in the Red Book. He was a keen master of being unaware of his own projections.
Jung saw himself as Philemon and then as Christ.
7 sermons to the dead another great example of Jung’s writing which is flamboyantly similar to Joyce which of course was written around the same time. Jung was an artist and his analytical psychologist did not accept this so he ascribed an ancient heroic journey to it.
Great video thank you for uploading.
well put together and valuable insights brought to light. I enjoyed the bigger picture, open minded, yet analytical approach
Carl Jung is just silly. If Jung had read any Nietzsche he would have known that he was copying what Nietzsche had already said!
It was Nietzsche who said, in works like "Beyond Good and Evil," that philosophers were often doing little more than expressing their personality flaws. Nietzsche was trying to be clear that he was, in part, wearing his subjectivity on his sleeve and telling others to do the same, more or less.
Jung didnt hate philosophers or philosophy, he hated MODERN philosphy and philosophers.
Not even all modern philosophy, he was influenced by William James, Martin Buber and Ludwig Binswanger.
To Jung's credit, he has every reason to attack philosophy in an age where we can begin to quantify and measure aspects of Nature and the psyche. Philosophy has always been at a disadvantage because it is not concerned with 'proving' its precepts scientifically by actually challenging them and putting them to the test. I believe Jung was at heart a philosopher (or an alchemist, which is the philosophy that predated philosophy) but had the good sense not to lose himself in ontological propositions that could only be argued about. He sought a more facts-based worldview. Interestingly, Jung was conflicted in his youth as to what he was going to do professionally, and says in his autobiography that he ultimately chose medicine because the new field of psychology was interested in 'diseases of the personality,' and he wanted something to help him understand himself. Even though tension existed between No.1 and No. 2 within himself, I would argue that the very fact that he was aware of the struggle sets him head and shoulders above the philosophers, so that he was able to create a system that married science and philosophy into something greater than both of those things. It probably isn't just a 'neurotic projection of his own unconscious subjective prejudices.' Because he did everything he could to ground No. 2's intuitions within No. 1's scientific framework. And people now respect Jung and his ideas way more than ever.
It looks like emotional projection relating to his failure to comprehend the drift of philosophy after kant.
This on so many levels wrong. Please do a better job. Schelling, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer had a big impact on him. In his book: memories, dreams, reflections when he talks about the influence Schopenhauer and Kant had on his thinking but also how he disagreed with schopenhauer's answer to the will to life using Kant's theory of knowledge.
Hilarious to think Jung was disparaging philosophers for being anti-scientific, his own work is broadly a masterful work of fiction.
he was projecting 😂
Well It's more along the lines of Jung seeing how existentialist philosophers and those who follow this philosophy all believe that the physical material world is all there is and that the sciences is the only way to understand our objective reality but this is however contradicted by the fact that their own philosophical beliefs aren't even based off the scientific method but instead through their own personal experiences and emotions (mosty anixety) which therefore makes the foundations of their philosophy subjective opposite from the objective conclusions composed by science. Long story short existentialist make great leaps that go against the very principles of science and the scientific method whilst hold science to the highest regard. Jung himself isn't contradicting nor projecting because he believes that science is not the only way we can learn about the reality around us.
Absolute banger. Feels like this video has an unplanned sequel in its future.
There's actually a couple of follow-ups in the works! One on the anti-semitic accusations against Jung and another about racism in his thinking. Part of a "if you see the Buddha on the road kill him" kind of series
Next: A commentary on Jean Piaget's "Insights and Illusions of Philosophy"? Just a humble suggestion.
The philosopher struggling with himself is part of what makes their work so compelling. I'm not sure philosophy without internal struggle on the part of the author would be anything but abject jibboresh. All of Western philosophy is really the autobiography of the author, but is also, in a sense, a biography of us all.
Looking forward to this. I have a much-read copy of Walter Kaufmann's "Nietzsche" and quite a bit of Jung's works.
This was an eye opener. I did not know this side of Jung. And the similarity with JBP on postmodernism is so relatable.
but why? I always hear people accusing him of not understanding postmodernism, so I was very much reminded of him as well, but I never heard anyone explain why that is?
