>/lit/ loves philosophy yet neglects psychology. why stop midway?

Because this is a literature board.

Neetshit is basically pop-psychology.

Freud and Lacan are central to continental 20th century philosophy.

>>9418147
Psychology is for poor people

>>9418147
>psychology

>>9418359
Rich people have more mental problems

>>9418147
/lit/ does like psychology though

>>>/his/

if you post on /lit/ and haven't read william james suicide is your only option

>>9418470
rich people with mental problems fit my definition of "poor people"

>>9418491
I'm a psychology major and I haven't read him

>>9418660

un homme pauvre ou un pauvre homme

>>9418660
Your definitions are bad and you should feel bad.

Jung is really based and interesting on many levels, he can be thought of just another pseudo-scientific theorist, but personally I think he idea of archetypes deserves some praise, and the whole concept of the collective unconcious is very underrated.

I can't speak about the others though, I feel Freud tried too hard to make psychoanalysis be a general theory and something that you could implement on everything. It's obvious he needed to, but that doesn't mean that his explanations are sometimes a matter of opinion or personal values rather than hard scientific facts. I know very little about Lacan, but mixing Marxism with Psychoanalysis sounds like there might be some very bold claims without substantial scientific evidence. Also, most, if not all of the contemporary psychology is more scientific than a matter of analysis, so I can see why people aren't too educated about it.

Anyways, asking this is like asking why /lit/ doesn't talk about Max Weber. He sure is a central figure in XX Century thought, but he is closer to social science than philosophy or anything. I view it as something hard for people here to go read the old social science classics and follow up to modern thinkers. I mean, I'd go as far as to say that it is much more harder to read Weber or Habermas than Pynchon or DFW (Joyce as an exception though, but English prose doesn't get any better than Joyce anyways), not because it's wrote obtusely in purpose or because it has many layers, but because it's extremely dense in content.

Why are the people on this site the only ones that take Jung seriously?

>>9418147
Midway to where exactly?
They are both very different disciplines with very different aims and methodology

Psychological Types, Man and His Symbols, The Red Book by Jung

Civilization and its Discontents by Freud

Why did Freud like to make things up?

>>9419165
He interviewed and psychoanalysed thousands of patients and found patterns that formed the basis of his (now outdated) theories but his ideas still hold relevance and are interesting nonetheless.

>>9418924
>be me
>having trouble sleeping
>happen to be reading Jung's "Psychological Types"
>sleep problems intensify, accompanied by vague, unshakable unease
>enter downward spiral of mutually-reinforcing insomnia and anxiety
>nervouswreck.jpg
>convinced I'm going to lose my job, and my marbles, as a result
>read passage that explains how I'm suffering from psychasthenic neurosis
>read how to cure it
>cure myself of neurosis

This was far from the first life-changing synchronicity I've experienced. Jung is based as fuck. I don't accept his ideas completely (I prefer Leary's Eight Circuit Theory, which I believe subsumes Jung), but I can't begin to tell you the benefits I've derived from reading him.

If nothing else, he was a genuinely great (if difficult) writer, which should be enough for /lit/.

If you're still not convinced, don't worry. Jung has a habit of coming to you, just when you're ready for him.

>>9418931

Because being a right-winger is a badge of honor 'round these parts.

>>9419279
I mean, Jung ranges form practical psychological help to esoteric and spiritual stuff, there is a little for everyone.
Also, the people that derive systems from his ideas aren't pants on head retarded all the time, neither they are as dogmatic as some psychoanalysts in regards to the core ideas of the discipline. Many people have their own archetypes regarding things like masculinity or rituals.
Personally, I think he is generally underrated, probably one of the most important minds of the XX century and everyone can learn something from him.

>>9418931
are you sure you didn't ask a self-answering question?

>>9418931
is that negative or positive?
We could talk about that to give a direction to this thread of nothing else.

I'm not saying he was right in everything, but he was very interesting and many people just don't talk about him as much as they did with Freud.

File: apu tietäjä.jpg (59KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 655x527px

>>9419279

Does Jung have any advice about how to stop being depressed and lazy?

>>9419932
Confront your shadow

>>9418931
>>9419379
>Philosophy/Psychology thread
>Doesn't know how popular Jung is in French post-modernism
Could you kindly redirect your web browser to reddit?

>>9419932
This can be found in Volume 17 of the Collected Works, entitled "Buck Up, Faggot."

File: michelangelo moses 2.jpg (69KB, 418x640px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 418x640px

what did michelangelo mean by this?

Other than Jordan Peterson, can /lit/ introduce me to some other great psychologists?

>>9421444
>kermit the frog
get outta here

>>9418924

There should be a social sciences classics chart.

START WITH THE POSITIVISTS
>START WITH THE POSITIVISTS

>>9422194
I could just imagine the butthurt caused by that and the /sci/ immigration just for shitposting:
>>social
>>sciences
>Pick one and only one

I'd rather not, tee bee eich