/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14694447]

Can someone explain Jung to me? What the fuck is an archetype?

[Anonymous No.14694470]

Basically Freudian psychology but watered down because Jung was too weak minded to handle the redpills doled out by the good Herr Professor Doctor Sigi Schlomo Freud and coped by creating a fantasy world based on his own psychic imagination (see Liber Novus). This realm of archetypes is quite popular with basic bitch whitebois (and basic fuckboys of every race) who have no personality except for the constant quest for more pussy like Jung himself (read up on his affairs, dude was degen). More of an artist than a scientist. Worth reading but any serious scholar of psyche should eventually read the far more fruitful Freud and Lacan...

[Anonymous No.14694487]

>Basically Freudian psychology but watered down because Jung was too weak minded to handle the redpills doled out by the good Herr Professor Doctor Sigi Schlomo Freud and coped by creating a fantasy world based on his own psychic imagination (see Liber Novus). This realm of archetypes is quite popular with basic bitch whitebois (and basic fuckboys of every race) who have no personality except for the constant quest for more pussy like Jung himself (read up on his affairs, dude was degen). More of an artist than a scientist. Worth reading but any serious scholar of psyche should eventually read the far more fruitful Freud and Lacan...

[Anonymous No.14694488]

>>14694470
cringe
>>14694487
based

[Anonymous No.14694923]

>>14694447
Are his views on religion sensical?

[Anonymous No.14694967]

>still getting BTFO by Freudians over 100 years later

[Anonymous No.14694972]

>>14694967
Whoops wrong picture

[Anonymous No.14694986]

He thought Joyce was schizophrenic

[Anonymous No.14695036]

>Archetypes are basically Platonic Forms applied to structures of consciousness. That's really all there is to it. It's worth noting that Jung applies an empirical method, even though he gets mystical at times.
>Also worth noting that when people use terms such as "mother archetype" or "shadow archetype", they are not referring to the manifest content (stories, fables, myths, etc.) of the archetype, but rather the underlying framework of consciousness that gives rise to the manifestation in the first place (what Freud would call the "latent" content). So one could argue that there is a hint of mysticism, given that the actual nature of the archetype is unknowable and left to the reader to determine on his own through his own means.
I'm quoting myself.

[Anonymous No.14695064]

https://strawpoll.com/ef7e4xkx

[Anonymous No.14695485]

>>14694447
Start with Serrano.

[Anonymous No.14695538]

>>14695036
>It's worth noting that Jung applies an empirical method
lol no he doesnt.

[Anonymous No.14695584]

>>14695485
My man.

[Anonymous No.14695612]

>>14695485
dude great book. found this on a whim in a bookstore and top 5 things ive ever read

[Anonymous No.14696050]

I should have never introduced Jung to /lit/

Seeing him get dogged around by lazy assholes makes me sad

[Anonymous No.14696076]

>>14696050
Yes. It was you who singlehandedly introduced the single most popular psychologist of all time aside from Freud to /lit/, it couldn't be anyone else... certainly the Peterson spam is unrelated too

[Anonymous No.14696082]

>>14694470
Pretty based desu.

[Anonymous No.14696088]

>>14696076
I certainly helped by posting esoteric passages during the time I was into him. Posting insightful threads has a way of drawing positive attention in ways posting threads the way OP posts them does not

[Anonymous No.14696092]

>>14696050
Hello Jordan. Hope you're getting better. My favorite philosophers aren't as known on /lit/ but threads like this make me not want to discuss them here.

[Anonymous No.14696103]

>>14696092
If anything, just spam existentialism and post-modernism to depress the coomers more and more. They won't have an open heart until they are at the bottom of their nothingness.

[Anonymous No.14696126]

>>14694470
Just look at this idiot. I can't tell whether it's because he has double digits iq or he doesn't read at all or both. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.14696206]

basically he expounded upon freuds work instead of "MUH SEX" being the cause of everything in reality certain intrinsic aspects both positive and negative are the causes of our behavior for a example the mother acretype is associated with the intrisnic female behavior of tenderness kindess and love while a corrupted version of that would be shallow, manipulative and cold bad mother archetype

[Anonymous No.14696367]

>>14696076
faggot

[Anonymous No.14696597]

>>14694447
i gotchu senpai
https://mega.nz/#F!kJZGkKrJ!uoFqcmvkEhAsNCqMb1rUcA

[Anonymous No.14696652]

>>14695584
did you post this on r9k a few days ago or coincidence?

[Anonymous No.14696679]

>>14696597
>https://mega.nz/#F!kJZGkKrJ!uoFqcmvkEhAsNCqMb1rUcA
what the fuck

THERES NO SUBTITLES

[Anonymous No.14696682]

>>14694447
It is basically a recurring theme found in religions amd dreams to put it as simply as possible.

[Anonymous No.14696686]

>>14694923
Yes, truly. Read his comentary on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The area on dreams predate Freud by a good millenia.

[Anonymous No.14696698]

>>14694447
>JUNG, MY BOY, BE A FREUND AND FETCH ME SOME MORE COCAINE

[Anonymous No.14696709]

>>14694447
>STUFF I LIKE
>ETERNAL ARCHETYPE
>STUFF I DONT LIKE
>DOESNT

[Anonymous No.14696734]

>>14696709
You could boil a lot of things down that way really.

[Anonymous No.14696743]

>>14696597
K figured it out.

Thank you based anon. It's a masterpiece.

stellae inferiores, coniunctio oppositorum, unio mentalis

[Anonymous No.14696749]

>>14694923
>Are his views on religion sensical?
for soccer moms, yes

[Anonymous No.14696812]

>>14696749
You're a nobody, go on and an hero already

[Anonymous No.14696818]

>>14696749
Yeah, dude, you have it figured out better than Carl Jung himself. I await your psychoanlaytic book that is coming out.

