Carl Jung

[Anonymous No.22728339]

I know next to nothing about Jung or psychoanalysis for that matter but find him very interesting. Can someone give me a tidbit or recommend some good books?

[Anonymous No.22728358]

>>22728339
The collected works on dreams called "Dreams" published by Princeton is an interesting intro to his work and thought.

[Anonymous No.22728386]

>>22728339
Honestly just watch some esoteric neopagan youtubers and you'll get it. Analytic psychology is basically just a Trojan horse for totally arbitrary religious commitments by reframing metaphysical and mythological facts as facts about the collective unconscious (which itself is a motte and bailey between "shared features of the unconscious" and "ideal fundamental reality").

Jung was very smart but he is an S tier bullshit artist. Realizing that this swiss faggot has taken you for a ride is a deeply frustrating experience, moreso even than reading Lacan, because with Lacan at least you know in advance that he's a French intellectual and so is probably full of shit.

[Anonymous No.22728396]

>>22728358
140 IQ post
>>22728386
103 IQ post

[Anonymous No.22728452]

>>22728396
Here is a great example of a poster who has been taken in by Jung's bullshit artistry. He mistakenly believes that recognizing Jung's intellectual dishonesty is my own inability to comprehend Jung.

The is probably still at the stage where he thinks Jung's conception of the collective unconscious is a reasonable hypothesis consistent with successful natural sciences, because he has only read so far as Jung's early dissembling lectures in which the concept is presented as capturing the ideas ingrained in us by our biological ancestry. He probably has not gotten to the point where Jung's comments begin to reveal not just esoteric but honest-to-God paranormal beliefs. He probably does not yet know that the "collective unconscious" was, for Jung, an explanation of ESP, which Jung believed as actually, literally real, because he claims to have observed his patients using psychic powers.

[Anonymous No.22728457]

>>22728452
>consistent with successful natural sciences,

[Anonymous No.22728459]

>>22728386
>the collective unconscious (which itself is a motte and bailey between "shared features of the unconscious" and "ideal fundamental reality")
Where do you think the "shared features of the unconscious" come from?
Where do animals get their instincts? Why do people dream? Why do primitive cultures express themselves in strikingly similar ways?
It's because of the Collective Unconscious. Knowledge is hereditary.
This has literally been proved in experiments involving fruit flies. The flies would visit the same places as their parents to find food, even when they were deliberately separated from said parents.

[Anonymous No.22728468]

>>22728457
>"Sorry but your surrogate father thought his patients could read minds and prophecy the future"
>"Well science is gay"
It is no surprise that this fraud is Jordan Peterson's favorite psychologist

[Anonymous No.22728478]

>>22728459
Again, read my criticism more carefully. I agree that the idea that psychological concepts could be ingrained in an organism by biological inheritance is possible. My point was that this is the "reasonable" interpretation of Jung's collective unconscious, but that Jung later reveals that, no, he's talking about a universal mind that facilitates prophecies and telepathy. Jung dresses up his insane bullshit in initially plausible sounding theories that he slowly unwinds into retarded dogshit, and I'm not exaggerating.

[Anonymous No.22728484]

>>22728478
If you don't believe in a supersensible realm and paranormal phenomena you are literally the world's biggest retard.

[Anonymous No.22728505]

>>22728484
The unadulterated cope. I do believe in Platonic (ie immaterial) objects, but unfortunately they don't give you magical powers :(

[Anonymous No.22728517]

>>22728478
I can see you have never experimented with divination.
I was a skeptic too, until I tried it.

[Anonymous No.22728542]

>>22728478
Psychology must inevitably collide with mysticism. Dreaming is a mystical phenomenon than literally happens in your psyche every night.
It never ceases to amaze me how rational people dismiss their dreams as nonsensical or irrelevant. They obviously have an evolutionary purpose, or they wouldn't occur as often and as insistently as they do.

[Anonymous No.22728547]

>>22728339
Modern Man in Search of a Soul

[Anonymous No.22728572]

>>22728542
Do you recognize the conceptual distinction between symbolism and magic? Dreams can very easily possess symbolic meaning without having magical properties.

[Anonymous No.22728574]

>>22728339
Read Jung's chapter in Man and his Symbols for a simple introduction. Marie-Louise von Franz's chapter is good too. If you want to read a full book, maybe start with Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. The first four chapters of Aion are a pretty good introduction too (but don't read the rest of the book until you have a basic understanding of Jung's thought). Modern Man in Search of a Soul is pretty easy to understand as well.

Jung is complicated, and you need to read him carefully and slowly. And, importantly, you need to experience what he talks about in real life. Only then will it really make sense. If you find Jung's main works too difficult, Robert A. Johnson and von Franz are great and easier to read (but you will need to read Jung himself).

Ignore almost everything you read about him online. People like to act like they understand Jungian psychology and will spew all sorts of nonsense about it (either new age, basic self-help stuff, or something else), despite never having read Jung. That goes for this board too.

>>22728386
For example, do not listen to this idiot.

[Anonymous No.22728575]

>>22728505
They do. I recently experienced a synchronicity involving birds. It was lovely. Also, the more I am gentle and tender with bees and learn about bees, the more bees come to visit me.

[Anonymous No.22728602]

>>22728574
Ah, another Jung-understander who thinks I'm an idiot. Do you believe I'm mistaken that Jung believed in telepathy and precognition, or do you believe those are real phenomena?

[Anonymous No.22728619]

>>22728452
>>22728468
>>22728478
>>22728505
None of this is real criticism. Yes, the collective unconscious was, for Jung, an explanation for ESP. Now what? Just calling it "insane bullshit" and "magic" is not an argument; I hate to be the person who brings up fallacies, but this is just appeal to ridicule. Reality is strange, and certain things sound ridiculous depending on the religious and cultural tradition in which you were raised. It's not dishonest, either, because Jung argues these points clearly and shamelessly. The fact that his arguments changed over his lifetime, as you've noticed, does not signify intellectual dishonesty.

