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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005