/lit/ - Literature

please stop this vile antisemtisim

Jung was a reader into the spirit of man and his soul.
Freud was an analyst of man’s bestial nature.
Man exists between the material and the immaterial world. Honestly you can reconcile these two and garner a pretty powerful understanding of humanity without having accuse either of them of tripping out on psychedelics or being nose-deep in stimulants respectively.

>"When, a few days later, I was visiting Freud's laboratory, his sister-in-law asked me if she could talk with me. She was very much bothered by her relationship with Freud and felt guilty about it. From her I learned that Freud was in love with her and that their friendship was indeed very intimate. It was a shocking discovery to me, and even now I recall the agony I felt at the time."

>"Freud had some dreams that bothered him very much. The dreams were about the triangle. Freud, his wife, and wife's younger sister. Freud had no idea that I knew about the triangle and his intimate relationship with his sister-in-law. And so, when Freud toldme about the dream in which his wife and her sister played important parts, I asked him to tell me some of his personal associations with the dream. He looked at me with bitterness and said, 'I could tell you more, but I cannot risk my authority.' That, of course, finished my attempt to deal with his dreams. . . . If Freud had tried to understand consciously the triangle, he would have been much, much better off."

>>22350661
>"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."

>>22350666
>"The incompatibility of the two minds was clear; yet they contrived to work together until the next congress, in 19I2, in Munich, where Freud was again overwhelmed by his oedipal myth. Someone had turned the talk to Ikhnaton, suggesting that because of a negative attitude toward his father he had destroyed his father's cartouches on the steles, and that in back of his creation of a monotheistic religion there lay, therefore, a father complex. Jung, irritated by such talk, responded that lkhnaton had held his father's memory in honor and that what his zeal had been directed against was the name of the god Amon: other pharaohs had replaced their fathers' names with their own, feeling they had a right to do so as incarnations of the same god; yet they had not inaugurated a new religion... On hearing which words, Freud slid off his chair in a faint."

>>22350671
>"The only thing he saw in my work," Jung said in his talk with Dr. Billinsky, "was resistance to the father' -my wish to destroy the father. When I tried to point out to him my reasoning about the libido, his attitude toward me was one of bitterness and rejection." More deeply, however, as Jung went on to explain: "It was my knowledge of Freud's triangle that became a very important factor in my break with Freud". And then," he continued, "I could not accept Freud's placing authority above truth."

>>22350435
Both are fantasies.

>>22350435
Jung psychoanalyzed Freud in his autobiography and BTFO him eternally

>>22350671
what he mean by this?

>>22350673
Fid you know that these two went out and got matching tattoos? True story and a pretty new find.

>>22350661
>>22350666
>>22350671
>>22350673
Where are these from?

>>22350671
kek

>>22350673
Wasn't Jung a serial adulterer?

>>22352618
Why ask a question you know the answer to?

>>22352623
To wonder what others think of the actual reasoning behind it.
Was he a hypocrite, was it really about dispute of how to lead psychology? Was it other reasons?

>>22350671
btfo'd

>>22350673
I don't blame him, Freud was smart but was also an eccentric coke head pervert, I don't even get why he'd even be afraid to admit to his colleague the dilemma when it was significant to dream interpretation.

>>22352618
>>22352632
Probably Freud just being sloppy and not conducting himself made it harder for Jung to take him seriously. One thing to cheat but with one's wife's sister...hard to respect.

>>22351553
Introduction from The Portable Jung. It also includes their letters and his come up.

>>22350629
Wait are you telling me I dont have to pick a side? I can synthesize ideas to gain new and interesting perspectives?!?

That simply calling someone a Jew is immediately understood as an insult and it is clear what it means is very telling.

>>22350435
You forgot poo. So you're probably anal retentive, but that's your mother's fault.

