Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by doubtingthomas »

Informant wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:24 pm
That’s just something people who aren’t certain of their positions say.
And that's not always a bad thing. Just look at all the idiots in Congress who really believe their own bullcrap.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9569
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by Res Ipsa »

Informant wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:24 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Live debate can demonstrate which individual has the better debating skills. It's not a reliable method for getting to the truth.
That’s just something people who aren’t certain of their positions say.
Could be. Having spent my career in the persuasion business, including observing and participating in the legal equivalent of debate, I would never equate the ability to persuade with being right. See also any evolution "debate" and the effectiveness of the Gish Gallop.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Informant
CTR B
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:56 am
Location: Woodshed
Contact:

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by Informant »

doubtingthomas wrote: "Technically, no. I don’t even know where I was last night. Or where I am now, or even if I am."
User avatar
dan vogel
CTR A
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by dan vogel »

DrNickLiterski wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:23 pm

Based on your comments thus far, I have no reason to believe that you personally understand Jung's theories of synchronicity or collective unconscious. You said nothing at all about these theories, other than your brief comments in the podcast, where you simply ridiculed us for mentioning either concept. Such ridicule, of course, is also regarded by many as ad hominem attack.

Ironically, for you to accuse me of ad hominem at this point brings to mind another Jungian concept, i.e., projection.
So far, you have not responded to what I actually said about those concepts. Nor have you defended their use in historical analysis. I didn't ridicule you personally, only the use of those concepts when writing about history. I gave specific reasons for rejecting Jung's methodology, but you don't seem to want to talk about that. It's not just me, but the academy that rejects your use of those concepts. You understand that, right?

I have not engaged in ad hominem, but you repeatedly resort to it. On the podcast last night you attempted to psychoanalyze me because I haven't complimented your book enough. You implied there was something wrong with me because my review dwells too much on the negative. What you have written here shows you would rather make a personal attack rather than defend the use of Jungian concepts in historical analysis. You might not like it, but I have a legitimate criticism of the book's methodology, or lack of it.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by Moksha »

Ah, you guys are playing right into Freud's hand with that dueling banana schtick. Just sleep on it.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
DrNickLiterski
Nursery
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:35 pm

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by DrNickLiterski »

dan vogel wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:14 am
I have not engaged in ad hominem, but you repeatedly resort to it.
This is simply not true. You have characterized us as apologists, for starters---only to backtrack when pressed on it, and pretend you were criticizing the book, not the authors (a silly distinction). You have repeatedly insulted our qualifications, scholarly training, etc.
dan vogel wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:14 am
On the podcast last night you attempted to psychoanalyze me because I haven't complimented your book enough. You implied there was something wrong with me because my review dwells too much on the negative.
Again, this is simply not true. I did not "attempt to psychoanalyze" you whatsoever. It would be unethical for me to presume to do so, as (a) I am not clinically trained, and (b) I have never met with you in any clinical setting. Nor, for that matter, did I ever suggest you did not compliment our book "enough," as if such a measure could exist. Rather, I pointed out that you had literally nothing positive to say, other than noting that one point was "interesting."

Ironically, your accusation demonstrates the fact that you actually have very little, if any, familiarity with Jungian theory. I pointed out that your overwrought response (seriously---8 hours and counting) was a possible indicator of a psychological complex at work. If you understood even the basics of Jungian theory, you would know that complexes are not "something wrong with" us. Complexes are ubiquitous aspects of the individual personality. We all have them---or as Jung would say, they have us. We all, for example, have a "mother complex," based upon our individual lived experience with our mother figures. For some of us, that takes the shape of a positive mother complex. For others of us, that takes the shape of a negative mother complex. That is not "good" or "bad," it simply is the result of our own individual lived experience. Complexes operate on an unconscious level for all of us. The goal of individuation is to become conscious of our own complexes, and thus be able to bring them into some level of conscious control. Even at that, I did not identify any complex on your part, but rather stated that you may wish to consider such a possibility.
dan vogel wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:14 am
What you have written here shows you would rather make a personal attack rather than defend the use of Jungian concepts in historical analysis. You might not like it, but I have a legitimate criticism of the book's methodology, or lack of it.
What you have written here shows that you are so committed to "destroying" the book that you will take two minor mentions of Jungian concepts, pretend they represent the entirety of the book's approach, and then condemn them without knowing much of anything about Jung.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by dastardly stem »

Informant wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:24 pm


That’s just something people who aren’t certain of their positions say.
Who the fuks certain of their positions? Our positions seem best explained as provisional if you ask me.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by Philo Sofee »

dastardly stem wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:49 pm
Informant wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:24 pm


That’s just something people who aren’t certain of their positions say.
Who the fuks certain of their positions? Our positions seem best explained as provisional if you ask me.
Are you certain of this? :D
Informant
CTR B
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:56 am
Location: Woodshed
Contact:

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by Informant »

dastardly stem wrote:
Who the fuks certain of their positions? Our positions seem best explained as provisional if you ask me.
You sure seem to be.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

Post by dastardly stem »

Informant wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:44 am
dastardly stem wrote:
Who the fuks certain of their positions? Our positions seem best explained as provisional if you ask me.
You sure seem to be.
I’m pretty iffy, in truth. I like to push ideas here for a good challenge.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Post Reply