/lit/ - Literature

>>21743726
I'll sit this out because I'm not smart enough. Steve Bannon once called trump a Jungian. What does that mean?

Read Jungs' 1912 presentation and Karl Abraham's response, then decide for yourself.

Bumping.

I'm interested in this too.

Most that I can say is that there are some fundamental disagreements between Freud and Jung:

1) for Freud there is no collective unconscious, there's only the individual unconscious that contains "collective" elements within it

2) for Freud sexuality is central for being human, for Jung it isn't

3) the Freudian unconscious is linguistic in nature in the sense that it's mostly made up of words in the material sense (signifiers as Lacan said) that have a singular meaning, while for Jung it's a forest of universal archetypes that have a universal meaning.

This is my take on it. I lean towards Freud and Lacan, while I think that Peterson has his virtues.

>>21743726
Prose : Freud
Ideas : Jung

>>21743726
>I read he was an “antisemite” and “appreciated the vigour of nazi Germany”
He wasn't an antisemite though and he saw Nazi Germany as a product of collective psychosis, with Hitler being possessed by an archetype.
http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/essay-on-wotan-w-nietzsche-c-g-jung/

>>21743752
It isn't that you aren't smart enough anon, it's just that you haven't read those guys work.

>>21743994
I'll try to make this essay easier to digest if I can.
>We have a collective unconscious.
>According to Jung it was formed through years of human evolution, and generations of certain human groups following certain religions.
>This means that certain races of people will have a slightly altered collective unconscious depending on what their ancestors believed in.
>Germany ends up adopting Christianity sometime in history after believing in Paganism.
>They replace the central figure of Paganism "Wotan" with an all good figure Jesus Christ.
>This means the German collective unconscious still centered around Wotan, but they were consciously believing in Christ. So the aggressive elements of Wotan were left unconscious.
>According to Jung unconscious elements are prone to possession. They can make you act in erratic ways without your control, especially the collective archetypes which carry alot of energy.
>So when you have a figure like Hitler come into power, who resembles Wotan more than Christ, all of Germany gets hypnotized by his presence.

Where Hitler went wrong was having too extreme of a solution to the Jewish question. The general assertion is correct, in that there is a disproportionately high amount of Jewish individuals in powerful positions and certain sectors, and they tend to engage in nepotism and ethnocentric behavior, but this should not be used as an excuse to demonize or discriminate against all Jews just because a portion of them are powerful, wealthy, and influential. Instead, I believe that we should focus on the specific individuals and institutions that are causing problems in our society, regardless of whether they are Jewish or not.

Jung wasn't anti semitic, but felt that there was a national collective unconscious and Hitler embodied it in a way

>>21744027
Yes and no. In addition to this mafia element, J*ws hate other peoples to their guts (especially white) and are actively working to make ALL races go extinct so everyone in the world except for them is a mixed, rootless, low IQ goo that will mindlessly consume their products and make them richer and more powerful

>>21744018
Thank you so much for this, it's the first clean explanation of collective unconsciousness I've ever read. Normally they tend to dive into either mystical bullshit by Jungians or people who hate Jung so much that they can't cohesively explain Jung's concepts without attacking Jung himself

>>21744070
Unfortunately true.
This Talmudic religion is quite clear on its objectives and the reasons behind it.
They are chosen and we are all cattle and beasts. (Although we have the greatest minds to ever exist in history)

>>21743726
Just read Jung's Red Book and you will realize what he thinks about Freud.

TLDR: Freud was just a psychopath who wanted to fuck his mother and projected his mentally ill fantasy onto other people. Jung on the other hand found a way to cure all of your psychological problems through finding the way into the fourth dimension.

The problem with Jung was he could never enter the fourth dimension of another person and only his own, so he could never really develop a method to cure people.

If you read Jung's read book, he exactly explains how to reach the fourth dimension (or inner paradise) of yourself. But it requires an insanely high IQ and is basically Quantum physics 2.0 before modern Quantum physics even existed.

That's also why Jung didn't want his Red Book to be released. It includes all secrets to reach your inner paradise, but is nearly impossible to reach and he feared he would get killed for his book because retards can falsely think that it's some kind of devil worshipping.

Also if you hear voices, this is how Freud and Jung would react:
>Freud
If it's a female voice you want to fuck your mother. If it's a male voice, you want your mother to fuck you.
>Jung
How many voices? If those aren't at least 1000, don't even bother me, because after I reached the fourth dimension I hear around 10 trillion voices with millions of new voices every day.

>>21744070
Jews are already mutted to hell and back. Europeans are also mixed. Le pure race is a meme.

>>21744675
thanks

>>21744027
>this should not be used as an excuse to demonize or discriminate against all Jews just because a portion of them are powerful, wealthy, and influential. Instead, I believe that we should focus on the specific individuals
You doesn't understand how jewry works, they work as a group, not individuals, the jews at the top couldn't have make it without the support of the tribe. The jew is evil and a problem as a whole.

>>21744675
>Jung on the other hand found a way to cure all of your psychological problems
>he could never really develop a method to cure people.
So he was useless or not?
>the fourth dimension
What is this fourth dimension?
>It includes all secrets to reach your inner paradise
Just lift weights and read Plato.

>>21744072
Glad you liked it. To make things even more schizo I'll now delve into Jung's book Aion, the book that Jordan Peterson called the most terrifying book he ever read.
>So we established that repressed things can take possession of you or a collective group of people if the repressed thing in question is a collective archetype.
>For the Germans in Hitler's era, they collectively shared the repressed 'Wotan'.
>If we think of Jesus Christ he's an all perfect, all good figure. The opposite of him is the Antichrist.
>Jung believed a similar relationship would happen with Christians and the Nazi Germans. They have repressed the Anti-christ and eventually, it will come back, via the coming of the Antichrist.
>What does this mean? According to Jung, the coming of the Anti-Christ will be a mass psychological event, which he predicts in Aion.
Now what that actually entails, I have no clue. But pretty cool.

