Nietzsche, Freud, Jung

[Anonymous No.11977478]

So I recently found Carl Jungs "Archetypes" on the street and started reading it. I am really fascinated by the concept of what he is writing about, as it is an interesting thought of a, more or less, categorization of the unconscious. I became interested in the individuation process too.

No I've read that Jung was fascinated by Nietzsche and he refers a lot to Freud in the book. I feel they are a kind of trinity I want to read all. I have the feeling that they should be read in a certain order though. I'm not talking about a way like "You read Nietzsches works in that order after that Freuds works in this order...", although if that makes the most sense that's fine, but if it's more practical to read the works of all three in a mixed order.

Is there any chart available or does any one of you have a personal order of reading those three that they found most beneficial, that you would care to share with me and anybody else who might be interested?

[Anonymous No.11977622]

Why was it on the street? How did you come about it?

[Anonymous No.11977644]

>>11977622
>Finding a book from carl jung on the street


>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS THIS A SYNCHRONICITY??????????????????????????????????????????

[Anonymous No.11977660]

>>11977478
A word to the wise, while Freud and Jung were extremely influential in the development of all modern approaches to psychology, their work and psychoanalysis in general isn't empirically supported at all. So it's better to view their work as philosophical rather than psychological. The biggest contribution they made is discovering that the role of the unconscious was a lot bigger and more involved than anyone had thought before them; however, the inferences and conclusions they got from their patients really just amount to speculation.

[Anonymous No.11977681]

Read his Seven Sermons of the Dead

[Anonymous No.11977738]

>>11977622
Quite interestingly I bought it on Amazon first and waited for it to arrive. Then I stumbled upon a cardboard box fool of interesting books like "The Primal Scream" by Janov, "As It Is" by Gita and Capote "In Cold Blood". Jungs Archetypes was in it too. I egoistically decided to take the whole box.

>>11977660
I am aware of that, as I read a lot of criticism of their works. But I am fine with a speculation of the unconscious rather a complete lack of scientific explanation at all.

>>11977681
Is it better to read his "Red Book" first, although it's expensive as shit right now.

[Anonymous No.11977743]

>>11977738
No, 7 Sermons is the most concentrated exposition of his thought, you can read it in 20 minutes, and available online. Go read it. It's Jung at his most mystic.

[Anonymous No.11977769]

>>11977743
Nice. Thanks, anon.

Someone read the works of all three?

[Anonymous No.11977784]

I believe the "masters of suspicion" are Nietzsche, Freud and MARX.

This predication for jung is clearly peterson fanboy bullshit. Nobody on /lit/ gave a fuck about jung before peterson.

And considering peterson is a pacifier for the manchild generation of internet natives.....this thread is clearly beta as fuck.

peterson is such a Nigger. (notice "Niggers" deserve a capital letter and peterson does not)

>ass for the "you's"

[Anonymous No.11977915]

>>11977784
Yeah you might be right or not. But I like to look at all pieces of the puzzle to get a bigger picture. The question is will you help me with that.

[Anonymous No.11977923]

>>11977784
And waht would be the order you would read the "masters of suspicion" in?

>>11977743
It's an interesting read. It seems familiar in a way.

[Anonymous No.11977968]

>>11977923
are you seriously going to consider reading marx's and freud's entire body of work?

anyhoo, they worked independently of each other and can be read independently of each other.

There's a bettany hughes documentary, dedicating one episode to each, that can be watched.

[Anonymous No.11978029]

>>11977968
I was more thinking about how a certain book of, for instance Marx, could help me understand a work from Freud better. Gaining from one source of information to understand another one better. That's why I was wondering about the order you could read Nietzsche, Freund and Jung in. In Archetpyes alone, Jung mentions works of Freud that, without me having read them, I feel kind of left out of an understanding.

[Anonymous No.11978128]

>>11978029
you should read freud extensively before you read jung, thats for sure.

Reading jung without reading freud is like studying calculus without algebra or even basic arithmetic

[Anonymous No.11978333]

Who cares about Freud when Jung discovered everything

[Anonymous No.11978340]

>>11978128
That’s a big bird

[Anonymous No.11979195]

>>11978128
Any particular order to read Freud in for a more beneficial effect?

[Anonymous No.11979223]

>>11978128
Why would I need to read some perverted commie retard's deranged ramblings before learning from a adept occultist?

[Anonymous No.11979871]

>>11977784
>Nobody on /lit/ gave a fuck about Jung before Peterson
Yes they did, imbecile. There’s no reason to think that people talking about Jung just came to him from Peterson.

He’s CARL FUCKING JUNG, for fuck’s sake. He’s a pretty big figure in the 20th century if you like to think you’re interested in psychology, literature, mysticism, and/or philosophy at all. I have heard of Jung far far before Peterson ever became famous. Why? Because he’s Carl fucking Jung. It’s like hearing of Freud. You often hear Freud and Jung mentioned together. I’m convinced all these people who say, “Dude you only care about Jung because of Peterson LOL” are just illiterate plebeians who think they’re cultured but are actually fucking uncultured swine.

Also this “DUDE psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable” meme is just that — a disingenuous meme which claims the only valid knowledge to be gained of human psychology is in a lab by a doctor in a white labsuit and with a clipboard and with electrodes attached to the patient’s brain. And with lots of mathematical equations, too, just to make it all neater. It’s like if your grandpa was giving you some advice because he’s lived longer and talked with more people and seen into their psyches more than you have: “Remember, my boy, that the average woman can sense weakness in a man and will often secretly or openly despise him for it, even while they ostensibly talk about desiring a sensitive man.”

