Carl Jung: Better than Freud

No he wasn't, pure hardcore Catholic

thats what the media wants you to think

11 fucking minutes, and the best thread of the day already

there's his fly, for a start

It's easy to break down:

Fraud is a sexual degenerate, a pervert and a Jew.

Carl Jung looks at psychology with an understanding of metaphysics (truth) and attempts to understand psychology in relation to those truths.

He basically defines mental illness as the disorderly organisation of oneseelf, where as mental health is structure and order in oneself. Now this may seem 'okay yeah he's ordered he's fine, he is chaotic he's not' to materialists. But he is talking about order and disorder in relation to a hierarchy and order that exists.

To understand Jung in his entirety. You need to understand metaphysics and the traditional school of thought. Julia Ebola will set you right with that.

Problem is, people don't know how to return to health in the modern world as they don't even know what normality or health is.

If you can't get what Jungs saying or at least understand it in theory, it is showing signs of mental illness within you, as you don't have an understanding of existence.

None of these fuckers knew what they were talking about really.

Sexuality is simply the most base instinct driving every organism, sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, enjoy your definitions and metaphysics :^)

Freud - Jew - Degenerate, manipulative overly reductive
Jung - Pagan - Occultism, Mysticism, pantheonic nonsense
Lacan - Catholic - Conservative, redemptive, philosophical

The choice is clear

You sound like a retard who's watched too many Jordan B Peterson vids and doesn't know what the FUCK he's talking about, you're using "metaphysics" incorrectly by the way.
Doubt you've read any philosophy too.
Really hope this is fucking bait, I'm assuming naming Evola was supposed to discredit what you were saying, especially since you misspelled his name.

so anyone who's actually deep into psychology, past and present that can tell us what the mainstream consensus of jung is?

this is the most accurate representation in this bread

He is Jacques Lacan

It's treated as a legitimate school of psychology. It always has been. The basics of his theories are going to be taught in every psychological program and there are degree's and even entire schools that specialize in it. It's not as big as it used to because in the past there were fewer schools of psychology. As a result people have more options about the type of psych to study or the type of therapist to visit.

Any other questions?

Lacan was an atheist and Jung a protestant. Also, Jung was spiritual and well cultured whereas Lacan was just another worthless postmodernist (or pseudo-modern, to use the Jungian term)

Lacan was not an atheist.

Personally, I recommend Deleuze and Guatarri + Carl Jung + Mercia Eliade + Julius Evola + Jordan B. Peterson for optimal vision of the psyche.

Was he not? I've never read him. I guess I shouldn't trust wikipedia on these things.

Evola, Peterson, Jung and Eliade are all great, though I would also mention Nietzsche. Haven't read the two others you mentioned, will check them out.

>Understand metaphysics
>implying There is a basis of truth in metaphysics that can be known

Lacan should be read before Deleuze and Guatarri. And Freud before Lacan. Though I would hope a Jung fan already knows Freud.

>implying there isn't logical monism

>Implying language doesn't have limits

>Jung a protestant

How do you reach this conclusion? We're talking about a guy that said God and the Devil are the same thing and the highest entity in the universe is Abraxas

Every time Jung and Freud are brought up, I'm convinced people have very strong convictions without having read either.

I think that's true with everyone.

I don't trust anyone on Veeky Forums to not be completely making shit up unless I already know all the facts about what is being discussed. In which case most the discussion is pointless since I already know it all.

Yeah, same. The funny thing is, I first started noticing it when I realized myself doing it. I'd leave a thread and think "I actually had no idea what I was talking about"

It seems most arguments are for entertainment.

That is understood, but man is not just a debased animal.

>hurrr durrrr wharble garble barble

You have said absolutely nothing.

That is understood, but man is not just a debased animal.

>hurrr durrrr wharble garble barble

You have said absolutely nothing only revealing your lack of depth in comprehension of the subject.

Throwing out entire wisdom traditions in the name of a few uncertain biological findings WAS a bit premature.

Not to mention the fact that he lived off his wife's dowry while skeddadling around the world having personal gnostic experiences.

You need to go a step further, the Internet and memes have given us access to a form of hyper-osmosis where we can accurately predict knowledge on subjects we have not yet attained.
Embrace the pretense user, you know more than you'll ever know

You can usually tell because they will try to throw one of them in the garbage entirety, rather than comment on individual ideas or the value of the system or approach.

Dismissing Freud is incredibly fashionable for pseuds, and dismissing Jung is mandatory for fedoras.

In truth, both thinkers have revolutionised the way we understand ourselves, in so many ways, most of which people use without even being aware of it being their contribution. They were enormous influences on western civilisation and culture.

I have read a huge amount of both, by the way.

This is true.
>muh synchronicity

And fucking schizo girls to cure them. Watch A Dangerous Method. Prolly why Joyce hated him.

It's a common gnostic delusion. The debased Sophia must be elevated.

What a load of bullshit. I bet you call people pseuds as well.

Oh, user, that was not a documentary.

