Opinions on Carl Gustav Jung...

Opinions on Carl Gustav Jung? Is he regarded as a pseudo-scientist because he is not aligned with the official interpretation of psychoanalysis?
I want you to read the following story regarding Sigmund Freud and Jung’s relation:

>In 1909 Jung and Freud were both invited to lecture at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. They were away for seven weeks and they spent long periods every day talking and working on each other’s dreams. Of all the dreams they analysed, two were to be critical for their friendship. The first was one of Freud’s, which Jung did his best to interpret on the basis of only a few associations from Freud. When Jung pressed him for more, Freud looked rather suspiciously at him and declined: “I cannot risk my authority,” he said. At that moment, commented Jung, he lost it altogether. “That sentence burned itself into my memory, and in it the end of our relationship was already foreshadowed. Freud was placing personal authority above truth.”

>The other dream was one of Jung’s. He dreamt that he was on the top floor of an old house, well furnished and with fine paintings on the walls. He marvelled that this should be his house and commented “Not bad!” But then it occurred to him that he had no idea what the lower floor was like, so he went down to see. There everything was much older. The furnishings were medieval and everything was rather dark. He thought, “Now I really must explore the whole house.” He looked closely at the floor. It was made of stone slabs, and in one of these he discovered a ring. When he pulled it, the slab lifted, and he saw some narrow stone steps leading down into the depths. He went down and entered a low cave cut out of the rock. Bones and broken pottery were scattered about in the dust, the remains of a primitive culture, and he found two human skulls, obviously very old and half-disintegrated. Then he awoke.
[1/2]

>All that interested Freud about this dream was the possible identity of the skulls. He wanted Jung to say who they belonged to, for it seemed evident to him that Jung must harbor a death-wish against their owners. Jung felt this was completely beside the point, but, as was habitual with him at that stage of the relationship, he kept his doubts to himself. To Jung, the house was an image of the psyche. The room on the upper floor represented his conscious personality. The ground floor stood for the first level of the unconscious, which he was to call the personal unconscious, while in the deepest level of all he reached the collective unconscious. […] To him, the skulls had nothing to do with death-wishes. They belonged to our human ancestors, who helped shape the common psychic heritage of us all.
[2/2]

Jung split with Freud after a few years of collaboration and friendship, the latter’s insistence on reducing human behavior to vestigial childhood sexuality and its lingering infantile traumata, and his dismissive resistance to Jung’s more expansive and positively oriented ideas of the collective unconscious and of personal growth through individuation of archetypal potentials having become too much for the younger man to tolerate. A single anecdote tells much about the opposed personalities of the two men, as well as their irreconcilable racial temperaments.

Are you trying to say the official interpretation of psychoanalysis has a scientific basis?

he’s stupid is what he is

>psychoanalysis
Considering the fact that Freud, Jung and the rest of their ilk were misguided parascientists at best, can someone explain to me why people like Lacan or Foucault are still consdered "serious" thinkers?
I mean, alchemy or astrology are historically very infuential and complex, but Hermes Trismegistus references wouldn't get you too far in the world of academic philosophy.

freud was able to cure patients with serious mental conditions and its a fact that couldnt be ignored even if the result couldnt be repeated via scientific method

if that's the case then he didn't cure them, his patients healed on their own, and their conditions weren't as serious as diagnosed

>his patients healed on their own

that's kind of the point of real analytic therapy. freud was a genius and remarkable clinician.

>freud was able to cure patients with serious mental conditions and its a fact that couldnt be ignored even if the result couldnt be repeated via scientific method
wew. For us to know that it was indeed Freud curing them his methods would have to be verified by the scientific method.

Jung is the worst example in history of a feels > reals """thinker""", he makes Medieval symbolists look like fedoras

>only scientifically verifiable things are true
kys

>Medieval symbolists
what is this user?

which patients?
What did they suffer from and how did he cure them?

so what basis do you have for believing Freud and not Scientology my enlightened and rational philosopher-user

>guy who was raised religious christian and then became irreligious "discovers" that christianity is actually the truth as an old man
i hate this meme

He didn't say it was a pre-requisite for it to be true he said it was a pre-requisite for it to be legitimately called knowledge which is a perfectly reasonable statement
Fucking dipshit halfwit

Right before he's about to die and after all his worldly actions are over, how convenient

scientology didn't exist then
>it was a pre-requisite for it to be legitimately called knowledge which is a perfectly reasonable statement
no it isn't. knowledge existed before the scientific method.

>scientology didn't exist then
are we listing irrelevant fun facts

>knowledge existed before the scientific method.

Of this kind? Not really, mere suppositions

oh my bad i misread your post. freud is worth "believing" because his methods have well-established utility.

...

Freud was an okay practitioner at BEST. He fucked a lot of people up. Jung mentions some cases gone wrong. He was still incredibly insightful.
The entire point of Jungian analysis is that the psyche is a self healing organ, and that dreams embody this function.

>well-established utility.
sounding awfully scientific-method-y here my man

It's self-evident that psychology is a meme, basically an esoteric discipline with some statistics. But that doesn't mean certain psychologists don't stumble upon interesting ideas now and then, by pure chance.

Thats hardly a fedora statement, to know certainly that a certain chain of causality exists within a complex system you have to run tests to control for alternative factors.
Before then you may have a strong inkling that a certain interpretation is correct but that doesn't give it the dignity of being knowledge

he probably means that there is another sort of 'internal' knowledge that only reflection or meditation or whatever can give you, which is arguably true. But obviouslyhas nothing to do with Freud being a charlatan cult leader

I totally believe in the power of intuition and indeed its a very necessary prerequisite before any scientific knowledge is established but shitlickers need to be put in their place when they think they can herald any pet theory as knowledge just because they really think its true

Not a linguist or cognitive scientist
meh low tier phylosopher with a whoring unscientific method,the phylosophy of self great shit wow who knew we had that

Freud at least was aiming towards something vaguely scientific, Jung was a mystic with more affinity with occultists than doctors.


Lacan’s insight was that for the analyst, the job had less in common with other doctors than it did with being a humanities scholar, and that’s why rather than pursuing more biological avenues like Freud, or just magical ones like Jung, it was down linguistics, philosophy, and literary theory that he build his work. For the analyst, you listen to what is basically a text, the speech of the patient, and then your job is to assist the patient in performing a sort of Interpretation on their own speech. This is why people who do film and lit theory like Lacan, even more than they like Freud.

>people's brains are a book
absolutely degenerate

Analyze this, anons:

>dreamt I was lying on the deck of a boat
>one of my friends was steering it
>somehow he could tilt the boat with the steering, making it almost capsize but not actually doing it
>he nearly capsized us numerous times for fun
>during one of these tilting maneuvers, the deck on which I was lying was completely submerged in water
>the water was very cold
>I froze to death shortly thereafter

What does it mean? inb4 "you're gay".

No. You don’t understand. People’s brains aren’t books, they’re texts. In the jargon of humanities you can *read* paintings, buildings, films, and indeed written language as ‘texts’.

As Lacan said again and again, the unconscious is structured like a language. Moreover it’s structured *by language*. And Lacan takes great pains to differentiate between imaginary things, and symbolic ones. And The Symbolic for Lacan is not just language but all symbolic systems which the subject is faced with. Things like a green light meaning go and red light meaning stop are symbolic relations which are non-linguistic.

If you believe any kind of therapy is possible, of any kind, not just psychoanalytic, then you believe that it’s possible for words to do *something* in people’s heads such that symptoms can be fixed. It’s not stretch to think that the problems can be thus thought of as some malformation of the system of linguistic and extra-linguistic signs that make up a symbolic order.

except they're not texts. at all. neither are paintings

a system of 'symbols' explaining human awareness and arts is fine, but they're still completely different mediums, and somebody talking to you is not the same thing as literature

Seems like you wanna sex your mum my dude

>Freud at least was aiming towards something vaguely scientific, Jung was a mystic with more affinity with occultists than doctors.
Freud is in no sense more scientific than Jung, it doesn't matter what you're aiming at reducing things to (sexuality or collective myths) when fundamentally methodologically you're engaging in the exact same sort of unfalsifiable explanatory approach

Great system you have there... it would be a shame... if someone... dismantled it...

>they’re texts

Nah pretty sure they're fucking brains mate

Psychology is not a science. Scientific analysis presumes a quantifiable object, and the logic that adheres to such objects. The case of the psyche is radically different. The reality or significance of human experience is not dependent on such experiences being logically comprehensible. There are people you hear colors, or feel pain in a formerly amputated member, or have a cross sex identity, etc. Logic is no use here. You might say that the neurobiology is compromised in some way but that is avoiding the problem of contending with pure experience and substituting what you believe is the material equivalent. The fact that the reality of experience has absolutely no bearing on that experience being logically sound dooms any attempt to circumscribe the possibilities of experience, and therefore formulate comprehensive principles that permit an accumulation of knowledge. The mind does not even have discernible limits. It has in fact no location. The brain has location. But the mind has none.

Experimental psychology is a joke. Just a group of philosophers with some lab equipment.

the only good post

Things like phantom pain are not mysterious at all in neuroscience, it’s a well explained thing, and it can even be treated in many cases.

All you’ve revealed is your own ignorance of the state of the field today. There is a logic to all the things you’ve mentioned, it’s just complex, and sometimes not intuitive. The most amazing thing to me personally while getting my neuro degree was learning that there is a very simple neurobiological explanation for why so many people have foot fetishes. The answer is that in the sensory cortex feet receptors are next to genital ones, and that these are never super clearly demarcated sections. Some portion of nerves from the genitals flow out to portions of the brain that process things like sexual arousal, and if you stimulate the feet while sexually aroused it can work towards building a network between feet receptors in the brain, and sexual arousal centres. There’s more to it than that, but you get the picture. Basically foot fetishes work on a totally different mechanism by which all other fetishes happen.

Nice samefag.

All natural phenomena can be approached scientifically. Empirical science is just observation of natural phenomena and formulating hypotheses that can square better and better with those observations. Just because you're quantifying more "things" doesn't make a theory any more or less pseudo-scientific.

