How do I get into this bastard? He's got so much material,

Jung: A very short introduction is a nice overview

>>9679622
>and he seems more worth reading Freud.

Except he's not. Go start with the Greeks and work your way and you'll see what a hack retard he is

>>9679622
Kind of like Freud, you start with his early work on the unconscious, or his last book.

>>9679622
read plotinus or some anthropological assessments of gnostic corpus in the near east.
jung is 100% rewarmed gnosticism, do not be bamboozled.

>>9679622
Man and his symbols

File: 1480702845363.jpg (56KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 645x773px

>so there's this thing called the Collective Subconscious

>>9679622
Jung was right about everything. Only reddit insults him, because they're pseuds who can't get out of a materialistic mindframe.

File: c4a.jpg (23KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x484px

>>9679679
>they're pseuds who can't get out of a materialistic mindframe.

File: frewd.jpg (19KB, 500x659px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x659px

>>9679644

>hehe moms amirite

Start with Memories Dreams Reflections

>>9679705
Mothers at least actually exist

>>9679644
>implying
please explain then how the whole humanity understands the same symbols regardless of time period, culture or position

File: sort.jpg (29KB, 144x216px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 144x216px

>>9679644
>>9679684
bitter brainlet detected

>>9679750
>please explain then how the whole humanity understands the same symbols regardless of time period, culture or position

They don't, holyshit are you retarded?
Obvious example, Japanese traditionally wear white to Funerals not black

reminds me of the time i took DMT and saw the archetype of the interracial breeding grounds

it's hard to convey the scale of the thing

>>9679754
oh I see you don't know what you're talking about, nevermind

File: 0ce.png (226KB, 600x562px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 600x562px

>>9679763
>obvious irrefutable counter example
>O-oh excuse me mortal I have to disapear into the aether

>>9679641
Don't do this. You cannot get Gnostism without Jung. He's the one that took all that crytpic stuff about metaphysics and turned it into psychological truths.

Like the Gnostic texts will just sound like gibberish without him. In fact I think all religious texts are weak without his theory.

Jung is sort of the father of all prophets.

File: 1489398936764.jpg (151KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1920x1080px

>>9679779
Dude the cult accusations were meant to be a joke

>>9679622
Modern man in search of a soul

>>9679765
>>9679765
Don't worry, I'm not going that easy on you

First have a read here since you don't know a lot about disproving concepts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Then find me a culture that doesn't understand the concept of mother, or hero, or villain. I'll wait.

Should I spent $100+ on the Red Book

Thinking of starting with Psychological Types

>>9679789
Here's the thing. Jung basically teaches you to translate ALL metaphysical language into psychology. So his system ends up literally reinterpreting all religions in a way that is not dependant on a beleif in magical properties or dogma.

Like his domain is fucking crazy. He basically completly changed the way people studied religion at the academic level, I don't just mean there is a small group of dedicated Jungians that use his method but that practically EVERYONE uses his method to some degree.

Calling it a "cult" actually is rather tame.

>>9679754
>Obvious example, Japanese traditionally wear white to Funerals not black
Does that really count against his point? Once use does not determine a symbol's meaning. It could very well be that the Japanese simply don't have such a negative view of death, in which case the context itself would be different.

>>9679798
Oh I get it so you're just going to dismiss any and all phenomena that your framework fails to account for and revert to hiding behind such vague and simplistic ideas like "person who does good/bad things" or basic biological relationships.

For that matter no I don't think any other culture has the same notion of Heroes or Villains as western civilization, there are comparable concepts but you will find they have distinct and fundamental characteristics that are a product of all their contingent material developement and not some reified externally existing object.
This indeed even implies for our idea of what a mother is and should be.

>>9679801
Not as a first read. That wasn't designed to be a book that teaches people. It's literally Jung's private journal. It would be impossible to decypher without first knowing his way of thinking. Even proffesionals in the field can't make sense of all of it.

It's esoteric. He didn't even want people to know it existed much less have printed copies. We only have it now because some guy managed to claimed the origenal book as his property in a 30 year legal battle and than let people make copies.

>>9679814
Death is a symbol.

>>9679811
>, I don't just mean there is a small group of dedicated Jungians that use his method but that practically EVERYONE uses his method to some degree.

Retroactive bias. You're mistaking the fact that Jung was just part of a way older tradition of comparative mythology that even the Greeks and Romans had well developed.
As the Anon previously in the thread said there is extremely little original thought in Jung's ouvre, its all just a mere transliteration into a (then) modernist terminology

>>9679829
Really? What does it look like?

