/lit/ - Literature

>>22809870
Freud was also objectively incorrect about the structure of the psyche. His position was that the dream was a sort of censor, and it was trying to obfuscate knowledge which was too painful for the conscious ego to understood. Freud was a mega-genius, but he was also a pioneer, and like all pioneers he got an awful lot wrong out of sheer in-access to the grander conceptual frameworks of which Jung was privy, thanks to his work. So, Jung, thanks to the springboard Freud provided, discovered that the unconscious was not a censoring mechanism, and that instead it was something like an archaic remnant of an older stage in consciousness that has been integrated into the psyche as a kind of birthplace for creative thought. Freud claimed that the dream wanted to obscure knowledge that wasn't yet conscious, whereas Jung discovered that the dream was actually doing its best to communicate something incredibly complicated, but only had at its disposal something like feeling-toned images.

These two positions are not commensurate with one another, and Freud is wrong, and Jung is right. The reason modern psychology is completely retarded is because Freud's model is simpler, easier to teach, and doesn't work. Exactly why almost every other model outside of STEM is chosen ... it's easier for tards like you to grasp.

>He has even more rep than Jung.
That's because he was the first person to identify the psychological significance of dreams and their phenomenological category.

>>22809876
You don't know as much as you think you know, and you only care about what I think of you. The fact I don't think highly, and know more than you on a subject you apparently consider yourself generally knowledgeable regarding, should indicate to you, if you were a well integrated personality, if you were on the path to Jungian individuation, if you paid attention to your dreams and studied symbolism, if you actually knew what the unconscious really was, is sufficient evidence to me that you're probably young and narcissistic.

You don't care what I have to say because I'm being mean to you. That's the hallmark of a pussy.

>>22734656
You'll need to be a little more specific than that. How would it change your daily life?

The Scholastics' were more or less chasing the intellectual tracers left behind by an endless series of deductive corollaries derived from more or less probabilistic axioms, taken as proven.

We take the theory of electromagnetism to be generally "true" because it's "true" that when I flip my light switch, the light comes on. The real measure of truth is as to what it allows us to predict, and whether it affords us some sort of control over material reality or not. What would you be able to predict or control in either case?