@@vincentlaw1415 I can't explain it here, but you can feel the vitriol in JBP's heart while he is talking about the "postmodern types." I criticise postmodernism because it can't offer anything sustainable, but a wave of PM was necessary to call out the modern ideas. JBP is only hyperfocussed on the extremists and prejudiced about the whole thing.
@@vincentlaw1415it's always felt as if he had a political agenda and vendetta against the left wing. He has been questioned about it. He is also aware of his shadows to some extent. I guess people are just people: they are flawed.
@@khaga007 if you had listen to his content from the beginning to now, you'd know exactly why he has this agenda. He studied totalitarian systems on both sides of the political spectrum and witnessed a rise of marxism in the 60s, by french post modern philosophers which openly admitted that they're marxists, they even tried to normalize pedophilia through the sexual revolution, to just name an example. If you understand post modern and marxist theory, you know exactly how they justified such perversion. Time and politics confirmed his warnings almost a 100%. So when people call him out for his agenda, I only have to ask: So what? Have you been sleeping under a rock for the last 8 years?
He is a right wing shill and religious apologist. He grifted a whole generation of trouble young men.@@khaga007
"If all you do is think, you only think about thoughts. This leads to a rabbit hole of infinite depth and pulchritude, and there will be no meaning found there which can connectto the real world. This is the definition of psychosis, however in effete circles it is called 'philosophy', which hijacks the proper place of that queen of all disciplines which is , simply put, the art of describing the world in such a way that our dreams are sufficient enough to simulate reality that we do not need to die or suffer grievous injury in order to discover new things." -- A. Watts.
Above my paygrade but I did read Kaufmann in college on my own, and have admired Jung over Freud forever. Jung wrote an introduction to the I Ching translation by a German (Wilhelm), revealing his interest in metaphysics, or an oracle in this case.
Jung's protestations about philosophers seems excessive, as though he felt challenged or even threatened by their works. Could it be as human as Jung's desire to be on the top of the heap, a heap that Freud and the philosophers would have to live in Jung's world?
Jung seems not to have taken philosophers with any respect. He was willing to judge them even with little true investigation. All very interesting stuff. Thank you.
I think he was right honestly.
A lot of philosophy took a nose-dive into darkness when it went into non-realism with things like Nietzschean subjectivism, Kierkegaardian existentialism & absurdism, postmodernist rejection of objective truth, etc.
This is why i love jung's mind so much, i was literally laughin throughout this whole video because of how true his statements are XD
Jung has a good point
Wouldn't neurotic thinking be deeply important to philosophy and not to its detriment? It allows people to open gaps in systems that undermine the current status quo and allow for change. Jung himself was obsessed with being "scientific" yet he somehow sees science as a fully defined rigid signifier, when in fact it's incredibly hard to define science consistently. Philosophy under psychosis doesn't even make sense, or at least all I can think of it as being is an old man who just spouts wisdoms at people because he already knows "everything".
That quote about Hegel is fascinating to me, because after familiarizing myself a bit with Hegel over the past few years I came to see Hegel and Jung as something like mirror images of each other. Hell, without trying to be a lazy reductionist, I nevertheless think a case can be made that Jung's work was German Idealism psychologized. Again, I'm not saying that is a particularly good argument to make, but merely that an argument CAN BE made for it.
Thanks for researching this! Fascinating and confirms some of my suspicions too 🙂
I think the irony of this is that, sure, Jung approached his philosophy (which is a philosophy of psychology, but a philosophy nonetheless) through the lens of science, but still through his own particular lens. Jung was clearly an insanely creative and intelligent individual and his delvings into his own psyche aren't so different from the similar projections/delvings that the philosophers he denigrates, really, other than he wasn't content to merely extrapolate his own experiences and thoughts and wordgames into his discipline but constructed 'empirical' means of exploring his theories. ('Empirical' deserves to be in quotes since there are vast swaths of his theories that are really just that -- theories, with the asterisk that there is arguably no way to empirically test many of his theories -- for example, the utility of dreams, the development of complexes and neuroses and psychosis, etc.)
All a possibly prolix way of saying I think Jung wasn't as different from these philosophers as he maybe felt he was -- perhaps somewhat defensively.
Me thinks, the average ("archetypical") philosopher was too "rationalistic" for C.G. Jung. His psychonauting brought him, indeed, into a closer-than-average contact with what one may summarily call proto-lingual "symbolic worlds" - therefore also his interest for Eastern "systems" of thinking/wisdom, as manifested, e.g., by his preface to the "Goldene Blüte" (transl. from the Chinese by R. Wilhelm) - or, the earliest (1925[?]), if I remember right, his preface to the introduction into Zen-Buddhism (then still more or less "terra incognita" for Westerners) by Ohasama Shuei.
Wow! I've really read some of this Jung guy, this is damn near exactly how I feel about philosophers.
Every portrait, a self portrait.
A lot of people applying Jungs ideas onto himself. Although Jung has oulndt have minded that himself, but its amusing to see how the man who singlehandedly not only pioneered but also healed nimerous people, without resorting to amy medications, and opened up a new thought into the hollow recess of the human mind, is being held as a man oblivious of his own personalities. His work will always speak louder than the failed lives of those "infliential philosophers" who most lead a miersable unfullfilled miserable lives.
Jung said was he was steeped in Kant's philosophy ( not necessarily anyone else's ), while Freud had no philosophical training at all, which resulted in a communication problem. That's not a criticism of Freud in itself, but he went on to say he had a problem with what he called Freud's " disregard for the historical conditions of Man." i.e., Freud assumed we are born as a blank slate, while Jung insisted we are born with a specific psychic pattern, inherited from our ancestors, and that this needed to be taken into consideration in analysis. Freud only believed in a personal unconscious, while Jung believed the personal unconscious ultimately widened out into the collective unconscious.
You are slandering Jung by saying he slandered these "philosophers". Jung was simply telling the most honest and unadulterated version of the truth that we unfortunately never get to hear. The fact that his words are so off putting should be an indication that there's a big problem with the things he was describing.
@TheGameGallowsPlay what a well thought out and articulate reply. Thank you for your response.
It is funny that at a conference where a fellow scholar appealed to Heideggerian language was laughable to him. For in a couple of weeks I am presenting a paper on Heidegger's disclosure of Dasein. The whole time I can only imagine hearing Jung's laughter in the background.
i dont remember the exact quote, but i recall in a book i seen jung refer to poetry and journaling as early signs of mental illness
I don't know of a single philosopher or great thinker who has not vehemently attacked other philosophers. Why single out Jung here? Perhaps he has managed to hit a nerve?
In any case, trying to psychoanalyse Jung may be a tad beyond your remit, my puny RUclips friend 😉
Well Jung isn't a philosopher. Next to that jung is on the bounds of psychology passing over to a science and leaving the realm of philosophy(which it still hasn't fully reached with it's low standards for science). Yet he still is on the cusp, to the point that psychotherapy is criticised the same way as he criticised philosophy. And for good reason that is. Psychotherapy is not supported by science after all.
So what this does as well is show how jung can be be used to attack... well, jung.
That being said, pretty sure he just picks jung to talk about his ideas and not attack him. It doesn't sound like a critique after all.
I personally however think Jung is a hack. Who copied most of Freud's homework. Who just wrongly copied most from Nietzsche(and adding penis envy for some unimaginable reason). But this video does not.
@TheGameGallowsPlay not as triggered as you are.
He's being singled out because the youtuber wanted to explain his views.
Psychoanalyzing a person you know nothing about is a bit beyond your merit, strangely goofy stranger 😉
Glad i subbed to this channel. Full of clarity 👍
Jung deserves a lot of credit for his work on synchronicity but....
