by ibarakishi » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:45 pm
it is interesting you brought up Jung, because he is somebody that i think has a habit of falling into this sort of 'broad strokes' category as well, and was actually the first person i thought of when encountering him for the first time. The simplest way i can think of condensing everything i could write about this is that much like jung, in trying to be all encompassing and universal, he fails to look at or resolve the specific. And if any value at all is placed in that, then this is a problem. When looking at broad sets of ideas or like you said data, it seems to at least function somewhat. Like you already said, and i agree with, his ideas are not really new, but the application of older ideas to more modern situations is interesting like i said above. Nearly every psychology professor i ever talked to hated Jung and criticised him for bringing nothing new or of real weight to the table. But i think in having that perspective, it kind of oversimplifies what he was able to bridge and also reevaluate, though what he concluded with in the end was by no means perfect (and he continued to try to resolve those issues to the best of his ability until his death). It was only my philosophy teachers that were able to admit this strangely and see the value in it. I feel similar about Peterson. I understand his intent, see his argument, but i can't buy it at full value. Maybe part of that too is that i think that in by allowing such dismissiveness, i don't see things getting better, at least on a long term scale. I think that people that just stare at the surface of his work and take it for that face value are usually from my experience are the exact group of people that are feeding the social distress that you mentioned earlier as well. You can see very clearly i think how people, especially in Europe and north America, have immediately recognised this dismissive quality of his work in general and have used it to champion their own generally backwards world views, and thus try to suppress lots of specific groups of marginalised groups or ideas, which i think in general has to be pretty sad for him to watch as a whole (maybe?) because he is in many ways trying to fight against that in many of his opening mission statements. IMO this is why he is so famous now honestly, not because of the full merit of his work. Things might look great or feel great when sitting in the armchair, but when you apply those ideas and sentiments to the outside world and let that same world run with them however it wishes, this is another narrative all together. And i feel he is not at all aware of this, or aware of what some of the broader consequences are for some of his views, especially outside of places like north america and europe.
these are just my thoughts. i am not and never will be an expert in any of these fields. i am not a professor. i haven't dedicated my life's time to these areas of thought and have never had a conversation in person with him to allow him the chance to clarify further his thoughts and feelings. i don't want to come across like i am an expert or that i am necessarily right. these are just things i have thought about.
good deals/trades/business with: JonnyAngle, rdw102, crochambeau, worra, $harkToootth, Olin, fuzzonaut, friendship, ianmarks, digi2t