Why Jung Hated Philosophers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- Jung once described himself as a failed philosopher. Instead he chose the path of science with psychology. It is surprising then to see what Walter Kaufmann calls Jung's "wildly emotional overreaction" to thinkers like Heidegger and Kierkegaard. Is philosophy Jung's Shadow? In this episode we explore what Jung said about the philosophers and why.
For this we'll draw on letters written by Jung and look at the tension in him between what he calls his No. 1 Personality and his No. 2 Personality and then we're going to explore whether this hatred of the philosophers might not come from a fault-line in Jung's own psychology.
____________________
📚 Further Reading:
Jung, C.G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections
Jung, C.G., 2012. The red book: A reader's edition. WW Norton & Company.
Jung, C.G., 2015. Letters of CG Jung: Volume I, 1906-1950. Routledge
Jung, C.G., 2021. CG Jung Letters, Volume 2: 1951-1961. Princeton University Press
Freud, S. and Jung, C.G., 1994. The Freud-Jung Letters: The Correspondence Between Sigmund Freud and CG Jung. Princeton University Press.
Nietzsche, F., 1992. Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Modern Library.
Kaufmann, W. ed., 1992. Freud, Alder, and Jung: Discovering the Mind. Routledge.
____________________
📫The Letters
- Arnold Kiinzli, 4 February 1943
- Arnold Kiinzli, 28 February 1943
- Arnold Kiinzli, 16 March 1943
- J. Meinertz, 3 July 1939
- Pastor Bremi, 26 December 1953
- Friedrich Seifert, 31 July 1935
- Dr. Pannwitz, 27 March 1937
________________
⭐ Support the channel (thank you!)
▶ Patreon: / thelivingphilosophy
▶ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
_________________
💬 More from The Living Philosophy
▶ Discord / discord
▶ 📨 Subscribe with email: thelivingphilosophy.substack....
________________
🎼 Media Used:
1. Despair and Triumph - Kevin MacLeod
2. Dark Times - Kevin MacLeod
3. Long Note Three - Kevin MacLeod
4. Mermerize - Kevin MacLeod
5. There’s Probably No Time - Chris Zabriskie
6. End of the Era - Kevin MacLeod
Subscribe to Kevin MacLeod [ / kmmusic ]( / kmmusic )
Subscribe to Chris Zabriskie [ / chriszabriskie ]( / chriszabriskie )
_________________
⌛ 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
![อาจารย์ยอด : ลุงแว่วเล่าเรื่องผี [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fd2Qsy4dqpM/mqdefault.jpg)
💚 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
I once read a definition of philosophy AND religion that made me laugh.
"Philosophy is walking blindfolded into a completely dark room with no windows, trying to catch a black cat, that isn't there... Religion is doing the same, but one also has to shout "I'VE GOT IT, I'VE GOT IT. 😆
@@TheLivingPhilosophydiscord invite liknk has expired
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.
"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 can't remember where exactly and I'm paraphrasing but I read in one of Jung's books that he was aprehensive about reading Zarathustra and had put it on hold because he knew there was something in it that would have awakened something in him. It's as if he knew deep down he was like them, so he avoided them, to avoid himself. Fascinating video, great work.
Agreed. Cheers Gary
But he did a Seminar on Nietzsche that lasted three years and produced a 1700 page book(s).
@@pinecone9045 As I said, he put it on hold. Not saying he didn't eventually get there. People say different things at different times, and different things in different moods too. I'm sure he said he had his books (or specifically Zarathustra) on the shelf but hadn't opened up due to an aversion. Most likely in Man & His Symbols. Do you know what year he wrote about him, as if it was later in his life this might help clarify?
"As if...". Not a logical conclusion.
@@LeeGee It's as if you are trying to teach me so something.
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
"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?"
I love Jung, the man can talk about fish for like 100 pages and freak out about june bugs. What a legend.
And not make any sense ?
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.