>>21743752
>Steve Bannon once called trump a Jungian
kek, where?

>>21743726
gigantic pseuds

Jung is a hack by himself. He had a spirit guiding him at every step(he admits it this).

>>21743726
>They were known rivals
Jung was mostly Freud's friend. He was smart, but a kind man, just as a psychologist should be. Freud had an argument with him because of magic and got very angry so they stopped being friends.
I read he was an “antisemite” and “appreciated the vigour of nazi Germany”
He wasn't. He warned englishmen about Wotan awakening. What a traitor.

>Le "Based" Jung vs. "Degenerate" Freud
The most midwit of false dichotomies

>>21744675
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>21745756
>false dichotomies
Propose a better psychologist than Jung. Or even anyone who expanded on the field enough to make him irrelevant. If you're gonna name some behaviorist I'm gonna find you.

>>21745762
>Propose a better psychologist than Jung
>Anyone who expanded on the field enough to make him irrelevant
Lacan. The Collective Unconscious is literally just the Big Other, which is why everyone who practices Jungian Depth Psychology grows more unstable the further they "integrate their shadow" and end up an unstable schiz with aberrant behaviors like Le Two Face Peterson

>>21744963
>>21744070
>>21744508
Proof?

OP. I'm gonna be honest with you. There is absolutely nothing of value to be found in psychoanalysis. It's pure contrived pseudoscience

>>21745780
An analytic psychologist made this comparison to Lacan when he was trying to arrange a meeting with Jung and Lacan explicitly rejected it - which I've always taken as a sign that there's some truth to this line of thinking. But if you want to get in with other Lacanians, they'll probably get mad at you if you make this comparison.

>>21745762
Well... Freud?

>>21745762
>anyone who expanded on the field
There's nothing to expand. All psychoanalysts are just huffing air

>>21745830
You're on a board for literature

>>21745832
Yeah, take this psychological pseudoscience to /b/ or something. It's not literature.

>>21745833
Psychoanalysis has had a major impact on literary criticism since its inceptions.

>>21745843
Yeah, because psychoanalysis is mainly a toy for retards to use on anything but actual psychology

>>21745854
Psychodynamic psychotherapy has a pretty good empirical basis for clinical work with mood disorders and appears to have long-term effects that are not present in other forms of psychosocial therapies. If you mean that the material under study in psychoanalytic theory is not often compatible with the frequentist methodologies adopted by research psychologists, then we are in agreement. But psychoanalysis is not just a set of rhetorical tricks, it's a therapy that helps a lot of people.

>>21745887
Except no one is talking about therapies here or the watered-down professional modern psychodynamics. They're talking about the theoties of schizos with an axe to grind like Jung and Lacan. This whole thing is in the end just a way for bored moderns to delude themselves into finding some artificial meaning in their lives (which is therapy in a nutshell) and suppressing certain "drives" in themselves and others. Honestly, just bring back duels and therapies eventually become obsolete

>>21745923
Well, Jung and Lacan do seem to bring out the worst in people, but if you care about psychoanalysis then you should at least understand the split with Jung and the basic outline of the Lacanian critique so you can know where you stand theoretically. It's not really obvious or interesting to non clinicians what kind of technical impact in the treatment that these theories can have. And of course, then there are just people who want to make YouTube videos about how some anime character wants to kill his dad or whatever.

To me it goes kind of like this
Freud presents things in a way that seem so obvious and make so much sense you think to yourself of course this must be right... and that's exactly why it's wrong. It's a bizarre irony of exploiting human psychology to explain human psychology.
Jung is kind of the opposite but not quite. With Jung you think to yourself this is random nonsense that sounds totally made up.... of course that's why it's right.
People will say that psychology is not "real science" and yet in this regard it is similar.

>>21744675
Your take is so retarded that it made me tear up from sheer embarrassment. You try to understand Jung's concepts with busted jargon from pop-culture and fancy him a schizo-mystic, you don't know the meanings behind his words for you haven't read his essentials and jumped straight to his magnum opus, or you haven't read that either and are only shilling. You aren't familiar with his views on Freud at all and take the general Freud vs Jung arguments of non-professionals as if they've been said by the guys themselves; Jung accepts Freud's views to some degree, but doesn't take them as a proper schema of the whole psyche. Jung has never accused Freud with perversion or mental illness.

>>21745780
Peterson is not a Jungian. He read some of his work with no proper comprehension and simply shills. And you pulled this out of your ass >everyone who practices Jungian Depth Psychology grows more unstable the further they "integrate their shadow" and end up an unstable schiz with aberrant behaviors
Do not talk about people you haven't properly read, you try to shit on Jung with a half-assed Lacanian perspective too and stain both Jung and Lacan's name.

>>21745936
>what kind of technical impact in the treatment that these theories can have
None I hope. At least behavioralism is more popular and less crazy. I don't want to imagine unironic psychos drunk on Freud having any influence in society. My cousin is fucking insufferable with this shit and just says that a bunch of Freudian theories have just been "proven" like fetishes being caused by childhood traumas(there is no way to actually prove this) and he uses this nonsense to critique movies he sees (when he's not masturbating whenever class differences are mentioned in them). Freud is just a death-cultist who hates life. His opinion of the world can largely be explained due to his hatred of the father and his obsession with freedom which he does not deserve.

>>21746000
So you hate your retarded cousin and that's why Freud is wrong? Fetishes aren't caused by traumas in the conventional sense, but they all do work to both satisfy repressed childhood urges and eroticize the anxiety that emerges when such repressed material is called up.

>>21743726
Anyone who takes Freud or Jung seriously should be executed.