" He has been in India, and there was a man - a man the like of whom happens only once in a while. Maharshi Raman was alive. And wherever Jung went in India, almost everywhere people suggested to him, “Why are you wasting your time here and there, going to Varanasi and Bombay? Why don’t you go to Maharshi Raman?” People knew that he is a great psychoanalyst, world-famous. “You should go to Maharshi Raman, who has gone beyond the mind. Sitting by his side you may have a few glimpses. You may come away a totally changed person.” But Jung avoided him, he did not go there. On the contrary, back home he started writing against Eastern mysticism. And Jung started talking this nonsense in self-defense. He said, “That’s why I avoided Maharshi Raman, because Eastern methods are not suitable to us. The West needs its own yoga, the West needs its own meditations.” What difference can there be in being aware? Whether you are in the East or in the West, awareness will be the same - and that is the essential core of meditation. They are great interpreters of dreams… the whole world of the psychoanalyst is the world of dreams. And as far as the enlightened person is concerned, for him the whole world is nothing but a dream. For the psychoanalyst, dreams are his whole world, and for the enlightened person the whole world is nothing but a dream."
Jung almost always can be attributed with the flowery language he used to describe others.
It’s translated.
@@PsychedelicAnxietymost of it is translated well. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, etc. They all use a fair bit of flowery language, and there's nothing wrong with that, they didn't intend for every single person to immediately understand all of their writings, far from it.
@@YamiAi Those people certainly do. Jung less so. Translation, especially to English, will have a likely beautifying factor. As you search for an obscure English equivalent of some obscure German word, people are going to say you’re just being fancy with your words.
Jung has prose-y moments - and I mean like for a sentence or two at a time - but is otherwise a straightforward writer.
Wow this is Spicy!! Its aready at 19k after one day! Good on Ya Sir!! You may require more
Camino sojourns 🤘 Happy to see. And quite the frothy mix in the comments! Thank you for making philosophy on RUclips happen.
Haha thanks ryan! It was off like a rocket for sure!
Jung read plenty of Schopenhauer too.
I can never find the passage in _Jung's Semnair on Nietzsche's Zarathustra_ but he felt that he was in some sense fated to come across it; it was what he needed to hear.
It would be interesting to balance the video to consider what Jung says about The Night Song (Thus Spoke Zarathustra), I don't remember if in the Red Book or in the seminar on Nietzsche, but Jung reveals there an almost mystical admiration for Nietzsche.
It is well to remember something John Maynard Keynes said: “Practical men, who believe themselves to be exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
I hold that in an analogous way, whether he relished it or not, Carl Jung's mind owed much-perhaps nearly everything-to the philosophers he claimed to abjure. (I do see merit in his views discussed here, though.)
Not at all sure I get the Jordan Peterson reference. Does he revere Jung or hold him in contempt? I really enjoy your work. Thank you.
Peterson has a curious fixation with Jung. First, he did a lot of research to prove him wrong but, in some moment of that investigations, he changed his mind and now considers him to be a genius.
@@fernandoginer5068 thank you I thought after I watched that section several times that I must be missing something.
Reveres. It's at the core of his Maps of Meaning work
@@TheLivingPhilosophy thanks.
jung was way more a philosopher than a scientist. Doing shrooms in south america is not psychology lol
It's certainly a form of exploration of the psyche, personally and subjectively, which Jung did a quite a bit of (the black books, Philemon, ect) and which is responsible for and the pinnacle of his researches, and is a massive part of the theoretical foundation of his branch of psychology - analytic psychology. What're you talking about? Why wouldn't an empiricist-psychologist not explore their own psyche by whatever means?
@@Originatorofthevideoessay this idea is fundemantally flawed. you cant explore your own psyche as it is when you are on any drugs. Its like the thing with quantum mechanics. If you need to give external energy to a given process to view it, the state you're going to explore is not the original process, but how you altered it. If you've ever done shrooms or dmt or acid or whatever you should recon that you are not you naymore. It has therapeutical effects because it alters your mind.
jung produced even more bs than freud. Freud at least had an eye on broader societal factors on the psyche but jung just stayed within the "individual" and its archetypes and other esoteric bs. And finally if you think analytic psychology is still a current theme you missed decades of psychological discourse
@@yetthesunstillshines
What? Exploration of the psyche under any circumstances still has its merits no matter what. Doesn't matter if it's changed, that's simply how it must be done. Throwing light on anything about the psyche is always important.
The mind isn't a laboratory, with laboratory conditions, it can only be approximated and worked carefully to approximate empirical conditions.
