Intelligence and Jung

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2019
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 8th, 2018, 3:04 pm

Not this.The projection would be some kind of archetypal presence in experience, something that without notice rises to the surface that deals with a situation as an expression of a part of the true, whole self which has great depth and meaning that is generally unregarded, at least explicitly. Simpliciter because, I think, when you consciously go after these experiences of inwardness, as say a Buddhist would, it is possible to have awareness, call it archetypal awareness (keeping in mind that these are metaphysical terms, that is, an archetype AS a structure of the deeper psyche cannot be witnessed, though one can engage in what "it" does, which is the point) of the affect itself rather than embedded in a dream or some symbolic context. Jung was no mystic, but he DID take mysticism and the palpable experiences of inwardness very seriously.

I don't think your knowledge about the heating pad was your psyche connecting in some occult way to your deceased wife, but I am certainly NOT dismissive of such things either, given that all of our interpretations of the world are bound the language we use to think about them, but the "world" is not bound to this at all (Not a Heideggerian on this point). I am with Jung in that I am very sure that the events in our lives are not delimited to logic and language of regular affairs. This world interpretatively encompassed and defined by empirical science is NOT stand alone. Such an idea is absurd.

Haicoway
Posts: 64
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 8th, 2018, 3:38 pm

More later, but I wasn't suggesting an occult connection, but simply that I had seen the heating pad before, but didn't consciously remember having seen it. My subconscious knew it was there and that's what my prayer activated.

Haicoway
Posts: 64
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 9th, 2018, 2:25 pm

"This world interpretatively encompassed and defined by empirical science is NOT stand alone."

I understood and agreed with what you said except I didn't quite understand the above sentence. Are you simply saying that there is more to this world than empirical science defines?

User avatar
ktz
New Trial Member
Posts: 16
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by ktz » November 10th, 2018, 3:40 am

To answer the original question you posed, I think intelligence and understanding Jung are probably orthogonal concepts, not particularly correlated, but certainly there have been some highly intelligent people associated with Jung -- you can check out Brainpickings bit on Jung's friendship one of the most famous physicists of the twentieth century, Pauli of exclusion principle fame. https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/03/0 ... auli-jung/

Jung operates in a bit in the realm covered by Godel's incompleteness in that we simply don't have the analytic tools to verify his thinking one way or the other. Not everything needs to be able to be verified by the scientific method for it to be valid, but then you sort of pursue the ideas at your own risk as they lack the comfort and consistency of a scientific basis in viewing the phenomena.

I enjoy some of Jung's thinking but he may have been a bit off his rocker -- check out The Red Book if you haven't already. I more or less view his ideas about archetypes and the collective unconscious with a bit of interest, but in my own personal experience his most compelling work was on synchronicity and his conception of the acausal connecting principle. It helped me during a time of spiritual growth when I had to contend with some unexplainable phenomena that occured to me. Though I'd understand if that revelation proves me to be off my rocker as well, but you can read more about the idea at this link. [see forum policies on links]

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2019
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 10th, 2018, 2:24 pm

Yes, I am saying that, but it's not just that there is more empirical discovery can produce, it's the question of empirical discovery itself. For the most part, truth, reality, being: these are things not discovered, but made. Made by us in the perceptual, cognitive, aesthetic act. Phuilosophy has looked very closely at this and generated very strong arguments that all knowledge claims are bound to what "goes into" the perceptual act itself. Ethics looms large here. The case of the innocent suffering (an example) and no basis for this forthcoming from the wisdom of antimetaphysicalists (following Nietzsche) that pretty much dominate philosophy of late. One must protest.