Interesting responses, but not a single book, pdf, excerpt, or logical sounding argument has been presented.
Now, while I do find psychoanalysis, to some degree repugnant, some circlejerk degeneracy, trying to answer questions that philosophy has mostly already answered (knowingly or not, like ideas of good healthy families and customs, to grow up a normal and happy person and not a deranged tranny faggot), the thread is about redpills, you can cite whoever you want, Lacan if you want, directly Freud or Jung.
The point is showing my fake intelligent friend how he is just blindly following other people’s thoughts (in this case Zionist globalist propaganda too, but that’s too much detail already) without being able to do so for himself.
Again, you can suggest books (with a reasoning) PDF’s or just write down what you think.

This board’s rejection of psychoanalysis is interesting. Must be a 4channel thing.

>>21746447
I posted about it earlier, but Jung's "Attempt at a Representation of Psycho-Analytical Theory" really marked his departure from Freud, I think there's a translation by an R.F.C. Hull that goes under the title "Jung Contra Freud." Karl Abraham wrote a 1913 or 1914 review of his work in response that is a very good and full throated defense of the Freudian position in the debate. If you want to decide for yourself about the Freud-Jung split, you can read what the people involved said about it, and not rely on secondhand opinions from the internet.

>>21743726
>>21746447
The allegation of anti-semitism against Jung you can ultimately track back to his split from Freud. Freud saw Jung as his heir before their split, a random Swiss guy gaining Freud's love and trust to such degree must've undoubtedly bothered Freud's close circles, which consisted mostly of Jews. After Jung's split from Freud, his words would be twisted with malevolent intent and he would be accused of mysticism, anti-semitism, Nazism and so on. The allegation that Jung saw the Nazi Germany in a positive light stems from his writings in "The State of Psychotherapy Today" written in 1934, which you can find in the tenth volume of his Collected Works which is titled " Civilization in Transition", 353rd and 354th paragraphs to be exact (They are indicated next to the paragraphs.) Read without prejudice, it is clear that he's simply talking about cultural differences when he speaks of Jews and "Aryans". I do not believe that simply remarking the differences among cultures makes a man racist. If you read the paragraphs I mentioned you'll see that he doesn't perceive the Nazi movement, which in his view is an outcome of unconscious potentialities, in a purely positive light; but recognizes its explosive and dangerous force. Let me quote bits from the aforementioned paragraphs:
>"The "Aryan" unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish; that is both the advantage and the disadvantage of a youthfulness not yet fully weaned from barbarism."
>Has the formidable phenomenon of National Socialism, on which the whole world gazes with astonished eyes, taught them better? Where was that unparalleled tension and energy while as yet no National Socialism existed? Deep in the Germanic psyche, in a pit that is anything but a garbage-bin of unrealizable infantile wishes and unresolved family resentments. A movement that grips a whole nation must have matured in every individual as well. That is why I say that the Germanic unconscious contains tensions and potentialities which medical psychology must consider in its evaluation of the unconscious.
He mentions Nazis passingly only in this part and never again. You can find a lot of quotes of his and his associates' against Nazi and anti-semite allegations here: https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/04/15/carl-jung-on-jews-anti-semitism-anthology/?fbclid=IwAR3Ydym8q6PQIrLG-22cwfd8uO1KYcCRfnlDp0ecnwSPU9zJQLC-MlmB3Ms#.Y5zb_aRRWNx

>>21747031
continuing
>Thanks to their experience of an old culture, they are able, while fully conscious of their frailties, to live on friendly and even tolerant terms with them, whereas we are still too young not to have "illusions" about ourselves. Moreover, we have been entrusted by fate with the task of creating a civilization—and indeed we have need of it—and for this "illusions" in the form of one-sided ideals, convictions, plans, etc. are indispensable. As a member of a race with a three-thousand-year-old civilization, the Jew, like the cultured Chinese, has a wider area of psychological consciousness than we. Consequently it is in general less dangerous for the Jew to put a negative value on his unconscious.
It is clear that he is speaking of a purely cultural matter, and not of racial or genetic differences. To be fair I should add that he also says:
>The Jews have this peculiarity in common with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary, and thanks to this technique which has been forced on them through the centuries, the Jews themselves are best protected where others are most vulnerable.
Which is understandable enough considering the prohibition of European Jews from owning land(agriculture) and joining military, which would naturally lead them to rather more intellectual occupations. Still not talking about a racial quality as you can see.

>>21743752
Ironic, given Trump's involvement in kabbalah

>>21747037
Jews were in the military and owned land throughout Europe.
Unless you mean in a specific short time frame.
What was forbidden, was money lending and usury for Christian’s and Muslims.
No one forbid Jews from becoming farmers, or honest workmen

I'm not familiar with Jung or Peterson. Can someone explain what Peterson believes in and how that connects with Jung? Just from this thread, it seems "collective unconscious" is a big idea from Jung but does Peterson incorporate this into his teachings?

>>21747242
You're clueless. Read Abram Leon's "The Jewish Question". He's a biased Jew but since you don't know much his outline will be helpful. Prohibition of usury for Christians' was only one of the reasons they practiced usury widely.

>>21743726
>High IQ people only.
good luck. only Peterson faggots buy into this shit

>>21743764
I can't find this anywhere. Have a link?

>>21744018
Damn this is a good take I wish I was that good at Jungian analysis.

>>21747369
Not the guy you're replying to, I haven't read Karl Abraham but most important series of seminars of Jung in 1912 is "Symbols of Transformation", Collected Works Volume 5. It's a very important work of his and marks Jung's split from Freud unquestionably.

>>21744675
Jung is almost entirely irrelevant today (even people like Peterson reference him more as a mystic than a thinker, lol) whereas Freud's contributions are so foundational they are simply taken for granted. The Ego, Id, and Superego are still the best way to conceptualize the psyche, and the role of sexual libido in motivating action is well recognized today but ruffled a lot of feathers when Freud first suggested it (and some people are still ruffled by it lol)

>>21746864
This board (and 4chan in general) has been invaded by the lowest IQ simpletons imaginable, and as such you can take anything "unpopular" here and I guarantee it has extreme merit. In other words, if they board rejects something, that thing has value.

