/lit/ - Literature

>>22367159
I hope you did the background reading, anon ...

>>22361519
>Religion, morality and God all are illusions
Nope. They're innate psychic structures.
Humans are social animals, and equipped with the archetypes that actuate social, moral and religious instincts.

>>22350682
>he thinks fantasies aren't highly revealing of the truth

>>22334319
>He spoke of yea-saying and lived the nay. His loathing of man, for the animal living by instinct, was too great.
>Hence his life does not convince us of his teaching. The 'higher' man would fain be able to sleep without chloral, be able to live in Nuremberg and Basel despite 'fogs and shadows.' He would desire wife and offspring, standing and reputation among his own group, innumerable commonplace realities and not least, those of the philistine. This side of instinct Nietzsche did not see - the animal urge to Life.

>>22232932
He thought he was special. The unconscious has a habit of deflating one's pretensions.

>>22136703
Daily reminder that humans have always ascribed to magic anything they don't understand.
If you actually do want to understand, read pic related.
Also, nice painting. Was there anything he couldn't do?

>>22043404
Classic individuation crisis. His intellectualism had given rise to an unbalanced, overspecialised personality. Neurosis was inevitable.

Bros, I have struck gold. Shortly before his death, Based Jung did this interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper and dropped redpill. This is from issue published on September 10, 1961, page 45. Some quotes:

>I have never said so much to anyone in any interview before. Probably I shall find myself in trouble--especially with women--for some of the things I am now telling you. Women are so much tougher than men underneath. To call women the weaker sex is sheer nonsense. Beware those angel-faced types who always appear weak and helpless. They are the toughest of all.

>Talkative women should not be taken at their face value, either. Women who talk most, think least. To me, a particularly beautiful woman is a source of terror. As a rule, a beautiful woman is a terrible disappointment. Beautiful bodies and beautiful personalities rarely ever go together.

>Women will call me cynical and dislike me for being so frank, but it is women's instinct to capture and hold one man. A woman's best prey is the man that no other woman has been able to catch. To catch a man that any woman could have caught--that makes the prize relatively valueless.

>It is man's instinct to get as many women as possible. Man tries not to be caught, at least for as long as he can readily elude his pursuer. That is the instinct of the fast-running animal: escape.

>I know this sounds like the convenient philosophy of the selfish male, but a man's FOREMOST interest should be his work, whereas for a woman--man is her work and her business. Marriage means a home, and a home is like a nest--not big enough for both birds at once. Once sits inside; the other perches the edge and looks about and attends to all outside business.

>A woman is only at her best when she loves a man. Personal relationship is her basic need and when that falters she grows dissatisfied and argumentative in a way that often leads to divorce. But this definitely doesn't mean that men and women should remain placid. On the contrary, some tension must prevail in their daily lives, for otherwise there cannot be the ideal relationship in sex--and sexual happiness is a 'must' in marriage.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19610910&id=nc1RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GWwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4562,2518204

>>21314423
>"The next traumatic event occurred in 1910, the year of the Second Congress of the Association of Psycho-Analysis, where Freud proposed, and even insisted against organized opposition, that Jung should be appointed Permanent President. 'My dear Jung,' he urged on this occasion, as Jung tells, 'promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.' He said this with great emotion, in the tone (states Jung) of a father saying, 'And promise me this one thing, my dear son: that you will go to church every Sunday.' In some astonishment Jung asked him, 'A bulwark—against what?' To which he replied, 'Against the black tide of mud'—and here he hesitated for a moment, then added—'of occultism.'"

>[Jung later recalls:] "This was the thing that struck at the heart of our friendship. I knew that I would never be able to accept such an attitude. What Freud seemed to mean by 'occultism' was virtually everything that philosophy and religion, including the rising contemporary science of para-psychology, had learned about the psyche. To me the sexual theory was just as occult, that is to say, just as unproven a hypothesis, as many other speculative views. As I saw it, a scientific truth was a hypothesis that might be adequate for the moment but was not to be preserved as an article of faith for all time."

>>21248749
Sounds like you're ready to take the Jungpill, anon.
Gods are psychological archetypes, existing in all human minds. Hence the essential similarities of all religions.

>>20996008
Religion is a means of communing with the unconscious archetypes. It is psychologically healthy. What's suicidal is cutting yourself off from them.

>>20927633
The unassuagable influence of the unconscious.
Nietsche is unconvincing for the same reasons as Peterson: they're both neurotics, and are plainly doing something wrong.

>>19309399
The eating of apple symbolizes the transition from the instinctual life of primitives to the rational and conscious life of man.