Philosophy of psychology is concerned with the philosophical foundations of the study of psychology. It never fails to astound me that psychologists and physicists actually believe they are not philosopher's. They are, and this denial is a testement to their own minds broken ego driven state.
Very well-said. They were not real philosophers and pseudo intellectuals. None teach people how to think critically.
I think that philosophy gets a bad rap by the scientific establishment. The discipline is commonly regarded for obscuring the truth. Science on the other hand enjoys a virtual-apparent monopoly on the truth to the point of rejecting philosophy as a discipline. There are a lot of celebrity hacks with initials before their names who venture outside their realm; they speak with all the virtue of a blind mind owning a Porsche.
@jordil6152 I got a good laugh the other day. Neil D Tyson went on a podcast and made the proclamation.
"Philosophers are useless."
I almost spit water out my nose. I laughed so hard.
"You are a philosopher dumbass"
The guy doing the podcast also gave a false definition of physics. Physics is the philosophy of physicalism, and mathematics is just the tool they used to try and prove their philosophy until Einstein debunked it.
I'm pretty sure that's why he spent the last 30 years of his life writing about the mind of God.
"Can't measure the physical properties of the electron, well shite on a shingle, must be god, derp derp."
Yeah but Philospher’s per se traditionally operated from reason, logic and their cognitive faculties as their source of getting to conclusions. Physics, Mathematics, and even psychology now, deals in measured observable phenomena, hypotheses, evidence. So no. They are not quite the same. You’re not a philosopher cause you have imagination, but at the end, these disciplines have to test their imagination at the altar of the scientific model.
If everything you see is nothing more than a mental projection that originates within yourself onto the back of what you believe to be your your eyeballs, there is no proof that anyone has "observed" anything. This is just another example of how the philosophy of science debunked itself. Hoffmen never would have started his equation if this wasn't nerosiences conclusion. Widely accepted fact now. We are not seeing "reality" as it is.
TLDR: Jung definitely had the soul of the philosopher
Excellent work. In my opinion what we call Jung (His ideas brought to us through his work) was created by the struggle of two seemingly irreconcilable currents of thought: esoterism and scientific inquiry. The work of his life was to learn to live in peace with these two threads pulling him in opposite directions, resulting in a sort of grey area where he allowed himself to let loose of his imagination and experiment with talking with the living beings inside of himself and then sistematizing his images and psychological processes as universal human experiences, therefore as part of the process and collective experience of being human.
One curious thing about philosophers is that they tend to be structuralist in nature, they tend to infer rules from the particular, as opposed to the scientific mind, which always struggle with his own skepticism to finally accept a pattern as a rule. I firmly believe that archetypes, the collective unconscious and in general his approach to dialectics is a reflection of his structuralist mind and a big repackage of Plato's theory of forms.
The thing to argue is that things get their meaning or "role" from its context. As everything gets a purpose from the role it accomplishes within the broader structure it is part of, a word can be a bridge between to people, and wall between you and some concept. In these cases the word is the same but the roles change. In the same way for instance, examples of walls are things that separate things so my skin can be a wall and a membrane can be a wall, or tradition can be wall. In these cases the role is the same but the "actors" (i. E. Words) change. Plato argued that the roles are eternal, for structures can only have so many roles within them (and their dynamics finite), before you start repeating those type of relationships or type of actors with different names, and things (actual objects and words) are only passing actors, incarnating roles as we endow them with context. Jung's idea of archetypes is that everything exists in your mind as a psychic event, and depending on the context and how emotionally charged it is, it incarnates a role, i. e. an archetype
Sadly your opening premise is totally wrong. Jung did not suffer from the dichotomy - he was healed by it.
And you have misunderstood archetypes quite badly.
@@Dischordian he was healed precisely by suffering from it. A wounded healer
@@Dischordian wonderful response, with no explanation at all
@@luciocastro1418 "Our worries are people" - Alan Watts
Jungs worries were a society of shadows based on his subjective life experience denoted to a number never full encapsulated the spectrum of ego's created of a beings subjective experience.... he was never healed, he just passed on his illness and felt better bonding over it.