>>21743726
The Culture of Critique has what you're looking for. There's an entire section on the subversiveness of psychoanalysis and the Freudian cult. He talks about Jung, too.

>>21747369
I don't have digital copies, sorry. If you can get the Jung complete works, I think the lectures are in Vol. IV under "A Theory of Psychoanalysis" or something similar. The Abraham essay is a tough one, it's in the first volume of his selected papers if you can find that.

>>21744027
His actual mistake was getting into a war against most of the world.

Jung was actually systematic and scientific about it. Freud literally cited his own dreams as sources for his charalatan shit

>>21747632
One of Jung's most famous works is literally his dream diary, and the original basis of his collaboration with Freud was their common interest in dreams. Freud's use of his own dreams was done in order to show the work of the associative process without disguising patient material and making the processes of the dream work and its attendant metapsychology clearer.

>>21747632
>Jung was actually systematic and scientific
You are so retarded it's beyond words. Jung leaned hard into mysticism and scoffed at "systematic and scientific" approaches.

>>21747339
So, the world worked fine while the Jews were outcasts, things have been going to shit ever since they took control of Media and international financial institutions

>>21744683

>>21747846
Stop noticing things.

>>21747632
Jung was an occultist retard. You haven't read him.

>>21747425
Thanks for summing up exactly what I’ve noticed about this place for that past 5 or so years, at least.

>>21747425
>4chan rejects Guenon
>Guenon has value

>>21743793
For 1 and 2 Freud is obviously right, and for 3 they are both wrong

>>21743726
Why does Jung like someone that would beat me up if I looked at him the wrong way?
Did he get lost on his way to his first Rugby practice, entering the psych school building, determining his life?

>>21747846
>The world worked fine when countries broke out into multi year wars every other decade

>>21744683
Yeah obviously. Most people wouldn't be able to even tell by looks alone

>>21743726
Jung was based beyond belief and also something much more than a mere psychologist. He tapped into primordial truths throughout his work because he recognized that human beings are spiritual beings capable of so much more than what demoralizers such as Freud would have you believe by his systematic reduction of the human being down to a degenerate automaton only focused on pleasure.

>>21749043
this faggot being threatened by jung's chad aura is proof he's better than freud

>>21743726
It's all shit, because the subconscious (or unconscious or preconscopious) doesnt exist.
Regardless, Jung's seems more applicable, less corrupted by its faulty basis and his founder's personal failings, in general.
A psychological theory doesn't need any semblance of truth to produce applicable results, because every human being who isn't a complete retard is an high level amateur psychologist. We just need a framework.

>>21750300
It makes no sense to say the subconscious. Unless you're gonna play word games and be all
>ackshually all those neurons in the brain that aren't actively being stimulated or producing conscious perceptions that can do both of those things when activated can't be called the subconscious because I want to look smart

>>21750737
*to say the subconscious doesn't exist

>>21750741
That is not the subconscious/unconscious. Go back to Freud. The unconscious (to use the proper term) is an immaterial medium for ideas and emotions where they interact as ideas and emotions with one another outside of consciousness. It is not the inactivity of mental processes, or inattention to these processes, it is quite literally the completely farcical theory that when mental objects are not being consciously attended to, they go into an alternate dimension.
Psychologists have been yanking your chains for nearly a century now with this shit which his nearly undistinguishable from Warhammer 40k's Warp.

Psychoanalysis is the surrogate of the teachings and ministry of the holy Church in the Godless modern world.
It tries to establish narrative and control to the emotive life of human beings disconnected from God, alone facing an indifferent cold universe without light and meaning.
It operates like cults mimicking religions.
All the neurosis it tries to tackle stem from the lack of God's love, demonic influence and possession.

>>21743752
Fpbp

>>21745805
You literally just described all of psychology. Psychoanalysis is at least entertaining and doesn't default to "You feel depressed? Take these pills."

the basic notion of an unconscious or an "objective psychology" is violently ignored by contemporary western civilization. To recognize science as an incomplete domain of knowledge is to admit vulnerability, uncertainty, and humanity.

>>21745218

>>21752274
I can't tell whether or not I can actually see Trump reading these. Sometimes he seems like a narcissistic caricature, but other times he does show enough self awareness where I can see him actually sitting down and reading a book

>>21752274
Mao the unknown story by jung chan is there. Maybe he meant that jung

>>21750951
literally jung said this

>>21750300
>Jung's seems <...> less corrupted by <...> his founder's personal failings, in general.
Jung was a bigger degenerate than Freud IRL. He was an objectively evil man you all got psyopped into worshipping simply because his vis-a-vis was Jewish.

>>21747409
>Jung almost irrelevant
>what is archetype, complex, collective unconscious, shadow, synchronicity, extroversion & introversion...

The Red Book is kino

>>21752699
so he admitted he and his whole class of studies is the babbling of charlatans? And that makes him a genius?

>>21752838
Will bite. How was he evil?

Freud is scientist
Jung is philosopher-prophet.

>>21752989
My understanding is that Jung never really wanted the Book published. It feels strange to me to read something so personal as an outsider.

>>21753126
He really abused his position of influence as an analyst in personal settings, e.g., to sleep with people. Freud could be a petty and jealous guy in his social sphere, but he was also by all accounts very strictly abstinent with his patients. This kind of non-gratification actually becomes very technically and theoretically important for Freudian psychoanalysis, not only to maintain the patient's safety, but because it is thought to reveal the transference and draw focus to it so that it can become a friend instead of an enemy to the course of treatment.

>>21753313
Jung never wanted his book to be published when he was alive and even then it took 50 years after his death according to his will.

>>21753387
OK but was he wrong? It's well noted he fucked around on his wife. Don't care. Was he right?

>>21750951
Hey, were you the same faggot that complains about the occult all the time. There's like two threads I saw yesterday where some guy crowbarred occultism, and religion coming from psychology. One was a thread on Mormons in pol and the other was a thread in lit on the prince

>>21743726
two lads unironically pathologizing everything and everyone. from dreams to thoughts, from fantasies to attitudes.
>le philosophers.

>>21753554
The question was, "Is he evil?" and I guess my answer is that he really abused the ethics of the profession as I see them. I also don't think he's right in the sexuality debate, but that's a separate issue.

>>21753602
They're not "pathologizing" anything, people literally come in to your office and tell you this stuff is bothering them.

>>21744072
>>21744018
>>21745037
This is NOT a good explanation of the collective unconscious. You understand Jung just well enough to misunderstand him.

>>21753644
>They're not "pathologizing" anything
>the freud guy literally invent neurosis.

>>21753631
>all my favorite authors are good Christians who go to church on Sunday and serve at a soup kitchen
Really, faggot?

>>21753713
Here's your pity (You), troll.

>>21753126
>serial adulterer and sexpest
>routinely preyed on his female patients and followers (Sabina Spielrein, Toni Wolff, Barbara Hanna, Marie Von Franz)
>fast tracked insane Edith Rockefeller to be a psychotherapist in exchange for a mansion and a million dollars at the time when she was completely insane
>hated Christianity since it didn't legitimize evil like Hinduism
>Conducted spiritism seances and claimed to have channelled a demon named Philemon (he specifically clarified that this wasn't a vague "mental archetype, but an actual independent entity")
>Was tied to Allen Dulles, and let him have sex with one of his patients (Mary Bancroft), in exchange for getting the code name "Agent 488"

That's the basic gist of it. People will seethe against this post and call me a Lacanian or something or other, but no one will be able to refute it because it's all factually true.

>>21753554
>OK but was he wrong?
Yes, he was wrong because his Analytical (Depth) Psychology has been shown to not fucking work. Especially now, when it can be judged against empirically supported modalities of therapy.

>>21753786
I don't care that you half read Aion, you don't get CJ

>>21743726
>triple parentheses
>IQ
>redpill
Why do you illiterate manchildren always flood this board?

>>21753832
What do you personaly think of his analytic therapy?

>>21753832
Do you have a single fact to back any of that up?

>>21753832
>empirically supported modalities of therapy.
try to look at someone with antidepressants and tell me it works.
psychology is an error since the beginning

>>21753851
>therapy
At best, his work can now be considered more on the lines of "philosophy of the mind" than actual psychology, and I'm being extremely charitable here. In the end, it's a pretty transparent effort to launder a conscience of an intelligent and talented but DEEPLY flawed man, who apostatized his faith again and again in the vain hope he could ascend as a priestly shaman of a brand-new faith of his own devices.

>>21753851
>What do you personaly think of his analytic therapy?
Made irrelevant by Lacan, as I said earlier here:
>>21745780

jung fanboys on /lit/ strike me as the common sour grapes type, that they only like him as a contrast to Freud and his jewishness

>>21753832
>this retard again

Dude, you literally have no idea what you're talking about and whenever you're challenged on the actual specifics of your beliefs and the specifics of your disagreements with what you pretend to understand you stop replying or reveal yourself to be a retard.

>>21753891
Was Jung a cult leader who used psychology or a psychologist who saw an opportunity to create a cult? Also what do you mean by DEEPLY flawed? schizophrenia?
>>21753899
Any Lacan rec? I'm ESL so theres no material about him in my language.

>>21753873
that isnt psychology though, though the psychology-pharma connection is definitively strong.

>>21753911
I am an ESL myself. The Lacanian Subject by Bruce Fink is an introduction to his philosophy written by his translator to English. Byung-Chul Han's "Topology of Violence", while not a direct commentary or written in reference to Lacan, is a great thesis about how the subject now does violence to themselves (willingly) through excess positivity.

>>21753911
>>21753957
>2 esls don't understand jung
If you're about to tell me you're both brown then that's just icing on the cake

>>21753768
Freud didn't invent the idea of neurosis, the idea that psychological conditions were related to the nervous system was around since the 18th century.

>>21753911
I think Television is a good starting place. Lacanians tend to be sectarian, and culturally are often more adjacent to "theory" departments in the academy than other clinicians. It's important to realize you're getting into a niche within the Freudian niche, and something that's a deliberate critique/conversation of other coexisting trends within psychoanalysis itself, not a whole separate field of study.

>>21754095
What would be the best way to approach Lacan? Reading Freud beforehand?

>>21754179
Well, yeah, especially since Lacan begins by structuring his teaching (not unpointedly) as a "return to Freud." The early work is most important for the structuralist influence in Lacan, and honestly you might be able to get by with just "The Interpretation of Dreams," but it will help to be generally familiar with the whole arc of Freud's work. Other than that, I'd say the biggest figures Lacan returns to are Hegel, Jakobson, and Saussure. In addition to Television, there is an interview he gave in the 50s around the time of his big schism with the analytic establishment. I think Lacan represents himself well in these appearances in broadcast, popular media, you can decide where your interests take you after that.

>>21754292
>In addition to Television, there is an interview he gave in the 50s around the time of his big schism with the analytic establishment.
Do you have a link?
Also where does Lacanism stand in the current psychology field?

>>21749032
i'd love to see you elaborate on why you think this, as i have the opposite impression. i think jung is correct in 1 and 2, and both of them are somewhat correct with 3.

>>21743801
kek, based

>>21745805
there is value where you create value. there is moral value in some religion, whether or not gods exist; there is value in nonsense like astrology, because it prompts self analysis and behavioral categorization****

****in those who are self aware and self critical. tragically a dying trait, but that doesn't devalue the act of mental frameworks being useful to the human psyche. very few frameworks can be called 'true', but nearly all of them can be useful to those who are able to digest what is suggested, then carry that data forward and think for themselves.

