It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Astyanax
reply to post by Danbones
actually i'm told i have triangles where i cN'T REACH
You have parts of your body you can't reach? What disability do you suffer from?
Astyanax
reply to post by Chamberf=6
Um, in that list Bertrand Russell was a real person.
A star for you, Captain Obvious. What of it?
Wow, I look forward to your posts for the kindness and (lack of) sense of humor they are always so brimming with.
At least you don't think you're always correct in your opinions -- so refreshing.
The old man can be anything anyone individually interprets him to be.
Not what one poster says, but what every poster says and more.
He can be different for some, or have many common traits for others.
Not just Jung's (and your) thoughts on archetypes.
Now, if you really were serious about that anything, the old boy would have turned into Marilyn Monroe by now. Or a fish on a unicycle.
Eventually, the philosopher is dead but his fame lives on, and over time acquires the lineaments of the Wise Old Man. Now, if you really were serious about that anything, the old boy would have turned into Marilyn Monroe by now. Or a fish on a unicycle.
I said:
The Wise Old Man is one of the archetypes of the collective unconscious identified by the great Swiss psychologist and mystic Carl Jung.
Not just Jung's (and your) thoughts
Indeed. I agree with you that there's no end to their manifestations, if you look at things according to that schema.
However, each sees them through the lens of his or her own culture and personal experience, so they differ slightly in form and sometimes in attributes from culture to culture and person to person.
The Old Man of whom you speak only exists in your mind. This is true even if you have met him and shaken hands with him yourself.
Acting as though you don't know the context and meaning of what I meant by "anything" is a cute little semantic "trick".
The term "straw man" comes to mind.
Again I take it that you are still referring to my use of the word anything and you intentional "misunderstanding" of what I meant by it.
Didn't I basically say that using different words?
As seen from many other posters in this thread, they disagree.
But it's great to have such an authority as yourself to help all of us clarify what we think.
there's always one, isn't there?
You should look these terms up before chucking them about. A simple precaution, taken, alas, by so few.
en.wikipedia.org...
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
No, I meant the intellectual framework of Jungian psychology. As should be obvious to any reader
Don't be silly. I already stated quite clearly that I did understand the context. Refer the sentence in my earlier post that begins 'Okay, okay.'
I'm still right. And so are you, incidentally,
The Old Man of whom you speak only exists in your mind. This is true even if you have met him and shaken hands with him yourself.
Unity_99
That photo looks like a grey with a mars like big foot. Not the old man.
The old man I saw was kindly old man, with gentleness and a lot of humor.
Astyanax That's an old woman, not an old man.
Astyanax
reply to post by Chamberf=6
I knew you'd post a dictionary definition, but I thought I'd let you do it rather than anticipate the tactic. I am not making an argument here, simply pointing out that your use of the English language is deplorably careless and that, if you are misunderstood, you have only yourself to blame. For the rest, blame your own lack of reading comprehension and unnecessary quickness to take offence.
After all this palaver, you have yet to answer my original question. Yes, Bertrand Russell was a real person. What of it?
Oh, and by the way, you might want to look up the definition of 'archetype' in that dictionary of yours. If it's a good one, it will tell you who coined the usage we are currently discussing.
edit on 4/3/14 by Astyanax because: a little enlightenment never hurt anybody.
www.merriam-webster.com...
coin transitive verb :
to create (a new word or phrase) that other people begin to use
Source
the name for a newly coined term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language.[1][2]
Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event. Νεολεξία (neolexίa, Greek: a "new word", or the act of creating a new word) is a synonym for it.
A neologism may also be a new usage of an existing word,[4][5] sometimes called a semantic extension.[6][7] This is distinct from a person's idiolect, their unique patterns of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation.
In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning