160 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
>look guys, postmodern philosophy was useful in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Establishment was still mildly conservative and we had no rational way to defend the Soviet Union without looking like assholes, but now the Establishment is entirely progressive and we don't have a state founded upon our ideology clearly collapsing to embarass us anymore, and our enemies are using the philosophy we created to deny reality to deny OUR reality, so it's time to throw all those Adorno, Foucault and Baudrillard books in the trash and go back to Enlightened positivist triumphalism
When will you realize that the left is not consistent in anything other than the intelligentsia's pursuit for absolute power.
44 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Wrote out this long post about Jung and the >current year for the Peterson thread but it got deleted or something and I'm not gonna waste it cuz it took more than five minutes to write so here it is. Also just /jung/ general
If it was deleted then fuck off mods this is /lit/erature I'm talking about currents of ideas which will influence primarily the arts, not politics.
This post is directed at anons who are criticizing the idea that Jungian concepts are beginning to define our zeitgeist in the same way Freudian concepts percolated through the twentieth century. There are too many of you to reply individually, so apologies for not replying directly.
Replying to this anon because hopefully my response can shed some light on his question too.
I’m also far from an expert; I’m just shitposting so don’t take what I say too seriously.
I'm not claiming anything like that Jung's ideas as expressed in his work are scientifically accurate. They're not, but neither were Freud's. Yet Freud's account of anxiety and sexuality still defined the art and culture of the twentieth century, especially after 1918.
This should at least open you up to the possibility of a Jungian revival in the wider culture. Jungians have never seen the success of Freudians, or any other school of thought for that matter. They've been the black sheep of intellectual discourse for a long time, partly due to their optimism, which does not go well with post-war nihilism, and partly due the volkish connotations of discussing mythology seriously, again following the war. As the trauma of these events fades, we are becoming open again to these ideas (which are not inherently fascist in any way whatsoever by the way, contrary to what academic "marxists" will try to claim for the sake of keeping their job).
We’ve become disillusioned with disillusionment. This is the problem which has been floating in the air since the early 90s at least; there has been a general sense that the toppling of all the pillars which sustained the temples of our culture provided only a momentary catharsis, and not the emancipation we were promised. But as to the solution to this sense of having snapped out of the postmodern trance is by no means clear, and this has been the main problem of the last twenty years, with thinkers proposing different solutions, all of which seemed to lead us back into the postmodern mindset, or into modernism, or into romanticism, or into some queasy mix of all three. Rightfully, these movements were rejected (I’m talking about new sincerity, metamodernism--that whole gang).