There's an interview somewhere on TH-cam 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.
@@yolfonzo 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 fantastically original, insightful, well-researched and beautifully produced video essay! It was not only valuable to me, but also a pleasure to watch :) Much food for thought...
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 TH-cam 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.
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.
The roots of Psychoanalysis can be found in Schopenhauer and Nietzsches works. And Jung himself is more of a philosopher and mysticist than a scientific person.
While they had a huge influence, people tend to be unaware of the work that had the biggest influence on both Jung a Freud, that of 'Philosophy of the Unconscious' by the German philosopher Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann
Awesome video. Being able to deal with the humanity of the people you have respect for and then thoughtfully tying it together at the end with JP's similar position with the postmodernists...master stroke. That final few seconds was really the cherry on top of a very thoughtful essay.
The postmodernists are basically a variant of the German existentialists. Non were actually true philosophers, but neurotic ideologues who’s so called philosophy neither transcended their German culture, times in history, or the common prejudices of their times.
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.
Jung’s career involved a lot of personal growth and philosophical thought. At the time, Freud’s ideas were critiqued heavily despite its sound foundation on sexual urges so you can only imagine how much criticism Jung’s life work on the unconscious received. Part of me things Jung despised the philosophers for having it so easy when presenting their baseless ideas and theories.
What did it say about sexual urges if you don’t mind me asking?
Jung helped me a lot when I was struggling with diagnosed psychosis. I remember meditating and communicating with my psyche through the things I learned from Jung. However, it was really when I started to read Philosophers like Kant, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Nietzche where the world just became so much clearer for me. While Jung helped me understand my own mind, it was ultimately Philosophy that cured me. And with Philosophy -- specifically metaphysics -- it's like you're dealing with the very fabric of reality; specifically your perception regarding around it. And it was very helpful because everyday just felt like a dream!?!?!?!? Not in the sense that "oh nothing is real" but in the sense that my own mind was lying to me in a way. Like I couldn't even trust my eyes and ears to do all the understanding for me.
Ironically it was Jung that got me to read up more on philosophers like Nietzche. He used all these philosophical terms that I didn't rlly know what meant and when I searched them up on google, the topic of Philosophy and metaphysics just so happened to appear.
It kinda feels weird to c one of my favourite psychologists being so against the subject that cured me haha
What a strange religion
@@joriankell1983 now that I think about it I just realised I sounded like a religious person WTF. . . . . Thas prety funy
Evidently you didnt grasp Jung's criticism of the philosphers.
@@MichaelDamianPHD Why would you say so? I never really went against his disposition with philosophy, just speaking abiut my experiences yk? Not rlly trying 2 start an argument here yea, just a cool discussion about stuf
I was the exact opposite....philosophy 1st then Jung saved me. So.
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.
Jung did actually respect Schopenhauer quite a bit, and mentioned him positively, and in his letters with Wolfgang Pauli, both of them draw from Schopenhauer's essays on "occult phenomena"
Considering he did not go "beyond Kant" one would see that coming. Schoppy considered his work to just be a continuation of Kant.
Reaching beyond "proper bounds" was something Kant also had gripes with and the critiques are largely about defining the boundaries of our reason.
Oppenheimer** you dope.
@@dreyri2736 You should read his letters with Pauli, Jung wanted to appear 'scientific', and not metaphysical to the public, but definitely accepted a 'thing-in-itself' that is outside of space and time, to account for all the synchronicities and other phenomena that couldn't be explained materialistically. Schopenhauer's metaphysics was more or less a rectification of Kant, specifically his epistemology and the Transcendental Analytic, and he doesn't differ a lot between neoplatonism and vedanta apart from having a kantian epistemology, Jung also read Eduard Von Hartmann who was a sort of synthesizer of Hegel and Schopenhauer, who pointed to the 'unconscious' as the driving force of the world. If you read Kant's pre-critical works, specifically his Universal Natural History of the Heavens, where he discusses his Nebula Hypothesis, he is quite pantheistic, and in his Opus Postum, he explicitly says that there is a 'world-soul' in nature that is unconscious, which is basically Schopenhauer's will.
Shion!!!
He gave a 2000 page seminar on zarathustra. So he respected Nietzsche too, as he should.
Great work, BTW! I'm glad I found this channel.
Really outstanding selection of beautiful and insightful paintings in this video.
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.
Thanks for this one! Great work. Understanding things psychologically, such as inflation, can help tremendously with finding one’s center, so to say. During a phase of inflation about many studies of Jung I came across the book, The Aryan Christ (Noll). While not entirely on board with his views , the book helped tremendously with deflating the image I’d built up of Jung. Artists, more generally, are often said to be neurotic because they are directly working with their neurosis. Jumg also said somewhere “the greatest sin a psychologist can commit is to take the god away from their patients.” I took this to mean that who has what it takes to replace a god. Such is the challenge of the psychologist, in part- as I see it. Great work!
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
well put together and valuable insights brought to light. I enjoyed the bigger picture, open minded, yet analytical approach
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
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
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.
Excellent video! I love that you explored it from both sides! -- And dared to critique Jung haha, ty
Love that you used Hugo Simbergs Garden of Death in the visuals ❤ very fitting to the theme as he was a philosophist aside from being an artist.
He thought the two were inseparable.
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? 🌱
This is my favorite video of yours yet.
Thanks for researching this! Fascinating and confirms some of my suspicions too 🙂
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.
Spinoza preemptively forgave Jung
@TheGameGallowsPlay Nah, you just like wasting your time like me.
Glad i subbed to this channel. Full of clarity 👍
Fascinating! Great work!
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?
It's just a problem with rejecting philosophy as unscientific for Jung, psychology comes from philosophy.
Jung's psychology also isn't scientific, is far closer to astrology than science
@@Eonsplay
Jung came up with Analytical psychology, or "complex psychology", from the German: Komplexe Psychologie, is the foundation of many developments in the study and practice of Psychology as of other disciplines.
He also collaborated with Wolfgang Pauli (a patient of his). Pauli, received a nobel price for the exclusion principle, wrote standard works on Theory of relativity and Quantum mechanics. Einstein wanted Pauli to be his successor.
The main thing is that in psychology you are dealing with human beings who are subjective, no a human is not a objective robotic machine, and because of it psychology and science will always be a problem. Surely psychology is not similar to astrology. That is a dumb statement.
@@fortynine3225 You're right, I exaggerated when comparing it to astrology, however psychoanalysis often do more harm than good (of course compared to Freud, Jung is far closer to a more scientific psychology, but not as close as Skinner in my opinion). I guess the problem is I've seen a lot of people using Jungian psychoanalysts and employing a lot of pseudoscientific and sometimes harmful therapeutic practices. I've been a victim of some as a child and it made me kind of skeptical towards psychoanalysts. Still, I agree with you that I expressed myself in a very sloppy way.
Would you consider Kants philosophy scientific, as it dabbles in metaphysics?
@@crosstolerance Kant was parerial on the right spot, to bee scientific.
Absolutely fascinating series, thank you!
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.
I made it up >>> science
For as much as Jung trashed philosophers, I can't help but to think that his second personality related to and admired their ability to go into the unknown. I suppose you hate that which you try the hardest to overcome in yourself. Glad he integrated those opposites in the end.
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
Looking forward to this. I have a much-read copy of Walter Kaufmann's "Nietzsche" and quite a bit of Jung's works.
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
Jung himself is a fascinating case study of psychological projection.
@@MichaelDamianPHD Basically, my point is that Jung was somewhat of a philosopher himself, so I find his criticism of philosophers hypocritical.
In fact, here's what his Wikipedia bio says: "Jung's work has been influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, _philosophy,_ psychology, and religious studies."
