/lit/ - Literature

Bamp for interest

>>8883501
I'm pretty sure /lit/ is split on Jung. Half of people seem to value him for his contribution to literary theory and whatnot, and the other half just think he's pseudoscience bullshit. At least that's what i've seen.

There's definitely been a big rise in discussion about him recently, probably because of Jordan Peterson.

I kind of fall into the camp where I enjoy reading him so that I can study Archetypes and see what other knowledge I can squeeze out of his writing.

>>8883579
>Half of people seem to value him for his contribution to literary theory and whatnot, and the other half just think he's pseudoscience bullshit.

So nobody thinks his idea of the archetypes has any merit?

>>8883501
Beautiful nonsense.

>>8883615
I meant to include his concepts of the archetypes along with literary theory, there are people who seem to value him for both. Again, I obviously can't speak for everyone.

>>8883627
What do you personally think though?

>>8883637
I think that the concept of Archetypes and the Collective Unconsious is something that's useful. I haven't read much (I have The Portable Jung, Archetypes and the Collective Unconsious and Man and his Symbols lined up), but in theory I do think that you CAN find symbols and examples of the archetypes in everyday life, and knowledge of them can really help you put things in perspective and formulate a plan to act. I think it's most helpful in the realm of self-improvement desu. This is just from my rudimentary knowledge, although how I interpret it is probably subject to change as I go through his work.

>>8883671
Okay, cool. Thanks for your thoughts.

>>8883501
Nice read

>>8883501
THE BEST

I really like Jung in the sense that he must have been a great person to talk to. I've read a lot of his books and enjoyed them throughly and recommend them. Opinions on him vary depending on where you come from. Since Jung is one of the most attractive and open psychologists, being also a good writer with interesting themes to tackle, a lot of people come to him as an entrance to the world of psychanalysis. The problem with this is that they end up thinking he is somewhat central to its history, their opinion on Freud come solely from him or they take his terms for life. I advise to read other people as well.

Jung was raised in a very catholic mindset and his personal history, the way I see it, is about his journey towards a gregarious way to see religion and the mind, that was also so common for his generation of modern thinkers. Jung was Freud's favourite for various reasons, but they differ greatly, specially later on in Jung's life. I believe their difference is best seen through Lacan. You'll see Jung is really an odd one out, a person that took his own path, while the method of psychoanalysis moved on. As Jung became older, he turned into a mystic, an occultist (if that's a good or bad thing to you, I don't know, but he did).

When Lacan talks about the three registers (Real, Symbolic and Imaginary), you'll see Jung really is the analyst that tackled the imaginary and dived into it completely, in detriment of the others. In his memories Jung speaks of his difference to Freud with an example, saying to Freud, if you dream of a key or a sword, you're invoking a phallic object (Symbolic, the rule, the structure), to which Jung agreed, but also questioned "why did you dream specifically of a key and not of a sword?", that is, he focus is in the image, the envelope of the symbolic. Jung believed these images can be used to transform ourselves, which is something Freud and Lacan would also agree, if not for their caution when it comes to the difference between one and the other person (language). Jung believed in an unconscious that was almost palpable, like a blanket underneath our mind, that also connected us and that was somehow an objective source of images and symbols. Therefore, he, as an analyst can dive into it and bring about something that makes sense to you as well as himself. This is true to some extent, but misses some major freudian points that only Lacan would develop better, focusing on problems of language and seeing the unconscious not as an imaginary place, but as a necessary gap between what we say, what we mean, what the other hears and thinks we are saying.

That being said, Jung is a fantastic read to get in touch with this dance of images and meanings, he has a fantastic knowledge of mythology and has written extensively about dream interpretation, stories and legends. He is also an example of a person who was not afraid of looking into what he didn't know or comprehend and approach it head first, with his typical ease.

Is this the best book to get into jung? Ive listened to all the jordan peterson stuff and want to tackle his actual works now.

>>8884177

>>8883740 here

The best book to get into Jung is The Man and his Symbols, which is partly written by Jung and partly by other jungians, but with his support. It was deliberately written to be an entry book to his thought. OP's book is not a bad first book though. His book Memories, Dreams, Reflections is also a good starting point, particularly because he talks a bit about Freud and his relationship with him too, but it's more of a biography, than about a given subject.

>>8884177
Man and His Symbol is the one he wrote which he intended to function as an introductory work for the general public. It's great in that it stands on its own without requiring previous knowledge, but a lot of the ideas he presents, especially in the first chapter, are kind of vague and hard to correctly understand, which imo is part of why the new-age movement clings to him, despite him explicitly stating that understanding him that way is a pitfall.
A lot of people also seem to suggest Memories, Dreams and Reflections, which I haven't personally read. From my understanding its a more autobiographical work.

You could also join the big boy club and fork out 300 bucks for the Red Book.

>>8884197
>>8884213
lol

>>8884213
>You could also join the big boy club and fork out 300 bucks for the Red Book.