Jung: Con Artist Extraordinaire?

[snafupants]

Did Jung plagiarize Kant's adaptation of Aristotle?

Jung studied Immanuel Kant extensively, and regarded Kant as his favorite philosopher. Some people have looked closer into this, and found striking similarities between the typology of Jung and the categories of Kant. Professor Stephen Palmquist writes: “Jung’s four functions (sensation, intuition, thought, and feeling) correspond directly to Kant’s four main categories (quantity, quality, relation, and modality), while Jung’s three ways of experiencing each function (introvert, extravert, and their combination in the integrated personality) correspond directly to Kant’s three manifestations of each category (e.g., the three moments of quantity: unity, plurality, and totality)."

Judgments are, for Kant, the preconditions of any thought. Man thinks via judgments, so all possible judgments must be listed and the perceptions connected within them put aside, so as to make it possible to examine the moments when the understanding is engaged in constructing judgments. For the categories are equivalent to these moments, in that they are concepts of intuitions in general, so far as they are determined by these moments universally and necessarily. Thus by listing all the moments, one can deduce from them all of the categories.

One may now ask: How many possible judgments are there? Kant believed that all the possible propositions within Aristotle's syllogistic logic are equivalent to all possible judgments, and that all the logical operators within the propositions are equivalent to the moments of the understanding within judgments. Thus he listed Aristotle's system in four groups of three: quantity (universal, particular, singular), quality (affirmative, negative, infinite), relation (categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive) and modality (problematic, assertoric, apodeictic). The parallelism with Kant's categories is obvious: quantity (unity, plurality, totality), quality (reality, negation, limitation), relation (substance, cause, community) and modality (possibility, existence, necessity).

The fundamental building blocks of experience, i.e. objective knowledge, are now in place. First there is the sensibility, which supplies the mind with intuitions, and then there is the understanding, which produces judgments of these intuitions and can subsume them under categories. These categories lift the intuitions up out of the subject's current state of consciousness and place them within consciousness in general, producing universally necessary knowledge. For the categories are innate in any rational being, so any intuition thought within a category in one mind is necessarily subsumed and understood identically in any mind. In other words we filter what we see and hear.

 

[snafupants]

Really? No interest? Why? Unfamiliarity with Jung and Kant's philosophy?

 

[Ink]

Ti-Ne need something to build upon so I'm not really surprised... Considering Kant was probably Ti-Ne as well what did he take that from?

 

[tikru]

Interesting. Source?

Eh I've always thought of Jung as coming up with a psychology that's easier to swallow for the mass... More comprehensive, timeless, going against the grain of prevailing rhetoric.

Have you read A Dangerous Method, Snafu? Kerr argues that Jung's crisis with Freud and Sabina Speilren was the catalyst for his new Christian psychology, but I thought that seemed like a limited perspective.

I think it's funny... when I try to get inside Freud's head, it seems slightly perverted that he was so focused on sex. I mean geez, what motivates a man to put out that much work on such ideas, especially when a lot of it wasn't scientifically valid. IF you read his work, it's written in beautiful language and one has to wonder, what was his unconscious saying? This is art.(?) Life is transitory, might as well help people in a more meaningful way, and so this is my sort-of opinion that Jung was not a con artist, in fact, it seems like he was a pretty cool dude. But I don't know, who knows? maybe someone

 

[Auburn]

@ thread title...

As a truth-seeker, the concept of information thievery makes no sense to me.
Nobody owns reality, and even the concept of ownership is a fabrication.

Humans simply say things, based on what they observe, and others say them
again in each generation. Every new life is a re-discovery of reality.

Who said it and when, and by what means they acquired the information
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Nor do any of those things devalue
a truth, nor would I consider it prudent to refrain from refining truths of old
out of that fabrication of ownership & wanting to revere that illusion.

All truth in the universe overlaps and touches upon other fields. The fact that
Jung's work overlaps with Kant is simply what one expects of any two true
reality.

There isn't necessarily any ill will in this dynamic of life...
"Con Artist" implies attaining financial profit from deceit, as well as manipulation.
I do not think Jung fits that description whatsoever.

 

[loveofreason]

Do you mean, was he a podlarian before his time? ;p Really depends how you define plagiarism, I guess.

