Reviews for Philosophy of Misery

The average rating for Philosophy of Misery based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-10-10 00:00:00 David Hough At the core of the argument is a claim: If we accept a psychoanalytic account of the unconscious (in this case a Jungian one), then both personal and social ethics need to address unconscious as well as conscious actions and their consequences. In itself, I find this claim provocative and worth considering. Unfortunately, Neumann's argument doesn't really do much to support it. His sketch of change in societies' ethics, which takes up much of the book, is far too general and occasionally really racist, which is especially unfortunate as this is so clearly a post-Holocaust book in many respects (written in Israel, but published in German, in 1949!) To make matters worse, his "new ethic" boils down to "wholeness rather than perfection", which isn't a terrible formulation, but the only examples he gives are why it's sometimes not just okay, but a positive good, to cheat on your wife. Oh dear.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-12-31 00:00:00 Ulrich Horstmann I really wanted to read this book...but there was (and still is) a problem. I don't have the necessary background to read it. I have not read a single book by Jung and have read very little in the way of analytical psychology. So I ventured and...nothing happened. I except hyper-specialized language plus many references to other works that were absolutely needed to understand the text. I excepted a dense, impenetrable, indescribable, eldrich labyrinth. What I got instead was a short down to earth book about ethics. In order to understand this book, you have to a degree having lived it, or living it. The problem of opposites, shadow and ego, good and evil, is something that is brought down from the heavens and down to earth. Is something that you experience daily. I had this kind of insane struggle against my shadow, I didn't want to give in. I wanted to strive for that perfection...but every day the situation became worse. "For how much can I resist?" was frequent though "I have to give in, I have. This is a living hell." And yet what would happen if I would give in? The same situation in reverse. Opposites can't be completely disintegrated. I would have to strive toward reaching my ego again. This book explains why this reasoning is wrong. It gives you a third and more healthy way of living. On a side note I read that some people have not understood what the book was saying about the shadow and in bringing it to reality; I quote the book directly. "Man learns more than simply to live on tolerable terms with himself; he must actually learn to live with his sin-though this, of course, must not be misunderstood as meaning to live "in" his sin. Great book I will read it again in the future; when I will be better read in this field of stud