You simply have to try to describe the subjective experiences. Doing drugs allows the one facility to do that because they have experienced it. That itself is useful.
I don't care about the discourse since Jung. Great thinkers are dropped and picked up later on, some thrown into obscurity than revivified decades. It's only a matter of time. Everyone's opinion, including my own, is relative and could proven more correct or less in the coming decades.
I never said that psychedelic research has no point at all.
The point is you can't gain a useful, empirical insight for a complex and also very young field of science. Especially when the "insights" someone gets out of his experience try to proof one's owns prejudices
Look at jungs reputation in research now. Like Freud you appreciate his pioneering but except that mostly prejudiced garbage
Jean Paul sartre as another exmolw tried to gain insights about the internal constitution of the ego on mescaline. But he himself said that it was a stupid idea.
when foucault, on nthe other hand, did acid in death valley and had some experiences that progressed his theories - he was lucky that the drug was helpful coincidentally. But Foucault was a philosopher and not a psychologist in any regard.
And finally not everyone's opinion is relative. Relativistic theory of science says that we might describe understand or use things differently depending on cultural and historical framing. But the things themselves don't change. Therefor when once proven wrong, theorys aren't rehabilitated. At least I don't know any such case. At least not in a case s extreme as Jungs.
I'm a Relativist myself but I don't use it as a cheap exit when I'm wrong and have nothing else to say.
The title of this video drew me in, but it is deceptive. Jung didn't "hate philosophers." He enjoyed the work produced by some, but he criticized some individual philosophers. The Great Empiricist (Aristotle) was Jung's foundation, and Kant was Jung's dry inspiration. Jung's psychoanalysis of the flaws of some (humorless) German philosophers is justified, as their ideas could damage society (especially Hegel and his Nazi fans) ... A doctor told me that doctors study medicine because they think there's something wrong with them. A psychologist told me that psychologists study psychology because they think there's something wrong with them. Philosophy is "the Queen of the Sciences", and philosophers study wisdom and "understanding." So, it follows that likewise, philosophers study philosophy because they think there's something wrong with their understanding or wisdom. But there are some "bad" philosophers who do not increase understanding, but obfuscate it with baseless speculation. In this sense these philosophers are guilty of what Jung said about going beyond their field of expertise. In particular, early phenomenologists and existentialists were less interested in The Great Unknowables (like the nature of "existence-ness" or "who created Time"), and more interested in how to perceive reality. The fact that Heidegger had to use his "hermeneutic circle" to explain "Dasein" -- instead of using shareable logic -- suggests he enjoyed feeding his readers his word salad.
“I’m not a philosopher, I’m a scientist!” Jung is clearly a philosopher. He can cope all he likes.
This puts Chidi’s enlightenment in “the Good Place” into perspective
What Jung struggled with was the consequence of the times he emerged. Those being one of peak rationalism and of industrial and scientific reductionism combined with a form of industrial concretisation.
The nullification of the industrial world over the mytho-poetic and the metsphysical is what he wrestled with.
Science through it's widely accepted status became "just science" and was no longer magical, but utilurarian and a process used for corporate and material profit.
Any alchemical or metaphtsical concept was reserved only for the rare few who still understood the connection. Those being the "elitest" "philosopher kings" that presided over the social structures through freemasonry, the Club of Rome, and the Fabian Socialists.
He struggled with reaching that shamanic connection with his unconcious because collectively it had been severed by design.
The schism then became:
Science can rationally explain 'how' things work or the way that they are.
Philosophy and metaphysics can show you the why behind the how things work.
But even here the philosophers of the times and even Jung had to operate within linguistics, within concepts. And what resided within the unconcsious tha Jung tapped into resides outside that form of concretisation.
And that's the common dichotomy that everyone us faced with; rest in the divine presence and grace, the Edenic state, or become knotted in the tangles of the weeds. Whilst Jung saw the tangles as being the pull of the material trappings, what he struggled with was the chains of gold rather than the chains of iron. And while he saw those golden chains within the philosophical shortcomings of others, he addmitedly hadn't overcome his own.