User avatar
ktz
New Trial Member
Posts: 16
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by ktz » November 10th, 2018, 6:02 pm

Erm, I may need to look more into these strong arguments that you are referring to understand your case better. I've never heard the term "antimetaphysicalist" to describe post-Nietzsche thinkers, and certainly I haven't personally experienced their wisdom dominating modern philosophical discourse. I am a bit confused of the reasoning of your post in general -- how does the limitations of the perceptual act necessarily imply that knowledge is all synthetic human constructions? Is this a reference to Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation or something? I haven't read all the post-structuralists but I think even the most audacious of the bunch wouldn't approach the case that empiricism is rendered obsolete by our perceptual limitations, which somehow then renders all analytic knowledge to be instead replaced by synthetic human constructions. Is there someone more recent than Nietzsche I should read to understand your case better? I am not an expert or an academic and maybe someone more knowledgeable can provide some clarity.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2019
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 10th, 2018, 11:12 pm

ktz
Erm, I may need to look more into these strong arguments that you are referring to understand your case better. I've never heard the term "antimetaphysicalist" to describe post-Nietzsche thinkers, and certainly I haven't personally experienced their wisdom dominating modern philosophical discourse. I am a bit confused of the reasoning of your post in general -- how does the limitations of the perceptual act necessarily imply that knowledge is all synthetic human constructions? Is this a reference to Baudrillard 's Simulacra and Simulation or something? I haven't read all the post-structuralists but I think even the most audacious of the bunch wouldn't approach the case that empiricism is rendered obsolete by our perceptual limitations, which somehow then renders all analytic knowledge to be instead replaced by synthetic human constructions. Is there someone more recent than Nietzsche I should read to understand your case better? I am not an expert or an academic and maybe someone more knowledgeable can provide some clarity.
Sorry about that. My thoughts are a little complicated because I have read complicated thinkers. Not that I am so wonderful at this, but I do read them and think about them. Everything is connected, though (so Dirk Gently tells us). There are several things that made a powerful impact on me, and one was a short and accessible work by Wittgenstein that is available on the internet. It is his Lecture on ethics. Check it out, if you have a mind to. With this I read John Mackie's Ethics Inventing Right and wrong and John Mackintyr's (sp?) Ethics, and others. I came away from this as what Mackie calls an ethical objectivist, though few of whom I read were in fact objectivists. I am. take a look on the internet at Wittgenstein. He is so clear...and I disagree with his conclusion that is a rejection propositions that possess the absolutist claim about ethics. Baudrillard's point, as I recall, has to with the structure of manufacturing meaning within modern culture . But he, and, what, neoNeitzscheans and the postmoderns you refer to are, my thinking has it, all bound to the Heideggarian understanding that language, as H puts it, is "the house of Being" and therefore when we think and experience the world, any extravagant claims, Husserlelian ones, for example, that embrace an absolute, something there as eternal and unchanging encompassed by an utterance, is unwarranted.
It is not that empiricism is obsolete, but that what it is more like this: what does one think of, say, Einstein's theory of space and time, if one is deeply convinced that German idealism is right?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2808
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 11th, 2018, 12:44 am

Husserlelian ones, for example, that embrace an absolute, something there as eternal and unchanging encompassed by an utterance, is unwarranted.
Nope. Wrong. No “absolutism” there at all.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2019
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 11th, 2018, 1:49 am

Read again. Try his Crisis of European Sciences

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2019
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 11th, 2018, 1:56 am

Husserl on Kant (emphasis mine):

. Neither the new stage, the
reaction of Berkeley and Hume against the philosophical naïveté of mathematical,
natural-scientific exactness, nor even Kant's new beginning led to the genuine sense of
the required Copernican turn - the sense, that is, of grounding once and for all a
systematic transcendental philosophy in the rigorous scientific spirit. A true beginning,
achieved by means of a radical liberation from all scientific and prescientific traditions,
was not attained by Kant. He does not penetrate to the absolute subjectivity which
constitutes everything that is, in its meaning and validity, nor to the method of attaining
it in its apodicticity, of interrogating it and of explicating it apodicticall

Burning ghost
Posts: 2808
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 11th, 2018, 2:18 am

What’s your point? He used the word “absolute” and that proves your point? Nope.

That is from Part 2 of Crisis right? His issue with Kant was he saw him as accepting reality as is too readily. Kant’s perspective, for his Critique of Pure Reason, was about taking the dualistic notion of being on and looking at empiricism and reason. Kant didn’t bring the question of the physical world into play he simply accepted it. To be honest I think Husserl’s critique was not completely on the ball because Husserl’s task was other than that of Kant’s.

