/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17541585]

My head hurts but I'm happy.

Just finished the chapter on the phenomenology of the spirit in fairy tails. Fascinating how the spirit has both it's divine positive aspect and cthonic opposite, and that this has been represented through mythical stories and fairy tales for countless generations. Jung also mentioned that wotan (Odin) was the psychological father of national socialism in Nazi Germany (???). I understand it intuitively but have trouble seeing the logical connection.

Jung also finished the chapter on the spirit with an excellent summation of why rationalistic and reductionist intellectuals are fucking brainlets for disregarding the immense potency of religion, spirituality and the deep subconscious along with all it's demons, for favour of the veiw that we have transcended our animal states through scientific progression.

Highly recommend.

[Anonymous No.17541587]

Been meaning to start with Jung, will take your review to heart and get this OP

Do you recommend any other books by him?

[Anonymous No.17541593]

Is Jung scientific or is it just the educated guess prattle that failed the replication crisis?

[Anonymous No.17541655]

>>17541587
Man and his symbols was the last book Jung authoured, and supposedly was designed to introduce his content to those that weren't familiar with his work, though personally I find there isn't a great difference between most of his works and that one.

I would also recommend modern man in search of a soul and maybe the red/black books if you want to read his personal experience of mental illness.

>>17541593
Well, if my judgement as a honours graduate in science is of any use, I find Jung to actually be very left brained and critical in most of his writings, and is very much a scientist in every sense of the word. He never makes assertions or conclusions without due evidence and enquiry. Despite that, the psychological contents he deals with is by nature extremely difficult to systematize and study in any reproducible manner. His theory of archetypes is however very well supported and can be consistently observed in the psyche of many different peoples independent of culture or personality. So I would say yes, he deals with it in a strictly scientific way despite the nature of his work.

[Anonymous No.17541671]

>>17541655
Do you think we should approach everything scientifically?

Not meaning to attack or such in any way, it's a genuine question

I find that when we try to approach everything scientifically or rationally or whatever...that tends to leave a lot of stuff out because like it or not the cosmos doesn't run on our logic

[Anonymous No.17541771]

>>17541671
>Do you think we should approach everything scientifically?

No not really. The ego and it's intellect comprises a small aspect of out psyche in it's entirety. The human being is in totality much greater than his rational intellect, which is in reality very rarely truly rational and is vulnerable to all the forces of the subconscious, especially when they are not well integrated.

I have found in both personal experience and my reading of psychological literature that intuition and "spirituality" serves a superior function in life guidance compared to the intellect. That's not to say the intellect is not supremely valuable. It was what differentiated us from animals. But it still remains more of a tool to be employed by our larger self than an independent function.

>I find that when we try to approach everything scientifically or rationally or whatever...that tends to leave a lot of stuff out because like it or not the cosmos doesn't run on our logic

Agree wholeheartedly. You would enjoy Jung.

[Anonymous No.17541780]

>>17541771
I do enjoy Jung, I've read some of his work although it was a long time ago

and I've experimented with his archetypes

[Anonymous No.17542187]

>>17541780
>I've experimented with his archetypes
Cool. Story?

[Anonymous No.17542215]

>>17541587
I wrote this list a while ago, pick and choose what you wish:

-Chapter 1 Man and His Symbols (the rest is optional)
-Modern Man in Search of a Soul
-A History of Modern Psychology Zurich Lectures (the best possible introduction)
-Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (1/ )
-Freud and Psychoanalysis (2/ these two aren't THAT necessary, but you should read them at some point)
-Memories, Dreams, Reflections
-Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
-Psychological Types
-Psychology of the Unconscious/Symbols of Transformation
-Contributions to Psychology
-his various essays from the thirties and forties such as the Wotan essay (see Essays on Contemporary Events)
-Then all the major works from the forties and onwards such as Psychology and Alchemy. Psyche and Symbol is also a very good and favourite collection of some his writings, including those later works. Read the Red Book when you believe you're ready, often it is very good to read it before you get too far in. But above all, Jung is both exit and intro tier, you should have basic of knowledge of history, philosophy, art, religion, science and less importantly psychology.

Good luck anon. And some of his most important influences were Schopenhauer, Kant, Plato, Carl Gustav Carus and Hartmann. Jung actually said he was more of a Carusian than a Freudian while he was friends with Freud. And the Bible and various European religions obviously.

[Anonymous No.17542232]

>>17542187
I basically chose an archetype to model myself after and I noticed that more and more I acted like it, the more and more my life changed to fit the archetype to extremes even such as saving others from suicide and the like

[Anonymous No.17542270]

>>17542232
Wow that's fascinating. What was the archetype?

>>17542215
Based. Have you read all of those recommendations? If you've read even half I would appreciate a short mention of your favorite aspects of Jung uwu

[Anonymous No.17542277]

>>17542270
The Guide/Mentor/whatever you like to call it

[Anonymous No.17542365]

>>17542277
I see. I believe Jung mentioned that Jesus may have been a normal man that was possessed by the archetype of the son of God.

[Anonymous No.17542374]

>>17542365
He may have but I don't think it was just an archetype

I believe in all the deities mostly due to my experiences with all the weird shit I've seen