Idk not having any people effectively prevents communication and sucks enough on its own too 🤷♀️
Discussion
Right.
Jung is saying that a person can still feel lonely despite having people around them.
Yet we are social animals. Without people we shrivel. I'd rather be lonely in a group of people who I can't relate to but will still bring me soup when I'm sick. Folks who spout these types of axioms are usually still close with their family and can call a friend to meet for a cup of coffee.
Agreed.
I see it via a "set theory" lens.
Like, the subset of quadrilaterals that are rectangles contains the subset of quadrilaterals that are squares.
Similarly, the set of people who are lonely because they have no one with whom they can communicate things that seem important contains the set of people who are lonely because they literally have no people around them.
Basically Jung was saying "Hey...the green bullseye is still a bullseye in the lonely game...it's not just the red that counts."
I don't agree with all my max-normie friends and family members, but i know they'll always support me despite all of our differences.
I've been cast out of my family for over ten years now. It doesn't stop hurting even though I know it's for the best.
I have faith that a community and family of choice will surround me eventually 🫂
🫂If they're the ones who cast you out, perhaps they don't deserve to be considered family.
Big surprise Jung without a massive amount of context. Sorry, I think there are just certain figures you can't quote accurately without the rest of their book. I don't think there is a single page, or possibly even chapter from Modern Man In Search Of A Soul that can be clipped if you wil.
He makes a statement in one chapter, then argues for or opposed in following chapters.
Oh that makes it feel better 🤔
I don't know from which book that quote was pulled, but I can tell you his books aren't easy to understand, because he never tells you what to think. His target audience wasn't us imo, it was other philosophers and academics past, present, and future.
I always felt as if Jung was a somewhat narrow-minded individual, tbh. Not suggesting he was wrong about all his hypotheses, just that he couldn't accurately explain human complexity in any of them.
> Not suggesting he was wrong about all his hypotheses, just that he couldn't accurately explain human complexity in any of them.
I completely agree, although I'm far from a Jung student. Not sure i'd label it "narrow-minded". i'd have to think of a different adjective. Perhaps more "missing context"