So, if not projection per se, perhaps a lack of self-awareness.
@@MichaelDamianPHD Perhaps, but it does sound to me like Jung was making that sweeping statement. Maybe his scathing words were simply hyperbole.
@@MichaelDamianPHD Where does one even begin to formally rebut a view that "seems unhinged" (your words, not mine) in the first place?
All I said in my original comment was that it's a fascinating case study - for psychoanalysts, of course. For the record, that's not my own field of expertise, and I definitely didn't mean to imply that I was about to write a thesis paper on the subject.
And frankly, I don't "have to show" you anything. _Your_ mistake here is that your presumptuousness is "too extreme and off" in proportion to my disinterest in changing your mind or convincing you of anything. It is what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@MichaelDamianPHD Then why read too much into it? At this point, I feel like I've fallen for the classic trap of arguing with a troll just for the sake of arguing. This entire exchange is meaningless, and it's ridiculous that it's gone on for this long.
THE END
@@MichaelDamianPHD I simply can't substantiate something inherently insubstantial. It's like being expected to prove that 72 degrees is too warm for my comfort because some pedant needs to be convinced that it's neither objectively too cool nor objectively just the right room temperature.
Honestly, if you've got nothing better to do, go write incessant letters to Nancy Pelosi until she returns satisfactory substantiation for calling Donald Trump "unhinged." She literally used your word!
P.S. I could definitely correct your erroneous use of "ad hominem" that indicates you misunderstand the definition. But since you're bugging me and need something better to do, I'll simply delegate the task to you of looking it up yourself. One hint: It has nothing to do with name-calling or even verbal abuse (which isn't even a logical fallacy, just rude).
How can you hate philosophers if you were a philosopher yourself?
Every philosopher hates every other philosopher.
Nice collection of art work!
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.
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.
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?"
I thoroughly enjoyed this, thanks a lot
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.
Jung is just mad because the best he could say against philosophers like Aquinas and Nietzsche is say "but where's the secret?"Jung was never good enough to contend. So he just became afraid. Similar to many of Nietzsches remarks. Nothing to say except insults. Science would be nowhere without philosophy. Like seriously. How can Jung call himself an empiricist and a Kantian?
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
An enjoyable video about Jung’s opinions about philosophers. Partly it reminded me of the concept that what a person fears within themself can be projected upon to others.
Ok so the fact that he made some critical comments means those comments are automatically false and that he's guilty of those things -- and that you're in the place to diagnose Jung? Maybe all you armchair psychologists should consider that Jung understood a hell of a lot more than you do about this topic? Just a thought.
@@MichaelDamianPHD wrote; *”Maybe all you armchair psychologists should consider”*
* So, from my two sentences you have decided that I belong to a group described as *“armchair psychologists“*.
* Now I understand from case summaries that a mental health professional is trained to make descriptions of the person.
However your hypothesis that I can be put into some kind of informal grouping called *“armchair psychologists“* is not correct.
* I assume you are not lying that you have a PhD.
- Some self disclosure. I was a licensed therapist for decades. I also worked for an agency and I was one of the liaisons to County Mental Health eventually becoming the lead in that role. I was a part of several clinical teams which made various clinical decisions. In the capacity of a crisis coordinator I wrote over 100 petitions for state hospital placements, conservatorships and probation/diversion cases. I was an expert for the court whether through documentation or by giving direct testimony.
* Let’s continue;
@MichaelDamianPHD wrote; *”the fact that he made some critical comments means those comments are automatically false and that he's guilty of those things”*
* You have misunderstood my original statement. There is nothing in it about a comment being *”automatically false”*. As for who is “guilty” of what, I’ll get to that later.
- I wrote; *”An enjoyable video about Jung’s opinions about philosophers.”*
* So, the first fact from my OP comment is that I watched a TH-cam video titled; *”Why Jung Hated Philosophers”*,
- I found the video enjoyable which indicates that I can recall parts of it.
