Einstein exposed.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (107)
sorted by:
Do you disagree?
What does it mean to discern something accurately? To know whether someone is lying or being dishonest? I find that's intuition at work and not conscious thought there's a book called Blink that talks about that subject in depth
It means to tell the truth from falsehood. It could be an intentional lie or it could be ignorance or delusion. Intuition (what I'd call the heart or nous) plays a part but it's always subjective and points to the self. When we're engaging with the external world, I'd refer to rationality and logical argumentation instead because it presents a common ground, being objective and universal. My point was we judge all the time whether something is true or false and judging in that sense is absolutely necessary and everyone does it. This is basic epistemology.
It seems like Jung apprehends the word in a narrow and superficial manner and it ends up reading like something out of a boomer facebook philosophy quotes page. For all his psycho-mystical mumbo-jumbo and some interesting insights here and there, Jung wasn't much of a philosopher.
In my experience that is absolutely not the case, there's maybe a handful of actual thinkers in the world and a fuck load of parrots
I'm not a fan of Jung other than his work on synchronicity But there's some Nietzsche I can get inside
I was huge on Nietzsche in my 20's, red all his work, but outgrew him and became a Christian. He has some great and relevant ideas but he's not a systematic philosopher for a reason - his views are not consistent and many of them are based on unjustified assumptions. He has passion and rhetoric though which makes his stuff convincing, and yes he has genius.
His biggest fail is his materialism, naturalism, determinism and denial of absolute truth (which is a self refuting claim). If he were consistent with those his whole Ubermensch raving loses epistemic ground - why should anyone care about his subjective preference of what man should be? And since he's a naturalist and determinist why do ethics (what should one ought to do) matter at all?
He also ignored Hume's destruction of naturalism and basic bitch empiricism ("You can't get an "ought" claim from an "is" claim"). Even if we grant Nietzsche the world is in constant flux and organized around master/slave dialectic (which he got from Hegel), that wouldn't give us any reason to affirm such a world or system as good or desirable just on account of it being natural. In the end, he writes about his subjective preferences and makes a case why someone should care about them any more than someone else's preferences ("I like banana therefore banana good therefore everyone should eat banana"). No attempt at justified true belief there.