>This phenomenon, which results from the extension of consciousness, is in no sense specific to analytical treatment. It occurs whenever people are overpowered by knowledge or by some new realization. "Knowledge puffeth up," Paul writes to the Corinthians, for the new knowledge had turned the heads of many, as indeed constantly happens. The inflation has nothing to do with the kind of knowledge, but simply and solely with the fact that any new knowledge can so seize hold of a weak head that he no longer sees and hears anything else. He is hypnotized by it, and instantly believes he has solved the riddle of the universe. But that is equivalent to almighty self-conceit. This process is such a general reaction that, in Genesis 2:17, eating of the tree of knowledge is represented as a deadly sin.

>It may not be immediately apparent why greater consciousness followed by self-conceit should be such a dangerous thing. Genesis represents the act of becoming conscious as a taboo infringement, as though knowledge meant that a sacrosanct barrier had been impiously overstepped. I think that Genesis is right in so far as every step towards greater consciousness is a kind of Promethean guilt: through knowledge, the gods are as it were robbed of their fire, that is, something that was the property of the unconscious powers is torn out of its natural context and subordinated to the whims of the conscious mind.

>The man who has usurped the new knowledge suffers, however, a transformation or enlargement of consciousness, which no longer resembles that of his fellow men. He has raised himself above the human level of his age ("ye shall become like unto God"), but in so doing has alienated himself from humanity. The pain of this loneliness is the vengeance of the gods, for never can he return to mankind. He is, as the myth says, chained to the lonely cliffs of the Caucasus, forsaken of God and man.

Daily reminder that if you don't know what individuation is, you have no business reading Steppenwolf. Just admit you don't understand it, and move on.

>>18814391
>Maturing means individuation
Get on his level.

>>18742202
They are if you look at the right places.

>>18559970
Basiert and rotgepillt

>>18460131
>Give me the best psychology books, some stuff that will blow my mind. I want some life changing stuff
This unironically describes every work of Jung. Start with "Two Essays".

>inb4 guenonfag and evolafag seething

>>18164762
Basiert

>>18110569
>I have read a few books by Rudolf Steiner and must confess that I have found nothing in them that is of the slightest use to me. You must understand that I am a researcher and not a prophet. What matters to me is what can be verified by experience. But I am not interested at all in what can be speculated about without any proof. All the ideas that Steiner advances in his books you can also read in the Indian sources.

>Anything I cannot demonstrate in the realm of human experience I let alone and if someone should assert that he knows more about it I ask him to furnish me with the necessary proofs. I have read a few books on anthroposophy and a fair number on theosophy. I have also got to know very many anthroposophists and theosophists and have always discovered to my regret that these people imagine all sorts of things and assert all sorts of things for. Which they are quite incapable of offering any proof.

>I have no prejudices against the greatest marvels if someone gives me the necessary proofs, Nor shall I hesitate to stand up for the truth If I know it can be proved. But I shall guard against adding to the number of those who use unproven assertions to erect a world system no stone of which rests on the surface of this earth. So long as Steiner is or was not able to understand the Hittite inscriptions yet understood the language of Atlantis which nobody knows existed, there is no reason to get excited about anything that Herr Steiner has said.

>Yours very truly,
>C.G. Jung

>In women, on the other hand, Eros is an expression of their true nature, while their Logos is often only a regrettable accident. It gives rise to misunderstandings and annoying interpretations in the family circle and among friends. This is because it consists of opinions instead of reflections, and by opinions I mean a priori assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth. Such assumptions, as everyone knows, can be extremely irritating. As the animus is partial to argument, he can best be seen at work in disputes where both parties know they are right. Men can argue in a very womanish way, too, when they are anima-possessed and have thus been transformed into the animus of their own anima. With them the question becomes one of personal vanity and touchiness (as if they were females); with women it is a question of power, whether of truth or justice or some other "ism"—for the dressmaker and hairdresser have already taken care of their vanity. The "Father" (i.e., the sum of conventional opinions) always plays a great role in female argumentation. No matter how friendly and obliging a woman's Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she is ridden by the animus. Often the man has the feeling—and he is not altogether wrong—that only seduction or a beating or rape would have the necessary power of persuasion.

>Anyone who still had enough sense of humour to listen objectively to the ensuing dialogue would be staggered by the vast number of commonplaces, misapplied truisms, cliches from newspapers and novels, shop-soiled platitudes of every description interspersed with vulgar abuse and brain-splitting lack of logic. It is a dialogue which, irrespective of its participants, is repeated millions and millions of times in all the languages of the world and always remains essentially the same.

>>17746470
In a manner of speaking, yes.

>We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.
What did he mean by this?