- I also wrote in my OP;
*”Partly”*
* This indicates that I am referring to part of the video. To support my later conclusion I will quote portions of the video.
- Finally from my OP;
*”it reminded me of the concept that what a person fears within themself can be projected upon to others.”*
* So, to support my observation what I will do is find quotes in the video from Jung which provide information which is relevant to my comments.
1. In the video at 3:30 it states;
*”And in a later letter he speaks about the need for philosophical criticism to be grounded in factual knowledge if it's not to "remain hanging in mid-air and thus to be condemned to sterility".*
* That statement is a paraphrase from the letter by Jung to Arnold Kiinzli dated 28 February 1943 (which a web search can find).
*”Philosophical criticism must, to my way of thinking, start with a maximum of factual knowledge if it is not to remain hanging in midair and thus be condemned to sterility.*
*I can put up with any amount of criticism so long as it is based on facts or real knowledge.“*
* Let’s test a criticism by Jung according to his own criteria in which it must *“start with a maximum of factual knowledge“*.
2. In the video at 8:30 it states.
*”Heidegger’s modus philosophandi is neurotic through and through and is ultimately rooted in his psychic crankiness. His kindred spirits, close or distant, are sitting in lunatic asylums, some as patients and some as psychiatrists on a philosophical rampage.”*
(This quote can be found in various writings about Jung including “Existential Perspective in the Thought of Carl Jung” by Walter A. Shelburne.)
* So the “kindred spirits” (defined as people with similar interests or concerns) of Heidegger (a contributor to existentialism) are in psychiatric hospitals either as patients or as psychiatrists on a “philosophical rampage”.
* Does this criticism of Heidegger, existentialism and his kindred spirits *” start with a maximum of factual knowledge”*? No.
- Jung’s statement about Heidegger is not based on factual knowledge in any systematic, scientific way.
- If Jung’s claim that *”criticism (needs) to be grounded in factual knowledge”* otherwise there will be several mental health concerns, then such a concern can be applied to his own statements.
@MichaelDamianPHD wrote; *”Jung understood a hell of a lot more than you do”*
* The participants in this discussion are me and you based on information provided by a video.
The reasoning you present that because a person “understood a hell of a lot“, then they are always correct (especially on topics outside of their expertise) is deeply flawed.
Again, *”what a person fears within themself can be projected upon to others.”*
Nicely explained, thank you for that.
I have this theory that we humans pendulum between achieving the position of authority and also going into the abstractness of ethics genuinely but somehow we are too wired to authority that we after doing ethics tries to get authority out of it, Jung is doing this only, because he is not able to drive authority by doing psychology he is attacking philosophers.
The problem is that Jung's own field was and still is riddled with the exact kind of people he accused many philosophers of being like. ESPECIALLY in Germany. Just look up what psychiatrists and psychologists were up to in Germany in the 50s, 60s and 70s, most of the time involving orphans and other vulnerable children.
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! ❤
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 TH-cam happen.
Haha thanks ryan! It was off like a rocket for sure!
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
Philosophy as "constantly stepping out of its bounds" is actually quite a complement, in my opinion. It's the driving motor of knowledge always coming out and into itself.
All the sciences used to be considered branches of philosophy
beautiful comment!
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) 🌈🦉
What font do you use in your text? I think they're beautiful, congratulations on the content, I'm from Brazil, I discovered the channel today and I'm watching it.
Thank you! It's a font called Portmanteau
In regards to Nietzsche, what made him great was that HE was the first to notice the decadence in all philosophy!
He was the first prior to Jung, to Point out the particular kind of neurosis the philosopher had within him, and which allowed his philosophy to emerge from such sickness. Man is a sickly creature-both Jung and Nietzsche acknowledged!
It looks like emotional projection relating to his failure to comprehend the drift of philosophy after kant.
He was right.
Fascinating, and a good presentation.
This is good stuff! ✌️
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.
