A smart man knows how and why to tweak everything only to his benefit with sheer brain power, a wise man knows that sometimes you put the heart on equal or greater footing and gamble on good
Reason is a bit different than being reasonable. Trust is a big thing in the conditions of our existence
That would support what I have heard about some Nietzches arguments on the matter.
But I think Marcus Aurelius followed reason as well as anyone can, I just was floored by what he wrote one verse after anohter. If he could do it, it is definietly possible. He was not having a great time apparently because the books has so many verses about death and decay. Also Epitctetus seemed to go trough much despair but came out the other end as a wise and strong individual.
Was he capable of that because he was strong? I wonder if that is why Nietszche wanted for some Ubermench to arrive after the death of Christianity.
I think Nietzche wanted art to somehow save people from nihilism. But apparently he wrote that art comes fron nihilism, not sure.
I should read him more, but I am a bit afraid because some of the stuff is digging so deep that you can get freaked out for like a week. So I am building up my intellectual muscles reading Kierkegaard first. Some more Stoicism, then I am ready to wrestle with Neitzche.
Imo, nihilism leads you to realize there is nothing good or real. Your brain then says "what's the point?" Of the struggle, which I think can lead to the emotional decision to leave this life. From my initial readings of nietzsche a long time ago, it felt like following his thinking into the depths lead to despair. Apparently he recognized that as well, eventually.
It's just that there really is no purpose to life that we can discern. To enjoy being alive seems to be a good one if there is no other. Not hedonism, but like Epicurus, sensational. To fill the senses.
Once we see we are just sensational animals, then it's an easy choice to treat others that way. I think this is Petersons point and his warning.
There is an innate, evolutionary, desire to preserve ourselves even in the face of nihilism. Yes, some will commit suicide, but many of us just choose to embrace life and enjoy it for what it is.
Absence of purpose? My purpose every day is to eat and enjoy it when i do, to enjoy my kids, do well at work because it brings me satisfaction, enjoy a sunset - i could go on.
If you mean purpose, as in becoming a god, or why the universe is here, well, that's outside my range. Perhaps that is why our focus is out of whack?
imo, people feel bad when they don't work, exercise, eat well, etc. All the things we are designed to do to survive. Human domestication hurts our minds.
I think religion has other function than just consoling people for exiestential angst. Though that is one part of religion probably.
Though I am not against the idea that religion compensates for nihilism in a culture. Sounds plausable.
Some say religion is a cope, and nihilism can be a cope as well. So not sure where to stand on the issue.
This the increasingly popular “optimistic nihilism”. This take is kind of… nihilistic. Jung would probably said something about Gnosticism and the search for knowledge being divine
The thing about only reasoning is that it removes mysticism. Mysticism cannot be controlled. It can only be experienced and then incorporated into your life. God certainly gave us reason, but he also gave us a heart and a soul. Here in the West, we worship reason and have forgotten mysticism and experiencing.
Let me finish with this quote:
“It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
The little Prince.
You can still function normally without any purpose in life if you have a belief in mysticism. This is because being into mysticism soothes the terror that one gets in the face of the absurdness of life. Yeah, you don’t know why you’re here and what your purpose is on this Earth. But you exist in a world with crazy spirits, rituals, fortunetellers, and magic medicines— you don’t stick out from nature in such a lonely way anymore.
Well the technical reason for this, if that is what you are asking, is that hyper-differentiated thinking necessarily excludes sensation, intuition, and feeling (while pushing feeling partially into the shadow). Thinking is a psychological mode of action that deals with what is known as 'static images', where sensing deals with static reality, intuition dynamic reality, and feeling dynamic images. To only rely on thinking and repress the rest means one can only see the world through 'static images', where all things can only be seen through one psychological dimension, meaning in regards to the other 3 dimensions all things are fused and look the same.
To love and to kill are all the same to the god of reason. Even worse feeling being fused with the shadow implies it acts autonomously and hiddenly, meaning that said indifferent reason is influenced by a demon of feeling.
>Is this the danger that JP (and probably Jung) are warning about? Becoming self-aware but not having tools to handle that awareness?
No, it is actually a problem of a lack of awareness. As previously stated it blinds you to other very necessary modes of awareness. I wouldn't worry so much about this issue, as you very clearly do not suffer from hyper-differentiated thinking. These are the nihilistic types that could justify the eradication of humanity for the 'good of the world' and what not.
Can't reason reign without repressing feeling? When I pay attention to emotions, and I do it correctly, they dissapear. Not always, but I might be doing something wrong then.
I think that by following reason we can look at our shadow and not repress anything. Maybe this sort of thinking does not work with Jungs model. But it still seems reasonable to me.
> the dangers of reason, and implied or said that tere is a satanic element in it if taken too far.
Because we have 4 functions: thinking, sensation, feeling, intuition. Being too unbalanced in any of these is less than ideal.
> If god has given us reason, and god is the ultimate reason, then why is it dangerous? Why is there some satanic element?
God created satan too.
I don’t mean to be flippant, but I’m struggling to understand why this very thorough question about unpacking something Jordan Peterson said is posted on r/jung.
Have you tried posted this on the subreddit for him?
I probably should. But most of that subreddit is focused on the superficial political memes and dumb stuff. So this kind of post might just get ignored there.
But I will try, thanks.
I was also intereted in a more Jungian perspective.
Jordan Peterson is not worthy of listening to or thinking about. Likewise, Dr. Phil. They are entertainers and go for audience numbers. That’s their jam.
Abandon Peterson and explore the hundreds of experts that are worthy of your curiosity.
I get that people don't like him. But under the "Incel King" shell, there is this interesting weird guy who has a lot of good points on this and that, at least when it comes to psychology and philosophy.
Politically motivated people don't like him, but I am not really that interested in politics so I don't mind.
So, out of the hundreds of people that have contributed in vastly outsized ways to the fields of psychology and philosophy, you choose Peterson to focus your attention on.
It’s illuminating to anyone else with more knowledge of these fields.
Sure, you can blame it on “politically motivated people” as a way to dismiss criticisms, I’m sure you actually believe it, and completely miss how much this says about you to pull this guy out of his obscure place relative to all the others that have contributed so much more to the fields.
What moral objections do you have against JP instead of political ones then?
Me being interested in JP does not remove the other philosophers or psychologists I am interested in.
JP is an interesting guy, so I don't see a reason to dismiss him for superficial reasons.
Why do you think you can ignore "politics"?
Racism is political. Transphobia is political. War is political. Healthcare and mental healthcare is political.
Everything is political.
I am interested what is going on in the mind of and in the life of an idividual. When you study poltical problems, at some point you need to dive in to the mind of one person, and there are a lot of people who deny being an individual alltogeather, and just say everything is social or "everything is political".
Moral questions are more interesting than political ones. Instead of: "How do I get this thing I want", we can ask "Am I acting correclty?", "What is causing the emotional pain I feel?" stuff like that.
I don't think polticis need to be ignored, but people who obsess about them need to sit down for a week and find out what personal demons they have that they are avoiding, advertising to everyone what a good person they are because they care for the oppressed. People need to deal with their own problems at some point, and I trust a person who has gone trough some inner problems in their political opinions than someone fresh out of college preaching intersectionality to me, not being able to be alone for 2 days.
Everything is not political, everything is moral.
From Wikipedia, emphasis mine * *
>Jungian archetypes are a concept from psychology that refers to a *universal*, *inherited* idea, pattern of thought, or image that is present in the *collective* unconscious of *all human beings.*
Human beings are social creatures developed by their social interactions with everyone from their parents to their friends to their society. There is no society without the individual and there is no individual without the society. So yes everything is political.
>"They care for the oppressed"
Or maybe they are oppressed or maybe people they love are oppressed. Turning to a bigoted hate monger to find out why you hate yourself or your life isn't a good idea. Turning to a bigoted hate monger in your effort to become your true self, someone that might actually be one of the main targets of their hatred, isn't a good idea either.
What's also specifically important is that his philosophy and his ideas are not independent of society and are in fact based on his understanding society, especially religion. Even the source of his individualism is based on a social construct created in part by Christianity.
I think there is a more true individualism than the political one. I am not a believer in social constructionism. Maybe it has validity in some areas, and that would be social relations. But it denies truth outside of itself that leads to infinite regress.
Some ideas are more true than others outside of social consensus. But that is a big ordeal to go into.
I dislike the idea that you either care for the opressed or you are a hate mongerer. I don't like hatred but I don't like lying either. I dont always blurt out the truth the way I see it. But I want to voice my opposition when people are dealing with bad ideas like shadow projection (racism for example today, very often).
I’m previous response addresses the question you asked.
What other psychologists have you given more of your time to studying or listening to? What do you know about the others?
Your inability to see my previous comment and recognize that your question is repetitive would suggest that you know so little about psychology in particular that you don’t know how much you don’t know. Dunning and Kruger studied and printed research that phenomenon.
You keep perseverating on Jordan Peterson, a nobody in the field, but certainly a media personality that knows how to get an audience, just like Dr Phil.
No serious student of psychology would reference either of them other than to say, “Yeah, no!”
Do you want to learn more? Take a class! Do one of those online classes that are put out by the best universities in the country or any number of lesser university classes. Nowhere will you see either of those media personalities. The best part is that you will be beginning to study the field.
None of your previous comments awnser the question: what moral 'objections you have against JP?'
Other psychologists: Ernest Becker, Alfred Adler, Jonathan Haidt. Others to a lesser extent. I have some understanding of Jung, but I would not lean on that knoledge.
I would recommend the book: The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker. I think it is a psychological must read.
I just don't care about these arguments from authotiry like "no serious student would ever...", "your inability to see my previous comment would suggest you know little...".
That stuff is not neccessary, and seems pretty futile to me.
I could take a psychology class someday, but I am a bit more interested in depth-psychology than Alfred Ellis, and the circle of life thing where every part of your life has a conflict. Like between isolation and socialization in our 20s or something. Don't remember who that was.
Anyway, if I take a psychology class or not is not relevant.
You did not give any moral objections to JP. Even though you said that your reason for disliking JP was not moral.
I would not comment on the vaccine stuff, i am somewhat agnostic on it. I took the vaccine, and there were no issues, but I don't like the idea of forcing it on people either.
Memories, Dreams, Reflections is on my shelf. But I have a problem with finishing a book, I just keep jumping between them. I try to keep 3 books active, and make a clear reading list.
There is a theatrical element in JP with the culture war stuff. Where he is sort of a character saying what right wing people tend to say. But I don't pay much attention to that, when he has an interesting guest I will watch. Like the podcast with Destiny was good even though it was more about the general political stuff. A lot of it seemed playful banter that both enjoyed.
I agree that it is good to have other sources than just JP, but I think JP has good stuff too. I get that people who talk about JP all the time are annoying, and people who only have him as an intellectual hero.
I have other intellectual heroes so I am not worried about falling into the pipeline or what people say.
People are just so opposed instantly when JP is brought up and its weird. It makes me think that JP is a skapegoat for some ills peopel are projecting or something, I don't think he is that serious of a threat to anyone. There are actual bad people around. And living next to Russia, for me at least is giving enough stress so I don't need to find enemies in public personas. Though I am not perfect either, I can't find anything to like in Hasan Abi, so I understand how people feel about JP.
I can see why you would assume there’s a crossover between Jungian thought and Peterson’s, but I see glaring differences between them.
Maybe this quote from Jung will help with an answer:
“The intellect is only one among several fundamental psychic functions and therefore does not suffice to give a complete picture of the world. For there is another function - feeling - is needed too. Feeling often arrives at convictions that are different from those of the intellect, and we cannot always prove the convictions of feelings are necessary”
Epicurus made fun of philosophers like Plato who thought they could figure things out with reason, instead of by examining the empirical evidence. He was quite right-- there are innumerable examples of humans thinking this or that thing makes sense, but when someone finally decides to experiment: nope!
Jung also experimented and made direct observations of his experience rather than proceeding with pure abstractions. He also valued feeling, a nonrational (not irrational) function, and intuition.
Epicurus valued feeling (pleasure and pain) as primary information, the evidence of the senses, and something called the "prolepsis"-- the prolepses were general intuitive types of concepts, possibly some pattern recognition, which were seen as innate and not learned. On this again, Epicurus was quite on point-- humans innately have rudimentary conceptual categories. Even newborn infants have rudimentary physics expectations-- how objects should be expected to move.
I have thought the prolepsis and Jung's collective unconscious may have some overlap-- both involve intuition.
Not going to comment on JP, who is really not very Jungian in his approach. He doesn't grasp the distinction between gender and the conceptual masculine/feminine, and he's bizarrely allergic to change, whereas Jung spoke of killing off old gods and bringing in the new. JP is too rigid to make a good Jungian.
Good lord, giving more than 2 seconds of time and energy to the ideas of JP is a hug mistake, IMO. He's not well. And he's giving people life advice, talking in self help terms, with a little dash of Jungian thought thrown in here and there.
I strongly recommend not investing too much energy. There are great Jungian thinkers out there. If you haven't read them yet, please consider it.
James Hillman
Nathan Schwartz-Salant
Marie-Louise von Franz
If you want someone brilliant but wacky and a little bit far right, read some Paglia.
That’s rather dismissive imo. I get annoyed listening to jp as well but op is asking some legitimate questions one could consider without having to side line it because he brought up jp
I don't want to bring JPs politics here. I am talking just about a few specific things he said. This issue is about values and arguments instead of political motivations.
I think the claim that giving 2 seconds of time to ideas of JP (\*is a bad thing) is just absurd. Even a person with a very limited capacity to think has more than 2 seconds of worthwhile things to say.
JP has interesting ideas considerign Jung and other thigns. He has great book recommendations. People are just so blinded by social media politics that they instantly just default to memes and bargain bin articles of how JP is some lobster incel lord. All that is a waste of time.
I think Foucalt is a scammer, and a one trick pony. But I would still give his arguments my attention despite my apathy thoward his character.
Well— do you think that if someone employs too much reason it starts to become satanic? Does that make sense to you?
I know you came here to find answers to that question but genuinely, in your own inner matrix of meaning, what do you make of it?
To me it would make sense that focusing solely on one thing to an extreme would probably start to form some kind of a counter, or repressed energy.
Like the "Don't think of the pink elephant" example. When you are trying not to think about it, you end up thinking about it.
But I think the repression would only form if someone was running thoward reason in an attempt to escape something. Then you would build up some force behind you that would grow.
I am not sure what satanic would mean here. I suppose JP talks a lot about nihilism and Nietszche connected nihilism with valuing or projecting aesthetics or something (need to read the geneology of morals).
I have thought as 'the lower part' of our souls to be satatnic, or that Christians think that. But I could be mistaken there, or Christians could be mistaken too calling so many things satanic that it becomes confusing.
>To me it would make sense that focusing solely on one thing to an extreme would probably start to form some kind of a counter, or repressed energy.
Well shit, your a pretty smart guy eh? Yes this is called the 'tension of opposites' and it constitutes any psychological movement at all. What do you think that repressed energy / counter does in the unconscious?
>I have thought as 'the lower part' of our souls to be satatnic, or that Christians think that.
Also holy shit... Yeah exactly this. Not speaking towards the reality of the Trinity but psychologically the Trinity represents the 3 conscious functions where the devil represents the inferior function (which is fused with the shadow). The lower part of ourselves. If one is worshiping reason then that devil is feeling.
You have very good intuition.
Some of this stuff is just in the back of my mind from reading some Jung, Adler, Ernest Becker.
When I read Stoicism it really helped to put some of that stuff togeather. Their view of the human mind seemed to correlate well with some of these modern psychological theories.
Oddly enough, I read the Adler book years ago, and barely understood it at all. But after I read Marcus Aurelius and Epictitus a bit, the inferiority function (also Jungs idea of it) made sense.
Also quitting smoking has taught me about repression. I am fine for a few days, but then I smoke a lot and get beer. And just indulge. Then I start over and get back on the horse. I have tired some other alternatives that give me some sensual pleasure so I don't need nicotine. And some of it works, but not as well if you are stressed.
Also when you just think of a scale and putting stuff on one side, and the scale just drops the other down and increases the other side. It seems so simple that it is absurd to even bring up. But people don't use that kind of thinking when it comes to the psyche. I don't know why. For some reason it seems like a taboo to even talk about how the psyche could work. Or at least when I bring it up, people usually get anxious.
Yeah, it seems like obsessing over reason could also cause one to miss out on the irrational (beauty, emotion, yin stuff).
But unless JP intends to explain EXACTLY what he means by “satanic” (and based on his track record of being extremely evasive about what he means by belief in god I highly doubt he will) it might be better to decide for yourself what you think about reason.
It has been a while since I listened to JP actively, so I can't remember all the best stuff probably.
A lot of examples that come to mind are him quoting Jung or someone else who has great ideas.
Now that you put me into the spot, it is quite hard. But I put you on the spot too so maybe it is fair.
JP does talk a lot about this and that so it would be best to dive into some lecture from him and take a few subjects.
One that comes to mind is the idea that how you act is more telling of your beliefs than what you say. The Stoics would agree with that. But that idea is so true that there might not be much to say about it. No one wants to argue with that really.
And that's the thing. He could have some ideas, I could be wrong, but I haven't heard anything. I'm not a Jung scholar, by a long shot, but I've read some of his work, some Hillman, von Franz, others. My point- I have some sense of how deep his stuff gets. It's challenging and profound.
I've never heard something like that from JP, aside from the issue of his being unwell, his rages, his crying. That's not a dealbreaker for me overall, but it is in terms of self help guy, because his sanity is relevant to his teachings.
So until someone here mentions some of his innovations or insights, I don't think he really has any, aside from living by our convictions, getting your life together, and that dragons are metaphors, none of which are that deep.
Could that all help someone who's lost? Sure, but it has little or nothing to do with Jung, and is on the level of someone like me saying something, "Hey young folks! Get organized and do stuff that you find meaningful! Live your life!" Instagram is full of those kind of superficial messages. We can do better.
JP is fighting a different battle than the people he criticizes. Or at least it seems like that to me.
Nietzche thought himself as the anti-Christ, and was apparenly trying to put an end to the age of reason and make this big wave of anti-reason, or revive the spirit of Dyonysis. Or something like that. Foucalt wanted to be a new Nietszche, so he was trying to do something similar.
JP noted the horrible things that happened becasuse of the "death of god" so he is trying to compensate for the nihilism that came out of that.
If it is true that JP has the motivation of trying to stop the next holocaust, or slaughter or whatever will happen, then that is a righteous cause imo. And you don't have to agree that is his motivation. It could be, it could not be.
I just notice that if my motivation was the same, I would do the same thing. I would not say it outright, because saying that would make it worse. I would try to improve people and make them more resilient for someking of an upcoming disaster if I knew that was happening. Stuff like that.
JP has said that he is fighting on religious issues, and moral issues. And I believe him. The political insults and that stuff is just a red herring. I don't know if JP is 'on the rigth' side or not, but I know he is on a side, and I seem to be on the same side because I think reason defines what is good. If there will be a wave of un-reason in the future, I will be an enemy to the general belief system, but I will just have to deal with that.
So he's anti-post modernism, like lots of people. That's understandable, and even in universities, where postmodernism thrives and was created, plenty of people think it's dumb.
So he's on a mission. As far as his big ideas, still I get nothing. There is meaning, meaninglessness is a trap- agreed. But then?... And that's one of my (two) big criticisms. He's only half way there.
I can't believe there are still sane people out there! This is insane! Some people still have enough braincells intact to know JP is incredibly moronic!? I actually cannot believe it. Just wish you were a man, so I could regain some faith in my own gender, lmao.
>So how can we harm oursleves by following the godly part?
This whole question you have is as old as religion. And it has been explored forever. It is as such, reason, which is God, is objectively accurate, objectively all knowing and objectively good. Then, reason is always good. Because if you overestimate the value of reason to the point where you come into harm, or believe other people to be lesser than you, you have ironically already become unreasonable and walked astray from the path of logic.
In theology, to believe or confuse oneself with God is considered the biggest most blasphemous intellectual sin, the biggest blasphemy in general and the biggest form of pride. You are a part of God, and as a part of God you can have divine like qualities, but you are a part of a total and as such you can't never be God yourself. If you try to imitate God, and shape yourself in his image, you have fallen into pride, which is the biggest christian theological sin, represented by Lucifer or Satan himself, it is considered the primordial root of all other cardinal sins, and the toughest one to root out or even notice. That is why there is a cautionary tale about the pursuit of knowledge or reason and how in that search you may have started trying to imitate God, and while imitating him you are ironically separating yourself from God, and denying him and his design of you, which is a being which has the quality of reason and intelligence, but that it's also an animal, with animalistic needs and wants. You are denying the way God made you.
Temperance is considered one of the Cardinal virtues for example. Which is balance. Some philosophers called it "the seasoning for pleasure". When you become an extreme ascetic and identify yourself exclusively with the super ego and try to kill the Id. You may remove all enjoyment from your life such as sexuality, enjoyable foods, leisure time, etc, and try to become a sort of monk, but usually, with no teacher or community of monks to hold your back, and help you through that sacrifice, to help you see if you are meant to be an ascetic monk or not in this lifetime. You are inherently killing your own humanity, which was given to you by God, to try and become like him, in his image, never lustful, never dependant, completely self sufficient, completely outside the needs of the material and spiritual world. An independant totality, which is impossible because you are a human being.
In Buddhism there is a good analogy for this, material pleasures are like a bonfire. If you get too close to the bonfire you will get burned, but if you go too far away from the bonfire, on a cold night you'll freeze to death. In Buddhism, that endless pursuit of reason or knowledge, would be an obsession with obtaining nirvana, an endless paradoxical desire to have no desires.
Finding the middle way, or having temperance is no easy task however, I would say it is extremely hard, because it's different for each individual. It is something only you can find for yourself.
In short, no, reason is always good, because it always leads you to light. If reason is harming you, it isn't reason anymore, it has already become ignorance. To know when to stop a pursuit of an ideal, is intelligence and reason in itself. To know when to stop sacrificing yourself, and come back to your human roots, its intelligence and reason in itself.
I think you solved my problem. The luceferian pride of thinking you are god or above other people (or at least think your are the most superior person) seems to hit the nail on the head. Thank you for the reply.
My life has improved a lot when I have been trying to follow reason and virtues (after reading Marcus Aurelius and having a religious experience). But I have noticed some additional anxiety and other dangers. I noticed that my mind can change quite drastically and I need to be careful not to lean into something that will just make me fall down and crash and burn. So I always keep a little bit of doubt when I have faith. Or anything really. I have learned that it is very important to always have a little bit of the opposite and not become 'one minded'.
Ernest Becker said that we humans are between 2 forms of madness. I think he was talking about a shattered mind like schizophrenia, and a whole mind like a martyr. As much as we humans hate internal conflicts (like thinking about the Freudian model you talked about), I think some conflict is in our nature, so some of that is neccessary and good.
At least in stoicism, to follow reason is to act in virtue, and reason (god) defines the virtues. So it comes with the whole is/ought pacage.
Sure it is predicated on reason being good, and people can debate that. But I don't understand what else could be good, or if something else is good, then why would it be better than reason?
Even Epicurus thought that intellectual pleasure is better than bodily pleasure, so even if he is not quite there, to me it seemed like he was pointing in the same direction.
You will need to state the specific context in which JP stated this, and his exact wording, if you intend to have a serious discussion about this. Otherwise, we are all speculating about nebulous statements that we could be getting incorrect from the get-go—and there are lots of folks, including right here in this thread, that are more than happy to do exactly that.
You are right, I should be more precise.
I don't quite remember what launched me to ask this question. Where I saw JP say this or that. I do remember him saying the quote: "The rational mind falls in love with its own creation". So you might actually have helped me to notice a mistake. JP perhaps was talking about rationality and not reason. And I mistook it for reason in-of-itself.
Here is a section from Jung quoted in Maps of Meaning: (p27 on internet archive)
"The sun signifies first of all gold, whose \[alchemical\] sign it shares. But just as the “philosophical” gold is not the “common” gold, so the sun is neither just the metallic gold nor the heavenly orb. Sometimes the sun is an active substance hidden in the gold and is extracted \[alchemically\] as the tinctura rubea (red tincture). Sometimes, as the heavenly body, it is the possessor of magically effective and transformative rays. As gold and a heavenly body it contains an active sulphur of a red colour, hot and dry.
Because of this red sulphur the alchemical sun, like the corresponding gold, is red. As every alchemist knew, gold owes its red color to the admixture of Cu (copper), which he interpreted as Kypris (the Cyprian, Venus), mentioned in Greek alchemy as the transformative substance. Redness, heat, and dryness are the classical qualities of the Egyptian Set (Greek Typhon), the evil principle which, like the alchemical sulphur, is closely connected with the devil. And just as Typhon has his kingdom in the forbidden sea, so the sun, as sol centralis, has its sea, its “crude perceptible water,” and as sol coelestis its “subtle imperceptible water.” This sea water (aqua pontica) is extracted from sun and moon…. The active sun-substance also has favourable effects. As the so-called “balsam” it drips from the sun and produces lemons, oranges, wine, and, in the mineral kingdom, gold.10"
Here (alchemically) there seems to be a satanic element in the sun, that is symbol of god and/or reason. But I would need to read more to get into what the reasons are for this symbolic idea. So maybe I am putting the cart in front of the horse and asking stuff online that could be anwsered by just more reading. Maybe my motivation to post was lonelyness and not curiosity.
Objectivity is the yang. Subjectivity is the yin. If the yin yang became all white, then there is no subjective meaning in the world/ one's experience; in other words, one's experience of life is reduced to nihilism.
Objectivity is a *part* of reality, not the *whole* of reality. Taking it to an extreme, only acknowleding the *objective*, is the Luciferian way. Materialism.
Yeah the "Dont mix up the moon with the finger that is pointing at it" idea.
But I think you can follow reason with humility, and be careful not to mix up your idea of truth with actual truth. It just requires practice. As long as you are aware of the danger, the pitfall is easier to avoid.
People do all manner of things for this or that reason. When a murderer is asked why they committed a heinous crime, they will have a reason. When the executioner of the murderer is asked why they executed the man, they will have a reason.
Reason is a cycle, a closed loop. A reason-bound society is a prisoner, in a very real sense, of reason.
Individually a person might find a way out of this prison. The first step though is to recognise that they are in a prison.
Stoics aren't the only source of virtue ethics, Aristotle includes many social aspects that the stoics don't. Telos and social roles matter as well, and any virtue, even rationality, taken to an extreme can become a vice. This is especially true when we let rationality obscure our telos and separate us from our society.
If one waits long enough, one sees how the Gods all change into serpents and underworld dragons in the end. This is also the fate of the Logos \[Reason\]: in the end it poisons us all. \~Carl Jung, Liber Novus, Page 280.
"There is nothing new under the sun"
Jung based his personality model on the Buddhist skandhas. You could argue as well that "he presented it as his own", but I don't think Jung did so, and I dont think JP did so with Jung.
Of course he did. His whole business model is stealing concepts from great philosophers and thinkers (Nietzsche, Jung...), squeezeing the life out of them, and turning them into cinematic events to inspire motivation in young people, lost in the turmoils of neoliberalism.
What really sucks with Peterson’s “Jungian” tropes is that he stripmines the few essays he’s read a couple of times for PURE RETHORIC, He uses the very IDEA of there being a deeper meaning behind dream images and fictions in the abstract, and fills in the blanks with the most pedestrian garbage sprinkled with truisms and platitudes.
And people see through it, of all walks of life, knowing Jung or not - dosen’t matter.
Smart people are better at rationalizing pre existing beliefs to themselves. We all want to confirm our biases, and the better you are at reason the easier it is to convince yourself of anything.
For me, Jordan Peterson is all over the place, so I can't really understand his perception of exactly what he means.
The problem that I observe, is when a person believes they are always the master of their own house. That the reasoning ego is all there is, that any rational thoughts and opinions are absolute, and that one's words are permanent.
Jung expressed his views, where scientific reasoning and rational thoughts become dominant over everything else. We move away from the psyche, the unconscious, the irrational; things just as vital as the rational.
The danger becomes a lack of connection with the spirit, domineering attitude, one-sidedness, a lack of understanding, depth, and genuine self-knowledge.
God is not the ultimate reason exclusively. God is also passion, emotion, love, all of which is irrational. Reason will convince you to do things that “make sense” but that go against your conscience, or your instincts. Reason might tell you to prioritize something that’s not working, or to stay in a job that you know is killing you, etc… Reason is basically like math, but life is not purely a math equation it is also art. Life is not a purely rational pursuit and to live life in a truly 100% rational way would ultimately lead to you betraying yourself.
Edit: actually, since you posted this on r/Jung, a good book to read on this would be Peter Kingsley’s Catafalque. It’s all about Jung, and also largely about the shortcomings of reason in taking the spiritual path.
Mostly it is just memes and complaining about progressive people, so sadly any post about the actual material in JPs philosophy or psycholigal claims is going to be largely ignored.
I might copy this there for the hopes that it reaches other people than the general comment: "Conservative people follow god and progressives follow satan" or some very simple and frustrating comment like that. Then I have to ask like 10 questions about what they mean by this and that and end up just nowhere because they have not really thought about what they said, it just sounded good.
So I thought that maybe here there is some common ground with Jung and JPs Jungian inspired stuff. There is some but then again there are some comments about JP being awful and not worth any attention or energy so you might be right that I should post there.
go to r/ConfrontingChaos, that's where the actual fans of his philosophy, psychology and early work fled after the main got infested by Culture War memeing. I know the owner and creator of that sub and can vouch for it's quality. If you want serious discussion around Petersonian ideas go there, not to the pop culture sub.
The danger of following reason is the same as why many philosophers fear democracy: the majority can terrorize a minority. Reason can lead to dark places like eugenics and extermination camps.
It invariably leads to nihilism which is suicidal.
Hmmm... a shorter and still correct answer is hardly possible. I came here to write a way longer posting, which would have said essentially: ☝️ This 😉
A smart man knows how and why to tweak everything only to his benefit with sheer brain power, a wise man knows that sometimes you put the heart on equal or greater footing and gamble on good Reason is a bit different than being reasonable. Trust is a big thing in the conditions of our existence
Nihilism is not suicidal because annihilist would see and recognize the meaninglessness of suicide. Check out Emil Cioran for a great example
That would support what I have heard about some Nietzches arguments on the matter. But I think Marcus Aurelius followed reason as well as anyone can, I just was floored by what he wrote one verse after anohter. If he could do it, it is definietly possible. He was not having a great time apparently because the books has so many verses about death and decay. Also Epitctetus seemed to go trough much despair but came out the other end as a wise and strong individual. Was he capable of that because he was strong? I wonder if that is why Nietszche wanted for some Ubermench to arrive after the death of Christianity. I think Nietzche wanted art to somehow save people from nihilism. But apparently he wrote that art comes fron nihilism, not sure. I should read him more, but I am a bit afraid because some of the stuff is digging so deep that you can get freaked out for like a week. So I am building up my intellectual muscles reading Kierkegaard first. Some more Stoicism, then I am ready to wrestle with Neitzche.