The recycling of great ideas between concurrent minds, and also the way those ideas propagate forward through time via serial mind-hijacking (come on - the truth possesses minds, doesn't it? )is basically itself a universal pattern that doesn't give a rat's about academic referencing protocol.

I guess I see a difference between the technical aspect of plagiarism and the spirit of plagiarism. Humility for one's place among minds, thinkers and ideas, outweighs strict obedience to protocol, in my little world. I think a real plagiarist willfully attempts deceit.

Did Jung intend to deceive, or is he merely guilty of not referencing to the standards of the day? Was he publishing in a context that demanded such a thing? Did he pay respect to and acknowledge the 'memeology' of the writings he produced? Does acknowledgement have to be a public thing, or is it an internal surrender to a placement within the greater lifespan and evolution of ideas? In other words, did he see himself as a great originator, or as a translator, researcher and refiner of unchanging truths? I don't know these things - please show us if you have more information.

But I think this is also important: did he bring something new to our understanding, by way of his understanding? (I think that last answer may be yes. That makes him legitimate in my eyes.)

Imagine being Jung... presuming he is struck by a parallel in his own models and those of thinkers past; imagine finding that a personally novel observation and interpretation is shared and substantiated by prior iterations, - it's a wonderful affirmation of being close to the truth. Being able to add one's own research; refine, find congruency with and expand those previously recorded ideas, has to be one of best rewards for thought ever.

You're sharing with us that Jung subsumed material from earlier writings, leading to a refinement of ideas within a traceable lineage of ideas (which is so awesome! Thanks)... but I don't easily assume that amounts to plagiarism. I see it as participation in the life of an idea. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[Reluctantly]

He took philosophy and transformed it into a way to encompass forms of psychological thinking that combined the unconscious with the conscious and gives people the introspective tools to understand how they differ from other people and thus how they relate to their own nature.

So does that mean he plagiarized? That would be an affirmative "no", from me.

 

[snafupants]

@Auburn - That's not quite how intellectual property and copyright law typically function.

But, in the interest of moving along the discussion, I will defer to Jim Jarmusch.

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery – celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to."

@loveofreason

Do you mean, was he a podlarian before his time?

That's unequivocally what I mean. Long live the pod!

@tikru

It's really a source within a source, but here is the "source," if you like.

http://recollectingphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/jungs-typology-and-philosophy/

The second OP quote about Kant is derived from Wikipedia.

@Reluctantly

So does that mean he plagiarized?

Maybe you should take a second look at the OP.

@Ink

Ti-Ne need something to build upon so I'm not really surprised... Considering Kant was probably Ti-Ne as well what did he take that from?

Kant borrowed from Aristotle.

 

[snafupants]

Did Jung intend to deceive, or is he merely guilty of not referencing to the standards of the day?

But I think this is also important: did he bring something new to our understanding, by way of his understanding? (I think that last answer may be yes. That makes him legitimate in my eyes.)

@loveofreason

To quell the forum's mounting anxieties, I believe Jung incorporated a fresh taxonomy sans the intent to deceive. Jung is simply not the psychodynamic high flyer we once took him for.

You're sharing with us that Jung subsumed material from earlier writings, leading to a refinement of ideas within a traceable lineage of ideas (which is so awesome! Thanks)... but I don't easily assume that amounts to plagiarism. I see it as participation in the life of an idea. It's a beautiful thing.

Eloquently put. For the record, the title was basically pomp and showmanship. I'm a trickster.

The suggestion of plagiarization at such a refined and global level is interesting, yeah? It's like Enron and Arthur Andersen! Or the US government and building seven! Magnificent!

 

[Reluctantly]

Maybe you should take a second look at the OP.

I thought as long as you remember to add your own thoughts and ideas to someone else's that makes it okay?

Oh, do you mean he should have referenced the philosophies he borrowed from in order to framework his ideas? Yeah, in that sense he plagiarized, which is pretty funny, thinking about it.

 

[snafupants]

I thought as long as you remember to add your own thoughts and ideas to someone else's that makes it okay?

Oh, do you mean he should have referenced the philosophies he borrowed from in order to framework his ideas? Yeah, in that sense he plagiarized, which is pretty funny, thinking about it.

