/lit/ - Literature

Freud

>>17314984
Neither. Psychology is pseudoscience.

>>17314990
>Jung
>Lacan
>Psychology

>>17314984
German Idealism

>>17314984
Easily Jung, but Lacan does make his own contributions.

Lacan. Jung conceives the unconscious as some substantial mystical realm. It bears no resemblance to the discovery of Freud.

>>17314989
Freud has already been debunked countless times though.

>>17314990
>>17314997
It's not
>>17314984
Jung is schizo literature not psychology. The frog had rigorous thought and was versed in philosophy. Also he writes in the most horrible way you can imagine. I don't know why anyone would want to torture himself reading him for fun

>>17315026
Lacan is a structuralist though, postmodernism has effectively refuted him.

>>17315029
People obsess over Freud's missed shots but ignore the many times hit the mark. It is hilarious to me that people idolize Jung, Lacan, etc but dismiss Freud, when all those writers would be the first to admit that Freud was the pioneer that set them on their own paths.

>>17315049
https://nosubject.com/Structuralism
Lacan drew heavily from the structuralist approach, but he was not a structuralist for two important reasons.

First, while structuralism viewed the subject as a mere effect of symbolic structures, Lacan argued that the subject is not simply reducible to an effect of language and the symbolic order.

Second, for Structuralism, a structure is always complete, while for Lacan the structure - the symbolic order - is never complete. There is always something left over; an excess or something that exceeds the symbolic. What exceeds the symbolic is the subject and the object.

>>17315007
Jung is the completion of German idealism though.

>>17315158
German idealism forked at Hegel and Schopenhauer, Jung completes the latter while Lacan completes the former.

>>17315158
>>17315195
You're both wrong. Jung did not go farther than Schelling. In fact, Jung is watered down Schelling.

>>17315158
Yeah but the actual German idealism, not the meme one. Starting with Kant, but switch Fichte with Schop, Schelling with Nietzsche, and Hegel with Jung and you have the Jung-pill.

>>17315208
>Nietzsche
>idealist

>>17315206
Jung was a Schopenhauerian.
>>17315215
He is mostly there because of his moral work anyway, not because of his metaphysics.

>>17315026
That's why Jung said he was more of a (Carl Gustav) Carusian than a Freudian.

>>17315221
He has more in common with Schelling than he does with Schopenhauer

>>17315247
And Schopenhauer has more in common with Schelling than he's willing to admit

>>17315247
I've rarely seen him mention Schelling but he mentions Schopenhauer frequently.
>>17315255
How so? I've avoided Schelling along with Hegel and Fichte but Schelling definitely seems intriguing, unlike the other two. Does he also write in an obscure style?

>>17315206
But Jung doesn't really claim to be a philosopher. He was quite alright with being a psychologist. I read him as trying to create a (post-)Kantian 'critical psychology', i.e. staking out 'the conditions of possibility' for psychology as such.

>>17316908
>(post-)Kantian 'critical psychology', i.e. staking out 'the conditions of possibility' for psychology as such
Can you elaborate on this?

>>17314984
Everything is better than Jung

>>17316935
I understand his project to be epistemologically Kantian, in that the unconscious really is unconscious (Jung says this many times), and that one can only speak of things already having become conscious. This is an obvious parallel to Kant's distinction between noumena/phenomena. Working backwards from single instances of 'psychological facts', Jung finds universal patterns and tries to explain these with the theory of archetypes. The condition of possibility for there to be psychological universals is the archetypes of the unconscious. And this is a parallel to the Kantian categories.

>>17317021
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, that's also how I understand him.

>>17314984
Fuck psychoanalysis in general

>>17317070
Well, at least that's how i understand Jung the scientist. Jung the alchemist/magician is an entirely different story.

If you're philosophically inclined you'll pick Lacan over Jung. Ofc Jung has some philosophical ideas he borrows from Schoppie, Nietzsche etc. But his conceptual core is really just intuitive thinking rationalized. Whereas Lacan could be seen as a strong philosopher on its own. He is well versed in practically whole western philosophical canon and his concepts are actually innovative (therefore hard to grasp intuitively.

>>17317075
That's the spirit.
>>17317115
I agree, I think he's one of the best thinkers regarding the concept of the self.

>>17317021
close, but Jung himself links his theory to Plato's philosophy. Archetypes are really just universal eidos'es, they are far removed from their expression, but they determine them. If he was a Kantian, he wouldnt even dare trying to conceptualize archetypes, he would say "oh well my human understanding here has reached the point and I have nothing to say tee hee".

>>17315206
Why is jung watered down schelling

Psychology is nonsense driven entirely by trends with no rigour because anything beyond the most basic, self evident principles changes very quickly and can't be replicated
There's no such thing as a psychological vacuum to conduct experiments
Humans are absolutely small if you wanna use a physics analogy since psychologists have almost as much physics envy as economists
Jung is a fun read if you want to improve yourself though
Cicero, Plutarch or Montaigne would of course be superior but you do you
Using mathemes, I've determines that the distance between Lacan and nonsensical drivel is the same as that between Freud and fraud

>>17317115
But do you actually understand Lacan?
>>17317126
He makes a distinction between archetypes and archetypal images exactly for this reason. But sure, I agree that he's pretty much a Platonist, but then so was Kant.

Why's everyone hating on my boy Jung?
I love Jung.

>>17317109
There is also one more thing about the archetypes that I find he has in common in Schopenhauer, or at least continues the same path. In Schopenhauer, the noumenon, being One, individuates into the plurality of the phenomena according to a set of universal objects, or as he calls them, Platonic Ideas. These Platonic Ideas exist outside space and time and are somehow like a bridge between the noumenon and the phenomena. Schopenhauer spends a lot of time describing how things in the world (inanimate objects, animals, humans) are individuated according to these Platonic Ideas, and the purpose of art, as he conceives, is to communicate these Ideas (similar to Jung). But the thing that strikes me is that most of his discussions concern the outer phenomena (although he talks about how personalities are individuated according to these archetypes). So in this way, Jung could be understood to continue Schopenhauer's research, but identifying how archetypes determine the inner phenomena, that is, psychology. I have no idea about Jung the alchemist though. Was he initiated into any order or practice?

>>17314984
Jung > Anyone

>>17314984
Fuck the schizo Jung.
Lacan is cool.

>>17315291
Not him, but Schelling is remarkably lucid. He is, like Goethe, poetically inclined, but once you work out his key terms or are already familiar with Kant, he is very easy to read. Best of all, he is very concise.

So were do I start with Lacan? Ecrits?

>>17317163
Interesting. I'm not too well versed in Schopenhauer, but that sounds reasonable.
>Was he initiated into any order or practice?
Not in any worldly order that I know of, although he did have masonic lineage and his mother was some kind of Spiritist. But he surely was self-initiated, or initiated by his spirit guides. Take a look at The Red Book if you haven't already. Read Psychology and Alchemy, and Mysterium Coniuntionis. Good stuff. Also, the Bollingen Tower is basically an altogether magical project whereby he tried to externalize his own psyche into stone. And just look at pic related.

>>17317154
>Using mathemes, I've determines that the distance between Lacan and nonsensical drivel is the same as that between Freud and fraud
underrated

>>17317246
def not the ecrits. seminar xi. or bruce fink desu

>>17317313
thanks!
why not the ecrits? I've seen them in countless used books store lately and I thought that it meant many people read them

>>17317334
Arthoes buy it to larp so that's why you see many people buy it

>>17317313
Where does one start with Fink?

>>17317340
kek makes sense, moreover the fact that I see it a lot in used book stores means that people sell it more than they buy it

>>17317349
not him, but The Lacanian Subject is kinda straightforward

>>17314984
Nietzsche

>>17317154
>Psychology is nonsense driven entirely by trends with no rigour because anything beyond the most basic, self evident principles changes very quickly and can't be replicated
Psychoanalysis isn't a science, burger

>>17317340
Really? It's crazy they're unreadable and the target group is specialists. It's like picking an advanced physics book amd casually going through it

>>17314984
Read Piaget if you want psychology.

bump

>>17315150
So Lacan was on some Tower of Babel shit? Nice.

>>17315048
>>17316942
>>17317075
>>17317169
>>17315048
Stop the Jung slander you NPC robots

>>17314984
Jung, period. No one except for Nietzsche can begin to compare to him.

>>17319095
Also Freud is also an exception, but only because he was ONLY right about 50%; psychosexual development. The rest is stupid.

>>17314984
Jung>Nietzsche>Freud>The rest>Camus and Sarte

>>17314984
Why does no one ever talk about great contemporary psychologists? Are there simply none?

>>17319442
contemporary psychology is mostly just pill pushing lol.

>>17319047
jung is the most normalfag psychoanalyst

As a mentally ill, I say psychotherapy is utter garbage. It's the cosplay of a medical practice, based on a bunch of garbage made by dishonest pseuds in order to financially rip the patient.
Psychology, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, fucking obscene garbage.
Freud, yeah... PENIS PENIS VAGINA MUTILATED PENIS CASTRATION FUCK YOUR MOM I FEEL THINGS WITH MY MOUTH AND THEN WITH MY ASSHOLE HEY JUST TAKE COCAINE BRO AND IF YOU DON'T COME TO THE APPOINTMENT YOU PAY ANYWAY LOL

>>17315049
If you stop throwing words around and actually sit and read post-structuralism you'll see that post-structuralists always have some sort of negative signifier that delimits them from structuralism, but many of the patterns of reasoning are similar. Focault for example hits at desire as not being mappable in discourse analysis.