>>22350435
>Take on patient
>Diagnose patient with mania
>Make case study out of patient
>Publish case study for all to see, patient anonymized via pseudonym
>Serve as the basis for the foundation of child psychology for years
>...
>Never even spoke to the patient, only ever spoke via the father, who was likely sexually abusing said child
>High on coke and opium the whole time
Freud did kind of hint toward stuff that Piaget would later elaborate on, and for that he's pretty useful, but he was a very lousy scientist, and a worse "medical" professional.

Freud is a jew who understood that after the atheist bourgeois revolutions, men and bourgeois women were sex and drug addicts just like him and since women who dont work but love to gossip about sex, he figured he could have a little cult around him, composed of whores and bourgeois desperate to hear how sex addiction is the nature of the human psyche framed into a self made and self aggrandizing myth disguised as science to surf on the atheist hype of positivism lol.
100 years later atheists still consider him their guru, since they are still lobotomized sex and drug addicts...

Jung is useless drivel kek. At least Freud was wrong.

>>22350671
Imagine two grown adults having this conversation

>>22350671
>Freud slid off his chair in a faint.

>>22353650
Imagine? I spent a decade of my life around psychoanalysts. Not as a patient, before anyone asks.

>>22353531
>He posted it again

>>22350682
Far worse than that; both are essentially indifferent literary critics, ushered bad literary criticism into the mainstream. Laugh at the French all (you) want but at least they knew fairly early that the psychological 'psyche' was merely (an imaginary) text. What the advent of Freud, Jung, Adler (who I like best of the three) among others 'reveal' is that backed by money whatever nonsense you can dream up can be brought into the mainstream. Witness, for instance, right now: 2023.

>>22352706
It didn’t say he actually had sex with her

>>22352618
and this discredits him?

>>22352725
Ty anon :3

>Once a lady of the aristocracy came to me who was in the habit of slapping her employees—including her doctors. She suffered from a compulsion neurosis and had been under treatment in a sanatorium. Naturally, she had soon dispensed the obligatory slap to the head physician. In her eyes, after all, he was only a superior valet de chambre. She was paying the bills, wasn’t she? This doctor sent her on to another institution and there the same scene was repeated. Since the lady was not really insane, but evidently had to be handled with kid gloves, the hapless doctor sent her on to me.
>She was a very stately and imposing person, six feet tall—and there was power behind her slaps, I can tell you! She came, then, and we had a very good talk. Then came the moment when I had to say something unpleasant to her. Furious, she sprang to her feet and threatened to slap me. I, too, jumped up, and said to her, “Very well, you are the lady. You hit first—ladies first! But then I hit back!” And I meant it. She fell back into her chair and deflated before my eyes. “No one has ever said that to me before!” she protested. From that moment on, the therapy began to succeed.
What this patient needed was a masculine reaction. In this case it would have been entirely wrong to “go along.” That would have been worse than useless. She had a compulsion neurosis because she could not impose moral restraint upon herself. Such people must then have some other form of restraint—and along come the compulsive symptoms to serve the purpose.

Did you tame an amazon today?

>>22354282
Eh, admission of love to another is already emotionally giving up on your partner.

sup babygirl woah yiu into atchetypes or somtn i got an archetupe rights here *whips out cock* he is the god of opossites and transitions abraxas . i hope you are ready hehe *whips out cock* this was revealed to me in a dream
*inspires op to make a thread*

What do Jungians make of Lacan? What I've heard from the Lacanian side is that Jung is focused solely on inherent meanings in content while Lacan disregards content itself and finds meaning in the structure which relates content to content.

>>22354606
Sounds about right. Deleuze btfo'd all of them though by considering both the content and the [rhizomatic] structure. I don't remember whether it was in Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus, but him and Guattari say that everything important happens in-between. Whether we're talking about familial structures (Freud/Lacan) or archetypes (Jung), that which is authentically new always arrives in the connections between and beyond them. Same for mind and matter or subject and object or however you want to phrase it (the distinction is an illusory one when contrasted with the plain of immanence).

I know that's not what you asked, I'm just being a loudmouth.

>>22354606
Lacan was a fraud and cult leader. His sole aim was to establish himself as a Parisian intellectual so he was an opportunist and said whatever was convenient. He plagiarized the mirror theory and put together a ramshackle imitation of structuralist jargon that VERY briefly captured the attention of the Parisian intellectual scene when it was strongly inclined to let "Lacan types" in. All sorts of people went to Lacan's lectures, including mainstream figures like Claude Levi-Strauss, but they all rejected them as retarded and nonsensical, i.e., they detected Lacan for the opportunist bricoleur he was. But Lacan had already been semi-installed in the French firmament, at least enough to ensure a steady trickle of acolytes.

With these acolytes, after his heyday was over (as the most disgraceful subset of the heyday of French "poststructuralism," what you could call the Parisian "long 1960s"), Lacan settled into being a literal cult leader as he went literally schizophrenic. There are exposés written by former followers. It was just a small cult by that point, smaller and less significant than the lingering unironic psychoanalytic currents in parts of South America.

>>22354705
>Continuing from this post:
His late philosophy was even more of a sham than his early philosophy, but now schizophrenic grandiosity fueled his assertion of it instead of opportunism. His only French intellectual followers were Badiou and Roudinesco, two pathetic idiots who never got invited to the best Parisian Long 1960s parties in the first place, and once the Parisian Long 1960s were over, they finally entered the deserted ballroom and waited for custodial staff to arrive so they could pretend they had been at the center of things all night. Their writings are insufferable garbage, Badiou a mini-Lacan, a shameless opportunist and huckster of bad books no one reads, Roudinesco an even more pathetic latter day psychoanalyst who desperately mentions she knew Lacan and others personally, on every page of every book.

In the 1990s and 2000s, American academics who equate "Paris" and "Parisian Long 1960s" with "sophistication" and "philosophically revolutionary" (instead of with "AIDS" and "fraudulent" as they should) began to stake out their own careers by being "the guy who wrote the book on X." Once all the good X's were taken by people with moderate, workmanlike talent for exegesis (and pride and dignity sufficiently low to toil over Deleuze's Nachlass for decades), someone had to do Lacan, as the last author-function signifier remaining. Slowly but surely a tedious Americanized interpretation of Lacan-as-Parisian-intellectual was established, harmonized with the American interpretation of structuralism via badly understood hermeneutics, Geertzian anthropology. and a decade of painstakingly accumulated corncobby American Foucault and Heidegger summaries for American gender studies majors.

Thus a signified was constructed complete with its own jargon and its own shibboleths and rain dances and graduate programs and so on. It was decided that Lacan is something something structuralism ("Lacanians" couldn't tell you a basic outline of the development of structuralism), something something similar to Foucault I read Foucault in a college class something something I know who Saussure is I went to college, something something psychoanalysis ("Lacanians" couldn't tell you a basic outline of the development of psychoanalysis), something something Zizek (nobody reads Zizek's books and he has no scholarly output or political impact yet he "writes" 14 books a year), something something fun jargon to memorize.

He's a total waste of time. Deleuze actually has some content, Guattari even more so (especially on his own), Derrida's thought is perfectly coherent and determinate conceptually (at least when he actually put effort into it), but Lacan and Badiou are complete and utter frauds. They were NOTHING BUT opportunists, whereas Deleuze is an opportunist with at least some content.

>>22354705
>>22354710
Funny that I posted about Deleuze mere seconds before this. The plain of immanence works in mysterious ways.

>>22352734
If you can believe inconsistent and incompatible things, sure

jung is still popular in new age and /x/ type circles.
freude is popular with no one.

>>22354710
Didn’t sound like you actually answered his question.

>>22354710
>nobody reads Zizek's books and he has no scholarly output or political impact yet he "writes" 14 books a year
Top kek. You're right, but I still love the raccoon man like you wouldn't believe. And so on and so on. *sniff*

>>22354741
Poor guy asked a perfectly valid question and got the academia equivalent of rambling hobos shouting at him. God I love this place sometimes.

>>22354283
Inasmuch as suicide discredits Deleuze, Debord and Fisher

>>22354746
I’ve had that happen to me before and I’m not attending academia or nor ever have.

>>22354747
And DFW. Don't forget DFW!

>>22354705
>>22354710
What's wrong with schizophrenic grandiosity?

>>22354606
You can't take an idea in isolation from the content/structure, Jung and anyone else would agree with that.
As for inherent meaning, who decides it? Supposedly the ultimate goal of Lacan method is to discard any effort to find some meaning (i.e. establish some connection with the other, the source of neurotic suffering) and instead enjoy by yourself your own meanings

>>22352734
No, he’s lying to you.

>>22350671
kwab

>>22354740
Freud is unpopular and even hated because his ideas have a ring of truth to them. Most people even disregard Beyond the Pleasure Principle entirely because they're unable to make it that far, they feel too called out.
That said, acknowledging and embracing Eros and Thanatos is one way of making it in life.

>>22350435
Look around you, doodoo sex is obviously the correct understanding of the human psyche. Archetypes and the collective unconscious just flatter the sensibilities of a certain kind of person. And anyway, if you guys would actually bother to read Freud you might find a lot that you like.

>>22353680
well, what are they like? Dogmatic? I imagine you have to be pretty stubbornly attached to psychoanalysis to be one in these days when the psychology mainstream has moved away to a large extent

>>22354947
Not him but in my very limited experience of psychologists genuinely interested in psychoanalysis, especially (but not exclusively) Jungians, they are among the few people who made me actually understand clinical psychology and therapy, as they seemed like people born to help and understand others, not interested in dogmatic theories or their application. In fact this partly frustrated me about them - they wanted to "see with" Freud/Jung/Adler/etc. but not systematize their understanding of anyone philosopher of mind. But it also made me appreciate that there are radically different "types" of people out there. This psychoanalyst I briefly dated really revealed this to me. I think some of them are natural healers and understanders. Some of them are also badly wounded themselves which is why they want to help others (this is a common trope among psychologists and social workers, sort of like how comedians are self-destructive or simply weirdos and comedy is how they find an outlet for it).

It seems like dogmatic Freudians used to be much more of a thing, back when they were an institution. Again based purely on my personal experience, every Jungian I've met has been a very nice person, a little sheepish about being interested in Jung.

>>22354710
You went too far talkin some mess bout my nigga Geertz

>>22354947
>well, what are they like? Dogmatic?
Yes. Although usually in a roundabout, convoluted way. The beauty of psychoanalysis is that you can use it to justify, rationalize and explain anything and everything. It's not all bad though, these days most psychoanalysts I personally know are into both Lacan and continental philosophy (since Lacan borrowed heavily from philosophers) so there are lots of interesting crossovers there. The classic Freudians and Jungians tend to be a bit marginalized, but mostly tolerated. I remember one of the Lacanians even calling Jung a psychotic.

But the most interesting cooperations I noticed were with mainstream cognitive psychologists and psychiatrists. And a few of the psychoanalysts also have degrees in standard cognitive-behavioural psychology so it's interesting that they didn't switch to that. Maybe they didn't want to risk losing their place among psychoanalysts since there are also some hostilities between the two approaches obviously.

>>22354970
This reminded me of an acquaintance of mine with whom I haven't spoken in years. But he slept with his Jungian female psychoanalyst. Not sure that that inspires much confidence in Jungians, but I wouldn't mind a therapy session myself :^)

The true redpill is when you realize that Jung's spirituality and archetypes are the same thing as Freud's sexual theories just given a respectable mask for depraved bourgeousie to make themselves sound esoteric rather than neurotic:

>>22350682
>he thinks fantasies aren't highly revealing of the truth

>>22352618
So, like most married people?

>>22355015
I'm sorry your mother/father/both was a whore/lecher/both. Hopefully you can break cycle and find true love, anon.

>>22354756
Even a stopped clock ...

>>22355023
Your unusually strident outburst is clearly indicative of a deep insecurity.
How long have you suspected your wife of infidelity?

>>22354970
>people born to help and understand others
That's both interesting and concerning, because I'm going to school soon to pursue a career in psychotherapy, but I understand my motivations are rooted somewhere in the fact that I have been a selfish person my entire life and I want to destroy that guilt by now helping others. But it's still ultimately a selfish endeavor; helping the patients are to me just a means to an end or a kind of penance that I'm paying. Can a non-altruistic therapist actually help people? The mind isn't like a physical body part which can be algorithmically tended to, there's a certain intuition that one has to have to be able to understand and then access the core of a person's discontent, and I don't know if that intuition is truly god-given or if it can be acquired. Clearly Jung had it, and those who follow his thought do too to an extent, which gives me hope.

>>22355068
You might find that your proximity to these people and helping them with their troubles develops those feelings of affection you feel you lack. You may already have them but not really be fully acknowledging them because you are so focused on your guilt as well.
Then you might also find that this isn’t the path for you because you don’t find that compassion. Time will tell anon.

>>22350671
>just fucking falls over
Lmao

>>22354572
>whipping out his cock not once but twice

>>22355068
>Can a non-altruistic therapist actually help people?
I would say that empathy is the sine qua non of psychotherapy. Unless you can take a genuine interest in your patients, you won't be able to help them.
But who knows, maybe it's something you can learn.

>>22355144
>he only has one cock
>laughinggirls.jpg

>>22355144
>he cant astrally whip out his cock
ngmi

>>22352735
This is true. Same goes for nigger. It's only insulting because what it implies is truthful

>>22353703
>he thinks the leading thought of the time hasn't always been what is pushed by the rich and powerful

Our current epoch is under (((elites))) that have mediocre, beauty-hating, non-life-affirming tastes in art and science.

LIFE DRIVE
DEATH DRIVE
O LORD I CANNOT FEED BOTH
I AM ALWAYS IN NEED
THE HUNGER IT MAKES ME CRAZY

that's all there is to freud really, if you can identify and find a way to balance your various needs you will have a peaceful mind and not chimp out

>>22355005
I liked Jung's old work. His guru shit is horrible though, I can't disagree with that.

does anyone have that chart on getting into Jung

>>22350671
>On hearing which words, Freud slid off his chair in a faint."

>>22355377
A jew is just that; a jew.
Not all niggers are black.

>>22355665
Read Serrano's book on him and Hesse

>>22355660
His early shit is most Freudian. Even the occult investigations. Mid is kinda post-Freud. But why take sides? He indeed outright abandons materialism later. Synchronicity is an absurd definition for example. Acausal "connection" -- ever hear of psr??? Then the aion and job stuff is a lot of fun but p much as schizo as red book. In any case his alchemy takes are basically pic related which is gay

>>22355665

>>22356192
Nice one

I started with Red Book & Aion going to read Man and his Symbols next followed by Active Imagination.

>>22352782
>You forgot poo
He included doodoo.

>>22353591
>At least Freud was wrong
I like this dialectic.

>>22353591
You've never read either of them

>>22355144
Cocks within cocks within cocks.

>>22355866
They call themselves Jews but they are not, for they do lie.

>>22350435
I haven't read enough Jung to comment.
Freud is social engineering at its finest.
It doesn't matter if everything is truly about sex. After a century of repeating that everything is about sex, sex is about power, etc. in every sphere of life, sex HAS BECOME our reality, our new God.

>>22350435
>Sex is... LE BAD!
>Because... because... IT JUST IS OKAY!
god freud would love you

>>22356250
>HAS BECOME
Good point.