I'm not totally sure what the first part is really intimating but I mean the second part.

And it is pretty funny that droves of Jung acolytes haven't seen the Kant-Jung nexus before.

 

[snafupants]

That's not quite how intellectual property and copyright law typically function.

But, in the interest of moving along the discussion, I will defer to Jim Jarmusch.

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery – celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to."

@Reluctantly

Are you referring to this part? I clearly show partisanship with the first bit and authorial integrity.

Look, the intent is what ultimately matters. Ignorance can be forgiven, and in Jung's case it has been, but deceit is egregious.

 

[snafupants]

It's no secret - I really love Schopenhauer. Now, Schopenhauer clearly showed his debt to the Upanishads, Plato and Kant. There is no dissembling. It is honest. Original in parts, derivative in others but, above all, honest.

 

[17pounder]

This argument is completely without merit. He used a similar way of organizing a theory, it does not make everything using that layout plagiarism. This isnt even apple and oranges, its like apples and a shrimp cocktails.

 

[snafupants]

This argument is completely without merit. He used a similar way of organizing a theory, it does not make everything using that layout plagiarism. This isnt even apple and oranges, its like apples and a shrimp cocktails.

I disagree. Perhaps you do not see as crisply and as far as the rest of us.

 

[loveofreason]

To quell the forum's mounting anxieties, I believe Jung incorporated a fresh taxonomy sans the intent to deceive. Jung is simply not the psychodynamic high flyer we once took him for.

And now my associative mind leads me astray... I see Jung dedicating a terrible karaoke rendition of "wind beneath my wings" to a pair of dewy-eyed philosophers - Kant and Aristotle - dabbing their noses with beer mats and smoke in the front row of Immortal Minds open fora cafe.

Eloquently put. For the record, the title was basically pomp and showmanship. I'm a trickster.

I'd say provocateur... but let's not split hairs, eh?

The suggestion of plagiarization at such a refined and global level is interesting, yeah? It's like Enron and Arthur Andersen! Or the US government and building seven! Magnificent!

Another conspiracy! Damn you! I have letters from the house cleaner - she testifies Jung hid his collection of Kant whenever someone came to visit.


There's so much I don't know about Kant and Jung, but despite that it really does actually give me the warm fuzzies to know there is such a connection between these men and the vision they shared. I guess Aristotle wasn't such a slouch either

 

[Teohrn]

To quell the forum's mounting anxieties, I believe Jung incorporated a fresh taxonomy sans the intent to deceive. Jung is simply not the psychodynamic high flyer we once took him for.

I take it Pod'lair are simply following tradition when they do the same thing then? I feel that Aristotles and Kant would be more likely to appreciate (and understand) Jung than Pod'lair. (If this were the case, the fault would lie within the mental facilities of Aristotles and Kant, not Pod'lair, just so that is clear. )

I have noticed myself that Jung at times is inconsistent with himself, his system and with others. I reckon it is uncertainty on his part. Yet he's still great considering his contributions.

I wonder whether it sometimes is necessary for old ideas to be revived in a different shape to sell it or not. Would Jung have managed to sell this idea if it had been trademarked as Kant's or Aristotles' idea? Assuming that there's value in the idea and that it would have been forever lost if Jung had not presented it as his own, wouldn't it have been a loss if Jung hadn't claimed it? It's unfair that the credit doesn't go where it's due, but considering the alternative (that the idea never resurfaces), is it not better?

 

[Philovitist]

Really? No interest? Why? Unfamiliarity with Jung and Kant's philosophy?

(Or few people care.)

Jung was terrible, guys.

I disagree. Perhaps you do not see as crisply and as far as the rest of us.

Or...Perhaps you have an ego problem. That's pretty insulting. :S

Jung's ideas were failed attempts to psychologize Kant's categories.

 

[tikru]

this fucking guy

 

[snafupants]

(Or few people care.)

Jung was terrible, guys.



Or...Perhaps you have an ego problem. That's pretty insulting. :S

Jung's ideas were failed attempts to psychologize Kant's categories.

You're such a philistine. The thread had hundreds of views without a reply.

Subsequent response, moreover, has demonstrated an interest in the topic.