>>21743793
You also forgot to mention that Freud was a kike and Jung wasn't. Jews are hung up on sexuality and materialism because they have nothing else going on.

>>21754408
>sexuality and materialism
just like 99% of people.

>>21744027
His actual mistake was not turning labor camps into actual death camps as all claim about him.

Also
>believing holohoax happened
>not all Jews
You have to go back.

>>21747889
doesnt that pic literally imply that race mixing is good

>>21744018
Wait, isn't this just "ancestral blood memory"?

>>21745805
nothing of value to be found OUTSIDE of psychoanalysis*

Psychology is more valid than god desu

>>21744963
>retarded blue collar jews actually share secret connections with the top percentage filling out media/finance positions in order to carry out their evil master plan of eradicating the white ra
Ok, ok, jews do seem overrepresented a lot and shit or whatever, but do you seriously expect me to believe this shit? Like seriously?

>>21754526
I also forgot to add, but even israel is getting immigrants and they are also on the path to the very same great replacement conclusion. There was an article recently, but I am too lazy to look it up now. Again, Im tired of pretending these retarded theories are real, like what the fuck

>>21754095
>Freud didn't invent the idea of neurosis
you are right. he help to give the term a definitive push, but you are right. anyway that dont change that him and his trope give his life to pathologize every venue of inner life as they are literal doctors. they were not philosophers the same way einstein is not a philosopher. psychoanalysts think they are (laughs aside) scientists. and they treat psychoanalisis as therapy of malfunctioning not as some philosophy.

>>21754408
And yet, it was "based Aryan" Jung who consciously used his patients to satisfy his adulterous sexual urges, while the most that can be levied against Freud is his cocaine habit, which he kicked by late 1890s, and his unethical therapy of Anna Freud.

>>21754313
https://www.lacanonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Interview-with-Jacques-Lacan-LExpress-1957.pdf You can go as far as you want to in Lacan and learn along the way by studying references you don't get. People will tell you to read Bruce Fink, or a secondary source, or whatever, but they're all only really giving you their perspective on things. It's kind of the same thing with Freud, except that there's a longer and better-quality tradition of translation of his works into English. There's also a lot of stuff in Lacan that intellectually and linguistically is very French, so having some grasp of the language can help situate him, if not "understand" necessarily. I'm not saying don't read secondary sources, but think of them as representing "schools" on Lacan, the same way Lacan is a "school" of Freud.

>>21754601
No, in pathologizing, you're saying there's a problem with thoughts, feelings, or behaviors where the person doesn't endorse them as problematic or unpleasant. The point is that psychoanalysis wasn't originally designed to work on things that people themselves don't experience as psychological suffering due to some kind of internal conflict - things like homosexuality, antisocial personality disorders, certain forms of eating disorders, autism, etc. The people walk in, sit down on the couch, and complain about something. It's not pathologizing to say they have symptoms.

>>21754631
Is Lacan relevant in current time?

>>21754683
Not in academic psychology, or mainstream anglo analysis, but he's popular with academics and within a certain niche of analytic clinicians. He's more popular in France, Latin America, and some other European countries.

>>21754698
>Not in academic psychology, or mainstream anglo analysis
why not?

>>21754654
>It's not pathologizing to say they have symptoms.
yes it is, and its the only reason psychology is not a free hippie therapeutic round table where you talk about shit and other guy say what he randomly comes in mind. psychology exists as a pathologizing, systematic science that try to categorize and pathologize every venue they see as socially or individually problematic. maybe its a hard pill to swallow to you, but its pretty simple and open to the view of everyone.

>>21754013
Jung was ESL too.

>>21755215
but not brown :))

>>21754179
Besides the obvious answer of just reading Lacann, it might be worthwhile to check out some Slavoj Zizek. As much of a meme as he is considered here, he writes extensively on Lacann and parallels him with examples that are easier for his audience to comprehend. A lot of the time you could just roll your eyes when he tells you some director is employing some obscure Laccanian concept in their third act laser battle, but it really doesn’t matter if it’s true. He’s still effectively illustrating what Lacann was saying.

>>21755589
I remember seeing his videos about movies.

>>21745780

That is correct, see D&G schizoanalysis and their responses to Lacan. Their main inspiration comes from Freud's and Jung's different treatments of schizofrenia and its sources. Peterson however is a purely repressed anal subject, not an atypical one.

>>21756745
Whos right in the end?

Holy fuck this thread got all the retards out.
You'll never ever get close to understanding Jung if you seriously use "redpill" and aren't engaging your friend in a Socratic method like a fucking adult.

>>21756763

The strategic engagement with Jung was more fruitful for D&G than that with Freud, read the first two chapters of Capitalism and Schizofrenia for an overview of "Freudian Marxism" and how they basically laugh at it.

The basic problem was that Freud posed a closed system , and Lacan was also enclosed in that looping closed system. The point of the Jung vs Freud opposition isn't that its some kind of dogma difference, or who is the better school of analysis, but who recognizes better the exterior forces that affect the psyche stemming from the drive. The main problem for psychoanalysis is how it started, with the neurotic subject as its centerpiece. Jung breaks out of that cage early on and he is ragged on as some "Platonic mystic" when thats not what happening to him or others who feel "attacked by exterior psychic forces", they are merely recognizing and communicating what they feel through a coded language in which they only understand, yet it also passes, symbols, religion, omens and societal breakdowns, thus taking "the occult pill" in Jung is that this is happening contantly and its how we understand the absurdity of the world. Compared to Freud's repressed subject ALL of these are taken back to the Oedipal taboo or in Claude Lévi-Strauss in the structural algebra. Freud then became the "safe structural aproach" and Jung the "raving schizo", but that is the most shallow aproach for the history of psychoanalysis.

https://grantmaxwellphilosophy.wordpress.com/2019/12/17/jungs-influence-on-deleuze-and-guattari/comment-page-1/

>>21756803
Would you say that Jungs approach to mental problems is better than Freuds one?

