/lit/ - Literature

>>20666499
>And it's also why Jung filters them so hard
I toss out Freud and Jung because I studied a science in college, learned about Freud and Jung after taking a psychology course, came to my own conclusions after looking at their work:
>"oh wow this is pseudoscience (especially Jung)"
like at least Freud has some developmental theories (that are bullshit) Jung is literally just straight up opinion and charlatanism. Did you know he was an alchemist and into the occult? This is sort of why his ideas are all more like unfalsifiable philosophies and "analytical psychology". Both of them are basically "ok we recognize these dudes influenced the development of our better science today but their theories were obviously bullshit". I cringe so hard when I see people talk about them seriously on here.
Also
>"Psychology is the science of the soul, but denies the existence of the very thing it studies".
This is a very narrow view of a soul and diminishing view of psychology. Psychology is a science just like physics or botany, it's research into things that actually exist (thoughts, feelings, disorders, consciousness) on a biological basis but for whatever reason pseudointellectuals get heavily triggered by it because it touches on qualia.