 

[tikru]

Look at this silly old man. Seems more like Winnie the Pooh than a con artist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-hp5s9A-4k

Although I do enjoy his thoughts on the Orphan as a symbol. Didn't Jesus say something like "I will drive a sword against your mother and father"? Maybe it was in one of the apocryphal works.

anyhow

 

[Ink]

^After watching a video of Jung I can't see why anyone would type him anythig but INTP... bit offtopic, but yeah

 

[tikru]

Spoiler

I don't really 'get' why some are so obsessed with being on-topic... Shouldn't we as intelligent humans be able to handle multiple conversations in one thread? Let's find some order in disorder, I say. Is the 'OP' a director, directing the film that is The Thread?

 

[Ink]

Spoiler

I don't really 'get' why some are so obsessed with being on-topic... Shouldn't we as intelligent humans be able to handle multiple conversations in one thread? Let's find some order in disorder, I say. Is the 'OP' a director, directing the film that is The Thread?

Spoiler

Well, since this is an INTP board and most INTPs have a tendency to go way off-topic some order may be necessary at times... Jungs type has been brought up so many times already as well

 

[tikru]

Spoiler

Well, since this is an INTP board and most INTPs have a tendency to go way off-topic some order may be necessary at times... Jungs type has been brought up so many times already as well

Spoiler

lol true

 

[loveofreason]

^After watching a video of Jung I can't see why anyone would type him anythig but INTP... bit offtopic, but yeah

Fie! Possessed with thoughts upon a universal, timeless symbolism, he sets to work with hammer and chisel to carve them into stone!? How INTP is that? How is that not Ni dom working through to Se inferior? INTP my ass

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I thought it would be an interesting read.


In either linked essay by the author referenced to on that blog page(one or two), you will find the author is not actually making a case for similarities between semantics or subject matter. Simply looking at the words[1] for yourself will reveal they have nothing in common with each other.

The author(Palmquist) of the essays merely projects a logical construct to identify the logical relationships within and between Kant and Jung's theories, showing that they both orient themselves similarly in their thoughts, but not supposing the actual content of their thoughts is anything alike. He repeatedly pointed out the a priori logical structure focus of Kant's Categories, as different from Jung's empirical psychological research(although he makes note the Types and archetypes are a priori in form).



Was Jung interested in Kant's work? Apparently. Was he influenced by Kant? Most likely. Does his Psychological Types constitute plagiarism? No, at least not in this context with respect to Kant's Categories, they are far too substantially divergent.

To quell the forum's mounting anxieties, I believe Jung incorporated a fresh taxonomy sans the intent to deceive. Jung is simply not the psychodynamic high flyer we once took him for.


Eloquently put. For the record, the title was basically pomp and showmanship. I'm a trickster.

The suggestion of plagiarization at such a refined and global level is interesting, yeah? It's like Enron and Arthur Andersen! Or the US government and building seven! Magnificent!

[1] - [bimg]http://i.imgur.com/PUdrLCf.png[/bimg]

Quality = reality, negation, limitation.

Quantity = unity, plurality, totality.

Modality = existence, possibility, necessity.

Relation = inherence and subsistence, causality and dependence, community.

source:
http://npcassoc.org/docs/ijpp/PalmquistV3N1.pdf

 

[snafupants]

Would you still contend there are no substantive similarities between Kant and Jung?

Also, you call Jung empirical, which is an odd choice of word, considering the following.

Jung's theory of psychological type, as published in his 1921 book, was not tested through controlled scientific studies. Jung's methods primarily included clinical observation, introspection and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology.

Likewise, Kant’s doctrine of the unknowability of the thing in itself resonates deeply with Jung’s doctrine of the Self as the mysterious totality of the human psyche, knowable only in the differentiated form of archetypal images and ideas. These examples merely touch the tip of the iceberg of connections that exist between Kant’s philosophy and Jung’s psychology, as expressions of two sides of one and the same worldview – a worldview I have elsewhere dubbed “Critical Mysticism”

The former begins with a helpful summary of howJung employed Kant’s distinction between analysis and synthesis in hisearly work on word-association, leading eventually to the split with Freud,which Jung himself expressed in terms of a need to complement Freudian analysis with psychic synthesis (p.145).

focusing on themes asobviously “mystical” as Jung’s “synchronicity”,Kant’s “intellectual intuition”, and Swedenborg (the Swedishmystic who fascinated both Kant and Jung)

As Paul Bishop notes, tantalizing references to Kant and/or variousKantian concepts “pepper Jung’s psychological writings”(p.297).