His method took him as far a the realisation of synchroncities and the astral planes, but took him no further due to his insistence on rationalising and systemising into a form of concretisation.
He was an alchemist without a chemistry set, and a shaman without drum. But he does serve as the bridge between the ancestral magic of the deep, the alchemist, the philosopher, the scientist, and the psychologist.
If anything Jung revived the voices of the ancestors and returned them to the West through his shamanic process.
His progress would have been more profound were he have been able to let go of the need to be an analyst and pursued his method and practice more deeply.
Still he remains today as one of the most essential figures in the revival of alchemy, shamanism, and the necessary semantical bridge between modern science and the metaphysics of religion and philosophy. Something which organised religions had failed to deliver, and something which the scientific community had widely discarded.
He wrestled deeply with this as unbeknown to him, he was literally repairing the bridge between the anima mundi and a culture which had abandoned it through dogmatic religious rites and rational science.
The mytho-poetic language of dreams and their prophetic and intuitive purpose had been written off as just a process and mechsnism of the mind, nothing more.
The result of which gave rise to the exisyentialists which wrestled with the angst of awareness and the finite and linear journey of life through the abstract horrors of industrialism, reductionism, and a dead faith which lacked all enthusiasmos, transcendance, numininence, enlightenment, or kateleptic ascent.
The war for any being wishing to walk "in the realm of God" as Jung described is the one which has to abandon any association with a type of dogmatic authoritarisnism, and hubris of assumption, even one's own and instead be able to walk with love and compassion and the awareness to hear the intuition of their own soul guidance.
Jung succumbed to the same temptation of the solidity of his own systemisation and concretisation, but never reached a full trascendance.
He was an awakening being, but not enlightened or in possession of the philosophers stone.
He required a guided practice from a true master in order to complete the work. A highly advanced eastern guru, bodhisatva, mystic, or shaman would have moved his practice and progress out from the schism he found hard to grapple with and reconcile.
I think Jung's criticism would be pretty wildly accepted if more people would acquaint themselves with philosophers and their ideas. I mean, didn't science pretty much rendered philosophy useless? Studying philosophy means pretty much studying 'the history of ideas and people who had those ideas' right? Is there any philosophy developed after existentialism? What kind of answers do philosophers provide that science can't do?
Ontological
no, mathematics is essentially philosophy
You’re gonna hate Foucault
The scientific method is a form of philosophy.
No of course it didn't render philosophy as useless, we still don't have answers to some of the most major questions in human history, questions that the scientific method can never answer.
@@De_Selby You mean questions neither can't be answered by the scientific method nor by philosophers but the latter makes up answers anyway?
Very interesting. I’m always fascinated by intelligent critiques of Jung. Inspires me to examine Kierkegaard especially because I find Jung’s critiques compelling. I think he was more often right than wrong. The split between he and Freud was one of the great tragedies of the 20th century imo. Part of continuing splitting of consciousness into divided halves that seems to characterise civilisation
And all of this ironically coming from Jung, who's a philosopher. Jung fancies himself a scientist, but he's deluding himself. He's not. Oh, the irony.
By this logic at the start he is also philosophizing … very interesting … psychology is concrete philosophy. Philosophy was what started every other branch of thought… they were split into math science history etc . That’s how we now have subjects .
The personality no.1 seems to reflect masculine nature, while personality no.2 reflects feminine. I mean this in the sense that in some people, that balancing point is far more central than in others. While some are inherently drawn to one side or the other, there are those who struggle to understand the dual nature of the masculine and feminine energies within themselves. Finding ones own ideal balance, and learning to allow those seemingly contrasting aspects of the self to flow in and through one another for the greatest benefit of the internal environment. The crystaline and rigid structure of the masculine mind space operate in ways that seem foreign to the abstract and fluid essence of the feminine. It can be confusing when both exist simultaneously, as it becomes difficult to discern whether ones own mind works in a fluid way, or in an ordered way. Though, having dealt with this issue myself quite a bit, I can say that neither is counter to the other unless they are allowed or forced to be. There are ways to encourage inner balance and allow these different structures and functions of thought to exist and operate simultaneously, and I would argue that they are most effective when unified under a complete and purposeful whole. This idea can be seen in Alchemy and other historical ideologies that stress the importance of the unification of opposites, such as the male and female. Revealing that all the while, they were not opposites, but halves of a whole separated by misdirected perceptions.