I’ve read it twice already thanks. It’s incomplete amd vague. He died (as you know I hope?) before completing it. What we can say is that the use of terms is quite specific and I do have qualms about how he uses the term “essence” over the course of his life - not sure if he really found a way to make explicit what he meant.

Of course some people have argued strongly that he was performing a kind of “idealism” and other have argued against that too.

Derrida offers a conflated critique of Husserl’s essay on ... something about “Origins of Geometry”? Going further back it is easy enough to see that Husserl meant “eternal” in the sense of numbers and concepts of space and time - we cannot imagine a shape without angles, a sound without volume, a colour without hue, etc.,. Heidegger then went on (imo) to push further and did little more than pretend to see below the words written and spoken where Husserl made a passing mention of doing this and then continued his project.

Note: I doubt we’ll ever agree in this area about anythign major so that’s a good thign for both of us. I do love the term “apodictic.” It is very useful to distinguish between degrees of understanding and belief founded upon “value.”
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2019
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 11th, 2018, 2:48 am

I said Husserl acknowledged an absolute in his phenomenology, and it is simply true that he did. Go get a copy of Sartre's Transcendence of the Ego and read it if you don't believe me. Read his Cartesian Meditations.This other about Kant, Derrida and the rest: I don't know why it has any bearing at all on the matter. As to agreeing, there is nothing to disagree about on this.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2808
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 11th, 2018, 3:44 am

He refused to acknowledge an absolute; only in that sense is it an “absolute.” That is the issue of language.

Not interested in Satre tbh. What someone says about someone else is neither here nor there to me. I care about what the person actually said not someone else’s interpretation of it - especially someone who moved further away from the point of Husserl’s work - the search for a “subjective science.” Kant has a bearing becasue he starts Part 2 of Crisis by referring to Kant (the title of that section is something about referring to Kant’s “Objective claims” or something along those lines.)

There is a very serious relation between “subjectvity” and “psychology.” In fact one of the main points of Crisis is Husserl’s complaint about how the subjective value of psychology has been consumed by objective science - with great benefit, but also (it appears he believed) at some loss too.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2019
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 11th, 2018, 10:10 am

Just read the books. And have a nice day.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2808
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 11th, 2018, 11:18 am

This:
Husserlelian ones, for example, that embrace an absolute, something there as eternal and unchanging encompassed by an utterance, is unwarranted.
Does fit with this:
Hereandnow wrote:
November 11th, 2018, 1:56 am
Husserl on Kant (emphasis mine):

. Neither the new stage, the
reaction of Berkeley and Hume against the philosophical naïveté of mathematical,
natural-scientific exactness, nor even Kant's new beginning led to the genuine sense of
the required Copernican turn - the sense, that is, of grounding once and for all a
systematic transcendental philosophy in the rigorous scientific spirit. A true beginning,
achieved by means of a radical liberation from all scientific and prescientific traditions,
was not attained by Kant. He does not penetrate to the absolute subjectivity which
constitutes everything that is, in its meaning and validity, nor to the method of attaining
it in its apodicticity, of interrogating it and of explicating it apodicticall
From, “Crisis,” Part III (p.199)

What he says building up to this is deadly important (note: the meditation he refers to is Descartes not his own “Cartesian Meditation”)not to mention what follows immediately after:
... and of explicating it apodictically. From then on, the history of this philosophy was necessarily a continued struggle precisely for the clear and genuine sense of the transcendental turn to be carried out and of its method of work; to put it in another way, it was a struggle for the genuine “transcendental reduction.” Our critical reflections on Kant have already made clear to us the danger of impressive and yet still unclear insights or, if you will, the illumination of pure insights in the form of vague anticipations while one is still working with questions posed on an unclarified ground (that of what is “obvious”); and this also made comprehensible how he was forced into a mythical concept-construction and into metaphysics in the dangerous sense inimical to all genuine science.

- Husserl, “The Crisis of European Sciences” Part II (p.199), trans. by David Carr.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply