Submitted by Fragrant_Penalty_ t3_10vsika in books
It’s been 6 years since I’ve read Aion, and as I’ve been re-reading it, I realized that Jung has read and heavily referenced a book from every single decade dating back to ~100 BCE, going as far back as even 1500 BC for scholarly reference.
Even outside of psychology, I can’t think of any modern or historical figure who has read and utilized as many books throughout the course of their investigation.
He had correspondence and collaborations with Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli, Marie Von Franz, James Joyce, Alan Watts, priests, monks, the U.S. military and never did someone write about Jung fibbing his knowledge.
Jung’s footnotes on one book reference will sometimes take up multiple pages in order to contextualize why the source material was brought up to begin with.
He also hired people to read and interpret books for him because he knew he couldn’t finish certain books within his lifetime.
That’s amazing- where did you find this out? Jung is one of the most amazing people to have lived and what a claim that is.
I read Symbols of Transformation, and others. I Found his knowledge of obscure ancient texts dizzying. It is beyond me how he could read and retain so many ancient works. So I agree with you, and I don't know how he did it.
So you're bewildered he's read over 20 books? 1 per 100 years? Not hard, especially if they're popular & known.
Per decade dating back to BC and across multiple languages, since he spoke 7 and has an understanding of a several ancient languages.
Jung has a brain
[deleted]
Foucault in the area of history is quite well read
When CS Lewis died he was considered one of the most well-read persons of his time.
That's very interesting because CS Lewis is particularly bad at contextualizing and deconstructing his arguments in his non-fiction work and utterly failed to locate the conscious shift in post-war Europe. It goes to show that reading a lot is not enough, reading diverse texts is more important.
What do you mean his "non fiction"? He mostly wrote books on religion from the perspective of a religious novice, and for many reasons that makes them some of the best Christian writing of the last 150 years.
Do you mean his sociocultural observations about England/Europe itself?
I mean his non-fiction work. His fiction is good, but, for example, in his book "Mere Christianity" he explicitly supports reactionary Christian teachings during the war. When more forward looking writers were talking about new takes on sexuality and women's rights, he was still saying woman should be subservient and that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful.
It's not even like he is catholic, he was Anglican, the church itself distanced from those views before denouncing completely. I would just expect someone who is so well read to have some sort of proactive view on social issues, especially considering the time he wrote the book was a period of social upheaval. Instead of understanding and considering the new morals of the generation, he doubled down on ideas and principals that quickly become dated, now bordering on nefarious.
I love Narnia, but he himself has awful takes when it comes to social structure and rights.
>for example, in his book "Mere Christianity" he explicitly supports reactionary Christian teachings during the war. When more forward looking writers were talking about new takes on sexuality and women's rights, he was still saying woman should be subservient and that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful.
Those were very common beliefs among his generation. Penalizing someone as "not a diverse reader" because they didn't join the leading edge of cultural progress on those issues would disqualify the vast majority of readers of every time period. I don't think you can't draw any conclusions about his reading history from his cultural positions. All you can conclude is that he wasn't progressive.
>I would just expect someone who is so well read to have some sort of proactive view on social issues, especially considering the time he wrote the book was a period of social upheaval. Instead of understanding and considering the new morals of the generation, he doubled down on ideas and principals that quickly become dated, now bordering on nefarious.
That may be your expectation but I would disagree that it's applicable to general populations (or even educated/"intelligent" populations). I certainly don't think it's an adequate foundation to argue that Lewis "wasn't a diverse reader." And the only reason I'm harping on this is because you specifically said "he is bad at contextualizing and deconstructing his arguments"...but I don't think your argument about his reading is a whole lot better.
>I love Narnia, but he himself has awful takes when it comes to social structure and rights.
I would counter that his takes on homosexuality and women were less egregious than you remember, though of course they're not "modern" in nearly any sense of the word.
https://spiritualfriendship.org/2013/08/23/c-s-lewis-on-homosexuality-and-disgust/
>There is much hypocrisy on this theme. People commonly talk as if every other evil were more tolerable than this. But why? Because those of us who do not share the vice feel for it a certain nausea, as we do, say, for necrophily? I think that of very little relevance to moral judgment. Because it produces permanent perversion? But there is very little evidence that it does....Cruelty is surely more evil than lust and the World at least as dangerous as the Flesh. The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, neither Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law.
https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/cs-lewis-gender/
>CSL was undoubtedly alert to the huge changes going on around him, though he was no social historian and unprepared to learn from new fields of study. He found some illumination in the works of Freud and Jung, but notoriously resisted the arrival of sociology on the academic scene. In reading him, however, we need to be alert to the best of his shrewd insights into human behavior, “gendered” though much of these are. That is to say, his examples of women’s behavior are largely drawn from the domestic realm, and his examples of men’s from the non-domestic, as one might expect. But the value he places on domestic and family life for human wellbeing can hardly be underestimated, however much elements in it may need to be reconstrued.
In other words, Lewis was a complementarian, but one who actually believed in the spiritual equality of men and women, and the equal importance of women's roles on earth, even if he believed their earthly roles were different. Something that can't be said about a lot of complementarians, unfortunately, who use the idea of different roles to disguise their misogyny.
(as an side, im not a complementarian myself. i accept the arguments made by egalitarians who say that even if some complementarians are genuine, the structure itself allows for too much abuse and ought to be abandoned for that reason. but i still think it's valuable to distinguish between men who really believe in the importance of stay at home moms, and men who don't want to do chores.)
