What does Veeky Forums think of Jung?

>his work is pure mumbo-jumbo with no merit.

If his work helped people, then how could it be mumbo-jumbo? Psycology is more than a tool than actual actual science and his toolkit helped many people over the years.

Yes it is and no he didn't. He built a cult of personality that poisoned and retarded the science of psychology for decades even after his death, and which TO THIS DAY provides endless fuel for science denialists to make fun of it. Modern psychology exists despite him, not because of him.

He didn't found psychology, DUDES,he founded Psychoanalysis. And no it ain't science.

Psychology, on the other hand, is considered a science in the contemporary era.

>If his work helped people, then how could it be mumbo-jumbo?

This is so stupid I can't even. Firstly, there is no evidence he helped anyone, and by mysticising the mind he has prevent many from seeking the kind of help they actually need. And I don't just mean crazy people, I mean ordinary people who might be curious about how the mind works,who mistakenly read some Jung and end up with profoundly wrong and anti-scientific ideas.

>Psycology is more than a tool than actual actual science

No you're thinking of psychiatry which despite the similarity of spelling is not at all the same thing. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine, psychology is the science of the mind, the relationship is like medicine and chemistry or surgery and biology.

>Except Freud is still respected because he founded a science, Jung is a joke on a par with Lysenko, his work is pure mumbo-jumbo with no merit.

Again, with the claims that scientific merit is the only source of worth. Jung's ideas are actually pretty solid philosophically, as are Freud's, even though neither hold water scientifically.

He founded both psychiatry and psychology. It's true that his theories are no longer current, and that in particular that introspection is no longer considered a useful methodology, but his project of applying the scientific method to the study of the mind is what created the modern science and most of the psychologists I've known would agree with this.

Psychology is abhorrent in its existing form so i don't know why you think Jung's distance from it its a knock against him. The flip side of science fetisism is a cancer of another kind, one that people on Veeky Forums in particular suffer from. Can you critique a single one of his actual ideas?

>He didn't found psychology, DUDES,he founded Psychoanalysis. And no it ain't science.

A moot point, you could say lots of people "founded psychology" but Freud(and to a lesser extent Jung) help found what is now considered the practice of modern Psychology. Freud created a tool of Psychology, Psychoanalysis as his main contribution to the field.

>Again, with the claims that scientific merit is the only source of worth.

For a science? Yes, scientific merit is the only metric that matters.

>profoundly wrong and anti-scientific ideas.

Such as?

>Psychology is abhorrent in its existing form so i don't know why you think Jung's distance from it its a knock against him.

I'm curious: what brand of ideologue are you?

> I don't understand scientific discipline
> Must be abhorrent! XD

Ok, that's why I suggested discussing his ideas as something other than natural philosophy, you fucking retard.

Before I actually read some of his writins I used to think like but now I see he has merit.

The think is psychology is philosophy, not medicine. It has no more therapeutic value then say a person versed in Plato and Aristotle listening to someone complain about their problems or confessing to a priest.

>Psychology is abhorrent in its existing form

What's this supposed to mean?

>Can you critique a single one of his actual ideas?

Are you serious? Can I critique such "ideas" as the collective unconsciousness, or dream archetypes, or any of the other pure woowoo mumbo-jumbo that constitutes his work?

See this post >psychology is philosophy

This kind of mysticism and obscurantism has hounded psychology ever since, many lay people have this view that psychology is all voodoo and wordgames, and they get it from Jung.

writings*
the thing* is

None, why do you ask?

>What's this supposed to mean?

Do you not understand what the word "abhorrent" means? The modern apparatus of the Psychology field and its application(psychiatry) are ideologically bent in a particular fashion, one that i don't think is necessarily helpful to its patents or society in the long run. Their tireless reliance on prescription drugs is a good example. It's slowly become an arm of drug companies to push drugs on people in an alarming fashion.

>Are you serious? Can I critique such "ideas" as the collective unconsciousness, or dream archetypes, or any of the other pure woowoo mumbo-jumbo that constitutes his work?

Explain what you think those things mean then critique them.

Anecdotal but I heard from more than one psychology major that psychology is philosophy, not science (which is perfectly fine btw; they have different objectives and methods and are both valid), and that the important thing is talking about your issues and it would have the same effect if you talked to a friend, a priest, or a psychologist. The only reason they don't admit this publicly is because then they would be out of a job.

It's still basically just philosophy at this point. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is basically just taking the ideas of the Stoics and applying them to medicine.