>implying the limits of language is not the limits of our world

Its just reason, when exposed to a billion metric tons of disparate information our mind has a way of connecting the dots in impressive ways.
That's if you're not a brainlet

There's a big jump from appreciating what a brain can create from random bits of information, to pretending to know about specific things that you do not actually know about. I bet you're one of those people who assume you know as much on a topic as someone who has a PhD in it, just because you saw half of a headline in I Fucking Love Science.

All knowledge is merely anamnesis.

user was talking about the deep points of their though, not their personal life. Lacan was deeply feudal in his conceptions of desire.

He married the second wealthiest heiress in Europe.

Marrying into money and having personal spiritual experiences are both admirable things. If you meant to imply they are negative you're thinking is really backwards. The alternative would be to be broke and spiritually empty.

>tfw no heiress waifu to fund spiritual experience

Not my point at all, just far from a protestant work ethic.

he will always be the final boss for pseuds. if you cant read lacan, you're still a pseud, and havent absorbed enough of european thought

Well he isn't a Protestant. Protestant work ethic is the kind of shallow stuff he tries to get people to step away from. There's more to self-development than being a diligent slave.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toni_Wolff

Has anyone read Chaos Protocols by Gordon White? I think his thoughts on becoming invincible and ancestor worship and spirit contact are an interesting line of flight from Peterson's "rescue your father from the underworld" and Eliade's "shamanic sickness" and Jung's "individuation" (not in that order). It's technically chaos magic but the author is not the 90's pomo type. If his other book, Star.Ships, is to be believed, he is restoring the Atlantean religion to man...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHHAHA

Freud is much more interesting imo

>existing hierarchies are justified merely on the basis of their own existence, or the question of their justification doesn't even need to be addressed

Jung's inversion of metaphysics makes him even more perverse than Freud

What;s the green text supposed to be? Do you actually think that's what Jung said?

The man does not deal with metaphysics at all.

The whole psychodynamic approach to the human mind has little to no evidence behind it. It is a nice unscientific read though.

Basically ignored in mainstream undergrad courses that are accredited by psychological bodies. Specialist schools that remain fairly isolated from other schools exist, and train Jungian analysts. It is still going strong, semi-respectd but does not fit into the contemporary attempts to (erroneously) force psychology to be exclusively a "hard science".

If we want to build a reliable corpus of knowledge we have to use the scientific method. That doesnt mean that Jung and Freud were full of bullshit or that their theories are not useful. They are, and many of the contemporary techniques used in clinical settings stem from the psychodynamic approach.

Freudian and Jungian theories are interesting but they are fundamentally unscientific because they can't be proven wrong. Also the specialization schools behind it give the appearence of an hermetic inbred club, which gives the mainstream opinion another reason to dislike everything about psychodynamic theories.

Sure but the alternative is frankly going back to the stoneage at best.
What you are saying would be fair if mainstream psychology did actually have a commitment towards being a hard science but it doesn't. The frameworks they've developed are based on a slew of unlegitimized philosophical assumptions about the mind, logic and happiness that permeates straight into the framing of psychometrics themselves.

If it was a choice between hard science and philosophy what you're saying is understandable but instead its a choice between philosophy and a mixture of bad science and bad philosophy

Eh, Jung specifically addressed the paradoxical nature of trying to assimilate the findings of the subjective unconscious into a greater scientific lexicon, that it is basically impossible to compartmentalize people in that way because everyone's experiences are different which lead them to associate different things as representations of the same archetypes, but the archetypes are still there. The closest you could do is aggregate the findings of all case studies but even that would only represent a statistical average of the prevalence of certain images among the population total but would otherwise be of no use to diagnosing a new patient. To that end it was basically established impossible to represent his ideas in formulaic, 1:1 reproductive methods, but he also said that it doesn't mean the ideas should be dismissed entirely because so long as they help the subject then the process or the function of individuation, which is necessarily unique to every individual circumstance, is no less "true" or objective; then again, that also ties into the concept of synchronicity.

Either way, I found his ideas very powerful and thus based on my subjective (surprise, surprise) experience, they were still influential.

He dejudaized psychoanalysis, which Jung didn't manage to do.

Yes, of course sexuality is everything.
t. Freud to Jung, in those terms

What does 'judaized psychoanalys' even mean?

Good luck describing even the most basic of human emotional states in way that's falsifiable.

Its a complicated matter, in the most significant senses by negating Freuds impulse to bring patients to a "true" self that was ultimately identification with base desires towards instead the legitimization of the possibilities of the Imaginary with acknolwedgement of relationship towards the Real itself being the point of trauma.

In otherwords to Freud Christ was the problem, to Lacan Christ was the solution

I don't know Lacan and have only a basic knowledge of Freud. But saying that Freud identified a person with their base desires seems like a really lousy reading. His concept of id covers the base desires, it's not something that is an identity but a type of lurking monster of guilt and passion.

Adding the word "Jew" to things you dislike it just makes you sound like a retard.

Beyond your bad interpretation of Freud I have no clue what you fucking said.

>it's not something that is an identity

Of course its an identity, how could it not be. Its the core of the psyche from which all else manifests from language and social interaction.
Please think for five seconds before accusing others of bad readings you repugnant prick

Could anyone recommend a core reading list for psychoanalysis? I'm reading psychology of the unconcious at the moment but I feel like I should read the core works of freud before i read more Jung. Does anyone have recommendations for Freud? So far my list is 3 essays in sexuality, interpretation of dreams, civilisation and its discontents, the ego and the id, introduction to psychoanalysis and the psychopathology of everyday life on my reading list. What else should i put on there for freud? Any Jung recomendations are appreciated as well.

Dreams -> Three Essays on Sexuality -> Totem and Taboo -> Ego and the Id -> Civilization and its Discontents

This is the core Freud

Freud literally said to Jung that sexuality (not even "base desires" in general) was everything.

Freud was a jew. Jews are liars. Freud is no longer relevant and hasn't been for a long time.

Fuck man, I'll be the last to say I understand Lacan, but I don't get people who say they don't like his writing style just because it's obscure. He's fun as fuck to read. It's like solving puzzles and shit, it's a good afternoon. Love the guy

But freud's version of the unconcious is still better and makes more sense. Sausseurian linguistics fucked all those structuralist thinkers and it's up to their modern readers to extricate their thought from that retard's meddling sign this and signifier that hocus pocus. Luckily this is easier to do with lacan than most structuralist thinkers.

Thanks

You just know this guy hasn't read one (1) of Freud's books.

>
Freud took great pains to ensure that a non-Jew, Jung, would be the head of his psychoanalytic movement—a move that infuriated his Jewish colleagues in Vienna, but one that was clearly intended to deemphasize the very large overrepresentation of Jews in the movement during this period. To persuade his Jewish colleagues of the need for Jung to head the society, he argued, “Most of you are Jews, and therefore you are incompetent to win friends for the new teaching. Jews must be content with the modest role of preparing the ground. It is absolutely essential that I should form ties in the world of science” (in Gay 1988, 218). As Yerushalmi (1991, 41) notes, “To put it very crudely, Freud needed a goy, and not just any goy but one of genuine intellectual stature and influence.” Later, when the movement was reconstituted after World War I, another gentile, the sycophantic and submissive Ernest Jones, became president of the International Psychoanalytic Association. (From Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique)
Is there anything that based Kevin can't do?
You don't even need him. Just read Civilization by Fraud to see it written directly how Jewishness is superior and the goyish modes of thinking must be crushed.

Having feelings is not the same as taking them as an identity. People treat all sorts of states of thought as foreign or intrusive. Freud has most people identifying with their ego and taking the super ego and id as foreign thoughts that must be mediated.

The id is certainly not the where language manifests itself from!

>The id is certainly not the where language manifests itself from!
Thats not what I say, do keep up.
>Freud has most people identifying with their ego
>Freud has most people identifying with what they are identifying with
Nonsense statement

Pretty neat history. That also neatly explains Jung's anti-Jewish thought. I recall him saying that the Jewish mind is fundemtnally different, as a Jew myself I agree on that.

It's no surprise to find Jews dominating psychology. They are much smarter than everyone else and the vast majority of Goys have totally aborbed the Jewish way of thinking thanks to Christianity and Liberalism. But since their brains are not built to think that way it makes them suck at everything. There's a lot of ways of thinking which are fatal to Goys but make Jews stronger. For instance self-loathing.

Jung thinks differently because he is fundamentally pagan in the same way Nietzsche was.

Man I thought that book was just a meme, thats some good shit

True. But what I understand a lot of its focus has created destructive habits and phenomenon in the modern world. I know not everything which he says, but I also know what he neglects. To neglect a higher element and miss a base understanding of certain natural truths existing regardless of human thought, feeling or action then they will be found lacking.

Read Wittenstien

>implying the limits of language is not the limits of our world

LMAO This is your brain on analytic philosophy

i want north america to be rangebanned

He mentions it in Modern Man in Search of a Soul. But he was non-dualistic.

Jung and Freud were easy to understand for me. I have to think that people that don't understand Jungian concepts like numinosity and call it "magic" or "occult" have simply never bothered to read him or even tried to make sense of him.

everything is phallic, all is phallus

Wow...

Have you even read the book on the right? Read the last chapter if you want to hear some bullshit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Synchronicity is real bro

Synchronicties and coincidences are indiscernible from one another.

I don't know enough about synchronicity to weigh very much on it but geeze you're just talking out your ass.

If a dice rolls the same number an unusually large number of times in row that's a coincidence but not synchronicity.

But if you roll the dice and it's numberwang then Jung would say it's synchronicity.

Exactly, you fucking nong. It points directly to the contribution of consciousness for meaning, we cannot create meaning any more than we can command the sun to rise, we cannot not create meaning any more than we can command or thoughts to stop.

Lol. I was trolling to revive this thread from dying :^)

I. E., Freud did NOT want psychoanalysis to be a Jewish industry, they needed to be content with preparing the soil but not owning the garden. Freud did not want it to be an isolated Jewish practice, but a global institution run by science rather than religion.

This is probably why he took Jung's direction so hard - he had worked so hard to divorce psychoanalysis from Judaism and then Jung turns around and links it to christ.