Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again

[doubtingthomas]

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.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

[Informant]

"Technically, no. I don’t even know where I was last night. Or where I am now, or even if I am."

[dan vogel]

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.

[Moksha]

Ah, you guys are playing right into Freud's hand with that dueling banana schtick. Just sleep on it.

[DrNickLiterski]

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.

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.

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]

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.

[Philo Sofee]

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?

[Informant]

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]

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.