>>21756818

It really depends because both have the same basis which is repression and dream theory. Freud's greatest contribution to psychology was his dream theory. Unless you have a good grasp of that and how it works you can't really see the many nuances and differences in psychoanalysis. Beyond that you get bogged in , in very arcane differences like structuralists like Lacan. On the other spectrum having a dream and thinking its an omen of the future or that you are being visited by the devil every night, is also losing it completely. Psychoanalysis can't collapse the barrier beatween dream and reality , reading Jung won't get you there, but you get a deeper understanding why that is happening, with Freud you get the typical explanation of what is unsaid by the repressed subject in his waking life supressing the drive. With Jung you get into more dangerous waters, but ultimately more fruitful. Thus Jung without a good understanding of Freud, is dangerous, but the reverse is just another kind of dogmatism. Thats how I see it personaly at least after reading both.

>>21756836
It does seem like Jung is rather a continuation when you have a good grasp of Freud/Lacan. Why does it seem that Jung has no room in the current psychology field? Is it due to rise of neuropsychology (meds)?

>>21756861

One reason is the postivism in psychology that you mention, and the other is the completely heterodox engagement with Freud in recent times (especially in the US). By heterodox I mean that Americans think Freud wasn't doing some philosophical critique but merely studying and observing psychic phenomena. Even most psychonalysts today take the brainlett take that the collective unconsciouss is not another name for the death drive, or species being. Ultimately there are a lot of cultural reasons (and academic careers built up) for that being the case and why this ideological opposition was set up.

>>21756911
I know that I have very little to say besides asking you questions but where do you see psychology (and psychoanalisis) today? Is it going to be relevant in the future or become a relic of the past like lobotomy or animal magnetism?

>>21756936

Psychonalaysis was never meant to be some kind of Ptolemaic closed system like Freud intended it to be. Its no a case like Galilleo who will in the end be proven right and become the second coming in psychological science. However psychonalysis today is needed more than ever because most people either don't have free time and devote themselves wholeheartedly into work tasks in order not to do soul searching (rather this is replaced by the capitalist friendly "sefl-help") or they replace that entirely with fake friends within the social media panopticon. I think that the internet and the communicated language used there and how that discourse bleeds into "real life" is proof that there is a proliferation of mental illnesses and asocial behavior in levels unheard of before, and meds or behavioral psychology can't do shit about it.

>>21756962
>capitalist friendly "self-help"
Do you think that its an exploitation of people misery?

>>21756982

Yes because its all on you and not engaging your repressed desires or your "shadow", you are supposed to "enjoy every moment" and other new-age babble mixed in. I know Zizek hates Jung, but what he describes as the new capitalist lifetyle Buddhism is prececily the "self-help" movement that seeks to instrumentalize mental health as personal journey. Psychonalaysis never ends because mental health isn't a switch that you turn on and off, thus it doesn't fit in the newer paradigm where every aspect of your being needs to programmed and fit in into your exterior image. This is why we have so many Patrick Batemans today or on the opposite side depressed people who simply drop out because they can't keep up.

>>21756997
Is there even a back to back into society once you drop out? Self-help does imply a certain set of behavior which must be maintained all the time and updated by reading and buying books but even then it's all about being positive.

>>21756997
>not engaging your repressed desires or your "shadow"
But the Jungian "Shadow" isn't real, that is the issue in of itself. It is an imagined state, an abstract form that superficially bears your resemblance, but not unlike a true shadow can only exist within proximity of your being without ever directly interacting with it. "Integrate your shadow"? Retarded. It simply mythologizes the human condition through this imaginary dark side, literally sacralizing a faux-substance.

>>21757132

>It simply mythologizes the human condition through this imaginary dark side, literally sacralizing a faux-substance

Guess what, that is happening every single second you engage with the world. That is precisely the human condition, the mythologising part that turns into a mental fantasy, the "fantasy" and mentaining and ignoring the real, is exactly how we act and function. That is the very basic basis of psychonalysis, and you either supress it or turn it into something else.

Basically, if you come to analysis through Freud you can't go wrong, and if you get to Lacan or even D&G it'll be through the "right" way, whereas if you're some guy who's into Jung, Lacan, and Deluze, it rightfully makes you look like an idiot who cobbled together a bunch of random shit they read on the internet. Jung isn't really compatible with Lacan or in his intellectual heritage, and the Anti-Oedipus stuff is produced more or less directly in tension with Lacan.

>>21756911
> Even most psychonalysts today take the brainlett take that the collective unconsciouss is not another name for the death drive, or species being.
Can you elaborate? I read Jung some years ago and I don't remember the collective unconscious being a death drive.

A book called “the seduction of unreason” has a chapter accusing Jung of being a full-blown Nazi who tried to hide his involvement and intellectual support for them after the war was lost. Figured anyone interested in this topic should check that chapter out though the author has often been accused of being a hysterical liberal so he was probably biased towards making Jung as Nazistic as possible. Still, there are some direct quotes from Jung in there that do point to the idea that Aryans had been enslaved by Judeo-Christian morality which is definitely a position you only see on the pagang faction of the radical right

damn why was jung such a fashy chud incel?

>>21758016
Didnt Jung also work for CIA?

>>21743726
>High IQ people only.
Speaking of IQ.. What do you think is the average IQ on /lit/? I'm sure this has come up before... just too lazy to search (because low IQ)

They're both cool as literary resources and good ways to make alt girls or evangelion fans think you're deep or even a genius. But that's all.

>>21758053
Yes, just google it. You dont see this discussed by his fans on the right very often, for some reason. Both Jungians and Postmodernists were on the CIA's payroll.

>>21759097
Why would CIA need them?

>>21759105
PoMos were funded because the CIA wanted to destabilize Marxists. PoMos deny the metanarrative of class struggle and emphasize relativity, you-cant-know-nuthing-ness and undermine categories of thought necessary for Marxists (dividing between worker and factory owner is too white, too heteronormative, too whatever). This is fucking basic.

>>21753713
Enlighten us then, dipshit.

>Jung
His theories were retroactively refuted by Heidegger but ideas built on Jungian framework actually have use unlike ideas built on Sigmund Fraud's framework.

>>21758016

Jung was in Switzerland and doing the Nietzsche lectures (which are not by any means uncritical of Nietzsche) during the war until 1943 when he had a heart attack and withdrew from lecturing. He was never involved with Nazis , was not a friend to any Nazi nor involved with them at any point, unlike this big chungus retard >>21760354

>>21743726
I have totally come around on Freud. For the longest time I thought he was just a weirdo perverted kike that's projecting but now I believe he is right about at least 50% of the stuff he said, which is very impressive considering how out there his theories are.

>>21760354
>but ideas built on Jungian framework actually have use
>unlike ideas built on Sigmund Fraud's framework.
Just lol. Freud's ideas literally shaped the 20th century, for better or worse. Freud was as instrumental to human relations in the West in general, as Durkheim was to modern legalism. He's more influential than Hegel.

Meanwhile, what did exactly Jung influence? Self-help grifters and YouTube midwits?

>>21760817
Jung inspired Peterson.

>>21753713
Yuh ever heard of Cunningham's Law, bitch?

>>21744027
>Where Hitler went wrong was having too extreme of a solution to the Jewish question

Mass migration doesn't seem very extreme to me. Read German WW2 documents.
Holohoax s a jewish-soviet propaganda by the way.
>I believe that we should focus on the specific individuals and institutions that are causing problems in our society, regardless of whether they are Jewish or not.

But most of them ARE jewish.
Who destroys USA using same marxist tactics like in Weimar Germany? It's the jews.
>>21747603
>His actual mistake was getting into a war against most of the world
Hitler asked Britain for peace 16 times from 1939 to 1941

>>21757960

It was neither Freud nor Jung that came up with the death drive idea, but Sabina Spielrein who in turn influenced both. Jung took it and made it into the Collective Unconscious and Freud made it into the "death instict" , but its that foundational idea that created psychonalysis. Before that the repression theory had no legs no to stand on. However Spielrein differentiated beatween the "assimilation instict" and the "differention instict" , in that ego resists anihiliation by differentiation. The lack of ego even in psychotic cases Spielrein encountered have a projected "ego image" that suffered from a conflict of two principles, the ego suffers in that conflict from that "mythic conlict" which is in reality a projection of the species being (here the idea of Jungs archetypes arises). Freud on the other hand wanted to defend the pleasure principle as that which resists the Drive, but this realization came much later, he at first though it was merely personaly conditioned , such as in cases of sadism etc. Also then you can see where Jung's ideas of a collective unconscious started after the presentation of her paper. Spielrein was as equaly brilliant and imaginative as both Freud and Jung, but was unfortunately killed by the Nazis in Russia.

https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/02/27/66111/#.ZAm2CXZBxEY

>>21761098
>muh woman created everything!! Evil men heckin' stole it!!!11!
fuck off retard

>>21761098
Spielrein came up with the Nirvana Principle (which to be fair had antecedents in Freud's earlier work). Ferenczi called it the death drive. Freud is the one who fit the structural model around it and the pleasure principle, which is it's currently recognizable form in analytic theory. Spielrein deserves credit, which Freud acknowledged, but people try to give her too much.

>>21760772
I'm curious, what do you think he was wrong about?

>>21761136
>unironic incel seethe
lol

A great striker partnership. Freuds hold up play was second to none with the other running off him.
There cocktail parties were legendary

>>21760674
Jung was buddies with Miguel Serrano though.

>>21743726
Freud was dismissed by real scientists of his day who saw his work for what it was: projection with no supporting evidence, that is to say, his work not once followed the scientific method.
>inb4 "no true scotsman"
Yes, no true scientist works without following the scientific method.
>2023 and people are talking about Freud
He should have never became relevant, and he's been wrong about pretty much everything. The entire field of psychoanalysis can be summed up with "project yourself onto your patient, and when you cannot, just make best-guesses." -- At best, he and his groupies were an example of what not to do with science.
>Jung
I picked up Man and His Symbols for a dollar last year, and it is still in my backlog. So, I have nothing to say about Jung.

>>21761944
>He should have never became relevant, and he's been wrong about pretty much everything.
Name three things "he's been wrong about"

>>21760674
I’d just check out that chapter I was talking about if you can download the book or something. Had some stuff from Jung essays and letters that seemed overtly anti-semitic and such

>>21744018
Nazi germany and WWII had not much to do with psychology. It was economical reasons, germany being a rival of the Anglos on the world scene.

>>21744027
>there is a disproportionately high amount of Jewish individuals in powerful positions and certain sectors, and they tend to engage in nepotism and ethnocentric behavior
The jew became a world power, because the christian society became jewish. The jew only figurate in a special way the judaism of bourgeois society. It is the bourgeois society which generates the jew constantly. The jew emancipated himself, in a jewish way, when the christian society became jewish.

>>21754548
73% of the israeli people got the clot shot. It's absolute proof that there is no jewish plot, understood as a plot were every jew conspire against the goyim as part of a group sharing secrets against the goyim.

>>21754702
cause psych departments had to fight an uphill battle to get their art defined as a science so they can get funding, this means cutting all wacky and mystical figures from its bedrock

Thoughts on Heidegger?

>>21762005
Your apprehension to my sentiment just means you probably want to fuck your mother, kill your father, and someone close to you has "penis envy". But not me and I can't prove it, but it's not my statements that need to be proved.

>>21763988
>oedipus is le literal
Filtered af