/lit/ - Literature

>>18786942
Why don’t you read him and find out? Plus, it depends on what you mean by “legit” (sic.) If you’re asking whether his theories are verifiable by the modern scientific method, then no. But the people who are interested in Jung are normally skeptical about or annoyed by the limitations of such a method and want to find other ways of penetrating the depths of the human psyche.

His empirical foundations are weak to the point of parody
Most of it is built on this one dream this one patient told him he had
They're still fun to read and they seem to have helped some people
Stay away from the stuff his worthless cumrug made though

>>18786942
He is both. Overall it seems to me a demonic trickery. But to lure people an attractive bait is most effective...

Just look at what kind of newage cirklejerk psychology has become, founded on the bedrock of jungian spirtiualism.

As long as you realize that Jung is NOT a mystic, or new-age thinker. Any and all of his spiritual/religious allusions are used to illustrate an ultimately materialistic theory of evolutionary psychology. All the while, he is a proponent for a psychology that goes beyond the usefulness of materialism/scientific-method. All that is the product of the human mind, including art, is fair game for analysis.

Although contemporary psychology is typically opposed to Jung (fear of meta-narratives, evolutionary theories, and theories that affirm the usefulness of religion), you will be thoroughly shocked to find that Jung was way ahead of his time. Attitudinal types, person-centered therapy, therapy for "normal" people (including therapists themselves!), the criticism of reductionistic theories, the importance of a non-clinical atmosphere, and much more. Today, psychologists practice under these ideas without realizing they are Jungian contributions.

>>18786942
I am reading Four Archetypes now. Its my first book my Jung and a lot of it I don't understand however his analysis of fairy-tales is very interesting. The way he discussed the word 'spirit' was very useful to me as I'd been thinking about that recently.

>>18786942
>Is he legit or nah?

He has some fascinating insights, but as you have already intuited, he will ultimately take you down the rabbit hole of gnostic gobbledygook, from which few travelers return.

>>18786942
Best way is to read and find out. What I will say is be wary of psychoanalysts that promote or promise full integration. The idea that the self can ever truly be reconciled is a fiction, albeit a sometimes helpful one in theraputic settings. But, don't let Jung convince you that you're a retreat and some good hard shadow work away from transcendence. The more /lit/ psychoanalyst is definitely Lacan

>>18787309
Why can't the self be reconciled?

>>18787309
You don't understand Jung.
>>18788081
No, the greatest mind of the 20th century cannot be reconciled with a fraud.

>>18786942
He is basically the end game.

>>18788081
Bump

>>18788220
lol

>>18787076
>his doctoral thesis was literally on Mysticism
>he stopped doing internal dialogues after getting into Alchemy

he was a magician with scientific inclinations. NTTAWT

>>18788220
g om ag qaa

>>18787076
>he is a proponent for a psychology that goes beyond the usefulness of materialism/scientific-method.
This seem to be the essence of Jung, he blurs that border between

>>18786942
I really like him. I also enjoy listening to the 'Digital Jung' podcast at work & the gym

>>18787076
This Anon is right. Jung writes about mysticism but is not one, and actually spends a lot of time making fun of them. But he also is against the strict scientific message, because much of the mind is not strictly falsifiable

Reminder Jung thought everyone was a tranny, even after Freud already decried transgenderism as a disease and the result of a dysfunctional physiology.

At his best he has legitimate genius-level insights on the unification of different forms of knowledge (psychology, religion, art, philosophy, alchemy) that provide a legitimized grounding for classical forms of knowledge that were and are actively suppressed by modernity. At his worst he has very abstract pantheism and is a half-step above New Age.

Maybe this won't bother you depending on your biases but he treats Christianity as basically just one system or story among equals and even goes far enough to pose some heavily heretical shit like saying Mary should be regarded as another person of God. Maybe if you aren't into the religious stuff that won't bother you, but if you have no interest in that stuff whatsoever I don't know why you'd be reading Jung in the first place.

>>18787293
>gnostic
I see way more Arianism in Jung than I see Gnosticism.

>>18791632
no he didn't retard.

I read an excerpt of Aeon for an uni course and it literally broke me, so yeah I'd say he's pretty legit.

>>18791632
that isnt what the animus is anon. You need your chakras balanced

>>18786942
I've read Intro to Jung by Jacobi, Man and his Symbols (was disappointed by this, but I guess it was supposed to be basic) and Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. I was covinced and have been recording my dreams, though I do not see any patterns yet. Where do I go next? I am most interested in the archetypes and understanding how they impact us and tell us about ourselves. Do I really have my own gf in my head :3

>>18791666
Nope, I'm not wrong. Jung never acknowledged transgenderism as pathological even once, and if anything he declared its an individual's natural right to explore it.
>>18791737
>that isnt what the animus is anon.
Putting too much emphasis on the anima or animus is the entire precedent behind transgenderism.

>>18791781
>Putting too much emphasis on the anima or animus is the entire precedent behind transgenderism.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we are all trannies, friend.

>>18791781
>and if anything he declared its an individual's natural right to explore it.
source?

>>18788220
This

>>18786942
Honestly i would stick with the classics. I tried Jung, but i always have doubts whether he is right, or just rambling.

>>18791781
what is this take? if someone doesnt decry trangenderism he is automatically for it? And what about people who dont know about jung but are trannys? are they putting too much emphasis on the anima/animus too?

>>18791798
faggot

>>18791632

where to start with jung

>>18790279
But was he right in his magic?

>>18786942
He’s fun to read and think about. Sometimes that’s all you need. I don’t really care if he’s legit or not. His ideas have seeped into a lot of fiction.

>>18786994
Has any lasting ideological/religious/philosophical tradition not become something laughable in modernity?

>>18794243
>But was he right in his magic?

>>18794221
The Portable Jung edited by Joseph Campbell.

>>18794221
Man and His Symbols