Keep reading thus this introduction, sitting for a lengthy time before trying. Being a student and staying
Jung's psicology isn't full of neuroses when he imagines shared archetypical figures floating above our consciousness?
The philosophical beef, the one I love the most
> barely reads any philosophy
> dismisses all philosophers as wordy crybabies
> still brags about his knowledge of philosophy
> admittedly a wannabe philosopher
Jung wrote the /lit/ "pseud" playbook. It's kind of a testament to how the human mind hasn't changed, even though we've changed everything around us.
My god what nonsense.
@@MichaelDamianPHD How so? Sorry, I'm just curious and learning.
I thoroughly enjoyed this, thanks a lot
This is good stuff because I heard of Jung’s dismissal of Heidegger but their ontologies were very similar
This is probably one of the funniest "serious" videos I've ever seen in my life.
Jung literally telling existentialist philosophers to "take your meds".
2:51 sent me
The gulf between mysticism & philosophy is vast. Mysticism begins when the heart opens; whether the opening is gentle or wrenching. Philosophy chops things up thru analysis & can be very dry. Mysticism out of balance can lead to insanity, but it's never dry. It's transformational: not reductive.
isn't mysticism just blindly following some dogmas said by a dude millennia earlier with no theory of "why" whatsoever and without any question? humans are naturally inclined to question and when you submit yourself to one dogma you are forced to not think outside the box, it's a barrier to critical thinking.
And Philosophers hated Jung because he was a plagiarizer and faker😛
Who did he plagiarize and what did he fake?
@littlemushroomguy Did you watch the video? The wheel keeps on turning
LittleMushroomGuy I dont hate Jung. I teach philosophy and personal development. I utilise Yung in many of my classes. I think the ultimate irony, is that Jung was a philosopher in numerous ways. His ontology speaks for itself. As was his utilitization of intuition. I would also note that Neitzsche actually was mentally ill, and Soren was right to address this as a framework for his unique (and useful) insight.
There are also mutliple ways to philosophize which bare fruit, especially with the emmergence of quantum physics, we are learning that pure empiricism without a philolsophical critique limits the scientist. This works both ways, and experimental philosophy is a testement to that
Spinoza preemptively forgave Jung
Jung was talking about himself
I definitely think of Jung as the most recent major philosopher oddly. But I guess I can definitely get on bored with philosophers and the weird stances that can be taken. For example to see some philosophers who actually are nihilistic, there are basically mentally ill philosophies on life that are attributed to the respective philosophers as if they are important ideas. It’s like the quotes about life being meaningless, for instance, sometimes attributed to a great mind, and you can see how a bad philosophy still gets recognized because of some dead end reached in philosophical inquiry. But I’m still on the fence with philosophy being a pointless endeavor as Jung stated. I think a key takeaway from Jung’s perspective, for myself, is some sort of sense of perfection Jung has, that is both true, he was a great man, but he was also human. Jung seems to sort of take a stance of authority on philosophy but I think his point is weakened by himself coming across as a narcissist in ways. Anyway notice Jung is saying, “those guys just don’t get it, but I do”. Even if true on some level it seems like he is sort of missing some points about the pursuit of truth in philosophy. Again, I think Jung has very important points, but comes from a perspective of perfection, if I’m not mistaken.
Philosophy is gay
sorry to tell you bro, bu buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion and buddha was a philosopher...
@@ЛеонДојчиновски Read the Sutras of the Tripitaka. Is full of gods-devas, Naga-dragon-serpents and miracles
The Buddha is literally call Bhagwag or Bhagavato literally "Divine Lord"
This is unbelievably interesting.