[Anonymous No.14696826]

>>14696749
>It's a worthless NEET patronizes well respected highly educated pioneer in his field episode

[Anonymous No.14696840]

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

[Anonymous No.14696983]

>>14694967
>>14694972
The drugged-up psychotic Peterstein has nothing to do with Jung.

[Anonymous No.14696984]

>>14696840
>using d*scord instead of riot
enjoy getting data mined

[Anonymous No.14697312]

>>14694447
Jung was a bullshiter who worked for the interests of certain elites.
His philosophy/psychology is basically Gnosticism for masses. He took dualistic version of Neo Platonism, sprinkled some bullshit occultism on top of it and transfered it from the realm of metaphysics to the realm of human psyche.
Moreover, he was the one who gave a new life to gnosticism in the West, because of Nag Hammadi library, which allegedly was "discovered" in Egypt.

So, knowing all of that, the question is - is there any value in his work? I would say - no. It is just another snake oil which occupies space.
Want some bullshit free psychology work? Read Alfred Adler.

[Anonymous No.14697401]

>>14697312
>transfered it from the realm of metaphysics to the realm of human psyche
There lies the dangerous nature of Jung's work. Guénon and Smith are right about jungian psychology in this regard. A total inversion of principles. It is satanic in the literal sense.
>il est à remarquer, car cela est très significatif, que, pour cette interprétation, il partit d’une comparaison qu’il crut pouvoir établir entre certains symboles et des dessins tracés par des malades ; et il faut reconnaître qu’en effet ces dessins présentent parfois, avec les symboles véritable, une sorte de ressemblance « parodique » qui ne laisse pas d’être plutôt inquiétante quant à la nature de ce qui les inspire.

[Anonymous No.14697554]

>>14694470
Everybody point and laugh at this faggot.

[Anonymous No.14697558]

>>14697401
In English, doc.

[Anonymous No.14697585]

>>14694470

[Anonymous No.14697588]

archetype = an eternal category

kantian but more pseud

[Anonymous No.14697632]

>>14696983
Other than Jung being his main influence you don't anti-semite

[Anonymous No.14697641]

>>14697632
dumb^

[Anonymous No.14697659]

>>14697632
Cringe

[Anonymous No.14698209]

>>14697632
hitler had nietzsche as an influence too, doesn't make nietzsche any less cringe

[Anonymous No.14698227]

>>14698209
No one said that.

[Anonymous No.14698241]

Platonic forms but personalities

[Anonymous No.14698264]

Freud but without the human element

[Anonymous No.14698275]

>>14697312
>Alfred Adler
>psychology
that's sociology. Otto is your man.

[Anonymous No.14698305]

>>14698227
it's called an analogy, mindlet

[Anonymous No.14699331]

>>14697632
Shut up, filthy kike. When the Kali Yuga ends I will have your head.

[Anonymous No.14699378]

>>14697312
Based

[Anonymous No.14699680]

>>14694470
I thought Jung was great but then i heard about Freud. Jung is not that bad as they say here but if you want red pill and harsh truth that is not watered down read Freud

[Anonymous No.14699690]

>>14697312
dont forget that jung used his grandpas works that were not released and countinued

[Anonymous No.14699707]

>>14699680
>red pill and harsh truth
such as?

[Anonymous No.14700055]

To answer OP, Jung thought our minds were somewhat connected underneath our ordinary individual selves by or common cultural and social elements. That's why two different cultures may produce similar stories, or why two different people may have similar things to be afraid of in dreams, for example. In some kind of platonic way, the archetypes are the primordial nature of an element that is manifested in multiple (or infinite) ways. So for instance, the archetype of the father, of the mother, of woman, of man, but in more subtle ways, the sun, the moon, each animal and plant, a knife, a river, etc. That works both for the stories we tell each other as for the stories we tell our selves, as in our dreams or our ordinary life.

Jung is very popular amongst storytellers for that. You can analyze works of art and compare the achetypes. Joseph Campbell uses Jung a lot. It works to a certain point, but Jung is from a generation of great expansion of knowledge and frontiers and colonization, they were trying to make sense of the different cultures and sometimes it may sound as if everything were to fit in a given matrix of symbols, when we know that's not the case, though anthropology was not that advanced when he thought those things.

Jung explains the difference between him and Freud by an example. If you dream of a spear or a key, Freud would say those are phallic symbols and that would explain it. Jung wants to know why did you dream of a spear instead of a key or vice-versa. Lacan would say that Freud goes for the symbolic, while Jung is more concerned with the imaginary.

Jung was a religious person his whole life, he was raised a christian, and knew a thing or two of every other religion. He thought getting in touch with the sacred, with a primal force, unus mundus, something to reconnect ourselves was the most profound aspect of our psyche and from there comes all else. Freud thought that was sex, our will to live and reproduce. Jung thought we were all able to some degree of telepathy, in light of this underneath collective unconscious world and had several personal anedoctal examples of such coincidences which he called synchronicities. In one of those he says he was travelling and woke up with a burning sensation on his forehead, but there was nothing. A day later he discovered a dear patient killed himself with a shot to the forehead.

Jung is interesting, must have been a nice guy to talk to. I had a Jung phase in my life, but even though I resisted it, I kind of agree with >>14694470 now.

[Anonymous No.14700227]

>>14694470
freudian psychology is just watered down orgonomy

[Anonymous No.14700299]

I've picked Jung's book on personality types (as in those four-letter words: INTP, ESFJ, ...), he discusses Christian theology for the first 200 pages, then poetry for another 200.

What's the point of reading Jung if you can go straight to occult shit?