KT Answers, pt.3: All or Nothing

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Avatar Valerio Maggi says:

    Hello Branko!

    I really like the work you’re doing. I think it is absolutely remarkable.

    I don’t know if this is the right place for Q&A, but I wanted to ask if you would make some remarks about jungian psychology. I’ve red in one of your posts that you were really interested in his ideas when you were younger.

    I did a master in the UK on Jungian and post-jungian studies, supposedly the best in the world with some of the most prominent jungian analysts and scholars. Needless to say, I always felt some kind of discomfort for the conclusions -or as they like to say “paths”- this kind of theories lead you to. Above the well-known presence of the so-called progressive momentum of western academia, the fact that him -as well as Heidegger- seems to be a very good framework for both radical left and right as a support for what i’ve always seen as fanaticism.
    As far as I see it, Jungianism seems to be an ever-present, although many times unconscious, set of ideas of postmodern thinking. I am talking about the resurgence of paganism in the guise of New Age and postmodern takes on Religion, posthumanism, and quantum physics the new above-actually-low aprreciation of metaphysics.

    It would be extremely interesting, I believe, to dissect his ideas (and how they have been developed) to give another analysis of our dissolutive times.
    Thank you so much for the attention you’ll give to my question. Keep up the great work, and God bless you.

    • Avatar Malić says:

      Thank you for your kind words,

      I have addressed some of the Jung’s ideas explicitly in 2 series of essays:

      http://en.kalitribune.com/prolegomena-to-any-future-satanism-order-of-the-nine-angles-and-supremacy-of-the-fringe-pt-1/

      http://en.kalitribune.com/without-a-cause-the-sinister-nature-of-synchronicity-pt-1/

      Those are quite long reads (the first is 3 parts and the second 2 parts series of essays.), but I think they more or less lay out what I think about Jung and his ideas or, rather, influence thereof, as well as Heidegger’s. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to go into full exposition of Jung’s works. Suffice it to say that I consider it quite normal for someone who is not acquainted with premodern outlook on issues Jung addressed throughout his life to take a dip into his work, for a simple reason that he is one of the few thinkers of his time who actually took those issues seriously. The problem for me is that he really proposes completely inverted approach to them. Even bigger problem is that this applies to a huge chunk of the high European culture. We all, when we intuit that we are losing ground, fall back to where we came from. Yet when you have to fall back into forms of modernity, you just end up with the foundation that already dissolved some time ago. It is a very radical conviction, but it comes from the experience of the dissolution of all that we by default considered to be good, “classical”, accomplished and wholesome in the pre-Nineties Europe and Europe-oriented world; that coupled with the feeling that the cause of dissolution was an intrinsic one. By this, I mean strictly classical modernity, if I may use such term.

  2. Avatar Ivan Karamazov says:

    The conceptions of personhood proposed by these Enlightenment thinkers are rejected as well today. In popular discourse, we may have discussions on the level of Christian personhood vs Liberal-Individualist concept of personhood. But in legislation and medicine, experts in bioethics or evolutionary biology influence legislation defining personhood.

    Some notable thinkers in the fields:
    1. Peter Singer – “Justifying Euthanasia and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia” – https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993—-.htm
    2. Robert Sapolsky – “The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system” – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261144615_The_frontal_cortex_and_the_criminal_justice_system

    As shown by these papers, the absurdly outdated belief in free will and the utilitarian calculus of suffering has restricted the concept of personhood to self-sufficient individuals with a clean bill of health.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *