File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9803, message 72


Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 19:43:32 +0100
From: Henk van Tuijl <Henk.van.Tuijl-AT-net.HCC.nl>
Subject: Re: Archetypes


Mike Staples wrote:

> I'm pointing this out because I know a lot of my friends on the list
> don't know a great deal about Jung's work and, I think, might be giving
> him a little too much benefit of the doubt. From my perspective, his
> notion of archetypes does claim to hit the bedrock of reality -- just
> like Plato's notion of forms. I see Jung's thinking as quite Platonic in
> nature.

In ones of his latest books the 83-year old Jung 
stresses the point that his archetypes refer to
the symbolic representation of instinctive
behaviour.
Aniela Jaffe denies explicitily the fact that 
Jung's archetypes ARE a reality (unlike Plato's 
ideas which were more real than the real thing). 
The archetypes are a model of reality:

"Wenn Jung ihn [i.e. the archetypes] trotzdem
als Begriff in die Wissenschaft einfuehrte [...]
so ging es ihm - vor allem bei den spaeteren,
differenzierteren Umschreibungen - um die 
Konstruktion eines _Modells_ und um dessen
Veranschaulichung" (_Der Mythus vom Sinn_ 22).

Roughly:
When Jung introduced the archetypes as a
scientific concept, he was focussed on the
construction of a _model_ and its demonstration 
- in particular in the case of his later, more
differentiated descriptions of archetypes.

However, Jung and Heidegger have in common that 
they didn't care very much about consistency.
It wouldn't surprise me if Jung ever reificated 
his model.     

Kindest regards,
Henk



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005