What does /his/ think of Jung?

>>1467644
bit of a nut, but surprisingly interesting and insightful at times

>>1467657

How was he a nut?

>>1467644

He's completely discredited in psychology, he faked his research to push his mysticism and indirectly gave rise to the New Age movement.

0/10, top tier prick.

>>1467663
All the weird Gnostic stuff and personal journals. Read his Seven Sermons to the Dead, or if you really want to dive deep, the Red Book.

>>1467679

You can't blame the new age movement on Jung. The new age people took bits and pieces they liked and ignored the ideas they didn't like. There was a level of sophistication to his thought that people often miss.

>>1467679
This but even worse than you think. His cult following is even worse than he was.

>>1467694
>You can't blame the new age movement on Jung.

You really can, tho. He encouraged mysticism of all kinds and cultivated a cult of personality around himself, in many ways he was the first of the "secular cult leaders" that characterize the New Age.

>>1467846

>He encouraged mysticism of all kinds and cultivated a cult of personality around himself, in many ways he was the first of the "secular cult leaders" that characterize the New Age.

[citation needed]

>>1467644
Too old for my taste.

>>1467644
Brilliant and easily approachable for those new to psychology.

>>1467644
never actually read anything by him or about him, but from what I've heard he sounds like some type of pseudopsychologist who's into stuff like mandalas and chakras.

>>1468257
>mandalas
>a geometric figure representing the universe in Hindu and Buddhist symbolism.

dumb pleb

>>1467644
He doesn't look very Jung in that picture.

Interesting as fuck

>>1467846
Not really. New Age mysticism and religion was developed by intelligence agencies and social engineering think tanks as a means of social control. Propagated from the 1960's onwards mostly through the Esalen Institute.

>>1467644
I enjoyed "Man and His Symbols", it's a bunch of essays by him and his colleagues, kinda like a "Jung For Dummies". I recommend.

I found Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious as a very readable introduction to the perennial philosophy.

But most importantly it frames it in today's contemporary, physicalist world.

Religions share so much in their symbols and their use in iconography, liturgy, theology, scriptures, etc. because their basis is in a shared, biologically determined spiritual drive.

>>1468946
this

people sooooo so often miss the physical nature of Jung's theories. He's not a mystic, and you don't have to be to read him.

What I've read (Man and his Symbols, On the Nature of the Psyche, Dreams) have been very stimulating, especially due to speculating on the physical roots

>>1470396
well he had a mystical phase in his youth, see the "Red Book" and Sermons to the Dead. Afterwards he went deep into alchemy and gnosticism

>>1468257

>never actually read anything by him or about him

then why are you posting in this thread

He discovered how, why memes function because Lolkins.

>>1467679
>He's completely discredited in psychology
I think that's also true for Freud though.

Think of them more like Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus; almost everything they ever said was wrong, but the important thing was they started new intellectual traditions that have greatly improved over time, and are now vital for us today.

Just because you wouldn't ask the Wright brothers to repair a 747, doesn't mean their contributions didn't matter immensely to the field that allowed 747s to exist.

>>1470999
>I think that's also true for Freud though.

Freud did real work and laid the foundations for the scientific study of the mind, Jung made up his research and shilled mystical woo-woo to attract simple minded people to his cult. They are leagues apart in terms of contributions to humanity.

>>1467644

Based as fuck

>>1470999
>le current year

>>1470999
Freud has been more highly regarded in literary analysis than psychology for decades. However, he did make a very interesting theory of personality. Unfortunately, it's one that only applies to himself.

>>1467644
Extremely misunderstood.

>>1471185

To be fair to Freud, he was honest enough to repudiate his own work later in his life. As he said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar."

>>1470412
>implying anybody in this thread has read anything by or about jung

>>1468805
underrated

>>1467657
>>1467679
>>1467689
>>1467846
>The collective unconscious doesn't real

I'm disappointed in you all.

File: prove it russia.png (37KB, 944x948px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 944x948px

>>1472848

>>1467663
He was sexually abused as a kid.

He's a meme

How about all that stuff about the repressed personalities and assumed identities?
Sounds like BS desu

>>1470999
>Think of them more like Plato, Aristotle

Fucking what?

In what way (aside from Aristotle's bits on biology and physics) were they wrong?

Jung represents a continuation of the Platonic tradition. Plato, who received his knowledge from Socrates (who some claim received it from Egyptian Mystery Schools), gives us the idea of Forms. This is carried through by Plotinus and further by St. Augustine. Eventually we get to Jung with his Archetypes and this is carried forward to Joseph Campbell in his monomyth.

It is the Truth of the pure metaphysical reality that underlies our own. Unfortunately, like the Gnostic states, it has to be experienced to be accepted by the individual. No materialists are going to be convinced, but the true reality as given to us by our ancient ancestors was carried through to Jung. With his and his predecessors insight, we can lift the veil to see the infinitive divine reality of which we are a shadow.

>>1467679

>He's completely discredited in psychology

and yet his theories are used in marketing and public relations ain't that strange

Freud = Jew
Jung = European

>>1474587
Also, Freud and Jung aren't really discredited in psychology; Freud's idea of the unconscious is used all the time in discussing various possibilities behind various phenomena.

It's just the dream interpretation, oedipal complex stuff that no one outside of psychoanalysts adhere to because it's entirely unfalsifiable to more empirical psychological researchers, even though they draw on his ideas when they reference ideas like unconscious bias, etc., when interpreting results.

>>1474212
>No materialists are going to be convinced
Jung's biologism was the strongest attempt to find a way to get that accomplished, somehow

But if a contemporary guy like Jung can't get one started, I'm not sure if Plato ever will

>>1474679
I like you brother, you speak true.

It like the rebirth Christians always talk about.
If someone is a strong atheistic materialist, no arguments are going to change their views. They have to actually experience the archetypal world or they just consider it delusion. All of them would likely take offence at that last sentence.

But, while they are not convinced, they act in a way that defies their true Platonic Manichean spirit. They love science and math, but math is pure Platonism. The equations are based in reality but they are pure forms of material existence. Like in geometry, we study the shapes but these shapes never actually exist outside of our perception of the archetypal.

Same with their Manicheanism, they are often socialists or leftists (the materialists) and have the world of good in the guise of social reform against the ultimate evil being the right wing hierarchical societal structure. They have pure platonic and dualistic beliefs while claiming a strictly materialist worldview.

We can't escape Plato, we can either admit his truths or bury our head in the sand and defy our culture. I assume easterners would be somewhat imprinted different, but the influence of their religions still tends towards a perfect underlying truth as opposed to the flawed (but still wonderful) material world. As in the perennial philosophy.

>>1467644
He was an enlightened man of God.

>>1467644
Crook who ducked his patients.

>>1467644
Good philosopher, shit scientist.