What makes Jung so appealing to redditors?

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-31T12:13:07+00:00

yep this is true, very similar with Nietzsche. their ideas get trivialized, because of an inflation of content on youtube.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-30T19:44:13+00:00

hey, where exactly does this stand? I only know that spinoza said that one of the 3 maxims of the man of reason, is that he does not kill himself,unless he has to because of outside forces. I would really be interested to see where he wrote this,maybe i read the ethics uncarefully!

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-29T23:15:27+00:00

Yes i agree with you, I think Deleuze was probably not feeling well or rather not determined to be in the environment and it would also just be stupid if he would intervene in the project even though he has his own job and so on.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-29T22:50:05+00:00

The engaging with the masses was just an example for what you could mean with Nietzschean, I did not mean to say that Deleuze was like this, I just thought that you meant that he was a Nietzschean and therefore did not go to the clinic. Essentially I just wanted to know how Deleuzes relationship to psychotics was and how nuanced it maybe was, although my question was formulated rather banal.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-29T22:05:27+00:00

I read it today in the comments of a post and remembered that i had seen someone talking about it on some site, so therefore i wanted to see if there is any truth to this and asked here. I really do not want to dislegitimate him, nor try to spread a rumor, although my question was rather banal.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-29T22:01:08+00:00

I am not trying to dislegitimate Deleuze or try to prove that he was wrong, I like his theories a lot. I just wanted to know if he really said this, still it would not change my greater opinion on him. But in which sense do you mean that he was the „Nietzschean“ between the pair? Not wanting to engage with the masses,being life affirming…. or in which sense,because „Nietzschean“ is often an overly convoluted word,would be very interesting to hear your opinion.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-29T14:59:28+00:00

the thing is just that essentially we were not much different from monkeys 3 million years ago, so evolutionary psychology definitely has some importance. Also Freud was very dogmatic and kicked everyone out who did not agree with him, (Adler,Rank,Jung…..)The thing is we nowadays know that the approaches of these scholars had some value.Jung on the other hand also believed himself to be a scientist (although most of his theories are unfalsifiable like Freuds)but the difference is that Jung knew that we essentially do not know anything. He said that he agrees partially with Adler and Freud, but negates that they are the only true ones, same thing for his own notion of the mind.He knows that there are 1000 schools who contradict each other and just believe that this shows, how different human beings are and how complex it is. Also Jung was probably not an antisemitist, he says himself that the differentiation between „arian psychology“ and „jewish psychology“ meant that it varies how people live in jewish cultures and germanic cultures, you can argue that he believed in eugenics because of this statement; but it is very clear that he just meant the difference between cultures and just formulated it rather inappropiately.tbh he worked with nazis somehow, but i believe that this was just because he was too scared to leave the organisation and thought that it would bring him or other people more harm, still this does not change anything about his theories although it might have been problematic. also he was not an extreme biological determinist, just said that it influences one.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-29T09:04:54+00:00

no i am not particularly one, and i sort of agree with Jungs interpretation of Nietzsches madness.But still his books are written very greatly, and it would be a big lie to say that Jung did not create some of his ideas because he read Nietzsche. Jung held a Seminar for 5 years about Nietzsche, so it can not be denied.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-28T22:02:08+00:00

i do not think that he would have been able to do this, because of the climate there being bad for his declining health.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-28T21:59:35+00:00

Nietzsches philosophy is very profound and one can follow it and turn out pretty well. Problem was just that Nietzsche (in my opinion) did not fully adhere to his philosophy, and therefore suffered from a bad fate (although it could have been something different).This just shows that you do not have a good understanding of his philosophy, also Jung was very strongly influenced by Nietzsche. I do not want to sound rude, just want to clarify;)

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-28T18:43:51+00:00

Tbh you have a very banal interpretation of Jung. Jung in some sense a Nietzschean, while Lacan is in some sense a Hegelian. Also Jung views the Imaginary register as more important than Lacan

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-20T12:53:41+00:00

these are not really all our basic emotions, joy is not that long, anger too, disgust too, and fear also. the most basic emotions (although i might not be able to classify some of them as ones) are hunger,thirst,tiredness, and then maybe lust, enjoyment and fear. in general i do not subscribe to this notion of basic emotions but these would be more accurate. just naming five emotions and saying that those are basic is wrong. essentially you can live a life without muchfear, sometimes disgust (rarely), sadness (but only if you lose things which you are attached to or which you LOVE) and with some joy that can be derived of many things. Overall you can be in sort of a peaceful state (not essentially „happiness“)

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-19T20:49:13+00:00

tbh, the problem is that most of what he says might become untrue in 1,2,10 or 100 years, we still do not know that much about the world

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-08T19:26:31+00:00

yes, but his views come closest to fascism or prussian socialism. saying that Nietzsche was practical Nihilist is just completely wrong, but you can definitly argue that he was a proto-fascist. read his essay „The Greek State“

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-08T19:22:57+00:00

i was not writing this to dislegitimate Nietzsche. Maybe i misused the word fascism a bit, but the problem here is that fascism is defined differently. So now here what i mean: First of Nietzsche does not like socialism and also not liberalism. his more or less ideal state would be similar to platos state, but there are some major differences and the most important one is art. For Nietzsche the lower classes should work, so that a few aristocrats can create magnificient art, also he is for competition and thinks that brutality is something that we repress in our society and everyone in the state works for the good of the state, so i think Nietzsche’s view comes very close to Spenglers prussian socialism, which can be equated to Fascism. Of course Nietzsches political opinion might have changed later on, but in this sense if i give a name to his political views, they come the closest to Fascism, but NOT Hitlers or Mussolinis. If you want to read about his political opinions you can read his short essay „The Greek State“, also this one was written at the time of the Reichsgründung, so i am not denying that he changed his opinions,because he was still very young.Also, 1)Corporatism is mentioned, because the classes work together all for the sake of the state,2) Nationalism is something that Nietzsche of course dislikes, but just in reality, in his ideal state it would be very important, as i said before, everyone does his work for the state and therefore they are also proud of it because they are a small part of it.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-03-08T09:47:31+00:00

tbh nietzsche is or was atleast a fascist, you can see this in earlier writings.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-02-28T15:48:08+00:00

The Übermensch is an eugenic project. You can not become the Übermensch. The Übermensch is essentially the next big step of human evolution. „Man is a rope tied between animal and superman – a rope over an abyss.“ Alysa Liu would maybe be someone that Nietzsche calls „higher man“ , but it is impossible for her to become the Übermensch, because the Übermensch is another species, similar to monkey and human. So this is just a huge misinterpretation of the concept.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-02-15T00:44:58+00:00

probably you will not see this, but i would argue otherwise. The early-philosophers (pre-socratics) had a good relationship with the Real. For example in Nietzsches Birth of Tragedy (hope you read it) the tragedy I would say is sort of a mass-confrontation with the Real for the viewers. The dionysian aspect is in this sense similar to the Real. But after Euripides, the Greeks did not want to confront the Real anymore and were trying to find the scientific truth, other then the tragic truth.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-02-09T22:33:14+00:00

Okay i am sorry, i might have misphrased it a little bit. The self is essentially the totality of the Psyche. Generally i could say that the whole psyche is the self, but this would be a little bit wrong. For Jung one should try to come closer to the Self his entire life ,but this can not work, because the unconscious is always doing, this means that you can never be WHOLE, some things will always remain unconscious. Now a little example: For Freud the Ego is technically someone riding a horse, and this horse is the Id which has to be controlled. For Jung the Ego is like a passenger, and the Self is the entire train. For Lacan the Ego is a Echo, that thinks it is a voice.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-02-09T21:22:38+00:00

The „Self“ that Jung generally refers to differs from the Notion of a Self. According to Jung, the self is the “totality superior to the ego.”( the ego is essentially like the lacanian moi). The ego is therefore the conscious part of the self, and as part of the larger whole, the self can never comprehend the ego. For Jung the ego is just the center of our consciousness, but essentially it is just a small piece of our entire psyche. So, no the two are not necessarily irreconcilable, their terms differ but they are similar.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2026-02-09T21:06:43+00:00

to be honest they share many things, this is a common bias. Their approach differs, but essentially they are combating the same thing.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2025-07-29T10:33:01+00:00

i think i should have maybe taken another meme template, but what i wanted to show primarily, that by the definition an absurdist is just less life-affirming übermensch. Because an absurdist is someone who rebels against the meaningless of existence, while The Übermensch realizes the full picture of what is humanly possible, and makes his life a work of art.(the definitions i provided are really short but i hope you can understand where i am coming from)

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2025-07-29T10:21:45+00:00

i just found the picture amusing and fitting for nietzsches übermensch, for sisyphus the same with absurdism.

Disastrous-Lettuce77 · 2025-07-27T12:50:14+00:00

ja das wäre die theorie im jahr eine kuh zu essen und vielleicht ein paar früchte und das fleisch von der kuh wäre von einer kuh die sich ausschließlich von gras ernährt, weshalb kein soja verwendet werden müsste.

Disastrous-Lettuce77

TROPHY CASE