Freud vs Jung

Definitely Freud, he projected his own personal nonsense onto all of his patients.

misread the OP; Frued was better is what I mean to say

>didn't understand himself but expects other too
>better

>lit: where "incomprehensible" is a compliment

>so sophisticated people still don't understand the totality of Freudian analysis
>hurr my brain hurty he bad XDDD
kys

neo-Jungians (like JBPeterson) resort to Freudian biological groundings to justify the ideas of their idol as anything other than a batshit new agery

Both.

Both desu. Get on Assagioli's level.

>neo-Jungians (like JBPeterson)

Is that a corpse?

Made me kek

>theosophy

it is now

How can one be significantly wrong when they both agreed on so much

freud along with the culteral marxists ruined the west

>Freud: I've implemented a new approach to discerning the workings of the mind that does away with all of mankind's instinctive approach for the numinous and the sacred and instead grounds the subject matter in unconscious biological drives and the interactions they have with the conscious ego, influencing all of subsequent psychiatry and psychology and paving the way for a soul-crushing nihilism which views people as automatons mostly driven by sexual impulses
>Jung: that's pretty cool, but bro, what if we instead incorporate mankind's desire for the numinous and sacred into this instead of just pessimistically and degradingly assuming that we're automatons who just care about sex?

>Waaaaaaaah truth is bad because it hurts my feeeeelings
>Carl Gustav Jung: cool bro let's do alchemy

My post was deliberately as controversial as possible to get a rise tbqh, but I unironically think Jung is pretty cool and that his conception that "the human psyche is fundamentally religious" and all his analyses of mythology and dreams and religions in this light is pretty genius desu. I mean, you can't discount Freud entirely, I just think Jung is the necessary counterpart. They balance each other out. The human isn't one monolithic entity, there is a self dominated by unconscious sexual drives, but I also think there is a self more deeper than that which is the source of religions, mythology, and spiritual longings/experiencings which can better be interpreted from a Jungian standpoint.

Both and neither, of course.

can anyone explain to me why they think jung is wrong because it seems to me like he's right about everything

Because I'm angsty and nobody can be right. You can't just define my fee fees

The whole traumatic point made by Freud was that sex is behind everything.

Usual critique is that Freud was projecting his perversions into his theory, but you can also say that Jung was trying to find an escape into religion because he wanted someone to forgive him for fucking around with random people. In my humble opinion, I don't think religion is necessarily at the end of analysis. If the therapist was good enough, he patched up all the need for mommy and daddy. People always have some beliefs and those are the only ones that the therapist should work with without shilling their own shit.

I think Reich's the only one with a Kate Bush song, so neither
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pllRW9wETzw