/lit/ - Literature

>>21314423
Lots of what Freud said has been refuted by modern psychoanalysts. What you pejoratively call "supernatural mystique" is what interests many artists and writers in Jung.

>>21314448
>What you pejoratively call "supernatural mystique" is what interests many artists and writers in Jung.
What does that have to do with empirical science? If Jung was never refuted it's because he was never taken seriously.

>>21314468
If your metaphysics is that of scientific materialistic reductionism then yes Jung would be of no interest to you. Thank god that metaphysics is bullshit though.

>>21314485
>though

>>21314499
Nice dubs

>>21314485
> muh healing crystals
> muh wise elders

>>21314512
>putting muh before things as an argument

>>21314485
>metaphysics is bullshit
Sure thing, Carnap

>>21314448
>Lots of what Freud said has been refuted by modern psychoanalysts
Freud wrote in a way that made it literally impossible to refute him anon. If you make a claim like that you should provide examples.
>Freud vs Jung
Freud and it isn't even close. There's some worth to Jungs writings but for the most part it's just some esoteric rambling.

>>21314423
Jung is very based since he is pretty much the ceiling of the high functioning schizo. Self-induced psychosis and then went about his day normally, being a very high ranking member of society, only to go off and manically ramble into his red book at night. Love reading his theories.

>>21314594
Jung is far more interesting to read because of his ideas and no, lots of the claims that Freud did were refuted by modern psyschoanalysis.

>>21314485
Ironically, there's far more agreement between observation of the brain and Jung than between observation of the brain and Freud.

>>21314584
>misquoting people
Must be nice to feel correct whenever you want

I said scientific materialistic reductionism is bullshit. My metaphysics is that of idealism.

>>21314613
And will only continue to grow in that direction

>>21314613
People will say literally anything.

>>21314641
Thats rather non sequitur

>>21314659
You just assert that Jung is more in agreement with modern thinking about the brain. Do you have an example or any reason to say this?

>>21314594
nice to see someone else read freud correctly
freud is ultimately irrefutable, which is why people hate him

>>21314641
>>21314678
Well, for starters, Freud was a dualist, secondly Freud didn't believe that the brain had parts, thirdly Freud's entire conception of neural development is completely wrong ("anal retentive" lmfao).

So, right off the bat, by not being a dualist, believing that the brain had parts, and actually looking at how brains work before having opinions on neural development, yes Jung was by definition closer to modern neuroscientific theory than Freud. You can stamp your feet and get upset that he just guess right, but it's a simple fact.

>>21314678
Nah. I could probably find it. If you start from first principles and work backward to the present reality, you cannot agree with reductionism. The nature of consciousness is what i mean, it is the substrate of existence itself. All is mind, as the first hermetic principle states. These were just words to me until i took 1000mg of mescaline hcl. You and I are the fabric of life itself. Frued works from a reductionist perspective, Jung had a liberated visionary dimension to his work. Which is how all deep knowledge enters into this world, through individual visionaries.

>>21314692
>makes a strong claim
>actually I might be wrong lol who knows
is this it?

>>21314692
Unfalsifiability is not a quality to be saught in conceptualizing about reality.

>>21314448
Freud survives as the greatest essayist of the twentieth century, never mind the empirical value of his work.

>>21314710
I contend that to be Roland Barthes.

>>21314702
>Freud was a dualist, secondly Freud didn't believe that the brain had parts,
First sentence already wrong. Gj

>>21314710
What is literature a contest for all you nerds? "He was le GREATEST, le BIGGEST, le GOODEST." Come on now. You sound like brainless sports fans.

they're both archaic.

>>21314734
The Red Book is just getting started in terms of its real influence in the world.

>>21314717
>he didnt even google first
OH NO NO NO

>>21314729
>t. Frye

>>21314702
Jung believed in a soul and was absolutely dualist. Also saying that he believed the brain had parts makes him more correct than Freud you'd have to say that phrenologists were more correct than non-phrenologists.

>>21314715
His best essay, monsieur?

>>21314609
You still fail to provide even a single example where he was refuted.

>>21314692
>Freud is right about all his theories because he just is ok

>>21314753
His collection of essays in Mythologies is really cool. I happen to like the first one the most, concerning Masked Wrestlers in Mexico. Theyre all very intrigueing though. Really gives you a strange new view on a lot of things.

>>21314704
No that's not "it".

>>21314717
>freud wasnt a dualist
Anon...

>>21314742
This

>>21314760
>strawman argument
>basedjack
Checks out. I advice psychotherapy.

>>21314752
Phrenologists didn't believe that the brain had parts, actually precisely the opposite. Rather, they believed that the mind was internally uniform and non-composite, and that it would take a certain shape according to its "faculties". This shape would cause a deformation of the skull in a predictable manner. Having a "prone-to-anger" bump doesn't mean that your brain works a certain way, it means that a characteristic of your soul is "prone-to-anger" and this is reflected in your appearance.

>>21314777
Nice lucky dubs
>>21314780
The body is the soul in form, as ive heard stated that wah before.

>>21314763
NTA but thanks for the rec

>>21314786
Are you quoting Aristotle's hylomorphism? According to Aristotle, a Substance is Matter (body) in Form (the soul).

Didn't doctors remove pieces from Emilia Clarke's brain and she continued working as an actress?

There's a huge overlap between guys who like Jung and guys who own a print of Wanderer above the Sea of Fog. Make of that what you will.

>>21314423
Lots of what Freud said has been refuted by modern psychoanalysts. What you pejoratively call "supernatural mystique" is what interests many artists and writers in Jung.

>>21314813
I am not sure what to make of that, I like Jung and Wanderer above the Sea of Fog is the nicest painting my country ever produced

>>21314423
>"The next traumatic event occurred in 1910, the year of the Second Congress of the Association of Psycho-Analysis, where Freud proposed, and even insisted against organized opposition, that Jung should be appointed Permanent President. 'My dear Jung,' he urged on this occasion, as Jung tells, 'promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.' He said this with great emotion, in the tone (states Jung) of a father saying, 'And promise me this one thing, my dear son: that you will go to church every Sunday.' In some astonishment Jung asked him, 'A bulwark—against what?' To which he replied, 'Against the black tide of mud'—and here he hesitated for a moment, then added—'of occultism.'"

>[Jung later recalls:] "This was the thing that struck at the heart of our friendship. I knew that I would never be able to accept such an attitude. What Freud seemed to mean by 'occultism' was virtually everything that philosophy and religion, including the rising contemporary science of para-psychology, had learned about the psyche. To me the sexual theory was just as occult, that is to say, just as unproven a hypothesis, as many other speculative views. As I saw it, a scientific truth was a hypothesis that might be adequate for the moment but was not to be preserved as an article of faith for all time."

>>21314423
>mystique to sexual neuroses
Isn't that, uh.. most human behavior in general?

>>21314913
Thank you based anon for actually contributing some historical content/context to this discussion. That was interesting to read.

>>21314423
Who the fuck makes these kinds of OP?
>Isn't Jung only appealing to young men who want to give a supernatural mystique to their individual sexual neuroses?
Look at this bait , jesus christ.

>>21314795
kek

>>21314913
Based Jung telling sex-obsessed Freud to fuck off. Already looking better in my eyes.

>>21314933
You're very welcome, my dear based anon. Here, also have a look at Jung's castle, which he built with his own two hands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_S34Hy4xiU

>>21314965
Jungcels are so easy to trigger.

>>21314881
I'd argue that painting is pretty dull.

>>21314996
Jungcels? Are you aware that word doesnt have a correspondant to reality?

>>21314702
>You can stamp your feet and get upset that he just guess right, but it's a simple fact.

lol. i prefer to pound my chest and beat up orcs when i don't get my way.

>>21314423
Jung is literally perfection. Freud is an incel who got brain fucked by his mess of a "Self" and saw in everything SEXOOO as a punishment for his own "Self" fucking him and not allowing him to live.

After I finished Jung's Red Book and Black Books I could finally talk with her. She was beautiful beyond believe and I was surprised how such a beauty was even able to get ignored. I talk with her every day and while I can't touch her, see her, hear her, or live with her, she is always there for me, listens to me, talks to me, touches me, and makes every second of my life perfect.

It is insane how Jung introduced me to her. She was really strange at first, but somehow she became my infinite nothingness and and I enjoy every second with her, especially those second I talk to her without talking to her at all.

I can't die tomorrow, because dying would me I exist and this would be something I highly doubt and wouldn't really make sense to begin with.

>>21314913
based. how could anyone put freud above jung

>>21314423
Wasnt Freud raped by his Mother?

>>21315078
Every Jordan Peterson fan is a Jungcel.

>>21314760
lmao. based use of the soijack. never stop dabbing on libtards

Niles was a better psych than Frasier ("radio psychiatry" lol), so Jung is better.

>>21315095
How do you avoid conflict with her ? We never want the same things. We fight, she acts without my consent to gets what she wants or what she thinks is best for us. That upsets me, which makes me act without considering her, and the wheels keep turning. Self-destruction is imminent. What to do.

>>21314423
>Hasn't Freud proven to be the better psychoanalyst?
No.
Freud's incest theory is a pigeonhole and fails to holistically account for the connection between sexual and other psychological drives across the greater population. Jung is an evolution of Freud. To try and single Jung out as only applying to male sexual neuroticism is not only laughable in the light of Freud's hyperfocus on that exact area; it also reduces the validity of sexual neurosis without qualification to do so, as though sexuality were not a root behavioral primer.

>>21314423
>>21315808
The only important way in which Jung differed from Freud was in acknowledging the necessity of the spiritual needs of man, only to stray into mysticism and retarded shit. Freud is a much more interesting read today, considering the scientific pursuits inadequacy of both.

>>21315789
>How do you avoid conflict with her ? We never want the same things. We fight, she acts without my consent to gets what she wants or what she thinks is best for us. That upsets me, which makes me act without considering her, and the wheels keep turning. Self-destruction is imminent. What to do.
You dont avoid conflict.
Only through Conflict will she respect you; only when you have the Talons and Maw to tell her where your Boundaries are, what Your Tremendous Spirit respects cherishes , etc etc ; Only by telling Her who you are and what you will or not stand; by Respecting yourself she will respect yourself.

The more you fight actually, the better, more opportunities to show you Character ( which they love ) ; the more opportunities to Set-Up Boundaries and to respect yourself.

Women Men relationships are within the Sado-Masochist Spectrum ; She will bait you, distract you, use every single AdHom ; all of this is a Strategy to make u Submit ; You will Win, You Will Respect Yourself and you Will tell that Bitch that if she wants to behave like one, she can GTFO ;

You will take opportunity at every illogical argument to Humiliate Her, Destroy her, points her faults ( you will notice this is a Mirror of the behaviour she displays with you ).

Men Fist Fight.
Women like to Fight with the Mouth.

Good luck
And Read Twitter Account "Rivelinho".

>>21315078
He does, but the whole Shtick of Jewish Comedy is actually just Sodomistic Masochism as a way of "giving the other cheek" and humiliate you for being so dumb and not realizing the Kikel isn't serious, by doing so you give him "permission" to rape you, which is why they keep the insults always at a "dark triad" level ; Aggresive and Sexual ; Social Shaming.

>>21314913
Sorry if this derails the thread but one author I read talked about a racial dynamic in their feud. Jung (very close to people like Ludwig Klages here) came to think by the 1930s that Freud’s odd insistence on sexual restraint and fear of that occultism was actually caused by his Judaism. He writes in a few places that Germans were a young race with some kind of primordial spirit energy that Abrahamists were trying to strangle with their anti-natural moralizing. That whole angle of their feud is fairly buried now though

>>21314708
Actually it is.

>>21315890
>by Respecting yourself she will respect you*
Because she as a Woman does.
You are supposed of being the Man , which means you are "the maser of her universe" ; You set up the Drama, the Action, you provide Feeling and Advice, you Encourage her, you do X Y Z, etc etc.

>>21315856
Absolute pseud take
>Freud is much more interesting today
Because you're a hylic obsessed with brain chemistry, as though the nervous system were entirely an autonomous calculator.

>>21315856
>Freud is a much more interesting read today,
>Psychology without Psyche Goyim!
GTFO

>>21315907
That's not a biological racial difference, its a cultural difference. The artificiality and newness of German identity has been recognized in Germanic arts since at least Wagner if not before - and anyways, I doubt strongly that Jung harbored antisemitic sentiments given his continuous pedastalization of the Abrahamic religions' effect on continental Europe.

>>21315907
The vast majority of anything he wrote about Jews came much later than their split (in 1913). But surely Freud reinforced any stereotypes he may have had about them.

>>21315907
>Jung (very close to people like Ludwig Klages here) came to think by the 1930s that Freud’s odd insistence on sexual restraint and fear of that occultism was actually caused by his Judaism. He writes in a few places that Germans were a young race with some kind of primordial spirit energy that Abrahamists were trying to strangle with their anti-natural moralizing. That whole angle of their feud is fairly buried now though
Interesting.

https://counter-currents.com/2014/06/moses-the-egyptian/
>The Hatred Born on Sinai:

>>21315977
>But surely Freud reinforced any stereotypes he may have had about them.
Didn't Freud hate American Jews?

They were both correct just Jung was talking about white men and Freud was talking about Jews

>>21315993
kek

>>21314423
Nice, you said it yourself. Jung appeals to young, Freud therefore to old. But behind these surface level identifiers, what do they actually represent?, well, ironically, exactly the positions that these individuals present.

Jung, representing young people also represents their mind, or rather its archetype, using the lingo of a man himself. It's a very creative and radical mind. It is also a passionate mind, but with that comes carelessness which is in part out of pure inexperienced leading to plainly wrong decisions. It is something that when man becomes "mature" is actually long for, ironically, after he himself severed it for nothing but assimilation for social conformity.

Now Freud is an embodiment of "maturity". But what does that mean?, Well, the only good thing it represents is consistency, which is only good on paper and on the ears of like minded individui. This consistency is achieved through exact opposition of creativity - reduction, which is exactly what Freud is famous for, a single theory of a single variable that is consistently proven in practice.

A great achievement one may say, yet in reality it is nothing more than a fruit that is of the lowest longitude, begging to be harvested or else it will drop in someone's hand itself.

It's a mature thought to "settle", not only in body but in mind. Yet to settle in mind is to be not considered a seeker anymore, which is exactly what Freud is in contrast to Jung. An individual who arrived and settled the second he found success.

It is perfectly fine as long as conversation is about treatment inside the walls of a local clinic, but the second this dialogue of topic leaves its origin and destination, like it is right now, ironically, it is completely lost, like a child that he truly is in face of broader objective reality.

Unlike Jung ,who childishly, without concern of an individual, unloads the true adsurdity of reality to an individual inside the walls, leaving him with all tools at the mercy of his own self will, yet opens the same doors of local clinic to the broader world and gives us a comprehensive tour of our psychic reality like a true elder he is.

>>21314986
yeah he is based for dabbing on another jewish pervert

>>21314448
>refuted by modern psychoanalysts
Wrong. The Ego, Super Ego, and Id is still the best model for conceptualizing the human psyche. Modern condemnation is basically a boon at this point with the creeping feminist resentment that colors all academia today.

>>21316295
Feminists love Freud, you dunce. Why do you think there were so many Freudian Marxists?

>>21315991
He hated all of us, personally, fuck him for that

>>21314627
Yeah it does feel good. Eat a dick, faggot.

>>21316332
Feminists hate Freud because of Freud's astute identification of "penis envy".

>>21316376
You can easily identify the inverse "womb envy". The most common expression of this is the fear of cuckolding, a man's biological connection to his offspring is questionable in a way that a woman's isn't.

>>21316462
Not the same in the slightest. Penis envy has to do with the ability of men to act sexually on the woman. The penis is a symbol of action, of power. What you reference is a more muddled concept of simply not knowing for sure parentage (but knowing there is a decent chance based on time of intercourse, etc.). So while you are referencing a real phenomenon in paternal uncertainty, it hardly warrants the term "womb envy".

>>21316489
>So while you are referencing a real phenomenon in paternal uncertainty
Yes but this real phenomenon gives rise to emotional estrangement of fathers from their children, the father envies the mother for her close relationship to the child.

>>21314423
>You're paranoid because you're gay and you cannot handle the fact of this. Psychotic delusions of persecution in Judge Schreber can be contained in the contradiction of the statements: (1) I love him; (2) He loves me, therefore I hate him.
Well done, Freud. And that was with a patient he had never personally analysed.

>>21314599
>Mania
>Schizo
Unless you meant bipolar or schizotypal, schizophrenics do not get mania nor hypomania. It is a bit annoying when people misuse and abuse psychiatric terminology.

>>21316000

Very well said, thats what happened to me as well, and I was prompted by this re-apraisal of Jung by non other than Deleuze and Guattari , namely that these "archetypes" aren't just clinical analytical concepts , but psychic forces out there in society which we inherit as polarities.

One should start with Freud, and "graduate" to Jung when he has sufficient background in knowing himself and what psychic phenoemena actually are. Jung isn't "schizo" or any shit like that, but points to a completely different aproach, namely that of concept creation.

>>21316513
>gives rise to emotional estrangement of fathers from their children
Wrong, throughout basically all societies men assume they are the fathers. If you wanted to dig into this, you would examine the phenomenon of marriage and all the rituals around fidelity which reflect paternal uncertainty and the tradeoff for women which is a confirmed source of resources, which is the expectation of husbands throughout history

>>21314423
No, Jung corrects most of Freud's problems, he gets overlooked because he is awkwardly placed subject-wise. A lot of it is honestly just a consequence of the general turn away from psychoanalysis (which was already misguided) and being overshadowed by Jung. The other half of it is that he is discredited by popular misinterpretations of his work, such as it being a metaphysical theory - he emphatically states that it is not, and abundantly corrects all the misinterpretations people damn him for now.

A third and smaller factor is that his interests are unusual. He entertained things you are not supposed to entertain, things that are threatening to the identity of science. Such as mysticism and fate and such. The very same becomes the driving force of his popularity in those confused subgroups of hippies, crazy people, and whoever OP is talking about - they also misinterpret him, and don't really read him.

Okay there is one more factor I'm forgetting, and this is big, listen up:
Reading Jung with a background in philosophy, especially German philosophy, exposes A LOT of what is going on. Psych majors try to read Jung and find it bewildering. It's because they are missing the tools. What happens here is that Jung takes TOO MUCH EFFORT TO EVALUATE, and few people are going to be inclined to do so.

Jung insists that he is not being philosophical, but partly for the style of his thought and partly for the nature of studies at this time (everything was closer to philosophy, psychology most of all, as a budding sprout out of philosophical soil). But philosophy does a lot for him. Knowing Kant, and seeing him relate parts of his theory to Kant, suddenly made Jung make a lot of sense. Do you have to read Kant to understand Jung? Of course not. But it's an example of how missing context makes it that much harder to access what he means.

TLDR:
- Came at the wrong time, psychoanalysis was shoved out
- Is evaluated on the basis of extreme misinterpretations of his work, which constitute most of his reputation
- Associated with forbidden subjects, such as mysticism
- Takes too much effort to evaluate, for better or for worse
- Steeped in a context that people aren't likely to be informed on, for which his way of thinking won't be grasped at all without an unreasonable amount of effort.

Jung is the shit. An honest, brilliant, and unique thinker. Worth reading for rare perspective on neglected subjects if nothing else.

>>21316642
>overshadowed by Jung
Meant Freud*

and Lacan and Adler I suppose, they each had the good fortune of winning a more helpful intellectual culture

>>21314423
>tips hand in the correspondence "muh theory is only valid for the Jewish subconscious, and is actively destructive to the western one. Good! They're stuffy Christians ..."
What libidinal kayfabe is being deployed in the first instance here? Glass house, Oedipal stones.

>>21316642
I completely agree. I found that having read Schopenhauer also helped a lot with understanding Jung.

>>21315987
I’m definitely going to have to take a look at that author’s works. I think [[[we]]] might have to show the Christoids the errors of their ways, though I do still have respect for Jesus as a world-historical figure at least

>>21316642
Where 2 start with Jung? What rare perspectives do you speak of?

>>21315912
Spoken like a true humanities brainlet

>>21316676
Absolutely. It's ironic that Schopenhauer relates to him over the same... esoteric... interests that people rip on Jung for
But Schopenhauer has a lot of understated influence on other fields. Einstein was a Schopenhauer enjoyer as well iirc

>>21316747
Hard question. I'm far from expert. I think the Collected Works may be worth perusing randomly, just to get a lay of the land, develop some questions, get some basic ideas.

If nothing else you can get "The Portable Jung", a collection of Jung's writings organized specifically to introduce someone to Jung. "The Portable X" collection, while it sounds corny, has always proven valuable for me.

>>21316737
>I think [[[we]]] might have to show the Christoids the errors of their ways,
That's something for the next 400 years.

RIght now you have to get them to wake the fuck up about the tribe and Islam, any criticism of "da right" on christianity is going to be fueled by Islamic shills.

>>21316757
Spoken like a true maths-logic brainlet who cannot comprehend the Gettier problem.

>>21314423
Jung understood. Just was no mundane idiot like Freud, deluded by Maya.

>>21315907
Well Freud did proudly admit to fantasizing about becoming a new Hannibal and doing what his semitic idol could not, conquer Rome (the symbol of goy europe in the semitic mind).