>>17320852
The penis stuff is symbolic. The install gist is that if you have good caring emotionally attentive parents they can guide you towards society. If not, you resort to forms of autoeroticism/self pleasure with devastating effects.

>>17317334
the ecrits are little labyrinths that are fun to puzzle out, but most people just get lost. the clues to their interpretation are found in his seminars, where the real meat of his theory lies. you should read a seminar and then the corresponding ecrits as a way to reflect and wrestle with the notions lacan puts out, but just reading the ecrits is foolish. people sell them back because they realize this mistake.

>>17317349
this>>17317379

>start reading Jung
>in the first 40 pages he says that men who want to castrate themselves to become women are possessed by a psychic ghost
This fucking rules

>>17320929
>The penis stuff is symbolic
No. He was a sick repressed Victorian fuck that used libido to forge his pseud theory because it was shock factor and was seen liberating at the time.
>if you have good caring emotionally attentive parents they can guide you towards society.
WOW WHAT A MINDBLOWING CONCEPT WHO EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT
Yeah you're sick because your parents fucked it up (regardless) now you give me money for life and never be cured GOY

>>17321315
Libido is drive force it's not necessarily sexual. That comes later.

The understanding of hysteria and the focus on dreams were groundbreaking, era defining work. Psychoanalysis identified those characteristics of good parenting, described various pathologies, and offered a method of possible reparation, talking to an analyst. No it's not the same as your friend.

>>17321375
Yeah it's all cool when you are on the right side, the money taking side, or an esternal observer that gets intrigued by nonsensical fiction. If you suffer from some mental illness you'll learn the hard way it's all a big heap of manure.
Psychology is essentially a parasitic cult-like organisation of bullshit artists. It provides a steady income to half assed "intellectuals" at the expenses of one of the weakest category of ill people.
It's really not much different from therapeutic practice made by, say, scientology or some other wacky cult.
The biggest achievements of psychology are made maybe in advertisement and marketing (subsets of propaganda). It's good to profile NPCs that's for sure.

>>17321000
which book?

>>17321495
Go read some of Jung's case studies. The man was nothing short of a healer. I unironically figured out the solution to some of my problems just by reading him

>>17321530
Not him but im guessing he's referring to archetypes & the collective unconscious. Jung mentions castration/a longing to hermaphroditism as a symptom of anima possession in that one. I dont think he really dives into that until Aion though, which is Archetypes... vol 2.

>>17321710
comfy shelf anon

>>17321710
Thanks. I've just finished Man and His Symbols - can you recommend what I should read next? I'm interested mostly in the process of
individuation and other aspects of his work that focus on understanding oneself / solving inner problems.

>>17321785
Not him, but I recently finished Modern Man in Search of a Soul. The last two chapters are dedicated to post WWII society and Man’s place in it.

both

>>17317246
Freud

>DUDE LIFE IS A BETHESDA RPG
or
>hon hon hon!!! la media! la societie! la phallus! les filles!!!

>>17321785
Archetypes & collective unconscious. I find it can be quite dry but its where he talks about the psyche and sets up for Aion, which really gets into the good stuff.
Read faust and the bible before you read Aion though.

>>17322200
reading the bible is quite the undertaking. can you elaborate on why it's important for Aion?

>>17320804
He isn't and you know it
the normalfag choice is Freud

>>17320852
Get a better therapist you fucko

>>17322294
Freud is too problematic for normies and they don't want to accept they want to fuck their mother, they just namedrop him

>>17322235
Aion features christian references and symbols very heavily, Jung uses Jesus as the symbol of the self archetype. Apart from Aion, familiarising yourself with the Bible will help you immensely outside of what that book has to say if you apply Jung's concepts and methods to the allegorical substrate of the Bible.

You can get through Aion without reading the Bible and still get something out of it, but if you are serious about wanting to integrate Jung's concepts into yourself then the Bible is as important as Jung's whole portfolio.

Happy fishing mate.

GRODECK

both

>>17315029
Not really. They usually just say it can't be proved or some nonsense and pretend he was wrong. Many of those ideas are self evident to honest people, but jewish doctors and academics couldn't handle some of hi stuff, so they try to discredit him entirely and hide the other ideas.

Does anyone actually read Lacan or is it just wiki name dropping. At least Jung is readable