C.G. Jung

I need to read Jung. Which text should I start with?

How far are you planning to go?

A good place to begin is Psychological Types That text is kind of the flagship of his ideas. Be warned that as creative as he was he also seriously lacked the ability to well organize his ideas.

“Modern Man in Search of a Soul”

A great look at how the man thought.

I agree.

Well, i ended up getting synchronicity. its pretty interesting as well. i want some psycho analytic treatment of dualities. this book doesn’t address that issue directly. any ideas on how to hone down on that specific topic?

I have found a forum on Jung:

cgjungpage.org/talk/index.php?

Jung has explained the notion of ‘confession’ perfectly well in one of the essays in ‘Modern Man in search of a soul’. I do not remember the title of the essay.

His explanation for ‘confession’ would be diametrically opposite to Foucault’s efforts to locate the practices related to confession in history, I feel. This, for me is a wonderful starting point.

Go to this page and read more :astonished:

i read a “collection” of his works that included Aion (good reading there): Psyche and Symbol. My psych of religion professor thought it was the best intro material to Jung for a grad-level class. We read it after Freud’s Civilisation and its Discontent, which was good preparation for Jung.

If you’re reading Jung for school that’s one thing, but if you’re reading him for information then stop because his ideas are crap.

I totally disagree with the Adlerian about Jung.

Jungs ideas are totally useful. He was an important departure from Freud’s rather cynical view of human nature. Jung’s work provides a more enriching view of the signifigance of religion and mythology in human history. Jung is a highly imaginative writer and his work often has an appeal to those who would describe themselves as creative types.

One note of criticism, while Jung was a prolific writer even fans of his work admit that his texts do suffer from a lack of tight organization.

One of Jung’s ideas, psychological types, is “immortalized” in the field of psychometrics. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) a very popular personality test instrument, is based on Jung’s work. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers_Briggs

Hey, just to let you know, I’m reading one of the books by Alfred Adler (you had suggested I give him a try a while back in the pyschology board). He’s great! :smiley:

Thanks for enlightening me.

I do intend to evtunally read something by Jung, though. Just to give diversity to my thoughts. :wink:

Jung was part of some silliness from the late nineteenth century that was part of the whole Aryan/Indo/European/Madame Blavatsky craze that hit intellectuals in a pre-Nazi Europe. Most of his ideas are based on reincarnation and race memories that come from the sources listed, thus they are pseudo-intellectual crap, that sounds good of course. They may be interesting but have nothing to do with the mind.

BMW-Guy,

I’m glad you like Adler.

He knocked my socks off when I first read him, because I had invented his theory based on my own observations, so when I discovered him I just couldn’t believe it.

If you ever have any questions please ask.

Jung’s work was a product of its time, as is everyone’s work. Still his work is far more substantive and comprehensive than anything from Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society. It is foolishly reductive to try and explain his ideas as merely derivative from dubious sources. He was a highly creative and imaginative thinker. He tried to explain humanity to itself and developed an impressive account of the human race. He redemed the unconscious not just as a origin of trouble and malfunction but as the origin of human greatness and heroic achievement. His work is an important part of the heritage of psychology.

I see young as being part of a zeitgeist and nothing more. He has interesting bits and made some good points about personality styles that endure today., but his explanations for those personality styles are based on nonsense. His concept of archetypes is additionally based on nonsense and could have been better based on cultural phenomenon rather than a biological one.

Seriously this guy and Freud are footnotes because their source material is Indian mysticism, with Blavatsky thrown in for good measure.

But, hey read up, that’s what I did!

So you would reduce Jung and Freud to mere footnotes. Your namesake was from around the same time. What makes his work more noteworthy in comparison?

He inspired the creation of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. These two schools are seen as very logical and practical approaches to helping and understanding people.

With Freud and Jung the unconscious was a magic all-knowing inner being that makes no sense unless one follows the trail back to Indian concepts. Meanwhile, Adler viewed the person as kind of a blank slate interacting with social forces and their own view of them. It’s a cleaner set of ideas.

He was an inspiration for sociology as well.

Also, he developed most of the ideas for the modern public school system.

His ideas, inspired in part by Darwin, are based on a combination of social, biological, behavioral, and phenomenological factors that lend themself to today’s biopsychosocial approach in almost all forms of psychology.

Jung and Frued spent a lot of time imagining all kinds of stuff based on what? Adler, who was a more working class kind of guy, based his ideas on real interactions with people, and that’s a major reason that I like him.

Ad I just noticed your Avatar… fully.

that’s friggin hilarious

That’s cool. I defienly like his work on birthorder.

I am guesing that you are tallking about Hindu concepts rather than Native American concepts, and I just don’t see it. I see neither Freud nor Jung making use of Hindu concepts in their work. They both seems distinctly western oriented.

Whoa, I have never heard about this. While a brief search on the history public education and another search on Adler fails to show any major connections there. Are you sure about that point?

Horrace Mann tends to get a lot of credit as the father of public education. Fredrich Froebel was the major developer of kindergarden education. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi is said to have, “laid the foundation of modern elementary education.” I also found John Dewey called, “Arguably the most influential thinker on education in the twentieth century.” But nothing about Adler.

i think Jung and Freud’s works are best seen as footnotes. In their purest forms, they’re too “out there” to be called psychology. None can be backed up through actual psychological research (i.e. the Rorshach).
On a side note, i think it would be better to see Lacan as Freud’s “true successor” and not Jung.
Another thing to notice is Jung’s usage of Eastern religion. He misinterprets it left and right.