Jump to content

LiquidFractal is still under construction.  Thanks for your patience as I get the new site ready to go!

If you have any questions, please get in touch.

 

 

Gord Barentsen Gord Barentsen
 What's New?
  • Welcome to LiquidFractal's new look! Please post your thoughts and feedback in the Suggestions forum; I'm always looking for ways to improve the site.
  • Click HERE for the latest site news on the Site News & Information blog.
rhlangan

How Nietzsche made me 'not a Jungian'

Recommended Posts

My view of Nietzsche was mainly through Lucy Huskinson's work on Jung and Nietzsche--as well as Jung's reading of Nietzsche-- and so I was missing something. Reading Nietzsche directly, I saw that 'God is dead' and 'Apollo vs Dionysus' was barely scratching the surface, and Nietzsche's philosophy was less about demolition than it was construction and honesty in motive, especially pertaining triumph of active forces over ressentiment and bad passions.  There is something in Nietzsche that is very visceral, almost Whitehead-ish at times--he's constantly talking of differences of forces and processes, rather than post-hoc static study of things. There's a passage somewhere in Beyond Good & Evil, I forget where, where he sort of 'gives away the game' of what he's doing and defines the Will to Power as these sort of forces; or rather, he states, quasi-hypothetically, "If I were to define the Will to Power as this...". And from that moment on I realized he was as very much covertly systematic as I think Deleuze or Bergson or any of those guys are, once you pull back the rhetoric. They're building something that requires the archetype, the virtual, the active... whatever you want to call it... both within and without, a concrete universal of the world. I think reading Nietzsche directly sort of gave me the confidence to consider all that without Jung as the foundation for me, if that makes sense. 

I think that all resonates a lot with what's in Jung, but not starting with the container of 'mind' to get there, which in some ways becomes even more liberating I think, in the same way archetypes being found in nature 'frees' them from futile talk about "do we find them in genes? Or brain structures? Or...". I think all that talk is a waste of time, anymore than trying to find genes for broad personality features often is dubious. I think that 'passage' into the world is what a lot of us who study Jung juxtaposed against another philosopher--whether it be Spinoza, Schelling or Deleuze- are after. Unrelated but I should also note that a 'whole that is never reached' is a very Deleuzian idea as well (The Virtual Idea is never finished). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About LiquidFractal

LiquidFractal is an open-learning website proudly devoted to the cultivation of bright students, intelligent minds, and the fun and productive exchange of ideas to lead us collectively into the future.  Please click About for more information on the site's philosophy, goals and values.  The FAQs will tell you everything you need to know.

Contact

    To contact the site owner about the website, or to inquire about tutoring, editing, research, or other professional services, please use the Contact link at the bottom of this page. All correspondence is directly through this website; other methods (email, phone, chatroom) must be pre-arranged.
×

Important Information

Hello guest! In using this site you implicitly agree to LiquidFractal's Terms of Use and Guidelines.