|
And, a little more about why my criticism of Jung has some very firm grounds:
The collective unconscious he uses can't be tested. It's a theory, but there is no way to prove it wrong, or, because of that, to corroborate it as Popper would say. Thus, it's not a matter of science, but a matter of belief.
Now, another HUGE problem is his teleological point of view. While that was perfectly acceptable in the days of Aristotle, any teleological theory has some serious issues in modern day science. And, not only that, no, he also comes up with some totally speculative never-to-be-tested synchronicity connection.
While doing so, he starts at the top of his theory, postulating things which, yet again, CAN NOT BE TESTED IN ANY WAY, and derives the elements of his theory from that.
Now, to me, those are flaws, yes.
Ofcourse, his archetypes are of value, as are his innovative views on development. However, his method as a whole most certainly seems flawed.
__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
|