Jordan Peterson VS Carl Jung

Did he? How so? Is this why I see people talk down on him?

I hear Carl Jung's room was always very messy

both are trivial , norman wildberger is the greatest philosopher of our epoch

Attached: unnamed.jpg (900x900, 116K)

He came to the conclusion that the Jewish spiritual supraconcious is the antithesis of the German/Aryan supra-conscious;

Peterson does a good job of taking Jung back from new age fags.... so they cant really be compared. He (Peterson) is sure as shit better then Freud.

I'm still trying to piece together what philosophers were leftists in disguise. Was surprised when I realized Neitzshe and his "make your own morality" is just leftist post-modern "there is no true evil" all over again.

All peterson does is sum up what other philosophers have said so I don't have to read a bunch of big gay books these two cant be compared

Peterson stated in his book that in college he was initially in leftist circles but quickly understood what it was about and separated from these people.

Peterson is a faggot and still worships jung even though he was a Fascist

Rare retard

I've been doing some research relevant to this lately. Do you happen to know where he discussed this? Would like to read. And checked.

how am I retard? Peterson won't talk to anyone even slightly right-wing, but worships bunch far-right fashy people like Jung and Solzhenitsyn

Peterson doesn't even come close.

However he's the best we've got now that we're inundated with Jewish philosophers/psychologists.

retard

>To begin with, Jung would almost certainly object to Peterson’s implicit assumption that Jews are easily integrated parts in the machinery of Western civilization, equal or even superior in suitability to all others. Jung believed that Jews, like all peoples, have a characteristic personality, and he would have stressed the need to take this personality into account. Even in his own sphere of expertise, Jung warned that “Freud and Adler’s psychologies were specifically Jewish, and therefore not legitimate for Aryans.”[1] A formative factor in the Jewish personality was the rootlessness of the Jews and the persistence of the Diaspora. Jung argued that Jews lacked a “chthontic quality,” meaning “The Jew … is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.”[2] Jung penned these words in 1918, but they retain significance even after the founding of the State of Israel. Even today, vastly more Jews live outside Israel than within it. Jews remain a Diaspora people, and many continue to see their Diaspora status as a strength. Because they are scattered and rootless, however, Jung argued that Jews developed methods of getting on in the world that are built on exploiting weakness in others rather than expressing explicit strength. In Jung’s phrasing, “The Jews have this particularity in common with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.”[3]

Jung would probably have been doubtful regarding Peterson’s claims that Jews obtain positions of influence solely on their intellectual merits and because they score high on Openness to Experience. Jung believed that Jews were incapable of operating effectively without a host society, and that they relied heavily upon grafting themselves into the systems of other peoples in order to succeed. In a 1934 essay titled ‘The state of psychotherapy today,’ Jung wrote: “The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own, and as far as we can see, never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” This process of group development often involved ‘aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary,’ along with other flexible strategies.[4]

>Jung also believed (in common with a finding in Kevin MacDonald’s work) that there was a certain psychological aggressiveness in Jews, which was partly a result of the internal mechanics of Judaism. In a remarkably prescient set of observations in the 1950s, Jung expressed distaste for the behavior of Jewish women and essentially predicted the rise of feminism as a symptom of the pathological Jewess. Jung believed that Jewish men were “brides of Yahweh,” rendering Jewish women more or less obsolete within Judaism. In reaction, argued Jung, Jewish women in the early twentieth century began aggressively venting their frustrations against the male-centric nature of Judaism (and against the host society as a whole) while still conforming to the characteristic Jewish psychology and its related strategies. Writing to Martha Bernays, Freud’s wife, he once remarked of Jewish women that “so many of them are loud, aren’t they?” and later added he had treated “very many Jewish women — in all these women there is a loss of individuality, either too much or too little. But the compensation is always for the lack. That is to say, not the right attitude.”

theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/10/26/reply-to-jordan-peterson-on-the-jewish-question-from-his-heroes-part-three-jung/

Lol no it isn't.

both fags

God's.

To be safe for all eternity:
A: Admit that you are a sinner, who violates the Will of God, and that you need a Saviour.
B: Believe that Jesus Christ, Son of God & Messiah, died for you sins and rose again, as prophesied and recorded in the Word of God. Trust in His finished work.
C: Call on His name, ask Him to save you, and confess that He is Lord.

youtu.be/8P1mP-KxPBw

The End is nigh. Tomorrow may be too late.

Attached: image.jpg (1583x2048, 558K)

Tomorrow is a Saturday, a perfect day for you to take your meds.

>what's the difference?
You hardly know one language, he knows all languages that will ever exist.

>Peterson won't talk to anyone even slightly right-wing
He has an interview with MollyMeme

No? Neitzshe focused on how in a godless world the key to living a fulfilling life was one in which your lived up to you lived up to your own code of morals - created by yourself, for yourself - through hard work and perseverance against what is otherwise nhilism.
This is a simplification, but "your own morals" is precisely the kind of hyper-individualistic "nothing is ever set in stone, the entire world is different for everyone and you have to respect that" BS post-modernists talk about.

Jung's students (and followers) include Erich Neumann, a Zionist that moved to Israel and continued to write the same occult BS about archetypes, myths and ayy lmaos.

Jung was a libtard, I don't know where do you get your ideas from.

Jordan Peterson is no joke really enjoyable to listen to. His Biblical Series is absolutely outstanding. His talks are very uplifting aswell.

Jung is absolutely the man.

none, philosophy is gay

Elaborate. Links.

Hmmm...

Attached: Jung and Beterson.jpg (1488x1312, 353K)

This. While I don't care for Peterson's seemingly terminal docility, he has done some courageous things and may ultimately achieve much more that is well beyond the scope of most here. It's more that he is merely honest about Jung, Nietzsche and others. It's more important imo that he has chosen these two above most others to focus on. For the younger generations who are readily tossed into a world of nihilism with no spiritual orientation, this is huge because they are desperately in need of guidance. And most of them will never hear about Evola. I can tell that Peterson has read their words and wrestled with the concepts and fully internalized the meaning of so much of it. He is sort of following his own doctrine, rescuing Nietzsche and Jung from the derivative liberals that have only sought to corrupt their work and envelope it into their bullshit ideology. There are just a handful of irl people that I've been exposed to who were as competent and honest about this much at least.

>Jordung Peterson VS Carl Dung
shit vs shat
you beat me to it

Soren Kierkegaard

how can he be better than what he is

Otto Weininger.

FUCK BOTH OF THEM

RENE GUENON = GOAT

Attached: 17ef6ac6da90cf9a123f314f6843c96b.jpg (236x406, 17K)