>>9679830
Yeah there were people comparing myths before. But the thing is that previous myth comparasion looked at it historically or metaphysically. The psychological aspect of it was rarely touched. Nietzche I think was the first thinker to really emphasise psychology as the primary factor of religion (others aknowledged psychology before but they didn't explore it very much or put it as the prime factor). And Nietzche's own analysis was lacked detail compared to Jung.

Jung is literally one of the most influential people on religious study since Plato.

>>9679629
This. He's presented as the superior, pro-religious, conservative foil to Freud.

But he essentially engages in obscurantist, pseudo-scientific mysticism; and derails the profession even more than fucking Freud did.

>inb4 "your an idiot, you just don't get Jung and the religious mind"

>>9679834
You really sound like there is a part of your brain which stopped developing around age 6.

Reminds me of a time I saw a mother trying to explain the wind to her child. The child kept saying the wind didn't exist because he couldn't see it. And here you are asking what a "symbol" looks like.

>>9679848
Durr if ya keep saying so
Talking about the human mind didn't start with the 20th century, face it you're full of shit and under read

>>9679753
>pic related

>>9679855
Yes, but the wind is something, death is not something.

>>9679852
>derails the profession even more than fucking Freud did

So what was the "correct rail" of religious analysis before Freud came and derailed it? It was all metaphysics before him. Is that what you are saying is correct?

>>9679865
It certainly wasn't Jugian symbolism, fanboy

>>9679865
Archtypes and "Collective" Subconscious is such a retreat back into metaphysics it flies back through to an even pre-Kantian tier epistemology

>>9679863
Why don't you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger than?

>>9679856
I didn't say anything about the human mind. Looks like you skimmed the text and just inserted whatever inbetween the words you didn't read.

>>9679875
*Jungian

>>9679879
>mothers are metaphysics
dude what

look I get it you don't like Peterson but you gain nothing by doing this

>>9679882
>Why don't you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger than?
I guess grabbing is a symbol now

>>9679885
Mothers in what sense? The biological role? The English language term? The history of the term in the English speaking world? The signficance of the term to a particular English speaking individual?

>>9679875
It sounds to me like you don't know the history of this stuff and are just making it up. You can't even tell me what find so admierable about pre-Freudian religious analysis. It's probbaly something you don't have a fucking clue about. You just hate Jung and Freud so you made up this story in your head about how the guys before them were better.

>>9679879
Jung took Kantian epistemology as one of his back bones though. His early works are filled with that stuff.

It sounds like you get your knowledge from wikipedia or youtube videos.

>>9679902
>Jung took Kantian epistemology as one of his back bones though

I'm sure he likes to claim so

>>9679898
the thing even orphans spend entire months inside

if I tell you she's not half of your DNA am I a mystic yet

bruh

>all these shitposters who don't even know what Jung said, but feel the need to say he's wrong

>>9679929
No but you are if you think there is anything called an archtype that is exists externally from what is an act of abstraction from overlapping the wide nexus of particular individuals associations

>>9679938
why am I not allowed to have innate behaviors concerning a progenitor my survival is strictly dependant on, in my moment of pre-linguistic, maximum vulnerability and weakness

you must think a dawkins is a mystic too lmao

>>9679953
>you must think a dawkins is a mystic too lmao

In a way yeah he really is

>>9679909
Why are you even in a thread about Jung? You don't read Jung and when someone does tell you what the guy wrote you get sassy.

>>9679815
Holy fuck you're fucking retarded lad if you actually think that all cultures don't have a vague sense of what a hero is
Professional tip: cultures being different in the details doesn't disprove the collective unconscious or symbology

What's funny is that you have all these morons that never read Jung and assume he believes archetypes are strict rigid things that mean the same thing in every culture and context.

This is literally what caused the break between Freud and Jung. Freud beleived symbols had rigid fixed, literal meanings while Jung believed they varied based on your upbringing and were more metaphorical. One of their last disputes was over the nature of incest in mythology. Freud believed mythology about mother-son incest referred to a desire to literally have incest and cited priestly traditions about it. Jung believed it referred to a general desire for maternity and a return to childlike innocence.

This also neatly sets up their general attitudes. Freud being bitter and negative and Jung being positive and optimistic.