Just as Kant proposes four basic categories, each expressed in terms of three subordinate categories, Jung proposes four basic personality functions, each having three possible manifestations.

The parallelism with Kant's categories is obvious: quantity (unity, plurality, totality), quality (reality, negation, limitation), relation (substance, cause, community) and modality (possibility, existence, necessity).

The fundamental building blocks of experience, i.e. objective knowledge, are now in place. First there is the sensibility, which supplies the mind with intuitions, and then there is the understanding, which produces judgments of these intuitions and can subsume them under categories.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Would you still contend there are no substantive similarities between Kant and Jung?

I've read both articles, he(Palmquist) mentions several similarities between them which I could see evidence for, and in one article reviews another writer's(Paul Bishop) essay on Jung and Kant's similarities. I addressed this in my reply, none of the mentioned similarities had anything to do with the actual content of Psychological Types, which Jung compiled separately from Kant.

You call Jung empirical, which is an odd choice of word, considering the following.

1) The author's own words. If you read the article you will see that.
2) Empirical meaning based on direct observation, not intellectualization.

Did Jung plagiarize Kant's adaptation of Aristotle?

No.

 

[snafupants]

I've read both articles, he(Palmquist) mentions several similarities between them which I could see evidence for, and in one article reviews another writer's(Paul Bishop) essay on Jung and Kant's similarities. I addressed this in my reply, none of the mentioned similarities had anything to do with the actual content of Psychological Types, which Jung compiled separately from Kant.

I disagree. Moreover, you will notice there are two quotes in the opening post.

Apparently you are missing the forest for the trees. I haven't limited the scope of analysis as you have just done - a nasty shortcoming of Ti types.

 

[joal0503]

http://www.friesian.com/jung.htm

ill cite " Unfamiliarity with Jung and Kant's philosophy " as the reasoning for the following response:

i dont see it as academic plagiarism...more of a sort of "collaboration" of two great minds, that god...how do i express this...did not require existence in lithe same time ? does that make sense?

i mean take keplers planetary motion, his framework and underlying discoveries are still there...scientists today arent plagiarizing...they are revising, and refining. collaborating with others alive today with a dead man's piece of work. which is PROBABLY a much more common theme with the great thinkers of the past. We dont get all the names involved...only 1 gets to hit the history books. But Id guess collaboration, inspiration from others, copying, is how most of the greatest innovations have come about. in some ways, its just the way we learn

 

[ejomby]

Are we seriously thinking that being influenced by a thinker is plagiarism? What a ridiculous notion!

 

[snafupants]

Are we seriously thinking that being influenced by a thinker is plagiarism? What a ridiculous notion!

You might find a question mark in the thread's title.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I disagree. Moreover, you will notice there are two quotes in the opening post.

Apparently you are missing the forest for the trees. I haven't limited the scope of analysis as you have just done - a nasty shortcoming of Ti types.

You mean like snatching some trivial information to make a largely baseless and exaggerated assertion, then perpetuating the thread with petty and irrelevant disagreements? Nah that's definitely not you, snafu.


...


What would be more interesting and substantial to discuss is the influence Freud had on Jung, and Jung's contemplation of the personality types before him, which Jung thoroughly details in various chapters of Psychological Types. You can find a complete online copy here: http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.jungpsychtypes.toc.htm





CHAPTER 1. THE PROBLEM OF TYPES IN THE HISTORY OF CLASSICAL AND MEDIEVAL THOUGHT

1. Psychology in the Classical Age: the Gnostics, Tertullian, and Origen
2. The Theological Disputes of the Ancient Church
3. The Problem of Transubstantiation
4. Nominalism and Realism
(a) The Problem of the Universalia in the Classical Age
(b) The Universalia Problem in Scholasticism
(c) Abelard's Attempt at Conciliation
5. The Holy Communion Controversy between Luther and Zwingli

CHAPTER 2. SCHILLER'S IDEAS UPON THE TYPE PROBLEM
)

