3 ms·
Heraclitus, Aurelius, etc all use this in a similar way to how Freud and Jung extended it. You’re allowed to interpret it however you please just like I have. I
by thenerdhead 4y ago
Heraclitus, Aurelius, etc all use this in a similar way to how Freud and Jung extended it. You’re allowed to interpret it however you please just like I have. I believe they all are the same abstract concept. The dao, the logos, the divinity, the unconscious, etc.
- coldtea 4y ago>Heraclitus, Aurelius, etc all use this in a similar way to how Freud and Jung extended it. You’re allowed to interpret it however you please just like I have. No, they didn't. Here's how Heraclitus used Logos (as I described it above): https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/17-the-heraclitean-logos/ https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/17-the-heraclitean-logos/ And here's how Aurelius used it: "Marcus Aurelius uses logos to refer both to the divine that infuses and directs all things in nature and to the “fragment” of God, the rational mind, that is found in every person". Nothing to do with the subconscious in either case.
- thenerdhead 4y agoThere are many interpretations of said "fragments" that exist. Even in the article you link, there are plenty of interpretations extending the logos to the idea of both a personal unconscious (freud) and collective unconscious (jung). I don't care to argue. I believe everyone is right in their own interpretations. It isn't unheard of for something that predated an idea to then be interpreted as an extension of said contemporary idea.
- CRConrad 4y ago> I believe everyone is right in their own interpretations. “Everything can mean anything. Words have no meaning.” > I don't care to argue. No wonder. Who would?