Where do I start with Carl Jung?
>>8201492
Bumping for interest
Liber Novus
Psychology and Religion
i've always heard Man and His Symbols, but i've yet to engage with Jung myself. is there a better launching point?
the sociology of ethics or fundamentals of etruscan symbology
I found this interesting.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
Man and his symbols. The whole point of the book, made explicit by the authors (including Jung himself) in the book, is to introduce Jung's ideas to a wider audience.
>>8201534
this
>>8201492
Start with Aspects of the Masculine. Man and His Symbols only has one essay by Jung in it. Though it really depends on what parts of Jungian psychology you are interested in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Essays_on_Analytical_Psychology
it's the core
There is no uniformity in these responses. It's a little frustrating. So.. really, where do I start?
>>8202332
go for man and his symbols or Memories, Dreams, Reflections, then if you like them try undiscovered self
You start with pic related OP, there is no substitution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Collected_Works_of_C._G._Jung
Assuming you speak English, read these in order.
Do I have to know japanese to read him?
>>8201492
motherfucker look like gendou ikari in that picture
>>8202461
>implying
>>8201492
You start by putting his book in the bin and reading Freud and Lacan
start with Plato. Jung is just Plato with a superficial copernican spin
>>8202478
>Lacan
ENOUGH
>>8202478
>Disregard Jung
>read Freud and Lacan
Are you fucking retarded? you've got to be a troll. Please be trolling. The amount of stupidity in that suggestion is of epic proportions. I can't even. I can't do it.
>>8202544
Freud's more intellectually interesting than Jung, but Jung is better for your health (even if he is a little airy).
Lacan is just trash
>>8202535
>Jung is just Plato with a superficial copernican spin
wut? Maybe, but wut?
Catch up on your alchemy and gnosticism son
>>8202548
Jung's archetypes are basically the forms, but this time they only exist in everyone's head simultaneously.
In practice, this is exactly the same as the idea of the forms, as in both cases the transcendental ideas are immutable, eternal, and unchanging, and everything in this world is imperfect next to them.
>>8202558
I think you misunderstood Jung.
The archetypes are nothing like the forms. The archetypes are atomic modes of expression in the psyche inherited by our ancestors. They are the basis of human behavior and thought, they are not immutable. Jung wasn't arguing metaphysics.
>>8202601
Practically, though, they're very similar, aren't they? I mean putatively one exists in the universe itself and the other one just exists in someone's head, but what's the real-world difference between the ideal of the hero and the universal archetype of the hero?
>>8202651
>I mean putatively one exists in the universe itself and the other one just exists in someone's head
Unnecessary dichotomy
>>8202478
>>8202547
I've read a lot of Freud, and I agree with him completely.
I lean more towards evo-psych than purely believing that personalities are created by experience, but Freud was physician enough to spot this idea in the distance: he called it "phylogenetic memory." We might call it a habit, role, or conditional attitude that has been selected for until it becomes instinctive.
In short, I'm not a 20th century cliché, a left-wing Freudian who thinks that "sissyedee" can be educated out of aggression or selfishness.
I'm interested in Jung because he seems less raw than Freud. I like rawness, but I'm more interested in understanding how to sugarcoat primal urges.
My impression, based on pop-cultural osmosis as far as Jung goes, is that Freud pulls back veils and hardly knows how to do anything else, while Jung teaches you how to knit beautiful veils, and documents veils of the past.
>>8201516
>http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
You've never heard of MBTI?
>>8202691
I dreamt of a dragon versus I saw a dragon is an unnecessary dichotomy?
>>8202711
the forms don't literally exist in the physical world. he's right in that it's a false dichotomy. but that only proves my point. effectively, Jung and Plato are very similar
>>8202708
sorry, these sentences don't seem to follow each other. we don't live in the same world.
the veils had to come from somewhere, you know. they're no less a part of who we are than what's behind them. in fact, because they're so much dearer, they're really more of us than whatever we can pull out of us in dark hours
>>8202720
I believe in hierarchies of thought.
Some ideas are just neutral buffers or placeholders, like a fence along a cliff - neither dangerous nor comforting in itself, not more important than the cliff, but "veiling" it. The average priest or hollywood director is a font of veil ideas and other stabilising platitudes.
Then there are ideas that overlie others to hide the danger while keeping most of the reward. You could call these "condom ideas." Jung seems like he might be a great condom idea man.
>>8202736
hey man, it's either T or F. why lie to the common guy
>>8202738
He'd lie to himself anyway, but with less finesse.
In any case, human desires are simple, but infinitely interpretable. I would like to interpret them in a way that suits my aesthetic-philosophic agenda. That means learning the art of mask making.
>>8202418
So much this.
>>8202558
>as in both cases the transcendental ideas are immutable, eternal, and unchanging
as it was already said the archetypes are none of those, they are in principle not immutable, not eternal and non unchanging, though they are very old and stable
>>8202651
>what's the real-world difference between the ideal of the hero and the universal archetype of the hero?
the difference of their approaches is better to illustrate on the difference between a platonic form of life vs a jungian archetype of life, one allows to pull a logical proof of the eternal life of the soul (one of the proofs in phaedo) and another doesn't
>>8202708
jung says in the aforementioned two essays that his main difference from freud it's that he doesn't believe that unconsciousness consists only of that stuff which we supplanted there, he thinks that it lives its own life of its and has different semi-autonomous archetypal complexes which never were supplanted there but rather were inherited from our ancestors
also i dunno how you picked this idea that "Jung teaches you how to knit beautiful veils", jung is pretty skeptical about personas - the social masks which people bear, and his process of individuation has nothing to do with creating yet another mask, it's a process of understanding and integration of different parts of yourself together
>>8202773
I don't care if you possibly are a man, I think I love you now.
>>8201492
Please do not start Jung do heroin if you feel the need to read Jung I do not give a fuck about anything I can conceive of the words he wrote ever producing, intellectually, in response,,, except for of course this post
>>8203221
I literally have no idea what the fuck you just said.
>>8201492
It is amazing how many morons are on this board.
>>8203786
So to start reading Carl Jung's books, I should read a book about him written by people who are not Carl Jung?
I feel more smorterer already.
> Where do I start with Carl Jung?
The trash.
>>8202547
>better for your health
>your health
>individualizing health
Pure ideology.
>>8202708
>I lean more towards evo-psych
>evo-psych
All the stemredditry with non of the poitivist rigour. The worst of both worlds.
>>8204380
I sometimes come to unfashionable conclusions, so there's nothing reddit about it.
>>8201492
>Ctrl+F "Greeks"
>0 results
Damn it, /lit/.
>>8202174
MOON MAN
MOON MAN
CAN'T YOU SEE
>>8202710
I found MBTI first and found that after a research binge.
>>8204760
Ah, I see we have another metacontrarian in the house, besides myself. Nice to know we out chea lol, reddit 4 lyfe