1. Letters on the AEsthetic Education of Man
(a) The Superior and the Inferior Functions
(b) Concerning the Basic Instincts
2. A Discussion on Naive and Sentimental Poetry
(a) The Naive Attitude
(b) The Sentimental Attitude
(c) The Idealist and the Realist

CHAPTER 3. THE APOLLONIAN AND THE DIONYSIAN
CHAPTER 4. THE TYPE PROBLEM IN THE DISCERNMENT OF HUMAN CHARACTER

1. General Remarks upon Jordan's Types
2. Special Description and Criticism of the Jordan Types
(a) The Introverted Woman (the more-impassioned woman)
(b) The Extraverted Woman (the less-impassioned woman)
(c) The Extraverted Man
(d) The Introverted Man

CHAPTER 5. THE PROBLEM OF TYPES IN POETRY
(CARL SPITTELER'S Prometheus and Epimetheus)

1. Introductory Remarks on Spitteler's Characterization of Types
2. A Comparison of Spitteler's with Goethe's Prometheus
3. The Significance of the Reconciling Symbol
(a) The Brahmanic Conception of the Problem of the Opposites
(b) Concerning the Brahmanic Conception of the Reconciling Symbol
(c) The Reconciling Symbol as the Principle of Dynamic Regulation
(d) The Reconciling Symbol in Chinese Philosophy
4. The Relativity of the Symbol
(a) The Service of Woman and the Service of the Soul
(b) The Relativity of the Idea of God in Meister Eckehart
5. The Nature of the Reconciling Symbol in Spitteler

CHAPTER 6. THE TYPE PROBLEM IN PSYCHIATRY
CHAPTER 7. THE PROBLEM OF TYPICAL ATTITUDES IN AESTHETICS
CHAPTER 8. THE PROBLEM OF TYPES IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY

1. William James' Types
2. The Characteristic Pairs of Opposites in James' Types
(a) Rationalism v. Empiricism
(b) Intellectualism v. Sensationalism
(c) Idealism v. Materialism
(d) Optimism v. Pessimism
(e) Religiousness v. Irreligiousness
(f) Indeterminism v. Determinism
(g) Monism v. Pluralism
(h) Dogmatism v. Scepticism
3. General Criticism of James' Conception
CHAPTER 9. THE TYPE PROBLEM IN BIOGRAPHY


To say Carl Jung did not reference his readings, influences and contemporaries is to be completely ignorant of his most popular work.

 

[snafupants]

You mean like snatching some trivial information to make a largely baseless and exaggerated assertion, then perpetuating the thread with petty and irrelevant disagreements? Nah that's definitely not you, snafu.

@EyeSeeCold

I asked a question you snide asshole. Get the fuck out if it bothers you so much.

What would be more interesting and substantial to discuss is the influence Freud had on Jung, and Jung's contemplation of the personality types before him, which Jung thoroughly details in various chapters of Psychological Types. You can find a complete online copy here: http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.j...htypes.toc.htm

Fine, then peddle your garbage in another thread.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

You intentionally misrepresent ideas, get called out on it, then adopt the attitude of obliviousness towards the topic. Whatever man.

I'm a trickster.

 

[scorpiomover]

Plagiarism is considered the way that humanity thinks. After all, you plagiarised your ideas of the meaning of words, from your parents and friends, and so everything you every thought, really is from them. But we wouldn't argue that, because then we'd all be plagiarists.

Plagiarism is a crime specific to Western culture, and is based on Western values, such as the notion of intellectual ownership, which Western scientists and inventors often protect fiercely. It only refers to those ideas that you got from someone else's, and are deliberately and consciously copying.

Jung cited his influences came from a lot of sources that were professionally embarrassing to him, and caused his colleagues to be very suspicious of his ideas on typology. So I doubt that he would have had a problem citing that his ideas were based on Kant. Actually, saying that his ideas were based on Kant, would probably have impressed Freud, and would have made them more likely to take his theory seriously. So it seems to me, that he would have had every reason to cite Kant. So if he didn't, then it's probably because he did not deliberately copy Kant. So it's not plagiarism.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Jung stole analysis and synthesis from philosophers which had been there forever

and then made a faulty system

renounced and denounced