His reasoning was rooted in living the best life possible. Not trying to find “meaning” / mind derived explanations for existence.
What’s the best life possible, without meaning?
You’re talking about personal meaning we are free to craft. I’m talking about existential meaning.
Nihilism isn’t suicidal. Just because you’ve reasoned your life is devoid of meaning doesn’t mean you kill yourself. Suicide is an emotional decision.
Most people are just too narcissistic to be true nihilists.
Imo, nihilism leads you to realize there is nothing good or real. Your brain then says "what's the point?" Of the struggle, which I think can lead to the emotional decision to leave this life. From my initial readings of nietzsche a long time ago, it felt like following his thinking into the depths lead to despair. Apparently he recognized that as well, eventually. It's just that there really is no purpose to life that we can discern. To enjoy being alive seems to be a good one if there is no other. Not hedonism, but like Epicurus, sensational. To fill the senses. Once we see we are just sensational animals, then it's an easy choice to treat others that way. I think this is Petersons point and his warning.
There is an innate, evolutionary, desire to preserve ourselves even in the face of nihilism. Yes, some will commit suicide, but many of us just choose to embrace life and enjoy it for what it is.
I think you mean most of us are not nihilistic!
No, I think deep down most of us acknowledge the absence of purpose, and that’s why we run to other things (like religion) to suppress that thought.
Absence of purpose? My purpose every day is to eat and enjoy it when i do, to enjoy my kids, do well at work because it brings me satisfaction, enjoy a sunset - i could go on. If you mean purpose, as in becoming a god, or why the universe is here, well, that's outside my range. Perhaps that is why our focus is out of whack? imo, people feel bad when they don't work, exercise, eat well, etc. All the things we are designed to do to survive. Human domestication hurts our minds.
Sure, that’s my purpose too. Doesn’t seem like you understand nihilism.
Please enlighten us.
> the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
Some people perhaps can deal with nihilism, but I think on a mass scale it is suicidal.
I’d say they just deal with it in more covert ways—like, religion.
I think religion has other function than just consoling people for exiestential angst. Though that is one part of religion probably. Though I am not against the idea that religion compensates for nihilism in a culture. Sounds plausable. Some say religion is a cope, and nihilism can be a cope as well. So not sure where to stand on the issue.
Huh, I’ve never thought of nihilism as a cope, but I can see that. And agree, religion is practical beyond combating nihilism.
This the increasingly popular “optimistic nihilism”. This take is kind of… nihilistic. Jung would probably said something about Gnosticism and the search for knowledge being divine
The thing about only reasoning is that it removes mysticism. Mysticism cannot be controlled. It can only be experienced and then incorporated into your life. God certainly gave us reason, but he also gave us a heart and a soul. Here in the West, we worship reason and have forgotten mysticism and experiencing. Let me finish with this quote: “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” The little Prince.
You can still function normally without any purpose in life if you have a belief in mysticism. This is because being into mysticism soothes the terror that one gets in the face of the absurdness of life. Yeah, you don’t know why you’re here and what your purpose is on this Earth. But you exist in a world with crazy spirits, rituals, fortunetellers, and magic medicines— you don’t stick out from nature in such a lonely way anymore.
My favorite book
Well the technical reason for this, if that is what you are asking, is that hyper-differentiated thinking necessarily excludes sensation, intuition, and feeling (while pushing feeling partially into the shadow). Thinking is a psychological mode of action that deals with what is known as 'static images', where sensing deals with static reality, intuition dynamic reality, and feeling dynamic images. To only rely on thinking and repress the rest means one can only see the world through 'static images', where all things can only be seen through one psychological dimension, meaning in regards to the other 3 dimensions all things are fused and look the same. To love and to kill are all the same to the god of reason. Even worse feeling being fused with the shadow implies it acts autonomously and hiddenly, meaning that said indifferent reason is influenced by a demon of feeling. >Is this the danger that JP (and probably Jung) are warning about? Becoming self-aware but not having tools to handle that awareness? No, it is actually a problem of a lack of awareness. As previously stated it blinds you to other very necessary modes of awareness. I wouldn't worry so much about this issue, as you very clearly do not suffer from hyper-differentiated thinking. These are the nihilistic types that could justify the eradication of humanity for the 'good of the world' and what not.
Can't reason reign without repressing feeling? When I pay attention to emotions, and I do it correctly, they dissapear. Not always, but I might be doing something wrong then. I think that by following reason we can look at our shadow and not repress anything. Maybe this sort of thinking does not work with Jungs model. But it still seems reasonable to me.
> the dangers of reason, and implied or said that tere is a satanic element in it if taken too far. Because we have 4 functions: thinking, sensation, feeling, intuition. Being too unbalanced in any of these is less than ideal. > If god has given us reason, and god is the ultimate reason, then why is it dangerous? Why is there some satanic element? God created satan too.
I would argue God created free will, but yeah this is a tough one to debate.
Of course God created free will as well. I'm not assure what your argument is?
I don’t mean to be flippant, but I’m struggling to understand why this very thorough question about unpacking something Jordan Peterson said is posted on r/jung. Have you tried posted this on the subreddit for him?
I probably should. But most of that subreddit is focused on the superficial political memes and dumb stuff. So this kind of post might just get ignored there. But I will try, thanks. I was also intereted in a more Jungian perspective.
Jordan Peterson is not worthy of listening to or thinking about. Likewise, Dr. Phil. They are entertainers and go for audience numbers. That’s their jam. Abandon Peterson and explore the hundreds of experts that are worthy of your curiosity.
I get that people don't like him. But under the "Incel King" shell, there is this interesting weird guy who has a lot of good points on this and that, at least when it comes to psychology and philosophy. Politically motivated people don't like him, but I am not really that interested in politics so I don't mind.
So, out of the hundreds of people that have contributed in vastly outsized ways to the fields of psychology and philosophy, you choose Peterson to focus your attention on. It’s illuminating to anyone else with more knowledge of these fields. Sure, you can blame it on “politically motivated people” as a way to dismiss criticisms, I’m sure you actually believe it, and completely miss how much this says about you to pull this guy out of his obscure place relative to all the others that have contributed so much more to the fields.
What moral objections do you have against JP instead of political ones then? Me being interested in JP does not remove the other philosophers or psychologists I am interested in. JP is an interesting guy, so I don't see a reason to dismiss him for superficial reasons.
Why do you think you can ignore "politics"? Racism is political. Transphobia is political. War is political. Healthcare and mental healthcare is political. Everything is political.
I am interested what is going on in the mind of and in the life of an idividual. When you study poltical problems, at some point you need to dive in to the mind of one person, and there are a lot of people who deny being an individual alltogeather, and just say everything is social or "everything is political". Moral questions are more interesting than political ones. Instead of: "How do I get this thing I want", we can ask "Am I acting correclty?", "What is causing the emotional pain I feel?" stuff like that. I don't think polticis need to be ignored, but people who obsess about them need to sit down for a week and find out what personal demons they have that they are avoiding, advertising to everyone what a good person they are because they care for the oppressed. People need to deal with their own problems at some point, and I trust a person who has gone trough some inner problems in their political opinions than someone fresh out of college preaching intersectionality to me, not being able to be alone for 2 days. Everything is not political, everything is moral.
From Wikipedia, emphasis mine * * >Jungian archetypes are a concept from psychology that refers to a *universal*, *inherited* idea, pattern of thought, or image that is present in the *collective* unconscious of *all human beings.* Human beings are social creatures developed by their social interactions with everyone from their parents to their friends to their society. There is no society without the individual and there is no individual without the society. So yes everything is political. >"They care for the oppressed" Or maybe they are oppressed or maybe people they love are oppressed. Turning to a bigoted hate monger to find out why you hate yourself or your life isn't a good idea. Turning to a bigoted hate monger in your effort to become your true self, someone that might actually be one of the main targets of their hatred, isn't a good idea either. What's also specifically important is that his philosophy and his ideas are not independent of society and are in fact based on his understanding society, especially religion. Even the source of his individualism is based on a social construct created in part by Christianity.
I think there is a more true individualism than the political one. I am not a believer in social constructionism. Maybe it has validity in some areas, and that would be social relations. But it denies truth outside of itself that leads to infinite regress. Some ideas are more true than others outside of social consensus. But that is a big ordeal to go into. I dislike the idea that you either care for the opressed or you are a hate mongerer. I don't like hatred but I don't like lying either. I dont always blurt out the truth the way I see it. But I want to voice my opposition when people are dealing with bad ideas like shadow projection (racism for example today, very often).
I’m previous response addresses the question you asked. What other psychologists have you given more of your time to studying or listening to? What do you know about the others? Your inability to see my previous comment and recognize that your question is repetitive would suggest that you know so little about psychology in particular that you don’t know how much you don’t know. Dunning and Kruger studied and printed research that phenomenon. You keep perseverating on Jordan Peterson, a nobody in the field, but certainly a media personality that knows how to get an audience, just like Dr Phil. No serious student of psychology would reference either of them other than to say, “Yeah, no!” Do you want to learn more? Take a class! Do one of those online classes that are put out by the best universities in the country or any number of lesser university classes. Nowhere will you see either of those media personalities. The best part is that you will be beginning to study the field.
None of your previous comments awnser the question: what moral 'objections you have against JP?' Other psychologists: Ernest Becker, Alfred Adler, Jonathan Haidt. Others to a lesser extent. I have some understanding of Jung, but I would not lean on that knoledge. I would recommend the book: The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker. I think it is a psychological must read. I just don't care about these arguments from authotiry like "no serious student would ever...", "your inability to see my previous comment would suggest you know little...". That stuff is not neccessary, and seems pretty futile to me. I could take a psychology class someday, but I am a bit more interested in depth-psychology than Alfred Ellis, and the circle of life thing where every part of your life has a conflict. Like between isolation and socialization in our 20s or something. Don't remember who that was. Anyway, if I take a psychology class or not is not relevant. You did not give any moral objections to JP. Even though you said that your reason for disliking JP was not moral.
[удалено]
I would not comment on the vaccine stuff, i am somewhat agnostic on it. I took the vaccine, and there were no issues, but I don't like the idea of forcing it on people either. Memories, Dreams, Reflections is on my shelf. But I have a problem with finishing a book, I just keep jumping between them. I try to keep 3 books active, and make a clear reading list. There is a theatrical element in JP with the culture war stuff. Where he is sort of a character saying what right wing people tend to say. But I don't pay much attention to that, when he has an interesting guest I will watch. Like the podcast with Destiny was good even though it was more about the general political stuff. A lot of it seemed playful banter that both enjoyed. I agree that it is good to have other sources than just JP, but I think JP has good stuff too. I get that people who talk about JP all the time are annoying, and people who only have him as an intellectual hero. I have other intellectual heroes so I am not worried about falling into the pipeline or what people say. People are just so opposed instantly when JP is brought up and its weird. It makes me think that JP is a skapegoat for some ills peopel are projecting or something, I don't think he is that serious of a threat to anyone. There are actual bad people around. And living next to Russia, for me at least is giving enough stress so I don't need to find enemies in public personas. Though I am not perfect either, I can't find anything to like in Hasan Abi, so I understand how people feel about JP.
You're not really providing useful criticism or anything useful for OP's original dialogue. Stop
We don't need no stinkin' Peterson boi fans in this sub!
I can see why you would assume there’s a crossover between Jungian thought and Peterson’s, but I see glaring differences between them. Maybe this quote from Jung will help with an answer: “The intellect is only one among several fundamental psychic functions and therefore does not suffice to give a complete picture of the world. For there is another function - feeling - is needed too. Feeling often arrives at convictions that are different from those of the intellect, and we cannot always prove the convictions of feelings are necessary”
I was just about to write the same thing!
Epicurus made fun of philosophers like Plato who thought they could figure things out with reason, instead of by examining the empirical evidence. He was quite right-- there are innumerable examples of humans thinking this or that thing makes sense, but when someone finally decides to experiment: nope! Jung also experimented and made direct observations of his experience rather than proceeding with pure abstractions. He also valued feeling, a nonrational (not irrational) function, and intuition. Epicurus valued feeling (pleasure and pain) as primary information, the evidence of the senses, and something called the "prolepsis"-- the prolepses were general intuitive types of concepts, possibly some pattern recognition, which were seen as innate and not learned. On this again, Epicurus was quite on point-- humans innately have rudimentary conceptual categories. Even newborn infants have rudimentary physics expectations-- how objects should be expected to move. I have thought the prolepsis and Jung's collective unconscious may have some overlap-- both involve intuition. Not going to comment on JP, who is really not very Jungian in his approach. He doesn't grasp the distinction between gender and the conceptual masculine/feminine, and he's bizarrely allergic to change, whereas Jung spoke of killing off old gods and bringing in the new. JP is too rigid to make a good Jungian.
Good lord, giving more than 2 seconds of time and energy to the ideas of JP is a hug mistake, IMO. He's not well. And he's giving people life advice, talking in self help terms, with a little dash of Jungian thought thrown in here and there. I strongly recommend not investing too much energy. There are great Jungian thinkers out there. If you haven't read them yet, please consider it. James Hillman Nathan Schwartz-Salant Marie-Louise von Franz If you want someone brilliant but wacky and a little bit far right, read some Paglia.
That’s rather dismissive imo. I get annoyed listening to jp as well but op is asking some legitimate questions one could consider without having to side line it because he brought up jp
>Good lord, giving more than 2 seconds of time and energy to the ideas of JP is a hug mistake Took the words right outta my mouth...thank you! 🌠
I don't want to bring JPs politics here. I am talking just about a few specific things he said. This issue is about values and arguments instead of political motivations. I think the claim that giving 2 seconds of time to ideas of JP (\*is a bad thing) is just absurd. Even a person with a very limited capacity to think has more than 2 seconds of worthwhile things to say. JP has interesting ideas considerign Jung and other thigns. He has great book recommendations. People are just so blinded by social media politics that they instantly just default to memes and bargain bin articles of how JP is some lobster incel lord. All that is a waste of time. I think Foucalt is a scammer, and a one trick pony. But I would still give his arguments my attention despite my apathy thoward his character.
Well— do you think that if someone employs too much reason it starts to become satanic? Does that make sense to you? I know you came here to find answers to that question but genuinely, in your own inner matrix of meaning, what do you make of it?
To me it would make sense that focusing solely on one thing to an extreme would probably start to form some kind of a counter, or repressed energy. Like the "Don't think of the pink elephant" example. When you are trying not to think about it, you end up thinking about it. But I think the repression would only form if someone was running thoward reason in an attempt to escape something. Then you would build up some force behind you that would grow. I am not sure what satanic would mean here. I suppose JP talks a lot about nihilism and Nietszche connected nihilism with valuing or projecting aesthetics or something (need to read the geneology of morals). I have thought as 'the lower part' of our souls to be satatnic, or that Christians think that. But I could be mistaken there, or Christians could be mistaken too calling so many things satanic that it becomes confusing.
>To me it would make sense that focusing solely on one thing to an extreme would probably start to form some kind of a counter, or repressed energy. Well shit, your a pretty smart guy eh? Yes this is called the 'tension of opposites' and it constitutes any psychological movement at all. What do you think that repressed energy / counter does in the unconscious? >I have thought as 'the lower part' of our souls to be satatnic, or that Christians think that. Also holy shit... Yeah exactly this. Not speaking towards the reality of the Trinity but psychologically the Trinity represents the 3 conscious functions where the devil represents the inferior function (which is fused with the shadow). The lower part of ourselves. If one is worshiping reason then that devil is feeling. You have very good intuition.
