/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15432759]

Why is Jung getting discussed but not Freud?

[Anonymous No.15432771]

>>15432759

[Anonymous No.15432777]

why are either of them getting discussed but not Based Adler?

[Anonymous No.15432789]

Jung's mystic schtick really appeals to people here

[Anonymous No.15432898]

>>15432759
I like reading Freud and Lacan, but can't stand Jung. The way Jung talks about spirits, and ghost turn me off.

[Anonymous No.15432936]

>>15432771
>>15432777

[Anonymous No.15432937]

We're anti-semitic

[Anonymous No.15433026]

>>15432898
Similar for me, although I haven't read Lacan.
Jung's interpretations can be a bit outlandish. His archetypes are gold though.
I also think Freud is more controversial for our times than Jung. It's easier to talk about mumbo jumbo than it is about incest.

[Anonymous No.15433032]

>Freud

[Anonymous No.15433075]

>>15432759
Swap one pseudoscience for another

[Anonymous No.15433080]

Instinct and evolution, modern scientific materialism could never explain this and only corrupts the minds of those innocent enough to accept it. It is this that led Jung to the interest in the inner subjective experience of life, the only true psychology; because it is from his own meaning, what is meaningful to him and makes no attempt to ignore it with outward objective science. It was a phenomenological psychology as Jung called it. This is a science of the mind; "a culture of the psyche" in which Jung was striving for. And he like Heidegger, maintained the validity of the existence of this meaning. It is just that Jung does not speak of metaphysics, only observable and therefore predictable psychic phenomena, which was true and cannot be said otherwise--; the roots and branches, it is the trunk of the whole and as a result the apparent "unfounded-mystical" tautology of this psychology is of no consequence, because it is in truth the sum whole of all truth and all relations and can never be escaped, it would be like in Heidegger to claim you could ever "get out" of your being to being(being in being and so forth), you are mans being in being and this is certain. Jung, as Heidegger also did, eventually discarded strict concepts of subjective/objective to a better fitting symbolic sense of inner/outer. One should also not approach Jung with an empirical sense that he himself did with his earlier theories, instead with a more philosophical insight after all he is a "philosopher in a scientists garbs". Jung's main influences came from Schopenhauer, Kant, Carus and Hartman. Saying himself that he was more influenced by Carl Gustav Carus than Freud.

In the end, we can say this is why Jung had such fascination with the symbol. A direct representation of meaningful phenomena. If one can cultivate a care for symbolical appreciation he can get so much closer to the truth of life, and as said evidently phenomenological in character for both of these men.

[Anonymous No.15433180]

>>15432759
>Why is Jung getting discussed but not Freud?
Because Jews are on average slightly above average in intelligence and this is a place for more intelligent non-jews with somewhat rightwing leanings.

So they are less likely to read a man like Freud.

>>15432789
>Jung's mystic schtick really appeals to people here
Yes, gentile, more intelligent then the average Jew, with an intrest in the esoteric.

[Anonymous No.15433188]

>>15433080
>evidently phenomenological
I've never viewed Jung as phenomenological.
Rogers is what comes to mind when talking about phenomenology.