For that matter, science is just applied philosophy.

>None, why do you ask?

Because 99% of people that freak out about modern psychology are some brand of ideologue upset that it rejects their particular conception of human nature.

Drugs works, if you hate them for being effective it is your problem, not scientific one.

I laugh when I hear parents say they're taking their children to a child psychologist, or some athlete say he's seeing a sport psychologist. You might as well see an astrologist and some athletes really do.

Of course drugs work, what is your point? I'm saying they're very likely oversubscribed

Taking a stab in the dark: he's a /pol/tard that's butthurt about them suggesting that people with Gender Identity Disorder transition.

> Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is basically just taking the ideas of the Stoics and applying them to medicine.
Yeah... Like Nuclear Physics just takes some ideas from Democritus to create atomic bomb.

>patents
>prescription drugs

No, idiot, you said psychology is abhorrent, so why are you now talking about psychiatry?

>ideologically bent in a particular fashion

You have some evidence for this?

>explain why woowoo magic isn't for reals

Hitchen's Razor: What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Everything is just "applied philosophy"

>psychology is philosophy
Oh and if anyone cares to know where Jung comes from philosophically speaking, I'd say based on my readings that he stems from the Kantian school with a good dose of Schopenhauer thrown in there. He quotes them often.

>Yeah... Like Nuclear Physics just takes some ideas from Democritus to create atomic bomb.

Not even remotely comparable. The stoic conception of the mind wasn't actually that far removed from our own; they were working with the same tools and the same material. CBT is just systemizing ideas along those lines towards medicine.

>No, idiot, you said psychology is abhorrent, so why are you now talking about psychiatry?

Because one informs the other and vica versa, psychiatry is the application of psychology in a loose sense..

>You have some evidence for this?

Their over reliance of perspiration drugs

>Hitchen's Razor: What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

What does magic have to do with anything? Sounds like you literally have no clue what you're talking about.

Sort of. Plenty of stuff is done without any sort of systemized or ideological thought to it. But science (natural philosophy) is literally just a subset of philosophy; the scientific method, empiricism, falsifiability, etc. are all just products of philosophy, which are utilized towards understanding of the natural world.

Plato too of course is another great influence.

> just systemizing ideas
Most of the science is just systematizing ideas. How would we know if stoicism legit if not tests, that psychology done and such?

Philosophy is also about systemizing ideas. The difference is it isn't necessarily beholden to the scientific method. Psychology isn't strictly scientific (trying to form a basis of repeatable testing or falsifiability when you're dealing with an ephemeral, subjective subject matter such as the human mind is difficult, at best), and its methods are philosophical in their approach and application.

>psychiatry is the application of psychology in a loose sense..

No, psychiatry has more in common with chemistry and the other branches of medicine, it is not "applied psychology", that would be something like political propaganda or those "influence techniques" salesmen are so fond of.

>Their over reliance of perspiration drugs

Do you know what the alternative to meds is? Something like nursing care, or a social worker, or even a bed in an asylum. Problem is, all those cost $$$ and crazy people don't vote anyway, so there's no political incentive to pay the bill. Psychiatrists rely on meds so much because they are chronically over-worked and underpaid, not because they're part of some retarded conspiracy (what the WHOLE profession? And never a single whistleblower? yeah, no)

>What does magic have to do with anything?

Please provide me with the evidence for the existence of a collective unconsciousness.

>Please provide me with the evidence for the existence of a collective unconsciousness.

Myths shared across cultures, every story you've ever given two shit about having easily identifiable archetypal representations. The standard heroes journey that we see 100 times a day, that all has basis in the collective unconscious. It has nothing to do with magic.

When you go see a movie and really resonate with it, it's digging into something that is shared between you and just about every person who exists around you.

Yes I agree that science is applied philosophy and philosophy provides the tools that scientists take for granted such as logic and epistemology. Too bad they don't call science natural philosophy anymore.

Now what Jung does is he takes Schopenhauer's theory of the will and applies it to the study of human behavior. He says it himself, what I call the "libido" is basically what Schopenhauer called the will to live.

Jung insists that he's an empiricist. He's analised tens of thousands of dreams. His theory of the archetypes is based on his research comparing dreams with world mythologies. He didn't invent anything out of nothing, as some posters here seem to imply,

Jung was probably more akin to Nietzsche. Jung understood what Nietzsche "threw down" so to speak and attempted to grapple with it.

HAHAHAHA okay I'm not even going to bother you clearly have no clue what you're on about.

Explain how i'm wrong.