[Anonymous No.22728645]

>>22728572
Who mentioned magic? I was talking about mysticism, viz. the search for enlightenment within oneself.
Those symbols are very much a path to enlightenment, if you take the trouble to study and interpret them.

[Anonymous No.22728659]

>>22728619
The very obvious problem is that Jung was convinced there was overwhelming empirical evidence for ESP, which he and every other ESP believer could not actually produce. He, like many charlatans, makes bold empirical claims but somehow fails to subject them to actual empirical methods. This is not a case of me desiring to employ empirical standards on inappropriate subjects, like e.g. theology or metaphysics, but rather a case of textbook pseudoscience: enormous empirical claim, zero empirical standards.

[Anonymous No.22728674]

>>22728645
I was criticizing Jung's belief in paranormal events like precognition and telepathy. If all you mean by "mystical" is "symbolic", then I have no particular issue with that.

[Anonymous No.22728745]

>>22728659
Have you read "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle"? Jung's explanations for ESP are based largely on J. B. Rhine's experiments, whose methods, I believe, are thought to have been flawed. He was also trying to explain the results of other experiments. I know far too little about this topic, and most of the synchronicity stuff goes over my head, but it's more complicated than you seem to realise. Note that Jung's writings on these topics are attempts to explain phenomena of which he and others were convinced, as you note—not attempts to prove the reality of these phenomena. The possibility that the psyche transcends space and time is not discordant with modern science. It is just exceptionally difficult to run scientific experiments on synchronicity. Many, if not most people, will claim to have experienced synchronicity. I am not convinced either way. But telling someone interested in learning about Jung that Jung is no more than what some morons on YouTube can tell you is unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.22728805]

>>22728745
Synchronicity has to be experienced to be understood. And to do that, you need to be open to the possibility of synchronicity ...
This is why experiments by skeptics always refute the existence of synchronicity, and experiments by believers always confirm it.
Preconceptions are everything. The brain is literally a tool for collapsing the wave function, in whatever way it chooses. We each select our own reality.

[Anonymous poster who became God No.22728816]

Whatsoever we learn from here let us learn to love each other for all time. Beginning has no cause nor an end an eternity. We are perpetually trapped in a never ending spiral of life and death...

[Anonymous No.22728824]

>>22728745
My joke about Youtube pagans was just shit talk. It was meant to illustrate what I take to be a cultural connection between the popularity of Jungian concepts in the cultural zeitgest and the rise in à la carte faux-religions. I also doubt it's a coincidence that Jung's popularity has surged so much in the years following Jordan Peterson's arrival on the scene.

It is a very significant problem in my view that Jung is presented to the public as a heterodox psychologist when he is actually more similar to a parapsychologist or even occultist. Peterson himself is also a good illustration of the problem with Jungians in general: He makes claims that sound, on an exoteric reading, like reasonable or even mundane claims about psychology. And then you examine his work and discover that he believes ancient people had the structure of DNA revealed to them in a vision. It is really intellectually pernicious to present this stuff with the face of "psychology" and then drop absolutely wild paranormal claims once you're in the deep end.

[Anonymous No.22728843]

>>22728824
Your effort posting has made me even more interested in Jung. Thanks fren

[Anonymous No.22728846]

>>22728816
>let us learn to love each other for all time
Eat a bag of dicks, faggot.

[Anonymous poster who became God No.22728966]

>>22728846
OK

[Anonymous No.22729070]

>>22728339
Freud is better

[Anonymous No.22729476]

>>22728339
Is Jung a cryptojew? Seems obsessed with jewish occultism.

[Anonymous No.22729547]

>>22728339
I'm not well versed in Jung's main work, but his functional theory of personality was groundbreaking. Major developments in personality theory have taken place silently in the past 50 years, but unfortunately, no definitive up to date work has been written on the subject. Perhaps, I would write it one day

[Anonymous No.22729563]

>>22728358
https://dreamstudies.org/carl-jung-dream-interpretation/

[Anonymous No.22729592]

>>22728452
>i got filtered by synchronicity and its profound implications for Jungs metaphysics and his actual motives
lol, lmao even.

[Anonymous No.22729601]

>>22728339
>recommend some good books
Dive into the depths. Disregard faggots.

[Anonymous No.22729604]

>>22728659
>This is not a case of me desiring to employ empirical standards on inappropriate subjects, like e.g. theology or metaphysics,
that is exactly what you are doing; synchronicity is beyond scientific methodology, especially when trapped by materialist ontologies. pulling out the "pseudoscience" card is scientism faggotry and hyper-(ir)rationality, fullstop.

[Anonymous No.22729621]

>>22728452
>>22728478
>bugman gets assblasted by Jungs esoteric reiteration of Greek idealism/neo-Platonism and Chinese Daoism
why does the notion of a mental wellspring of the cosmos terrify some people so much

[Anonymous No.22730441]

>>22729070
This

[Anonymous No.22731203]

>>22728452
Trying to say these things are crazy because they just are is cringe. He's unironically right about all of that and it's obvious to anyone with a brain

[Anonymous No.22732625]

>>22728805
this, the so called sceptics always go with their eyes closed and then bitch about how they cannot see anything. If someone is not even open to possibility of phenomenon and dismiss everything out of their worldview from the start how you can experience anything different and change your mind when you'll note everything to be le cheap tricks or bullshit anyway?

[Anonymous No.22732733]

>>22728386
>>22728452
Based and true. But that’s the case with all of philosophy, all ideas and all systems.