Is Kant better than Jung?
The answer is obviously yes but this is 16t so people are going to argue anyways. Jung's idea of the self seems like Kant's idea of the self minus any semblance of the intuitions most people use in their day to day lives. Maybe we could empty insane asylums by having them read A Critique of Pure Reason. I'm not sure 16t is the easiest place to start.
CLICKBAIT -- ten thousand buzzfeeds (#22 Will Blow Your Mind)
answered own question -- boo x 2
also disagree; Jung has more the power of magic; predicted bookcase going boom and freaked out Freud; Kant lived days by clockwork and that's not my vibe
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Jung is not philosophy. And the Self is not just an idea. Its pretty obvious that there is a self when we look at the whole psyche and not just ego.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mindOriginally Posted by Tallmo
That said, I would argue that Jung is a philosopher in his own right.
Jung and Kant covered some different material in that Jung addressed embedded archetypes, functions, and maps of consciousness, whereas Kant addressed his notion of the categorical imperative and his views on epistemology. But they have common ground in that they addressed fundamental aspects of the psyche. For example, Kant made the distinction between phenomena and things-as-they-are, which holds a very strong resemblance to Jung's distinction between introversion and extraversion. Furthermore, Kant devised the notion of the "categorical imperative", or the a priori "knowledge" of morality, which suggests that the mind has fixed properties, functions, and foundations, like Jung stated in his work about the (collective) unconscious. Both thinkers pay respect to the inner-life, or the world of introversion, if you will.
However, I think the premise of this thread is kind of shaky because the question of which thinker is "better" kind of begs the question: better for what, exactly?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote