Carl Jung reading guide? Where to begin?

It's also obvious you've never read him and/or didn't comprehend anything he ever said. Ignorance and anger go hand in hand.

Basically this. If you actually had good reasons for people not to read him, don't you think you'd be a little more calm and secure? Might you bring yourself to understand what mistaken desires bring the hipster dilettante to want to read Jung, and might you have a polite suggestion that better serves the reader than the works of Jung that you so revile?

I concur with Man and His Symbols / Modern Man in Search of a Soul as the starting point. Currently am reading Psychology and Alchemy, and, despite it being profound, there's a lot of rambling I can't quite make sense of yet.

>pseudoscience
>unfalsifiable

That implies his goal was for his phenomenology to one day be validated by the sciences. Quite the opposite.

>don't listen to this asshole
>clearly needs to read more
Ahhh yes I am the one who is angry. It sounds like the truth of the matter is that I touched a nerve. Maybe if you ever decide to sort yourselves out and attend university you will move past this childish charlatan. For now I am done with the thread of pseuds.

>Fedora, the post.

Is this bait?

RED BOOK then backwards you Caaaaaaaaaaaannnt

Don't listen, OP. Jung is a great entry point into the later fields which he undoubtedly contributed to.

Man & His Symbols is thee book that got me into heavy reading years back. Technically he only contributes a foreword, but he edits a number of fruitful cases his colleagues make about the genealogy of the human unconscious that they believe we shape into characters of myth and other symbolic tropes (Hero w 1000 faces is for pussies, real lit men start with Jung).

Four Archetypes is great further reading if semiotics and reader response is your thing.

Obviously Jung is not the ONLY figure in early psychology, but he's definitely a wild card. He's an intuitive figure who inspired so much down the line... It's only seen as "pseudoscience" today because Jung was concerned notions of cognition that were out of his technological depths. Dreams and the unconscious continue to be a neglected part of the human mind (to some degree).

>hermeneutics is a science

Imagine being this much of a fucking retard.

>unfalsifiable
Psychological theory shouldn't be "science". Humans have far too many variables to reliably test their nature on any meaningful level.

Show us your degree and then explain to us the academic consensus

I'm sorry guys I was drunk earlier when I posted all that anti Jung stuff. I actually love Jung and can't get enough of him I don't even know how many layers of irony I must have been on to write those hateful posts.

You should read the German Idealists before Jung.
He has interesting ideas, but is almost clueless about metaphysics and if you want to be serious about his positions you need to be able to shore up his weaknesses, or at least so you can tell what parts are worth keeping before moving on.

>discredited

Actually, no. His ideas on introversion and extroversion have since been substantiated by modern neurology, and his collaborations with physicist Wolfgang Pauli were at least twenty years ahead of their time.

It can't be helped if mainstream psychology is lagging behind his realizations - it isn't a science, after all.

t. angry brainlet

more like carl dung

What works would you recommend?

I would say Frederick Beiser's 'German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801' for Kant, and the critique of Kant.
Schopenhauer's 'The World as Will and Representation' is also something Jung drew from, and is fairly readable particularly if you have some understanding of Kant.
Another person Jung employed, but slipped my mind in my original post, was Heidegger, and I would recommend looking at 'Heidegger Explained: From Phenomenon to Thing' by Graham Hartman.
Also, check out the Veeky Forums philosophy project on google docs, as it has more recommendations if you are interested and better, how to acquire them at little cost or hassle if you already do not know how.

And, as I consider it more seriously, I would not dissuade you from reading Jung ('Man and his Symbols' as previously suggested is an excellent start) at the same time.

A last thought, but if you are interested enough with Kant, I think it is also worth looking at Schelling and Hegel (respectively in Beiser's 'German Idealism' and simply titled 'Hegel') as I think Absolute Idealism, Hegel's for specifically, has a strong resonance with Jung. I would go so far as to say Spirit, as Hegel means it, bears a strong family resemblance to Jung's archetypes.

>[Hegel's] spirit
>bears a family resemblence to Jung's archetypes
How is that in any way the case? An archetype is a content of consciousness. Spirit is consciousness itself.

Yes, we should also never read any philosophical texts because they have not been accepted as empirical fact by every scientist.

This. Reading white males? Not even once. It's wrong by definition.

I suppose I make myself more clear, I didn't mean it in the way that archetypes are what we or Hegel would call spirit,
but I think it would be an interesting idea to play around with in the purview of the development of spirit and also it's formal qualities.

I'm just intrigued by the idea of taking archetypes out of the realm of noumea as he initially laid them out and be able to situate it in the realm of nature if possible.

The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious ->
Jung's Review of Ulysses ->
Jung's Letter to Joyce ->
The Red Book

Interesting. Makes me think of Jung's collective unconscious as a schizophrenic animus mundi (did he use that term?) wherein a theory of the daimonic grounded in race realism and evolutionary psychology can emerge where the world historical genius is in communion with the daimon of his zeitgeist in the veltgeist and societies have Stands like Jojo's and duke it out in a mortal kombat like mimetic escalation of violence seeking some sort of political theological salvation.

Would read.

Literally just finished his The Undiscovered Self. Good book, quick, easy, written for the layperson. Only 100 pages.

i remembed when i read jung i turned into a magical mystic who thought rocks and minerals had powerful meanings and powers.

Did it fizzle away or did you have an epiphany about it?

It went away, eventually I just reverted back to being a fedora nihilist. It's hard to maintain a mystical mindset while at the same time looking at this objectively, atleast for long. I do believe there is a case to be made that symbols hide something very important about us and that we must listen to them to know what we really want though.

symbols in our dreams*

>the field he worked in has long since discredited him
Every therapist I know (and I know plenty, including the finest in the county) are all Jungian.

That was just your autism flaring up.

I'll take your source work suggestions. I don't like reading analyses - not until after I've read sources, at least.

Homespun fantasy fiction is not hermeneutics user

>all these "Man and His Symbols" answers
Here's where you start if you're not a brainlet.

define jungian. not questioning you, just interested in what beliefs they collectively share so that it makes them "jungians"

Jung would call you a cuck