Freud and Jung

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

On what basis could you possibly make this claim? Freud had a hundred crack-pot theories that were no more than conjecture, but stated with the auhority of sceintific absolutism. Just because Freud said it was so, and a bunch sheep followed his tone of auhority, does not mean that Freud was a man of reason. It he seemed quite the opposite to me.

Now Jung had some mysticism about him, but certainly no less than Freud, and I would say that Jung's ideas probably came closer to the reality of how the mind works, having described it has a machine of modular, functional process of varrying abilities.

Jung also wasn't so completely obsessed with sexuality, so he didn't overmphasize it, nor was he quite as prone to label things pathological. Freud did it left an right.

And from here on out, let me say that I don't care about how Freud or Jung related to the Nazis, because that doesn't say anything about the legitimacy of their theories.

Jung, Islam and the Nazis are all opposed to the Enlightenment.

And the Enlightenment gave us everything we value around us.

And the Enlightenment is synonymous with reason and freedom.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by Victor

Jung, Islam and the Nazis are all opposed to the Enlightenment.

That's an odd statement, in so far as I can't tell what it's purpose or relevance is. The only relevant thing I can pick out of that is the comment about Jung, and I don't think he was exactly against the whole enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Victor

And the Enlightenment gave us everything we value around us.

Huge over-statement.

Originally Posted by Victor

And the Enlightenment is synonymous with reason and freedom.

Ehhh.. it meant less freedom for some people. And what about it being a synonym with reason? This seems to be the making of some kind of pseudo-logical equation.

In general, what you said was psycho-babble that seemed rather incoherent to my response.

[runvardh]

I'd like to know this "the Enlightenment" is, you almost make it sound like a religion itself.

Edit: and yes, you should set up your own blog. looks like you need one badly.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by runvardh

I'd like to know this "the Enlightenment" is, you almost make it sound like a religion itself.

Edit: and yes, you should set up your own blog. looks like you need one badly.

He's referring to this: Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[runvardh]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

He's referring to this: Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No wonder science has become it's own religion...

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

Re: Victor on Enlightenment

Why do you even indulge him?

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by runvardh

No wonder science has become it's own religion...

NO!
NEVER!
RELIGION?
YOU'RE WRONG! LOOK IF WE CALCULATE THESE TWO FACTORS X AND Z WE'RE INSTANTLY DRAWN TO THIS CONCLUSION. SCIENCE IS NO RELIGION.


(No seriously it's not a religion: Science actually has potential, but almost all of the scientific community could pass for zealots)

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Why do you even indulge him?

Whenever people ask me a question like this, I always say "I'm sharpening my knives".

[Nocap]

Fair enough.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by runvardh

I'd like to know this "the Enlightenment" is, you almost make it sound like a religion itself.

The Enlightenment is very important - you might even say of overriding importance in relations between your country and mine.

For your country was founded by Religious Dissidents while mine was founded by the Scottish and English Enlightenment.