>neuroscience
this upsets the humanities pleb

The problem is however we can't yet quantify some of the most fundamental aspects of psychological experience. Even things as crude as pain we're relying on mere patient subjective testimony to measure, its ridiculous

This is only problematic if you want some form of strict positivism and by that standard then very little "real" science occurred before the 20th century. Just empirically look at things and record more things and more patterns will emerge.

Yes but that logic is only comprehensible by studying the material equivalent of experience, not experience itself. I'm not familiar with neuroscience. But I would like to be. And plan to study it more in the future. I'm sure that there are sections of the brain that are thought to correspond to certain mental "objects" like attention, sensation, memory, gender identity, etc. But have you really understood these "objects" of themselves (there nature, properties, parts, or "structure," etc)? You see I even have to use concepts that are proper to material objects as a way to talk analogously about the mind. It's hard, if not impossible to do otherwise

You can't even quantify how many times your mum has slept with me.

Your friend doesn’t care about you and will quite happily sacrifice you (your happiness/well-being) for his own amusement.

Absolutely degenerate

>Is he regarded as a pseudo-scientist because he is not aligned with the official interpretation of psychoanalysis?
Yes, also the official interpretation is pseudoscience too

>if that's the case then he didn't cure them, his patients healed on their own, and their conditions weren't as serious as diagnosed
>if that's true, then IT CAN ONLY BE TRUE IF IT'S NOT ACTUALLY TRUE BECAUSE NOTHING IS ALLOWED TO GO AGAINST MY BIASES
deep

No one can interpret your gay ass sailor dream if you don't even mention any facts about yourself, your friend or your relationship.

is this the power of autism

Modern Man in Search of a Soul is unironically a great book about consciousness and the importance of meaning in life

Cucks don't like it because it clashes with "muh edgy nihilism", but those guys are probably right, but it doesn't change the fact that living a meaningless life is psychologically unhealthy and a poor evolutionary strategy

TL;DR Read Jung

Would that be a good starting point for someone who hasn’t read any Jung before?

Jung hovered somewhere on a fine border between philosophy, psychology, comparative religion, anthropology, and even mysticism. A lot of his ideas are not falsifiable according to the deadening modern notions of "rationality" and "science", so lots hand-wave him, as well as Freud, away with, "They were instrumental with starting modern psychology, but we've mostly disproved them and they're not very important if you want to have more objective and scientific notions of psychology." Which is funny, because Jung is probably 10 times more of a genius than the mediocre, un-intuitive, un-emotional, and non-visionary minds and stuff-up academics and intellectuals who say this stuff. This is why he's appealed much more to artists since his time, although also, admittedly, to New Age kooks and schizos.

What did he mean by this:

“When, for instance, the belief in the God Wotan vanished and nobody thought of him anymore, the phenomenon originally called Wotan remained; nothing changed but its name, as National Socialism has demonstrated on a grand scale. A collective movement consists of millions of individuals, each of whom shows the symptoms of Wotanism and proves thereby that Wotan in reality never died, but has retained his original vitality and autonomy. Our consciousness only imagines that it has lost its Gods; in reality they are still there and it only needs a certain general condition in order to bring them back in full force.”

also

>pic related

Very true!

>deadening modern notions of "rationality" and "science",
lmao

>pic related
jung subtly redpilling the world on the fact that hitler dint actualy exist. stormfags think they're clever with holocaust denial but never take the extra step. hitler wasnt even real. nazi germany wasnt a real thing.

You know what Jung said about Hitler right? That he had essentially feminine instincts. Read the OSS report about him. The most powerful shamans in any society are those you are called "transformed" or transgender. In fact Murray, the author of A Psychological Profile of Adolf Hitler, bluntly states that Hitler is both a man and a woman, both a homosexual and a heterosexual. His mass appeal is bourn out in large measure by his androgyny.

Makes a lot of sense. I guess that is also similar to Savitri Devi’s analysis of him being comprised of both “Lightning” and “Sun” characteristics

>the phenomenon originally called Wotan remained;
And what is that?A warlike spirit?Agressiveness?
How do you know ancient wodanism can be reduced to that?

>her dream was one of Jung’s. He dreamt that he was on the top floor of an old house, well furnished and with fine paintings on the walls. He marvelled that this should be his house and commented “Not bad!” But then it occurred to him that he had no idea what the lower floor was like, so he went down to see. There everything was much older. The furnishings were medieval and everything was rather dark. He thought, “Now I really must explore the whole house.” He looked closely at the floor. It was made of stone slabs, and in one of these he discovered a ring. When he pulled it, the slab lifted, and he saw some narrow stone steps leading down into the depths. He went down and entered a low cave cut out of the rock. Bones and broken pottery were scattered about in the dust, the remains of a primitive culture, and he found two human skulls, obviously very old and half-disintegrated. Then he awoke.
yeah nice lies I bet that happened I bet he really dreamt that
pffff

>freud was able to cure patients
>stumble upon interesting ideas
>DUDE GOD IS A DJ LIFE IS A MUSIC LMAO
No one answered the question: why "theories" build on mumbo-jumbo bullshit are not completely discredited?

He was not a christian you idiots, he was a gnostic