What is the main critique against Jung's theories?

>moulding the defeat of the tyrannical Lobster dominance hierarchy out of the dragon of chaos

>all humans piss and shit
>WHAT COULD IT MEAN

I'm not talking about his current popularity, I want to know what his main opponents had to say against his theories because I feel like if you don't want to play his game and buy his shit then it all feels very random.

jung is popular among chantards and millenial neckbeards due to peterson.

go through the Veeky Forums archive. barely anybody gave a fuck about jung until mr "tidy your room" came along

Once again, I don't care about his current popularity and I really don't give a fuck about Peterson, I was talking in a wider sense, through the ages, what were the main grips?

how about I just point to the 80's and 90's surge of Jungian psychologists instead. who the fuck would look through archives for an argument with you, everyone considers you a joke

I'm sure he meant to say that it applies to this board and to young people. I can't say he's wrong since I started getting into Lacan after I encountered Zizek.

>I want to know what his main opponents had to say against his theories

it was a bunch of fairy tales. a bunch of stuff that he happened to like the idea of, that tickled his fancy.

cherrypicking, millenial newfag

yeah that's pretty much what I feel reading him, it feels a bit random when don't allow yourself to believe in those fairy tales as you say, but such is the case for psychoanalysis in general and a lot of philosophy so I don't know

Jung was the first person to depart from classic newtonian science, until modern physics caught up. He branched out as he realized that most of Freud's theories did not hold up in a controlled clinical setting. It is also why Jung was mostly absent from academia until his death. He's opened up a new discipline, adopting dogmas from both scientifical and religious fields. So pretty much everyone either ignored or critiqued him, except for some people in the Arts.

lol ok buddy. you're right; before Peterson, people used to think Jung meant Ernst Junger. it wasn't until 2015 that Jung was rediscovered. brilliant stuff

It would mean a lot if we knew little about the physiology of our digestive system, but we know a lot about that comparatively to how our minds work. But nice try ;^)

Jung is one of my biggest influence, I've heard about him way before petercon. Life is not Veeky Forums lol. There are people who read books out there too. people who don't watch youtube videos for knowledge.

yeah but what were these critics then?

Say, what about critique of the collective unconscious? Did people try to debunk that at some point or was it just dismissed as "fairy tales"?

Imagine projecting you're own pop-philosophy/psychanalytic predilection onto people with an actual interest in the field as a whole, you can't into that area of thought without Jung, and later Lacan

>must be projection

Lol. No, Jung's point was not that human nature accounted for the similarities in these stories, it was that a hereunto undiscovered mechanism, the collective unconscious, governed the similarities. But Jung never tries to justify why such an extravagant theoretical concoction is necessary to explain the similarities or what benefits it has over a more common sensical view of the matter, which is, all involved being human, the same human characters and characteristics appear in many times and places, which yields the similarity in stories. Instead we get a bunch of deep breathing about archetypes and god knows what else, when you learn everything you need to know to explain this from watching Sesame Street. This is why the critique of Jung's theories is that, they're all written by humans, you retard.

Triumph of the Therapeutic by Rieff

What the fuck are you talking about? Structural similarities in human physiology and societies gives rise to similarities in cultural stories, and ALSO to the experiences people have in their minds. In the same way we could look at how shared evolutionary pressures shaped biological structures, we can say that shared evolutionary pressures shaped subjective experience of mind. The archetypes are a way of cataloguing what the reference points are in the shared functioning of the subjective mind.

Wrong, there were a bunch of Jung threads back in 2013/14 before Peterson was a thing

What a retard lmao.
I'm studying psychology and Jung is still widely discused and studied in the field. I even knew and read him before i considered studying psychology.
Just because a small niche group suddenly like him because of Peterson doesn't mean he was in complete obscurity before.
You just dislike Peterson and/or the people who like him.

>in complete isolation of each other possess shared elements and characters

because they shared nearly identical environments, struggles, and nutritional/societal requirements for a long ass time

notice how aboriginals and aztecs both had a snake deity, but only one of those had a fucking kangaroo spirit, it's not hard to understand why

>80's and 90's surge of Jungian psychologists

20-30 years after the psychedelic boom of the 60s, 10-20 years after the rise of cults in the 70s, gee I wonder why Jung would become popular

Most of these critiques, as diverse as they are, don't address the point. Jung's postulates are peculiar and not really in line with western tradition. You can disregard Jung's theories with ease, as they are not strictly bound within a certain dialectic. I understand why some wouldn't bother.
I think Marie-louise Von Franz, closest disciple of Jung and her continuator, was right in discarding the semantics behind analytical psychology and approach analysis with more instinct. As one of Jung's most basics precept is that the human psyche is self regulatory, and dreams play a major role in balancing different aspects of it. At the end of the day, Jung is 'nothing more' than coming to terms with our dreams and psyche.

there were always a handful per month... but the interest in jung, with those born after 1995 rose in correlation to the popularity of peterson.

only casualties of the 60's and newage fuckups gave a damn about jung until very recently.

> subjective experience of mind
> archetypes
> shared functioning of the subjective mind

You're drunk on theory.

people don't go to Jung because it demonstrates successful results or provides some new insight on how the world actually works but because it's a sexy mythology where your role in the universe is heroic or tragic, your unfathomably damaging consumption of pop culture finally pays off as a half-baked theology, and it validates prior drug use or mental illness when you saw like, elves n sheeeit

This is the most pseud interpretation of Jung I think I've ever read. 0/10 for completely twisting the concept of the collective unconscious to fit whatever bullshit argument you were originally trying to make. I'd post a brainlet, but I don't think that's insulting enough.

He is definitely still widely discussed, though Peterson may be trying to (re)introduce him into clinical psychology, where the Viennese psychologists and related have long since fallen out of favor. Jung and Freud, for all of their great faults and extravagances, were both exemplary observers of human nature.

>only all the people I don't like did that thing
>they are stupid therefore they didn't exist
>now other people I don't like for different reasons do that thing
>they exist but I still don't like them
Do you have any idea how pointless and insane you sound?

triggered

here in this thread we see the archetype of the ass-blasted pseudoscience apologist

>Someone pointed out that I'm a pseud better say I triggered him
What did he mean by this?

What relation does Jung have to anthropological and linguistic structuralism? Wouldn't any shortcomings be shared

not an argument

It wasn't me it was the archetypes.

lmao

Jung was never against Freud, he disagreed with Freud in some points, but the general gist is there in him and in every other after Freud, which is how to listen to the subject, the fact that the subject is divided, issues as something medical, social, familiar all at once in the narrative of the person, etc. There would be no Jung without Freud at all.

Jung is the most popular of them all, the easier and more interesting to read for the layman, he is great for stroytellers and everyone who has heard of Joseph Campbell or like tales and mythology and shit like that. Which makes him the entry gate to psychology to most people.

Good or bad, Jung was, specially later on in his life, a mystic. He ends up talking of hermetic stuff, numenous experiences, relationships between alchemy and psychoanalysis, etc. Which is great if you dig it, but it ends up as a branch on his own, talking to himself and others who know less than himself. What else do you have to say about it? Another interpretation of the myths he talked about?

When Lacan came (and he met Jung, btw, visiting him in his tower once when Jung was already quite old) borrowing from linguistics and structuralism, the whole thing made a lot more sense without having much to do with the interpretation of the jungian type. In Jung's biography he tells the difference between himself and Freud was that, to Freud, if you dream of a spear, a key or a penis, then you are dreaming of the phallus. Whether to Jung, the issue was then why do you dream of a key instead of a spear? And so on. After Lacan's triad, that is easily understood as the symbolic and imaginary aspects of the same thing. To Jung there is a collective unconscious which is almost like deep ocean in which we all swim about, but to Lacan, the unconscious is itself more of a thing in between people than within anyone, it is collectivity itself internalized.

Each psychoanalyst fits so well within their times, Freud was the authority Vienese doctor father who was so revolutionary not even his own personality kept up, Jung was a sensitive catholic boy doing well with that british empire sense of the world, that fashion for saying "we are all the same deep down", Picasso stealing from african art etc., Lacan is the french frog well-versed in everything, but no one caught up with him yet.

Neither is anything you've said.

who am i?

A fag.

>among chantards... due to peterson
Nigga, no.
Some of us have been here since the beginning, and even then there were shitlords going off on each other for watching hentai, "because freudian tendencies" and "having minds dull enough to be entertained by jungian archetypes"( and what are now called tropes). Penison's only been on this board for 4 years at most, most posts about him are from late 2015 or later.

Y'all bitches just mad as hell Peckerton has more support, merit, and success than you've had in your own shitty lives.

>TL;DR Sort yourself out, user. You can start by making your fucking bed, you lazy shit.

>in correlation with
does not mean a causal relationship, you fucking peabrain.

lrn2logic faggot.

Common fucking sense
Neo-Jungians have a bit more meat on the bones, but Jung's ideas are abject nonsense that only serves to marry disparate observed phenomena into a single framework.

You communicate like a fool, critics aren't "haterz" mad at success you moron, and it doesn't suprise me you preface that opinion with "Y'all bitches just mad as hell," like that dated juvenile language is supposed to be endearing or impressive or anything other than a fucking embarassment to general discourse and shitposting alike

>jungian archetypes are tropes
Jungian archetypes by definition cannot be memetic because memetic nature is built on mutation and subjective transfer; if Jung's archetypes are memetic then the entire system that follows is built on fucking sand.
That's why Jung had to baselessly declare a collectice conscious, to account for the seeming universality of his archetypes without admitting they're just coincidences of syncretic experience.

>stop using complex phrases that I can't easily understand
>because I'm an idiot, you must be just pretending to have ideas

Jung or at least his basic philosophical outline are taught in most highschools, and any entry level philosophy and psychology courses. Even my retarded dog knows what an archetype is.

...

And Freud is a realy good and funny read.

I like jung because i was into the occult and mystical stuff. I like his concept of the collective unconsciousness..
When you think about it the internet is basically a physical manifestation of the collective unconsciousness.
And if the computer is the physical collection of the world mind then you can feed ideas into it. Or meme's. And these meme's will then drip into the real world.

>to Freud, if you dream of a spear, a key or a penis, then you are dreaming of the phallus.

Freud rejected metaforic interpretation of dreams. Any meaning can only be in metonimic structure, the way objects of dreams are in relation with eachother. This is why Freud was important for Lacan (unconscious is structured as language) and structuralism and Jung was not.

The majority of psychology is on the same wavelength as Jung: the fairy tales wavelength.

Anyone can make up some baseless concepts (with no substance). Then make up some more baseless concepts, very loosely correlate them to some historical items, claiming them to be truthful explanations. This is literally all Jung is. It's a bit of task, making up so much shit and keeping it roughly internally consistent, but at the end of it, it is indeed just making up shit. Oh and you have to make it sound cool and appeal to the tendency of the majority of us to take in some key simple ideas, and ignore the complexity/nuance of reality. Another good thing is to make it incremental, introduce reasonable thoughts and ideas, build a system with them, so that when you introduce otherwise unreasonable thoughts and ideas, they are reasonable. Reject intellectual honesty, really.

the collective unconscious IS the term Jung used for what you call human nature. its the part of human nature that isn't directly shaped by personal experiences. the "nature" part in the nature-nurture discussion if you will. or as Jung phrased it, straight from the wiki for collective unconscious:

"My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents."

withing the psychological community
all the "psychoanalysts/psychologists" pre behaviorism.
were either very good at telling stories and presenting you with an overarching theme.
or they studied your reaction time in psychokinetics.

While there seems to be some empirical validity, Jung, like Freud were hardly scrutible in the scientific method.