Tell me all about Jung papa /lit/
>>8047516
Him and his followers aren't worth the time of day, every negative stereotype about psychoanalysis is encapsulated in him
>>8047524
Huehue naw cuz cmon quit joshing
Better than Freud.
Was obsessed with le autistic fruit eater man, got some neato ideas.
>>8047531
>Better than Freud.
Not even remotely true, all he did was in an attempt to whitewash Freud destroy everything worthwhile in his tradition
>>8047538
nah
>>8047516
Read MDR
>>8047644
MDR?
Really, really interesting
Often his ideas seem esoteric and almost occult but there is a lot of profound psychological value in his books, I love how he ties in all aspects of human civilisation and history in a kind of psychohistoric narrative, it really is like a submarining into the depths of the human mind
half-assed mystic buffoonery
>>8047516
Read Jung if you want to impress potheads. Read Freud if you want to impress yourself.
Although, Jung's cognitive processes are pretty useful.
>>8047516
Freud: the motivating force is the pleasure principle, the ego's desire to satisfy itself
Adler: the motivating force is the will to power, the ego's desire to overmaster itself and other egos
Jung: it is neither; the motivating principle is the creative energy, the libido, which can invest itself in any number or combination of the archetypes which populate the collective unconscious, of which we all partake; freud and adler simply constructed their systems around their own archetypal libidinal investments.
Jung is very interesting because he sidesteps psychologizing social phenomena—a tendency which plagues the interpretation of Freud throughout much of the 20th c (a la Civ. and its Discontents)—by insisting that the psychological is "always already" a product of the social, of the collective. he goes very far astray, though, when he insists that the archetypes are transhistorical unconscious defaults, i.e., that they have existed for time immemorial and are basically immutable constants of human society. a maRXIST would like to see jung get turned on his head, because a theory of archetypes which are structured by the historical inevitability of the synchronic social structure is remarkably close to a sort of psychical theory of ideology. I'm pretty sure this has been done before, however. outside of that, i don't see much use for Jung. his theory of schizophrenia is interesting, though, if anti-psychiatry is your thing.
anyone here can explain me the anima and the animus?
>>8047970
Jung's archetypal version of the Oedipus complex. unconscious archetypes of libidinal investment which yield preference in object-choice, i.e., sexual preference.
