Jung thread

Jung thread.

I recently started with Man and his Symbols. I must say, Jordan Peterson is like a pop-culture version of this guy. I never knew how dark his his philosophy was.

pls no derail

Hey user, good one. I recommend reading Memories, Dreams, Reflections. It hardly ever gets mentioned on here in Jung threads, but it is like an autobiography that focuses mainly on the development of Jung's personal philosophy that supports his theories. It gives you a good foundation for the theories, and also a personal historical context to better understand them. It's also beautiful to read. Don't skip it!

Thanks, I'll check it out.

He's basically insane. He should be relegated to /x/. I mean its not like we have threads on Terrence Mckenna or Manly P Hall or even Alan Watts, so why does this guy and Peterson get a pass?

>insane
If you watch his interviews the exact contrary is presented.

One thing that confuses me about Jung is that Man & His Symbols is the recommended book to start with, but he only wrote a little of it?

Am I looking at the wrong version or something?

It doesn't seem particularly dark to me yet, I'm about halfway through part 2. In fact it seems very optimistic after reading Freud. Where are you?

That's the one. He edited the other parts too

Okay he is not deranged, just passively delusional

>Terrence Mckenna or Manly P Hall or even Alan Watts
I've seen casual threads on all of them here. Not frequently, but threads that racked up quite a number of replies (except for Manly P. Hall, I don't remember any big threads about him, but threads nevertheless) and discussion that wasn't just flaming. And Jung is probably about several orders of magnitude more scholarly and respectable to talk about on a literature board than any of them.

ye mckenna and watts are jungs acolytes

Terence McKenna is Veeky Forums as fuck. His timewave / world ending in 2012 thing was bullshit, but 99% of his speaking material out there had nothing to do with that topic, it's just what normies remember him for.

he was a real kinky mofo

He was actually a literal psychotic, with hallucinations and everything, but still pretty important. Freud was right about him though.

Freud got thoroughly frightened by him which is why he refused to go into the Id / collective unconscious with any real depth and has been uprooted by hundreds of psychologists after him.

What is his philosophy, exactly? Psychoanalytic theory is not philosophy, mind you. It's a pseudoscience.

It makes you uncomfortable so you refuse to believe it.

That's what they said about the Bible (and the Quran) too

>What is his philosophy, exactly?
That there are these massive, ancient, trans-personal archetype entities driving our collective behavior without our conscious awareness and it'd be beneficial for us to reconcile with them and integrate their influence into our own sense of self. When I think of something as "Jungian" I mostly think of that recognition of essentially living super-thoughts that aren't confined to any one person's head and how they manifest in each of our lives. Most non-Jungian thinkers don't treat these concepts as living in that way. Jung seemed to genuinely see archetypes as personalities he could introduce himself to and have conversations with rather than how someone like Freud would approach this topic where he'd see them as sterile, unthinking mechanisms / habits / maladies.

I didn't say anything on its actual merits. Mimesis and neurology are incredibly fascinating to me and I find Jung's work very valuable. But it is still a pseudoscience more than a philosophy, right now at least, because it's only loosely based on scientific method, and it's not very concerned with the philosophical tradition or establishing a new value system.

bump

Watt's entire bit is just applying what Jung taught in micro ways. And your saying he's ABOVE Jung. You've basically outed yourself as a complete moron.

What sort of sad excuse for a psychologist doesn't dive into his own subconscious and receive prophetic imagery from it.

So Jungian archetypes are super-rational rather than sub-rational? As in they are intelligent beings? I see archetypes as subconscious, sub-rational, vague and slow but also very powerful.

mediocre fantasy fiction writer posing as psychologist

The archetypes are trans-personal as in they aren't confined to just one person's head.
>As in they are intelligent beings?
Yes. Jung treats them like living things that can be talked to.

What did freud say about jung? I know he felt jung was talking out of his ass, but not more then that. Am curious to know!

Kevin McDonald talks about Jung in Culture of Critique.

I have the chance to take a class whose reading list consists of:

>sacred and profane (eliade)

>Hero with a thousand faces (campbell)

>totem and taboo (freud)

>words with power (frye)

>Jung on mythology (jung)

>anatomy of criticism (frye)

Is it worth it to add an extra course to my schedule just so I can contribute to lit?

Freud's whole agenda was trying to conquer the mind and explain it in terms of materialistic / sexual mechanisms e.g. people believe in God because it's a subconscious reversion to infantile dependence on a father figure.
Jung started out as a Freud disciple, but started coming up with his own ideas that involved doing the opposite of the above and treating religions / cultures with great respect and seeing them in a mystical / Platonic kind of way where they're real and rich in wisdom to learn from.
This pissed off Freud a lot and the main insult he used on Jung was to call his ideas a religion.

>The archetypes are trans-personal as in they aren't confined to just one person's head.
In practice they are though. They entirely exist in our head alone, with no connection to one another. They are only trans-personal in a sense, by coincidence of the fact that there are some common traits among us like most of us having two arms, two legs, same set of organs, some general similarities in the home place, some general similarities in our relationships with parents and others, etc. But there isn't anything like some abstract singular source we are all tapping into somewhere.

b8

You're wrong. Psychoanalytic theory is philosophy, it's not a science to begin with and never was.