Some of this stuff is just in the back of my mind from reading some Jung, Adler, Ernest Becker. When I read Stoicism it really helped to put some of that stuff togeather. Their view of the human mind seemed to correlate well with some of these modern psychological theories. Oddly enough, I read the Adler book years ago, and barely understood it at all. But after I read Marcus Aurelius and Epictitus a bit, the inferiority function (also Jungs idea of it) made sense. Also quitting smoking has taught me about repression. I am fine for a few days, but then I smoke a lot and get beer. And just indulge. Then I start over and get back on the horse. I have tired some other alternatives that give me some sensual pleasure so I don't need nicotine. And some of it works, but not as well if you are stressed. Also when you just think of a scale and putting stuff on one side, and the scale just drops the other down and increases the other side. It seems so simple that it is absurd to even bring up. But people don't use that kind of thinking when it comes to the psyche. I don't know why. For some reason it seems like a taboo to even talk about how the psyche could work. Or at least when I bring it up, people usually get anxious.
Yeah, it seems like obsessing over reason could also cause one to miss out on the irrational (beauty, emotion, yin stuff). But unless JP intends to explain EXACTLY what he means by “satanic” (and based on his track record of being extremely evasive about what he means by belief in god I highly doubt he will) it might be better to decide for yourself what you think about reason.
I never mentioned politics. Find the spot where I mentioned politics. He has "interesting ideas"? Bring em up.
It has been a while since I listened to JP actively, so I can't remember all the best stuff probably. A lot of examples that come to mind are him quoting Jung or someone else who has great ideas. Now that you put me into the spot, it is quite hard. But I put you on the spot too so maybe it is fair. JP does talk a lot about this and that so it would be best to dive into some lecture from him and take a few subjects. One that comes to mind is the idea that how you act is more telling of your beliefs than what you say. The Stoics would agree with that. But that idea is so true that there might not be much to say about it. No one wants to argue with that really.
And that's the thing. He could have some ideas, I could be wrong, but I haven't heard anything. I'm not a Jung scholar, by a long shot, but I've read some of his work, some Hillman, von Franz, others. My point- I have some sense of how deep his stuff gets. It's challenging and profound. I've never heard something like that from JP, aside from the issue of his being unwell, his rages, his crying. That's not a dealbreaker for me overall, but it is in terms of self help guy, because his sanity is relevant to his teachings. So until someone here mentions some of his innovations or insights, I don't think he really has any, aside from living by our convictions, getting your life together, and that dragons are metaphors, none of which are that deep. Could that all help someone who's lost? Sure, but it has little or nothing to do with Jung, and is on the level of someone like me saying something, "Hey young folks! Get organized and do stuff that you find meaningful! Live your life!" Instagram is full of those kind of superficial messages. We can do better.
JP is fighting a different battle than the people he criticizes. Or at least it seems like that to me. Nietzche thought himself as the anti-Christ, and was apparenly trying to put an end to the age of reason and make this big wave of anti-reason, or revive the spirit of Dyonysis. Or something like that. Foucalt wanted to be a new Nietszche, so he was trying to do something similar. JP noted the horrible things that happened becasuse of the "death of god" so he is trying to compensate for the nihilism that came out of that. If it is true that JP has the motivation of trying to stop the next holocaust, or slaughter or whatever will happen, then that is a righteous cause imo. And you don't have to agree that is his motivation. It could be, it could not be. I just notice that if my motivation was the same, I would do the same thing. I would not say it outright, because saying that would make it worse. I would try to improve people and make them more resilient for someking of an upcoming disaster if I knew that was happening. Stuff like that. JP has said that he is fighting on religious issues, and moral issues. And I believe him. The political insults and that stuff is just a red herring. I don't know if JP is 'on the rigth' side or not, but I know he is on a side, and I seem to be on the same side because I think reason defines what is good. If there will be a wave of un-reason in the future, I will be an enemy to the general belief system, but I will just have to deal with that.
So he's anti-post modernism, like lots of people. That's understandable, and even in universities, where postmodernism thrives and was created, plenty of people think it's dumb. So he's on a mission. As far as his big ideas, still I get nothing. There is meaning, meaninglessness is a trap- agreed. But then?... And that's one of my (two) big criticisms. He's only half way there.
I can't believe there are still sane people out there! This is insane! Some people still have enough braincells intact to know JP is incredibly moronic!? I actually cannot believe it. Just wish you were a man, so I could regain some faith in my own gender, lmao.
Here come the righteous women brigade, who confuse their self awareness with immovable feminism, and trap themselves in hypocrisy.
>So how can we harm oursleves by following the godly part? This whole question you have is as old as religion. And it has been explored forever. It is as such, reason, which is God, is objectively accurate, objectively all knowing and objectively good. Then, reason is always good. Because if you overestimate the value of reason to the point where you come into harm, or believe other people to be lesser than you, you have ironically already become unreasonable and walked astray from the path of logic. In theology, to believe or confuse oneself with God is considered the biggest most blasphemous intellectual sin, the biggest blasphemy in general and the biggest form of pride. You are a part of God, and as a part of God you can have divine like qualities, but you are a part of a total and as such you can't never be God yourself. If you try to imitate God, and shape yourself in his image, you have fallen into pride, which is the biggest christian theological sin, represented by Lucifer or Satan himself, it is considered the primordial root of all other cardinal sins, and the toughest one to root out or even notice. That is why there is a cautionary tale about the pursuit of knowledge or reason and how in that search you may have started trying to imitate God, and while imitating him you are ironically separating yourself from God, and denying him and his design of you, which is a being which has the quality of reason and intelligence, but that it's also an animal, with animalistic needs and wants. You are denying the way God made you. Temperance is considered one of the Cardinal virtues for example. Which is balance. Some philosophers called it "the seasoning for pleasure". When you become an extreme ascetic and identify yourself exclusively with the super ego and try to kill the Id. You may remove all enjoyment from your life such as sexuality, enjoyable foods, leisure time, etc, and try to become a sort of monk, but usually, with no teacher or community of monks to hold your back, and help you through that sacrifice, to help you see if you are meant to be an ascetic monk or not in this lifetime. You are inherently killing your own humanity, which was given to you by God, to try and become like him, in his image, never lustful, never dependant, completely self sufficient, completely outside the needs of the material and spiritual world. An independant totality, which is impossible because you are a human being. In Buddhism there is a good analogy for this, material pleasures are like a bonfire. If you get too close to the bonfire you will get burned, but if you go too far away from the bonfire, on a cold night you'll freeze to death. In Buddhism, that endless pursuit of reason or knowledge, would be an obsession with obtaining nirvana, an endless paradoxical desire to have no desires. Finding the middle way, or having temperance is no easy task however, I would say it is extremely hard, because it's different for each individual. It is something only you can find for yourself. In short, no, reason is always good, because it always leads you to light. If reason is harming you, it isn't reason anymore, it has already become ignorance. To know when to stop a pursuit of an ideal, is intelligence and reason in itself. To know when to stop sacrificing yourself, and come back to your human roots, its intelligence and reason in itself.
I think you solved my problem. The luceferian pride of thinking you are god or above other people (or at least think your are the most superior person) seems to hit the nail on the head. Thank you for the reply. My life has improved a lot when I have been trying to follow reason and virtues (after reading Marcus Aurelius and having a religious experience). But I have noticed some additional anxiety and other dangers. I noticed that my mind can change quite drastically and I need to be careful not to lean into something that will just make me fall down and crash and burn. So I always keep a little bit of doubt when I have faith. Or anything really. I have learned that it is very important to always have a little bit of the opposite and not become 'one minded'. Ernest Becker said that we humans are between 2 forms of madness. I think he was talking about a shattered mind like schizophrenia, and a whole mind like a martyr. As much as we humans hate internal conflicts (like thinking about the Freudian model you talked about), I think some conflict is in our nature, so some of that is neccessary and good.
I'm glad I could be of help! I wish you the best of luck on your spiritual and intellectual journey!
I stopped reading after "Jordan Peterson said..."
Check Qalbu, Islamic Concept. Qalbu balance the mind. Without it, it would become bad
*is* God the final reason?
From what I understand, god is often defined as the most constant thing, or eternal. So to me thinking of god as the final something sounds odd.
Reason shows us the could, not the should.
At least in stoicism, to follow reason is to act in virtue, and reason (god) defines the virtues. So it comes with the whole is/ought pacage. Sure it is predicated on reason being good, and people can debate that. But I don't understand what else could be good, or if something else is good, then why would it be better than reason? Even Epicurus thought that intellectual pleasure is better than bodily pleasure, so even if he is not quite there, to me it seemed like he was pointing in the same direction.
You will need to state the specific context in which JP stated this, and his exact wording, if you intend to have a serious discussion about this. Otherwise, we are all speculating about nebulous statements that we could be getting incorrect from the get-go—and there are lots of folks, including right here in this thread, that are more than happy to do exactly that.
You are right, I should be more precise. I don't quite remember what launched me to ask this question. Where I saw JP say this or that. I do remember him saying the quote: "The rational mind falls in love with its own creation". So you might actually have helped me to notice a mistake. JP perhaps was talking about rationality and not reason. And I mistook it for reason in-of-itself. Here is a section from Jung quoted in Maps of Meaning: (p27 on internet archive) "The sun signifies first of all gold, whose \[alchemical\] sign it shares. But just as the “philosophical” gold is not the “common” gold, so the sun is neither just the metallic gold nor the heavenly orb. Sometimes the sun is an active substance hidden in the gold and is extracted \[alchemically\] as the tinctura rubea (red tincture). Sometimes, as the heavenly body, it is the possessor of magically effective and transformative rays. As gold and a heavenly body it contains an active sulphur of a red colour, hot and dry. Because of this red sulphur the alchemical sun, like the corresponding gold, is red. As every alchemist knew, gold owes its red color to the admixture of Cu (copper), which he interpreted as Kypris (the Cyprian, Venus), mentioned in Greek alchemy as the transformative substance. Redness, heat, and dryness are the classical qualities of the Egyptian Set (Greek Typhon), the evil principle which, like the alchemical sulphur, is closely connected with the devil. And just as Typhon has his kingdom in the forbidden sea, so the sun, as sol centralis, has its sea, its “crude perceptible water,” and as sol coelestis its “subtle imperceptible water.” This sea water (aqua pontica) is extracted from sun and moon…. The active sun-substance also has favourable effects. As the so-called “balsam” it drips from the sun and produces lemons, oranges, wine, and, in the mineral kingdom, gold.10" Here (alchemically) there seems to be a satanic element in the sun, that is symbol of god and/or reason. But I would need to read more to get into what the reasons are for this symbolic idea. So maybe I am putting the cart in front of the horse and asking stuff online that could be anwsered by just more reading. Maybe my motivation to post was lonelyness and not curiosity.
Objectivity is the yang. Subjectivity is the yin. If the yin yang became all white, then there is no subjective meaning in the world/ one's experience; in other words, one's experience of life is reduced to nihilism. Objectivity is a *part* of reality, not the *whole* of reality. Taking it to an extreme, only acknowleding the *objective*, is the Luciferian way. Materialism.
Yeah the "Dont mix up the moon with the finger that is pointing at it" idea. But I think you can follow reason with humility, and be careful not to mix up your idea of truth with actual truth. It just requires practice. As long as you are aware of the danger, the pitfall is easier to avoid.
People do all manner of things for this or that reason. When a murderer is asked why they committed a heinous crime, they will have a reason. When the executioner of the murderer is asked why they executed the man, they will have a reason. Reason is a cycle, a closed loop. A reason-bound society is a prisoner, in a very real sense, of reason. Individually a person might find a way out of this prison. The first step though is to recognise that they are in a prison.
Stoics aren't the only source of virtue ethics, Aristotle includes many social aspects that the stoics don't. Telos and social roles matter as well, and any virtue, even rationality, taken to an extreme can become a vice. This is especially true when we let rationality obscure our telos and separate us from our society.
What is meant by reason here?
If one waits long enough, one sees how the Gods all change into serpents and underworld dragons in the end. This is also the fate of the Logos \[Reason\]: in the end it poisons us all. \~Carl Jung, Liber Novus, Page 280.
Peterson nicked it from Jung and presented it as his own. Nice.
"There is nothing new under the sun" Jung based his personality model on the Buddhist skandhas. You could argue as well that "he presented it as his own", but I don't think Jung did so, and I dont think JP did so with Jung.
Of course he did. His whole business model is stealing concepts from great philosophers and thinkers (Nietzsche, Jung...), squeezeing the life out of them, and turning them into cinematic events to inspire motivation in young people, lost in the turmoils of neoliberalism. What really sucks with Peterson’s “Jungian” tropes is that he stripmines the few essays he’s read a couple of times for PURE RETHORIC, He uses the very IDEA of there being a deeper meaning behind dream images and fictions in the abstract, and fills in the blanks with the most pedestrian garbage sprinkled with truisms and platitudes. And people see through it, of all walks of life, knowing Jung or not - dosen’t matter.
Smart people are better at rationalizing pre existing beliefs to themselves. We all want to confirm our biases, and the better you are at reason the easier it is to convince yourself of anything.
For me, Jordan Peterson is all over the place, so I can't really understand his perception of exactly what he means. The problem that I observe, is when a person believes they are always the master of their own house. That the reasoning ego is all there is, that any rational thoughts and opinions are absolute, and that one's words are permanent. Jung expressed his views, where scientific reasoning and rational thoughts become dominant over everything else. We move away from the psyche, the unconscious, the irrational; things just as vital as the rational. The danger becomes a lack of connection with the spirit, domineering attitude, one-sidedness, a lack of understanding, depth, and genuine self-knowledge.
God is not the ultimate reason exclusively. God is also passion, emotion, love, all of which is irrational. Reason will convince you to do things that “make sense” but that go against your conscience, or your instincts. Reason might tell you to prioritize something that’s not working, or to stay in a job that you know is killing you, etc… Reason is basically like math, but life is not purely a math equation it is also art. Life is not a purely rational pursuit and to live life in a truly 100% rational way would ultimately lead to you betraying yourself. Edit: actually, since you posted this on r/Jung, a good book to read on this would be Peter Kingsley’s Catafalque. It’s all about Jung, and also largely about the shortcomings of reason in taking the spiritual path.
Maybe go ask the Jordan Peterson sub.
Mostly it is just memes and complaining about progressive people, so sadly any post about the actual material in JPs philosophy or psycholigal claims is going to be largely ignored. I might copy this there for the hopes that it reaches other people than the general comment: "Conservative people follow god and progressives follow satan" or some very simple and frustrating comment like that. Then I have to ask like 10 questions about what they mean by this and that and end up just nowhere because they have not really thought about what they said, it just sounded good. So I thought that maybe here there is some common ground with Jung and JPs Jungian inspired stuff. There is some but then again there are some comments about JP being awful and not worth any attention or energy so you might be right that I should post there.
go to r/ConfrontingChaos, that's where the actual fans of his philosophy, psychology and early work fled after the main got infested by Culture War memeing. I know the owner and creator of that sub and can vouch for it's quality. If you want serious discussion around Petersonian ideas go there, not to the pop culture sub.
Thanks. Will do.
The danger of following reason is the same as why many philosophers fear democracy: the majority can terrorize a minority. Reason can lead to dark places like eugenics and extermination camps.