Well his 'shadow' idea is commonsencical in a way. It's the idea that there's a dark side to us, and we're liable to suppress acknowledgement of it. We've all met people who are trying to hide the truth from themselves, who are trying to bury the knowledge that there's certain aspects of their personality that are bad, even downright evil.
One difference between that idea and mine, is that mine doesn't have anything to do with the unconscious, nor is there any innate pressure for people to hide this knowledge from themselves.
My point was a more logical one, and as far as I'm aware an original one: that if you care about something, there's an 'inverse-care' that corresponds to that. If you love your car to an unhealthy degree, you might become violent against a person who keys it. We should become aware of that, so that we don't get lost in the positivity of the light side of the coin. A parent teaching his child to love his country, might get so lost in his passionate teaching, that instead of instilling patriotism, he instills nationalism. We should always be aware that there's a dark side to all our passions, and try to think how that might affect real people and our actions. Basically, nothing is free! There's a price to pay for every positive value you hold. So you might want to check what values you choose to invest in, what people or organisms can potentially be harmed by them, how passionately you invest in a small number of values vs a wider amount with less passion, etc. For instance someone who invests everything in his religion, might easily be turned into a suicide bomber, whereas someone else who invests more 'promiscuously' let's say, is in less danger of turning into a fanatic.
Jung goes further than that though. He argues that everyone should not only face this 'evil side', but incorporate it in his identity. To not shy away or be consumed by the monster within, but to assimilate with it. Only than can individualization begin.
Your points reminded me of his concept, because it sort of echoes the same practical warning to always be vigilant of ourselves and how that self manifests in the world. His approach is obviously more subjective, while yours is logical and objective.
In short, I think it's definitely a valid argument. More awareness is always a good thing right?
No. Just googled it.
Well his 'shadow' idea is commonsencical in a way. It's the idea that there's a dark side to us, and we're liable to suppress acknowledgement of it. We've all met people who are trying to hide the truth from themselves, who are trying to bury the knowledge that there's certain aspects of their personality that are bad, even downright evil.
One difference between that idea and mine, is that mine doesn't have anything to do with the unconscious, nor is there any innate pressure for people to hide this knowledge from themselves.
My point was a more logical one, and as far as I'm aware an original one: that if you care about something, there's an 'inverse-care' that corresponds to that. If you love your car to an unhealthy degree, you might become violent against a person who keys it. We should become aware of that, so that we don't get lost in the positivity of the light side of the coin. A parent teaching his child to love his country, might get so lost in his passionate teaching, that instead of instilling patriotism, he instills nationalism. We should always be aware that there's a dark side to all our passions, and try to think how that might affect real people and our actions. Basically, nothing is free! There's a price to pay for every positive value you hold. So you might want to check what values you choose to invest in, what people or organisms can potentially be harmed by them, how passionately you invest in a small number of values vs a wider amount with less passion, etc. For instance someone who invests everything in his religion, might easily be turned into a suicide bomber, whereas someone else who invests more 'promiscuously' let's say, is in less danger of turning into a fanatic.
Jung goes further than that though. He argues that everyone should not only face this 'evil side', but incorporate it in his identity. To not shy away or be consumed by the monster within, but to assimilate with it. Only than can individualization begin.
Your points reminded me of his concept, because it sort of echoes the same practical warning to always be vigilant of ourselves and how that self manifests in the world. His approach is obviously more subjective, while yours is logical and objective.
In short, I think it's definitely a valid argument. More awareness is always a good thing right?
Probably! Wouldn't go as far as 'always' since it could kill you or something!
I'm definitely gonna be serving a lot of argument fodder on my page, so keep following!