tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071936218849577375.post7153355221730831725..comments2024-03-19T23:20:47.782-07:00Comments on Unintentional Irony: Jung and Easily FreudenedJames Killushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08265296146264452333noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071936218849577375.post-4400907513347214382010-08-17T15:57:41.698-07:002010-08-17T15:57:41.698-07:00Oops, there's a typo in my comment. I meant, &...Oops, there's a typo in my comment. I meant, "they do not have a causal connection", only one "a". Sorry. Should have previewed before I hit submit. :)Disciplehttp://catholicview.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071936218849577375.post-87375840418294496702010-08-17T15:27:47.091-07:002010-08-17T15:27:47.091-07:00Interesting article. I haven't read Jung in a ...Interesting article. I haven't read Jung in a long while but there was a time when I couldn't get enough. A small point about the following thought:<br /><br />"In short he tries to find the cause of a phenomenon that he starts by labeling acausal."<br /><br />Here I think Jung was addressing two events that are alleged to have some connection to each other but not to have caused each other. It's not that the events have no cause, but that they do not have a a causal connection. A does not cause B, B does not cause B. This says nothing about what does cause either A or B.Disciplehttp://catholicview.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com