Overview

This module explores how we can make sense of the nature and dynamics of a meaningful and flourishing life in the context of the thought and personalities of two iconic thinkers of philosophical, religious, and psychological thought: Friedrich Nietzsche and C.G. Jung. Both characterise the self as essentially divided, with opposite impulses, and interpret life as an attempt to negotiate these divisions and bring the opposites into creative interplay. The prize for those who successfully harness the tensions of the opposites is realization of their respective and infamous conceptions of the ideal human being: the Nietzschean Übermensch or ’superman’, and the Jungian ‘Self’. Failure leads to madness. Students will examine the striking similarities and important differences between their projects for a flourishing life, before putting them to the test by evaluating the personalities of Nietzsche and Jung according to their own and each other’s projects: to ascertain whether they themselves were able to harness the opposites creatively, and embody their ideals. Nietzsche went mad, and Jung’s most extensive case study attempts to analyse the reasons why. He concludes that Nietzsche identified with the Übermensch, and thereby failed to reconcile the opposites appropriately and in such a way as to realise the ‘Self’. Students will be encouraged to evaluate Jung’s conclusions in light of Jung’s own personal investment in Nietzsche. While Jung claimed Nietzsche’s ideas were a strong influence his own, he also admits to fearing that he too would become ‘mad’ like Nietzsche. Questions then arise as to whether Nietzsche’s project can be absolved from Jung’s critique, and indeed over the extent to which either project is viable and has useful for us to consider in the living of our own lives.

Assessment Strategy

-threshold -D- - D +. Submitted work is adequate and shows an acceptable level of competence as follows: Generally accurate but with omissions and errors.  Assertions are made without clear supporting evidence or reasoning.  Has structure but is lacking in clarity and therefore relies on the reader to make links and assumptions.  Draws on a relatively narrow range of material.

-good -Very Good B- - B+. Submitted work is competent throughout and distinguished by superior style, approach and choice of supporting materials. It demonstrates:  Very good structure and logically developed arguments.  Draws on material that has been sourced and assessed as a result of independent study, or in a way unique to the student.  Assertions are backed by evidence and sound reasoning.  Accuracy and presentation in an appropriate academic style.

-excellent -Excellent A - - A*. Submitted work is of an outstanding quality and excellent in one or more of the following ways:  Has originality of exposition with the student’s own thinking being readily apparent.  Provides clear evidence of extensive and relevant independent study.  Arguments are laid down with clarity and provide the reader with successive stages of consideration to reach conclusions.

Learning Outcomes

• be able to compare and contrast philosophical understandings about the nature and dynamics of opposites.

• have acquired an understanding of how an important philosophical concept can develop in meaning in the course of history and across cultures, and an awareness of some of the implications of this development on other related ideas

• have considered a number of central philosophical issues, including questions concerning symbolism, the limits of reason, metaphysics, ethical agency, and creativity.

• have developed oral and written skills in philosophic exegesis and argumentation.

• have developed the capacity to apply and evaluate philosophical ideas of selfhood to philosophical case studies.