Another amusing confrontation happened when they were discussing dream analysis as master and student. Jung told Freud he had a dream about finding a secret passage in his house that let to a crypt with the skulls of his ancestors. Freud believed skulls always represent a desire to kill so it meant Jung secretly desired to kill his family (all of Freud's analysis of dreams are this way. He basically see's humanity as murder-rapists on the verge of losing control). Jung disagreed with the interpretation

>>9680049
It does because all the cultures merely coincidentally developed figures that correlate to what we call heroes.
It happened because all cultures had nasty shit happen to them and liked to imagine someone who would stop nasty shit happening.
Its a massive leap to go from that to thinking this parrelel material developement exists external to all the particular cultures themselves

>>9679801
is there one that keeps the fuzzy bits and reliefs etc? if yes, then yes if you like fuzzy bits

>>9680080
>This is literally what caused the break between Freud and Jung.
I think springing his patients from hospital, paying their coke bills, sleeping with student-patients, and being psychotic and occasionally regressing to the age of three during working hours might have contributed to it somewhat anon.

that and his rigid application of freudian theory (that male and female archetypes are fixed in the collective unconscious, as are stages of development) where freud maintained an individual unconscious, which is basically the opposite of why you claim they split.

or freud being jelly. since that happens too.

>>9680126
note: it's basically the opposite because of those kinds of interpretations. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar is sometimes just a lie is more freudian than freud.

>>9680126
Storr's introduction to Freud begins by detailing how his obsessive personality costed him a lot of friendships and professional relationships. He was dogmatic af, systematic, scientistic and couldn't take criticism to save his life, if he changed his mind it was because of an observation of his and not another person's.

I wonder what would Freudian psychology and the psychoanalytic movement as a whole look like, had he listened to his colleagues half as well as his patients...

>>9679811
he's just a neoplatonist. He brought neooplatonism into the mainstream.

>>9680174
Isn't it funny how the Freud's earlier work is a lot more correct by today's standard than his later work? It's entirely possible that Psychoanalysis would have become the standard method of treatment instead of CBT If he didn't desperately fiddle around with his theories to appease neurologists.

>>9680126
Jung has both an indivual and a collective aspect to his theory.

There's 3 "parts" to the unconscious. The shadow is the most accessable and it's basically a storehouse for things you hide from yourself, what you are ashamed of you, what you despise about yourself, and your secret ambitions. Below that is the Anima or Animus which deals with sexual desire, spirtual feelings, as well as rounding you out as a person by taking on personality traits that run opposite to you. Another importaint function is the Anima/Animus is the part that can directly access the collective unconscious, the last deepeest part of the unconscious.

While the shadow, anima/animus are individual the collective unconscious is shared.

>>9680211
Well neo-platonism already was "mainstream" it served as the model for tons of differenet theology. Again I'll stress that before Jung religion was analysied chiefly through metaphysical and historical context. Jung put forth a way where it is analyzed chiefly through psychology and even proclaimed that ALL METAPHYSICS is actually proto-psychology.

No one else, other than his teacher Nietzche and to a degree Freud, seriously considered psychology the foundation of religion before him or dared to say all metaphysics is actually just primitives discussing psychology. I challenge you to produce another thinker that did (the key word here is foundation)

>>9680225
Freud himself was a neurologist.

>>9680236
you're confusing gnosticism and neoplatonism as early philosophical movements. Gnsoticism is the comparative religion branch while neoplatonism focuses on the mystical inner life. Psychology is basically as a whole, a very spooky science based entirely on the mysteries. The problem with Freud is that his perspectives on mind were contaminated by a distinctly Jewish neuroses, particularly the idea of total depravity such that within Freud everything is a repressed bestial impulse. Jung merely took Freud and made it less grounded, ironically enough, in religious dogma. But altogether neither of them founded the thinly veiled mysticism we call psychology.

>>9680281
>>>/x/

ITT:
>people who couldn't into jung
>people who call the unconscious the subconscious

start w freud, progress to jung when you realize freud couldn't be selfaware and jung was basically the only stable figure in psychoanalysis at the time

>>9679852
> pseudo-scientific

I guess that's why brilliant scientists like Pauli admired him.

>>9679879
Good. The Enlightenment demolished any chance for a sensible construction of new ideology, we need to go back to pre-Kant.
Witt was right, philosophy is a mistake.

This guy is the only psychologist that explains homosexuality, transgenderism, and literally every form of gender dysphoria/gender fluidity without being completely insane. They are all just different degrees of anima/animus identification.

>>9679852
>conservative foil to Freud
Wait, what? wasn't Freud heavily associated with French proto-fascism.

File: the-portable-jung.jpg (19KB, 371x566px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 371x566px

>>9679622