Hmm, it seems to me that Jung was kind of practical minded, when it came to the human experience and troubles. Seeing philosophy as wholly unhelpful. I don't know if he was truly scientific vs. more like a pragmatic one that actually deep inside cared more about the utility of belief and thus good health of the mind and body than sterile hard to hear truth. He also seems to misunderstand that Kierkegaard, although he was crazy in love with Regina, didn't think he was the correct match for her.. as she was very young and he was already in his 40's I believe. He didn't want to take the relationship to an end, or rob regina of a better love and life that he believed she could have. In his mind and heart, he loved her so much that he did what was best for her, not himself. Thus showing her the ultimate sign of unconditional love. It hurt him deeply and he was deeply saddened. Yet it was the right thing to do in his feelings and mind and analysis..
Entelechy is a philosophical concept that originated in ancient Greek thought and has been used by various philosophers throughout history. At its core, entelechy refers to the idea of an inner potential or driving force that moves things toward their natural end or goal.
The term "entelechy" was first used by Aristotle, who believed that everything in nature has an inherent potential or goal that it strives to achieve. For example, an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, and it will naturally strive toward this goal if given the proper conditions and environment.
The concept of entelechy was later developed by the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who used it to describe a pre-existing inner principle that determines the nature and behavior of all things. According to Leibniz, this inner principle is what gives a thing its identity and makes it what it is.
In modern times, the concept of entelechy has been used in various fields, including psychology and biology. The psychologist Carl Jung, for example, used the concept of entelechy to describe the inherent potential for growth and development within the human psyche. Similarly, the biologist Hans Driesch used the concept of entelechy to describe the innate developmental potential within living organisms.
Overall, the concept of entelechy emphasizes the idea that everything in nature has a purpose or goal that it naturally strives toward. It suggests that there is an inner driving force within all things that moves them toward their natural end or potential, and that this force can be harnessed and understood through careful observation and study.
I wonder what thoughts you might have on how this relates to the archetypes we find ourselves resonating with.
Basically, archetypes, as I understand, are patterns of behavior, that have repeated themselves throughout history.
Perhaps if I have the potential or the “entelechy” to become an academic, I might find myself naturally acting the “absent minded professor” archetype.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent-minded_professor#:~:text=The%20absent%2Dminded%20professor%20is,leading%20to%20forgetfulness%20and%20mistakes.
I have always been aloof, with my head in the clouds, and I suspect this might be a contributor to my interest in academia.
Let me know what you think, and also, let me know if you think that ignoring something you have the potential or “entelechy” to do can result in negative behavior.
Regards.
It seem fairly obvious that during Jung's early career, he cared more about his reputation and how others in his field and in the broader scientific community would receive him and his work, but the older he got the more he eschewed such egocentricity and embraced what would later become his true vocation, that being the gradual development of his theories concerning the collective unconscious and the process of individuation, which by all accounts were much more borderline religious and philosophical concepts than those produced by many of his contemporaries. By the end of his life and career, he seems to have more or less abandoned the pretense of being an absolute empiricist, due to the very nature his research, and accepted the fact that in order to truly explore and comprehend the nature of human psychology, one must be willing to go beyond what can be evidently proven via the use of the scientific method.
Nice collection of art work!
Kind of ironic given that he's not too different from a philosopher....
Only 2 mins in but how is freude not adept at philosophy?
Freude's ideas about the subconscious and the competing drives as different kinds of personalities in the body comes from Hegel.
And you cant understsnd Hegel unless youre top tier adept in philosophy.
"What do you want to be?"
"Am I not already?"
"No. You must become."
"Become what?"
"Useful to society."
"To what purpose?"
"So that society might function most effectively."
"To what degree must I subordinate myself to the needs of society?"
"At the present time, at least 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. This labor you give to society is not a gift, but a trade. In exchange for your labors you will receive currency, allowing you to purchase necessities to maintain your life and comfort."
"And the other 8 hours a day, presuming a need for 8 hours of sleep?"
"At least some measure of those you must dedicate to the care of your wife and children. An amount that will be constantly shifting and changing."
"And finally, I get the leftovers for myself?"
"Yes. The remaining hours you may use as you please."
"So society gets first claim on my life. Then my wife and children. The leftovers, the hours which I am most fatigued and mentally exhausted these are mine to fill as I wish."
“Yes! Now you understand what you must do with your life and why is not enough to simply be; you must become.”