>A Grief Observed reflects these changes in CSL’s thinking and is devoid of “headship.” Looking back on the time he and Joy had together, he seems to have been able to rethink what he had said, because, although she was grievously ill, in her courage she gave to him at least as much as he gave to her, not to mention her love and care for Warnie as well as her two boys. So CSL wrote, “For we did learn and achieve something. There is, hidden or flaunted, a sword between the sexes till an entire marriage reconciles them. It is arrogance in us to call frankness, fairness and chivalry ‘masculine’ when we see them in a woman; it is arrogance in them, to describe a man’s sensitiveness or tact or tenderness as ‘feminine.’ But also what poor warped fragments of humanity most mere men and mere women must be to make the implications of that arrogance plausible. Marriage heals this. Jointly the two become fully human. ‘In the image of God created He them.’ Thus, by a paradox, this carnival of sexuality leads us out beyond our sexes.
None of these quotes, of course, would be enough to reconcile Lewis with modern feminism or gender rights. However, I think it is vitally important that when we make proclamations about a historical author's positions, that we place them in their own cultural context, and see which changes occurred over time as the author's own life played out (just as our own positions change over time). Lewis in particular had a lot of changes in his views on women after he was married to Joy.
Could you elaborate? By diverse texts...
More progressive and liberal texts, instead of strictly conservative Christian social teachings. Would like to see him more educated in materialist texts. He seems to explicitly favor nonmaterial dogmatic perspectives and completely disregards the rest.
There's a video of Umberto Eco walking through his personal library that is impressive.
That’s awesome! It’s fascinating the dedication to reading these people have 😅 I can hardly read one book per month
Borges!
You might want to consider Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin or Teddy Roosevelt. All were writers who read prodigiously and widely and left behind massive libraries. Mortimer Adler, author of How to Read a Book (I highly recommend it) isn't well read now, but was a giant in his day and read probably more than even the other wide reading scholars of his day. Just a few to consider. I think of the history I read by so many authors and their bibliographies are mind blowing.
... most academic writers, I would assume?
What is with this weird fawning devotion to Jung, of all people?
You must feel guilty of devotional thinking if your first reaction is to accuse others of it.
I’m pointing out a feature of Jung’s and asking if other authors share it. Care to share anything?
>You must feel guilty of devotional thinking if your first reaction is to accuse others of it.
"I know you are but what am I???" Really. That's really your go-to response? Lol
Like I said. Look at the bibliography of any academic monograph, particularly in the social sciences. There will be reams and reams of references to books and articles read by the author.
That's what academic work is. Lots of reading.
Are you going to share any names or are you more interested in gatekeeping?
"The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism" by Elie Halevy
"Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self" by Fred R Meyers
"A Society without Fathers or Husbands" by Cai Hua (in multiple languages)
"The Great Lakes of Africa" by Jean-Pierre Chretien has a 50-page bibliography
"Porcelain: A History from the Heart of Europe" by Suzanne L Marchand
"The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow has a 60 page bibliography, though admittedly that is two people (and it isn't actually an academic text, it's written for a general audience)
"A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani
"Rituals of War: The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia" by Zainab Bahrani
I will confess I haven't read Aion but it is quite normal for academic texts to have extensive bibliographies, so unless there's something really unusual about it I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal about Jung doing what people who write academic books do.
The variety of what I read is limited to what I get contracted to ghostwrite. Payout is based on supply and demand. There might be a high-demand for essays referencing Neitzche, but the supply of writers is way high, so the resulting price is meager compared to what I’d get for writing on Jung who is high-demand, but low supply.
It occurred to me I only read Jung for the financial incentive, and that’s what prompted to ask what other authors share this feature of his I enjoy.
I mean it sincerely, thank you for sharing these authors. My work circumstance has limited my reading variety, so I’m looking forward to researching these people 😌
I see. My apologies for being rather dismissive, I didn't know where you were coming from on this. I will mention that those authors are all in the field of history and anthropology and archaeology, so they address somewhat specific knowledge bases.
I do encourage you to read at least the Dawn of Everything, which is written for a general audience. Or any of the rest that you found interesting!
Odd thing to say.
Is it that odd to point out how bizarre it is to make a big deal about standard academic convention?
Have you read Jung? I've read many academic texts, and nothing compares to the incredible range and obscurity of the ancient texts he references, and in so many langauges. God knows how he found these books or was able to read them all. Even in the age of the internet I often can't find references. You also seem to have a snidey conceited tone toward Jung and his work.
I consider love of Jung to be something of a red flag for rightwingers that are into the absolute bullshit that is Jordan Peterson-style pseudoscience and theorizing. This is admittedly perhaps unfair of me. But Jung (and Freud), pioneers as they were in their field, are fairly... how to put it... they aren't exactly up to date on modern psychoanalysis, with many of their ideas shown to be unscientific and flawed.
Yes, it is unfair of you. Also Freud != Jung. I suggest you try the first section of psychology and alchemy. Jung documents the analysis of a subject via dreams. It's about as easy to read as Jung gets.
I don't really care about dream analysis, but thanks.
It's like a bridge demonstrates gravity.
Bokbreath t1_j7j8hhg wrote
How do you know he read all those works ? I can quote from books I've not read and movies I've never seen, simply because others have passed them on.