C.G.Jung / Christianity / Ethics / History / Philosophy / Religion / West

9 thoughts on ““Don’t be a maybe” – a Junganian view of postmodern, post-metaphysical, post-philosophical neo-pragmatism

    • Dear Dandre,

      thanks for your comment. You would have to elaborate a little bit more, since I am not sure if I have understood it correctly. I was not aware, nor was it my intention to fight something. If I may replace the term “straw men” with “smoke screens” or “layers” (as in the movie Matrix, purposefully falsified constructed mirages)to hide the core (the matter), that was indeed the essence of my essay: Priests do not believe, Academics don’t enlight, Journalists do not inform, Leaders don’t lead. Men becomes literally infertile.

      Path: p

      • OK, I try to elaborate a bit, straw man is in short defined like this “a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position” (wiki). And this I was thinking about Rorty for example, how you represent him… I don’t get the feeling you know him on the depth… rather I would think he is a stranger to you… and thus it gets misleading when you try and represent his position, because you don’t know quite where he’s at

      • If I may dare to comment here… I absolutely agree that the mainstream culture is infertile. However, the seeds of change have been planted. I believe it is a basic human condition to search for the truth, to grasp for the ineffable. Truth is a pathless land, as Krishnamurti said.

      • Dear Symbol Reader, thank you for your kind remark. I agree with you. Possibly its me. I look too much in history, I see so many tracks in circles in that pathless land. By the way, Krishnamurti and C.G. Jung had something in common, both said more or less: the real danger (and opportunity) it’s within us. The unconscious is very real. I would wish with you, that the seeds of change have been planted.

  1. Understood, and point well taken. But do you think he knew, as he shifted quite a bit? And where do you think I got mislead?

    He convieniently described himself. ““Philosophers get attention only when they appear to be doing something sinister–corrupting the youth, undermining the foundations of civilization, sneering at all we hold dear”. That seems a common marketing approach for intellectuals to be noticed today.

    To me, Rorty is simply denying the very idea of science, as it is not usful for philosophy. To quote him again, his is “a philosophical position that leads to endless squabbles”
    My understanding is, that he claims, strictly speaking, it is not possible for one philosophical position to argue against another. All that one can do is to play one’s own vocabulary off against the other’s and dress them up nicely. To me this view of an interconceptional argumentation calls to abandon the idea of truth. Others claimed on that he kills philosophy with that – just another post-xyz

    He is funny sometimes, but where is his “Philosophy beyond Argument and Truth” useful to science, beyond science and to us mortals?

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

  2. Oh, it is difficult questions you are asking. Of course I know not much myself. But what I try to do is recognize the spirit in which Rorty is writing, figure what is it that drives him etc. In Jungian terms I suppose it is about using ones feeling judgement…And so what I figure is Rorty is seriously troubled by cruelties of this world, he aims at doing something about it, and I sympathize with him for that. But also sometimes he can appear a bit “rugged” to me, not quite like Wittgenstein who has more artistic sense.

  3. That makes two. I would guess, he was not really understood by more than two people. He angered many, especially in Europe, as much by soundbites as by his positions. Philosophers have spent millenniums trying to formulate a good theory of truth. Rorty’s approach? “Truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with saying.” . . . that ist dangerous close to “if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”, a quote usually attributed to the Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels. Rorty is “brilliantly irritating,” as somebody has put it, but finally unrewarding. Besides some points in his biography – he lived like me once in Palo Alto and the Trotzkist story of his father, there are a few opinions I like. I feel he is he is right, philosophy today is useless or eat least fruitless. And I relate to that:

    “;The more philosophy interacts with other human activities—not just natural science, but art, literature, religion and politics as well—the more relevant to cultural politics it becomes, and thus the more useful”.

    Philosophy as Cultural Politics, By Rorty http://books.google.de/books?id=epc60iE-yQ0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

  4. Pingback: Thought Experiment: Carl Rogers and Post-Modernism | Musings and Philosophizings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s