Personality Cafe banner
21 - 24 of 24 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
I don't think its possible to add much to Jung stuff without strongly wallowing in subjectivity. He did the best he could to remain objective in his thinking, its something that is mostly missing in the modern age as most science work attempts to coerce objective data with a strong bias around the subject instead of the other way round.

Trying to use Neuroscience biasing around objective, testing Jung's principles with as little subjectivity as possible is the challenge. Dario Nardi is merely speculating more so with his data, he's work is more inline with Sigmund Freud's earlier wild theories in the beginning.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
I don't think its possible to add much to Jung stuff without strongly wallowing in subjectivity. He did the best he could to remain objective in his thinking, its something that is mostly missing in the modern age as most science work attempts to coerce objective data with a strong bias around the subject instead of the other way round.
Another day, another ass-backwards post from Boolean11.

Jung actually bemoaned the fact that modern Western culture was, in his view, too one-sided in the direction of extraversion/objectivity at the expense of introversion/subjectivity, and he viewed himself as a theorist attempting to balance things out by bringing some of the missing subjectivity back. In Psychological Types, he wrote:

Jung said:
[H]ow much of the actual psychology of man can be experienced and observed as quantitatively measurable facts? Such facts do exist, and I believe I have shown in my [word-]assocation studies that extremely complicated psychological facts are accessible to quantitative measurement. But anyone who has probed more deeply into the nature of psychology, demanding something more of it as a science than that it should confine itself within the narrow limits of the scientific method, will also have realized that an experimental method will never succeed in doing justice to the nature of the human psyche, nor will it ever project anything like a true picture of the more complex psychic phenomena. ...

[O]ne has only to take the concept "feeling," for instance, and try to visualize everything this concept comprises, to get some sort of notion of the variability and ambiguity of psychological concepts in general. And yet the concept of feeling does express something characteristic that, though not susceptible of quantitative measurement, nevertheless palpably exists. One simply cannot resign oneself, as Wundt does, ... to a mere denial of such essential and fundamental phenomena, and seek to replace them by elementary facts or to resolve them into such. In this way an essential part of psychology is thrown overboard.
Seven years later, he explained:

Jung said:
All the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes. This is particularly true of religious ideas, but the central concepts of science, philosophy, and ethics are no exception to this rule. In their present form they are variants of archetypal ideas, created by consciously applying and adapting these ideas to reality. For it is the function of consciousness not only to recognize and assimilate the external world through the gateway of the senses, but to translate into visible reality the world within us.
Jung viewed himself (at the time he wrote Psychological Types at any rate) as a Ti-dom working in a scientific world that was dominated by Te-doms, and here's some of what he had to say about a Ti-dom's relation to (subjective) theory and (objective) facts:

Jung said:
External facts are not the aim and origin of [introverted] thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. It begins with the subject and leads back to the subject, far though it may range into the realm of actual reality. With regard to the establishment of new facts it is only indirectly of value, since new views rather than knowledge of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate. Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake. If ever this happens, it is merely a concession to the extraverted style. Facts are of secondary importance for this kind of thinking; what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind's eye. ...

But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical accumulation of facts paralyzes thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play. ...

This kind of thinking easily gets lost in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for their own sake, apparently with an eye to real or at least possible facts, but always with a distinct tendency to slip over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly, visions of numerous possibilities appear on the scene, but none of them ever becomes a reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being mere symbols of the ineffable and unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as thinking that remains bound to objective data.
So Jung's perspective was that the best science (and psychology in particular) would reflect a proper balance between an objective emphasis and a subjective emphasis. But, again, he viewed 20th-century Western science as skewed too far in the objective direction, and viewed his own work as reflecting a temperamental subjective bias whose influence was sorely needed (but, alas, not properly appreciated) at the time he was writing.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Another day, another ass-backwards post from Boolean11.

Jung actually bemoaned the fact that modern Western culture was, in his view, too one-sided in the direction of extraversion/objectivity at the expense of introversion/subjectivity, and he viewed himself as a theorist attempting to balance things out by bringing some of the missing subjectivity back. In Psychological Types, he wrote:



Seven years later, he explained:



Jung viewed himself (at the time he wrote Psychological Types at any rate) as a Ti-dom working in a scientific world that was dominated by Te-doms, and here's some of what he had to say about a Ti-dom's relation to (subjective) theory and (objective) facts:



So Jung's perspective was that the best science (and psychology in particular) would reflect a proper balance between an objective emphasis and a subjective emphasis. But, again, he viewed 20th-century Western science as skewed too far in the objective direction, and viewed his own work as reflecting a temperamental subjective bias whose influence was sorely needed (but, alas, not properly appreciated) at the time he was writing.
Again you've got your own subjectively sanctioned facts for the N'th time, yet you refuse to acknowledge so. Subjective interpretation is something we can't escape from and something you are doing. Of course in your world view that all makes sense.

Perception is very irrational you should take note of that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
18,630 Posts
Again you've got your own subjectively sanctioned facts for the N'th time, yet you refuse to acknowledge so. Subjective interpretation is something we can't escape from and something you are doing. Of course in your world view that all makes sense.

Perception is very irrational you should take note of that.
How the hell are they subjectively sanctioned when he's specifically quoting what Jung has written? He's clearly not re-interpreting Jung in favor for his own worlview and understanding of Jung. Instead he copies what Jung has written in black and white. If you have issues because it does not fit your subjective view of what Jung thought, it's clearly not @reckful's problem, but yours. I wonder when you are going to realize your own subjectivity in writing and that you are not as objective as you think you are. Ti's gonna Ti.
 
21 - 24 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top