Heidegger

In a message dated 11/6/2008 8:48:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:

however, this consideration of the consequences of psychological
imbalance in the direction of thinking gives too much credence to
Heidegger’s claim that the traditional form of the Cogito (cogito *ergo*
sum) suggest that being is the consequence of thinking. positive
thinking may help one form good habits that will build character; but,
that’s not what Heidegger meant by being.

consequently, the question arises: is ‘cogitare’ as used by Descartes
(to include “not only acts of understanding, will and imagination, but
even sensations”) accurately translated into ‘thinking’ as defined by
Jung?

No doubt that is true, Joe, for all of us. When “thinking” serves as the
superior function in Jung’s understanding of personality types this does not
preclude the activity of feeling, sensation and intuition. In that case feeling
would be active in its inferior, or undeveloped, unconscious form in an archaic
manner, e.g., the “thinking type” may be a maudlin sentimentalist. The active
feeling type would not, however, be given to such compulsive fits of
melancholia. What is most dynamic here is the polarity of superior/ inferior (developed/
undeveloped) and conscious/unconscious. If thinking and being are in
contigent relation, as seems to be case for Heidegger, then feeling and the denial of
being would be the case from the thinker’s unconscious standpoint. Such would
be demonstrated by our own Jud who is often given to a most archaic outburst
of feeling after a most lucid demonstration of thinking.
Bernard

Posted on Sunday, November 9th, 2008 at 7:02 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback