2 ms·

Typical materialist response to Jung. Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Jung drew from many s

by mx24 3y ago

Typical materialist response to Jung. Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Jung drew from many sources - Freud, philosophy, religion, alchemy, anthropology, mythology. Reading Jung requires an open mind, not scientific tunnel vision.

mrguyorama 3y ago
Why? Why should we take it at any more than face value? Why should we presuppose that Jung was super special in his ideas anymore than anyone else who could write a book at that time? A convincing argument or narrative is not useful if it isn't backed up empirically and doesn't make testable predictions. Anything else isn't science, but pseudoscience, or philosophy. We should not base mental health on philosophy. Empirical reality does not give a shit what introspection or magical thinking or breakthroughs you had. Mental health should be based on what helps people mentally. That can still be Jungian methods for some people, but that doesn't mean Jung is a valid model of human psychology. A broken clock is also regularly correct. >Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Your work is not more correct just because you thought harder about it than someone else. We know our brains to be terrible at interpreting reality. You cannot think yourself out of an incorrect model, that requires testing against reality. Our minds are also provably against reasoning ourselves out of preconceived notions and broken models. It's not even an appeal to authority! They should not be considered to have authority because they are no different than you or I reading hours of wikipedia. It doesn't matter how "well read" you are, that doesn't make you any better at empiricism than anyone else. Jung is on the same level as the manosphere promising they have a valid model for predicting, explaining, and interacting with women, and as long as you stay within their narrative that seems true. It's only once you test that narrative against empirical reality that you can show it to be flawed.

by mx24 3y ago

mrguyorama 3y ago

Why? Why should we take it at any more than face value? Why should we presuppose that Jung was super special in his ideas anymore than anyone else who could write a book at that time? A convincing argument or narrative is not useful if it isn't backed up empirically and doesn't make testable predictions. Anything else isn't science, but pseudoscience, or philosophy. We should not base mental health on philosophy. Empirical reality does not give a shit what introspection or magical thinking or breakthroughs you had. Mental health should be based on what helps people mentally. That can still be Jungian methods for some people, but that doesn't mean Jung is a valid model of human psychology. A broken clock is also regularly correct. >Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Your work is not more correct just because you thought harder about it than someone else. We know our brains to be terrible at interpreting reality. You cannot think yourself out of an incorrect model, that requires testing against reality. Our minds are also provably against reasoning ourselves out of preconceived notions and broken models. It's not even an appeal to authority! They should not be considered to have authority because they are no different than you or I reading hours of wikipedia. It doesn't matter how "well read" you are, that doesn't make you any better at empiricism than anyone else. Jung is on the same level as the manosphere promising they have a valid model for predicting, explaining, and interacting with women, and as long as you stay within their narrative that seems true. It's only once you test that narrative against empirical reality that you can show it to be flawed.