“GEE Gramps, can you prove that in a lab?”

When you read a story that tells you something about human nature, do you ask, “Hmmm, is this falsifiable? Can I prove the relevance of the story of Cain and Abel to the human psyche and how it archetypally captures the situation of envy and murderous rage in a lab?” One of Jung’s major claims is that some of the greatest old legends, myths, stories, symbols etc are so great and founded religions/were handed down precisely because of how they touch these deep common stirrings in us. So when you go, “How can I prove this in a lab?”, you’re just outing yourself as a trite standard ordinary modern day non-person who fell for the scientism meme too hard, the belief that there’s no wisdom to be gained outside of your stupid lab.

[Anonymous No.11979878]

>Jung
ugh
this is the ultimate tragedy of pseudo intellectual meme that is Jordan Peterson

>muh collective unconscious
blow it out your ass
or better yet read the bible and then you and your whole town can blow it out your ass in synch one you understand the ancient psychological hivemind of collective ethics

[Anonymous No.11979884]

>>11979871
unironically based

[Anonymous No.11979884,1]

>>11979871
They're all a bunch of pretentious twats though. Linear progressivism was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.11979984]

>>11979871
They're all a bunch of pretentious twats. Linear progressivism was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.11980134]

But seriously guys, I find their work interesting, that's why I want to read and understand it. I don't want to live by it. Is that so wrong that you have to project your anger in this thread. I never started the thread with "You guys are idiots if you don't read those three dudes and live according to what they say" I just wanted to know the best way to read them, so each work supports the understanding of the work of the next. That's it. Nobody even mentioned Peterson. Does this man stir up such a deep lying anger in you, that even a slight connection to him forces you to lash out, like a bull you wave a piece a cloth in front of. What kind of reactionary brain are you enslaved by. Or is it that Peterson talks about things you feel yourself guilty of. And instead to change, you will move mountains to prove he is wrong?

I won't tell you to live by any of this people's views. But try to live by one of my personal views. Read anything you can, without any judgement. Anything from Mein Kampf, to Hubbard's work, to Jung and any gay erotic novel you get for 10 cents at your favorite sex shop. If it helps you to gain a more complete and better understanding of existence, who cares?

The only question is, will we help each other to gain a better understanding, or will we put stones in each other's path, because other's are willing to go a way we ourselves are too lazy too go.

[Anonymous No.11980492]

>>11979871
>Can I prove the relevance of the story of Cain and Abel to the human psyche and how it archetypally captures the situation of envy and murderous rage in a lab?
oh so you're 100% a peterphile, nice

[Anonymous No.11980570]

>>11980492
I wonder what kind of archetype drives people to baiting. I mean they probably do it because it is the only way to elicit an strong emotional response, in this case butthurt, from another human being. Because in their real life nobody else is emotionally responding to people who bait, let alone notice any of their existence at all.

[Anonymous No.11981949]

>>11980570
world is full of tricksters and its kind of tragic. Bunch of man playing these weird word games to prove others aren't as cool as themselves. I often wonder why did it play out this way. Is this part of some sort of cycle? From tyrannical man, through bitnick and hippies to detached edgelords?

[Anonymous No.11981974]

>>11979878
Good post

[Anonymous No.11981991]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Dostoevsky yet. He was a major influence on them all. I would start with his masterworks

[Anonymous No.11982024]

>>11980492
I’ve read Jung long before I encountered Peterson, you fucking blithering idiot. You think what I said comes from Jordan Peterson? It comes from Jung, you Neanderthal. It’s just straight Jung. You think it’s from JBP but that’s JBP lifting off of Jung. You’d know that if you actually read anything and weren’t in high school.

[Anonymous No.11982033]

Nietzsche > Freud > Jung

[Anonymous No.11982040]

>>11977478
http://www.alpheus.org/html/reviews/esoteric_history/rev_webb.html
Look into the occult connection, Freud also believed in telepathy and other occult forces

>>11979871
The falsifiability issue isn't the only issue though. Just presenting claims about the human cognitive process is going to have effects on the human cognitive process, and beyond anecdotal accounts, its interesting to see the results

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656616302410
>...In two longitudinal studies (N’s = 1270 and 5217), the present research examined whether personality trait change was associated with therapy experience. Propensity score matching was used to compare trajectories of personality trait change in individuals with and without therapy experiences. Overall, therapy experiences were associated with significant increases in undesirable traits and markers (e.g., chronic stress, depression, neuroticism), and significant decreases in desirable traits (e.g., self-esteem, conscientiousness).

I wouldn't doubt watching a couple hours of Jordan Peterson on youtube would probably result in developing highly neurotic traits.

[Anonymous No.11982042]

>>11977660
Brainlet. Don't listen to this man.

[Anonymous No.11982062]

>>11981991
I actually wanted to start with Dostoyevsky. But I wanted it to read it in Russian, cause I'm Russian myself (don't crucify me pls) but since I left Russia when I was 6, my reading abilities ain't so good. Need to start with easy literature first.

>>11982040
Same applies for self therapy?

[Anonymous No.11982084]

>>11979871
Based