[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 106 KB, 963x360, jung-lacan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15393986 No.15393986 [Reply] [Original]

Which does /lit/ prefer? Jung or Lacan?

>> No.15394022
File: 856 KB, 1200x750, 1573563769983.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15394022

>>15393986
For me, its Jung. His mapping of the collective unconscious is brilliant and of vital importance to modern man.

>> No.15394044

>>15393986
Lacan foot fetish ecrit >

>> No.15394045

>>15393986
Jung had soul.

>> No.15394699

>>15393986
Jung is more valuable for personal development, Lacan is more valuable as a philosophical tool

>> No.15395169
File: 292 KB, 572x466, gilbert-durand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15395169

>>15393986
DURAND

>> No.15395200

>>15393986
Jung. He was truly /lit/, extremely well read. Yet so was Lacan. I enjoyed his analysis of desire in Hamlet.

>> No.15395417

>>15393986
Lacan
>IN THE AUTUMN OF 1975 Jacques Lacan, the French structuralist psychoanalyst, paid a rare visit to the United States. Convinced that he was world famous, he announced on his arrival in New York that he wanted to make a private visit to the Metropolitan Opera House. 'Tell them I am Lacan,’ he said. His academic hosts were momentarily nonplussed but, knowing the perils of crossing their guest, rapidly found a solution to the problem. They phoned the director of the Metropolitan and told him that Jean-Paul Sartre wanted to visit incognito. Flattered, the director agreed at once. Having been warned not to address the philosopher by name, he received his distinguished French visitor graciously and a memorable day ensued. Lacan was delighted by his welcome.

>> No.15395436

both are worthless charlatans

>> No.15395611
File: 368 KB, 943x943, memepsychology.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15395611

>>15393986
Are people still pretending that Lacan isn't a fraud?

>> No.15395667

>>15393986
When I was younger I liked Jung, because the whole anima-animus and archetypes thing felt like it could be true.
Not so sure now. there's probably something in it, but it's not like reading the blueprints of the human mind.
Only recently read Lacan and the only thing I've taken away from him is the irony of Jouissance , where the Master is dependent on the Slave. Which is really true, Daddy slaves hard at work just so his kids can be happy but Daddy makes the rules, the CoDependent girlfriend who cooks and cleans and does everything for her boyfriend and while complaining about it secretly loves how it makes her feel valid and useful, Boomer business owner with all the money but can't even log into his own Facebook without his Zoomer personal assistant's help.
Apart from that all this Imaginary, Real, Symbolic crap I can't get my head around.

>> No.15396392

bumping for interest.
i'm hoping for some savage takedowns of both, followed by phoenix like restorations

>> No.15396431

It feels weird saying this because lacan takes so much from freud, but freud > jung > lacan.

Lacan's a bit crazy and I never really resonated with his works

>> No.15396448

jung is youtube video essay tier
lacan is brainlet filter

>> No.15396919

>>15396448
yeah honestly its just the language they use
jung is more attainable, that doesnt make it better
lacan did have patients kill themselves because of his unorthodox practice so theres that

>> No.15396933
File: 23 KB, 512x512, noot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15396933

Lacan is much more rigorous and interesting and the 'collective unconscious' is fine but it's been done a hundred times in a thousand ways.

On the other hand, a lot of Lacanian thought is truly original. The clinical categories, the discourses, the linguistic nature of language.

Most people here will say Jung, but in my opinion that's purely because Jung is easy to understand. I love Jung and I think his work on symbols and his writings on protestantism and catholicism are super interesting. But for me Lacan is the most 'important'.

>> No.15396941

Jung is too much of a mystic. Lacan takes ages to learn from but its at least based in reality

>> No.15396949
File: 60 KB, 730x454, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15396949

>>15395611
What is your problem with the chart? Diagrams are useful for making things easier to comprehend without being too abstract

>> No.15396963

>>15395611
People are still believing in, they want style over substance.

>> No.15396999

>>15396933
>but it's been done a hundred times in a thousand ways.
name some, you jaded pseud

>> No.15397004

>>15396999

Orthodox Christianity, for starters

>> No.15397010

>>15396999
Also, it's literally not different to run of the mill Freud and Lacan RELIES on the collective unconscious to make his more interesting notions concrete

>> No.15397015

>>15396949
The goal is obfuscation. Lacan may be the original pseud.

>> No.15397020

>>15397004
I think you might be conflating some ideas there bub
that's the risk of pretending there's nothing new under the sun
you mistake your own ignorance for the truth

>> No.15397022

I haven't read Lacan because someone on lit said something bad about him once, and Zizek talks about him.

>> No.15397062

>>15395417
roflcopter

>> No.15397247

>>15395436
this, /lit/ worshipping these pseudo-science monkeys is proof this board deserves all the mockery it gets from /sci/

>> No.15397435

>>15397247
but /sci/ is shit who cares.

inb4 strawman

>> No.15397561

>>15393986

From what I've heard in Zizek's lectures, Lacan is a true Philosopher, whereas Jung is more of poet. The former's "Subject as its own cause" dwarfs everything the latter might have said.

Peanut brain: Anima.

Galaxy brain: Sophia.

>> No.15397581

>>15397561
>Jung is more of poet
More like occultist