Corbin's Critique of Jung

The archetypes are understood ultimately for a very long time in Jung as subjectively rather than transjectively. Boober's criticism bites into Jung, Jung misses all of the existential modes that Boober wants to talk about. For Corbin, Jung seems to be reducing the imaginal to the imaginary. That's because Corbin is ultimately neo-Platonic and not Kantian. This is why I said if you don't understand Kant you don't get Jung. But what Jung can say is yeah but you haven't told me what the internalization looks like. How does the imaginal get internalized into the depths of my psyche? Paul Tillek shares a lot with both