For it to be a philosophy it needs to profess a taste for things.

ITT: Smug morons think they're smarter than Jung

Learn more about the empirical method in medical science and read his Collected Works volumes 1 and 2. Nigga took his medical experience of years in the Bughozli sanatorium with psychotic patients as the groundwork for his theories.

It's both. Read what he says on instinct x archetype (there's a text labeled as such), as well as the transcendent function in CW volume 8. Archetypal influence is lived both as instinctual drives and inter/intra-personal images in the individuation process.

If you're interested in the themes sure.

To work Eliade, Jung and Campbell is GOAT material for Veeky Forums fampai

> it's not a science to begin with and never was.
this is a simple and plain lie. Jung consider himself a "scientist". he believe in the notion of a "health". and all his theories have the outcome to "cure" people. you can say psichology and psichiatry is not a science but they consider themselves like that.

>coincidence of fact
It's actually Synchronicity.
I'll agree on the not being able to prove as fact tb e existence of this singular source of instinct/imagery since it's in the collective unconscious and only observable through its effect on the conscious psyche though.

Haha wow Im sooooooooo o drunk -

wow just conmpltely WASTED

wassup /bros

I will always hate this cunt for being responsible for AA trying to shove god down people's throat

Have any of you had experience with synchronicity?

Well psychiatry isn't a science. It's an applied 'science'. Which isn't quite the same thing tbqh.

Engineers aren't scientists simply because they use geometry and calculus.

All the time. Last night I saw a movie that had the exact same clock in a scene as I have on my wall.

There's no "experience" with synchronicity, all of existence is synchronic.

>applied 'science'
explain better the term and how is not scientific.
we are talking about Jung and his "philosophy", which is the geometry and calculus in this respect. what is the base of the psychology?

Yeh, all the time.
Most common is when I need to accommodate a patient's new schedule and to do so I need to talk to another patient and see if they can move their schedule around when for their own reasons the second patient was needing a new schedule of his own and was planning on talking to me for that in that very session. Pretty damn neat.

One time I was at a party and a fairly attractive girl kept bluntly checking me out. I was deliberating maintaining my sexual abstinence or going over and making a move. Soon thereafter a guy walked past me with a shirt reading "Do not succumb to lust". I took the guidance. Why someone would wear a shirt like that is beyond me.

I know a guy who takes a screenshot of his phone every time he looks at it and the numbers line up. Time dubs, basically. He gets especially excited about the times when the battery % matches it. I can't remember what he thinks it means but it was definitely something stupid.

For something to qualify as a science it needs to fit a very specific set of qualifiers.

then you are saying medicine is not a science because is not a "pure" science?.
my main argument is that Jung and psycologists dont propagate phylosophies. if you want to say they are scientist applicators (or whatever) and not scientists, its ok with me. (they still have a huge dependence of scientific method anyway)

what i want to say is that he dont put himself in the philosophy group if he can. (and he put the scientist approach to mind and reality in general, like his real manners)

no not above but maybe a little less /x/ tier.

Medicine isn't a pure science. It's similar to engineering because you're dealing with human beings not scientific categories like protons and gluons.

It obviously uses scientific tools as part of it's duty, but not only.

sounds like pantheism the way you put it

Yes. It happens in profound, deeply humorous and weird ways.

>tfw when Jung is just a modernist rip-off off Schelling

hello, GOMRADE.

like i said before. its ok with me if you want to(pickily) say they are scientists applicators and not scientists. they are a scientific branch totally dependent of science.
i say this because psycology (who dont have enough base to be even scientific application) is a science branch and not a philosophy branch. something crucial that they (the psycologists and psychiatrist) avoid with panic. they NEED be part of the scientific Project or they dont have any difference of some random paulo coehlo "the secret" oscurantist theory.
>It obviously uses scientific tools as part of it's duty, but not only.
>but not only
what ascientific tool medicine use?.
legitimate curious.

>They entirely exist in our head alone, with no connection to one another.
Archetypes don't exist entirely in one head alone. If they did then they wouldn't be archetypes. You can try to argue archetypes don't exist, but what you're talking about isn't what Jung believed.
In any event, it's not at all impossible for an idea to exist independent on any one person's mind. Zeus didn't reside in one mind alone for example. Stories about him were spoken or written down and accessible to many different people. And with computer networks the way they are today this is more true than ever.

>Jung started out as a Freud disciple
Really? I thought they just met/wrote to each other and shared ideas for a period of time.

He was just schizotypal, there's nothing wrong with that. Should we not read James Joyce or study the math of Godel because they were schizotypal as well?

>Archetypes don't exist entirely in one head alone
We don't encounter anything that isn't ourself.

Jung thought of archetypes as platonic forms but also like dieties that can personalize themselves for an age or culture or individual but possessing a transpersonal existence that steadily evolves...