Great video!
Great and really interesting video, the comparison to Jordan Peterson's relationship with the postmodernists is really striking.
I also thought that that seemed out of step with his deep fascination with Jung, but this about Jungs own qualms with the same kind of philosphers(the existensialists arguably set the stage for postmodernists, and certainly heavily influence them) puts things into a much more interesting perspective.
There might be a more general tension between psychology and philosphy, as psychology(certainly the more modern kind) might want to distance itself from it's philosophical roots in an attempt to embrace it's more scientific and empirical side.
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.
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.
Thank you, exelente shadow work on Jung 😂
It's just ironic. Loved your work!
🙏✌️
Fantastic, thank you
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.
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".
excellent video and I've noticed my own neurosis projected in my philosophical poetry.
Thank you for this video
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.
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.
Great essay!
Ur channel is brilliant dog thank you for your work
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 TH-cam 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.
“I’m not a philosopher, I’m a scientist!” Jung is clearly a philosopher. He can cope all he likes.
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
This is good stuff because I heard of Jung’s dismissal of Heidegger but their ontologies were very similar
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.
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
Damn! Great to know. Thanks!
This was quite the enlightening and fascinating video. I never knew that Jung actually had these views on these philosophers until now. Granted I'm still relatively new to Jung having only read a little bit of him and watching some other videos but I'm already very moved and fascinated by his theories. It's both hilarious and indeed telling of him to not like them very much! You've earned my subscription, and I can't wait to see more from your channel! :)
> 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.
Jung famously/infamously thought he knew everything and let it go to his head
It's incredibly funny that someone whose work essentially had no real basis in science and instead relies on metaphysical concepts and mythos which exist in their entirety within the realm of the imagination and dreams attacked others on their works scientific basis
I agree but many of Jung's ideas are still more solid than most crap I see modern psychology spewing out, they have corrupted the science tool for their biases.
@@MannyKnowsYourSecretswhat problem with modern psychology do you have?
@@ipilotaneva2586 Most of their work is completely irrelevant to the their supposed aim - the psyche.
For any given published paper in modern psychology, it might have a title with a grand generalisation purporting to a real claim, but when you read the experiment it's usually a couple of dozen college students in highly artificial settings with limited inference.
Even larger studies aren't much better. There's a reason the field is in the middle of a replication crisis. It's dealing with the mind as if it's just another object in the world. They're studying it from the /outside/.
As least Jung understood the most basic aspect of his field of study - the psyche is an internal affair.
@@ellisfmorton4086 You said it way better than I could right now
I have been reading the poem Paradise Lost by John Milton recently, and one thing - among many others - struck me: that Milton describes some of the devils following Satan as what can very well be compared to a bunch of existential philosophers. Despite them obviously not yet being a thing in the 17th century. They sit and talk about apparently noble matters, running around in circles about fate, life, death, free will and so on… but it’s a never ending motion that Milton literally describes as “false philosophy”. A rhythm that “enchants the soul like music enchants the senses”, but there’s no actual substance to it. And most importantly, no return, no end.
Now, before someone says it, no, I don’t mean to demonize them. Hell, the only one of them I somewhat know is Nietzsche, and yes, I admit I have no sympathy for the man. All his writings have given me is the anxiety he undoubtedly felt and needed to vent out on some poor bastard reading his stuff a hundred years later. But the others I don’t yet know, so I will follow the golden rule and not speak of what I ignore. I will say though that I think there is some precious wisdom in what Milton writes. Using our imagination is all well and good, but trespassing into the “World of God” is something we should be very careful of. Because it may mean doing what Satan did, isolating ourselves in our own mind and thinking everything rotates around us and our capacity to influence and understand the world. It may mean dismissing the fact that, like another great writer put it, “our own wisdom is not the end”.
Like, even if you somewhat make it and find some grain of truth (which will never be the full truth anyway), all it will bring you is misery, because you were never meant to handle such weight. Is it worth it? Who knows.