Okay, I didn't mean that's what Jung meant though. It's what I think. My bad for the confusion.

all the fucking time... i should really keep a diary

>555

>Watt's entire bit is just applying what Jung taught in micro ways.
Not saying he's better or worse but this is just flat out wrong.

Explain to me how psychology does not fit the scientific method? Or are you talking about other qualifiers?

The reason they do that is that statistically people are much more likely to best addiction if they can believe in a higher power. For some people the higher power is God and for others it is AA itself. Why are you against the idea of a higher power to give comfort and hope?

>Why are you against the idea of a higher power to give comfort and hope?
Well that's a popular reason for why someone drinks, isn't it? The inability to cope with the presence of a power higher than their own. Rejection of the sovereign identity in the world, usually because they are failing to realize their own in it.

>join AA
>dude jus recognise a higher power lmao

Not speaking for AA entirely. But, a broken relationship with the sovereign identity sounds like a probable reason for alcoholism because it is.

Fuck you. I'm finna drink more beers and smoke some bowls and post about how true dionysian daimons like me don't need no higher power.

hi kantbot

I'm with you in that AA pushing belief in God isn't helpful. What they should focus on is teaching you how to discover that power in yourself. That's why people drink and resort to drugs.

AA's failure rate is terrible there are plenty of alcoholic religious people already

I had a psychology prof exclaim "FREUD IS DEAD" in the first lecture of psych 101. It's something that keeps coming to mind now that I've been watching a lot of JBP. He reiterated this several times during the semester as if he had to assure the class it was all silly bullshit no one in their right mind would consider as real psychology these days.

I'm not sure why it stuck with me, but I had a feeling he was being deceitful yet at the same time I more or less accepted the statement. JBP said in a lecture that people discount Freud because people more or less accept his stuff as evident and all we see are his errors.

A Jewish one.

why does calling this hack for what he is trigger lit so much?

he is a laughingstock in academia and his only fans are joe rogan level pseuds

Wasn't Freud a charlatan? In the sense he would rip off people? I've read articles on this.

No.

Normies dislike Freud because his theories were too icky. Rogerian humanism and CBT are far more upbeat alternatives, and comfortably clean and harmless. They're also glorified motivational speak, not much deeper than those youtube dimwits or Veeky Forums self-improvement dorks.

They don't force God they force higher power. For a lot of people the higher power IS AA in that it has worked for others so it will work for them too.

a christian approaches you with his philosophy, and you ask him how to get access to God, he gives you the Bible, asks you if you'd like to go church, and tells you to pray

a materialist humanist approaches you with his philosophy, you ask him how to bring about utopia, he hands you a bunch of books on psychology, sociology, and physics, and tells you to study and live a healthy life

a buddhist approaches you with his philosophy, you ask him how to access samadhi, he gives you the pali canon and tells you to do zazen

Carl Jung approaches you with his philosophy, you ask him how to make the unconcious concious, he gives you his literature and tells you to _____?

get lost.

Remove the barriers to individuation.

>utopia
Better kill the creature before he curses us with that.

kek

Anyone had experience with a Jungian analyst? I'm considering seeing one.

I'm seeing one in two weeks, pretty stoked (he's a big guy)

this is like scientology

this

petersen is the next l. ron. screencap this post

No, but I'd suggest reading as much of the collected works as possible first. Also, find one who focuses on individuation via painting rather than some dubious concept like 'Jungian therapy sessions'.

Also the term Jungian is depressingly ironic considering the quote in which he explicitly hopes nobody ever refers to oneself as such.

>Don't worship me like a god you guys, jeez
Said by every narcissistic self-consciously famous person ever to subtly brag about how famous they are.

Normies dislike Freud because his theories were too icky. Rogerian humanism and CBT are far more upbeat alternatives, and comfortably clean and harmless. They're also glorified motivational speak, not much deeper than those youtube dimwits or Veeky Forums self-improvement dorks.

Hell yess!

>Why are you against the idea of a higher power to give comfort and hope?
I'm not against it, if it helps some people, knock yourselves out. I just experienced it as very patronising and frankly insulting that all of it is based on the assumption: 'once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic'. The fact that it's marketed as some one size fits all solution all while having no scientific basis (and a priori denying any possibility of a biological cause) doesn't help either.

>take baclofen
>suddenly barely any craving or anxiety
>"there's nothing you can do bro just believe in god lel"

If anyone else here is at the end of their rope, read The end of my addiction by Olivier Ameisen and look into a doc willing to try baclofen.

>Normies dislike Freud because his theories were too icky.
Freud was a normie.
the fall of Freud is because psychology is Science you know?, we dont believe in theorizing. we believe in pills.

>normies in general love Freud (they feel knowing who he is give them a kind of importance).

Read each line of your comment again and see if each line of it makes any sense.

i dont know

synchronicity bump 12 47 18 umbrella umbrella

one time I was in a pit not knowing what to do with my life or where I was at so I went on a walk and this chick was jogging past singing with her music and said "Am I running my life or is my life running me?" I went back home.