• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Jung Vs. Freud

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Without wanting to kick of a sectarian brawl who do you favour between Jung and Freud and what's your opinion of the schismatics surrounding the emergence of psycho-analysis and analytical psychology? Do you even make the distinction your head or do you treat it as all part and parcel of the same general theorising? Do you think one was more superior to the other? Which do you think was the better writer and which do you think history has been kinder to or pop culture more receptive of? Has one been disseminated more than the other and which do you think is the most wrongly reviled?

I've always wondered why Jung has been accused more often of being the creator of a personality cult, especially since he did not do anything consciously to create that and preserve that as a legacy, unlike Freud, and why that is, I think Jung is, often wrongly, accused of being much more esoteric and mystic than he actually is, properly understood.
 

Aleksei

Yeah, I can fly.
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
3,626
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think they were both hacks.
 

Aleksei

Yeah, I can fly.
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
3,626
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yeah but who would win in a fist fight? Huh? Answer me that one!
Jung did acid. Freud did coke. Freud would therefore kick Jung's ass while Jung was punching at an imaginary unicorn. QED.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Jung did acid. Freud did coke. Freud would therefore kick Jung's ass while Jung was punching at an imaginary unicorn. QED.

Didnt know that Jung did acid, I knew that Freud did cocaine to break his addiction to something else, opiates? Heroin? I dont know.

I think Jung would pull a neat cane sword or something and run Freud through. He'd be like "take that penis envier" or something.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I'm better versed in Freud than in Jung, and even then, not really well-versed, but from what I can tell, I see them as very similar. Both of them proposed that personality can get split off (Freud called it the unconscious, Jung called in the Shadow) and that we avoid certain thoughts, experiences, and pain because we find it unmanageable or intolerable. Both thought that the goal of therapy was to unite the individual and his components by drawing out the psychic material that was pushed away. They took their insights in different directions, but I don't see them as incompatible. At least, not the parts that I've seen.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Freud had a tripartite consciousness and the unconscious, so you got Id, base instincts, Ego, rational mind, and Super Ego, big daddy mind, in his self-regulating version of consciousness and the unconscious where all the repressed, forgotten, dissociated things lurked to exert influences which messed with the conscious mind.

Jung had a hell of a thing for his version of the mind but he still had a consciousness/unconscious divide, instead he had ego, self, shadow, persona and then archetypes which had been activated and integrated into the personality as complexes. If you where to visualise it it looks a bit like a circle and the complexes revolve around the circumference like a constellation. Jung went on about mandallas (spelling) because they resembled his version of consciousness in pictorial form.

Jung's version of the unconscious is split three levels too, usually showing up in dreams, there's the personal, cultural/social, then the collective/ancestoral, he talked about this being like a house, the decorated upper level, derelict middle and basement/cave. I cant remember off hand whether archetypes are associated with one level or all of them.

Freud's theory is sexual, in a sense much broader than we use it today which incorporates much of the psycho-social, while Jung's is symbolic, so for Freud symbols will disguise sexual meanings while for Jung sexual meanings are themselves only symbolic of something. At least that's my interpretation/understanding from reading.
 

SecondBest

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
844
MBTI Type
eNxp
Enneagram
5/7
Yeah, I'm afraid for the life of this thread as I think it might bring out a lot of division and ad hominem attacks.

I would never say one was superior to the other in any way. But to answer your question, I would put myself under the category of not making any distinctions in my head. Like with many things I read, I only remember and assimilate what is useful to me and build my own system around that. My goals being first to understand myself - and if I feel like it, try and understand others. Having said that though, I prefer Jung and feel he was more wrongly reviled, though I would think, at this point, both are fairly reviled.

Why do I prefer Jung? Two words: cognitive functions. It's an essential part of how I understand myself and the world now for reasons that are very obvious to me and I hope is obvious to most who are familiar with it. I know that he can be considered esoteric and mystic, but it's usually by those who haven't considered his work with enough open-mindedness. His approach to his research is methodical, analytical, and insightful and though his writing is very dry and seemingly esoteric - his ambitions are not. Tough to go into the details without making this a teal deer post, but suffice it to say, I think it takes a certain kind of personal honesty and humility to be able to approach a topic as mystical as synchronicity (or ESP - extra-sensory perception) as an academic. He's written an actual book called Synchronicity if anyone wants to check it out. Yet there wasn't a single course, at least at my school, that read Jung at all. Or even any professor for that matter that I could find.

Freud on the other hand I've had to read dozens of times for numerous classes. Especially "Civilization and Its Discontents." Like most theorists I've read, I found that though his critique of the contemporary modern society was dead on, any normative theories deriving from either a critique of the modern man or society were faulty, at best. Normative judgments almost always have a ring of personal projection to them. While Freud was a big deal to a lot of people and is rightfully considered influential, he is mostly ignored nowadays in contemporary academia, though his legacy remains - at least this was the case the last time I checked. Karl Marx was kind of the same way in that respect. Nowadays, I know academics are more into the psychoanalysts that emerged from the direct influence of Freud, rather than Freud himself.

The real disagreements and division between them in my eyes are their theories on the unconscious. Freud saw it as more of a repository for emotional baggage while Jung saw it in a more positive affirming light. I'd say that they're both right and their respective theories are certainly not in direct contradiction to each other.

I think it's pretty clear Freud is more popular, at least in general society. And I hate to say it without inviting a lot of misunderstanding, but I think it's really an academic politics thing with regard to the question of popularity and reviled-ness.

That's all I got. We'll see how this thread unfolds.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Damnit, thread would get hot just as I'm about to go to sleep.

Until tommorrow Jung for the win but I like them both.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Freud had a tripartite consciousness and the unconscious, so you got Id, base instincts, Ego, rational mind, and Super Ego, big daddy mind, in his self-regulating version of consciousness and the unconscious where all the repressed, forgotten, dissociated things lurked to exert influences which messed with the conscious mind.

Jung had a hell of a thing for his version of the mind but he still had a consciousness/unconscious divide, instead he had ego, self, shadow, persona and then archetypes which had been activated and integrated into the personality as complexes. If you where to visualise it it looks a bit like a circle and the complexes revolve around the circumference like a constellation. Jung went on about mandallas (spelling) because they resembled his version of consciousness in pictorial form.

Jung's version of the unconscious is split three levels too, usually showing up in dreams, there's the personal, cultural/social, then the collective/ancestoral, he talked about this being like a house, the decorated upper level, derelict middle and basement/cave. I cant remember off hand whether archetypes are associated with one level or all of them.

With the exception of the collective unconscious, I'm not sure they're that much different. They're definitely more similar than they are different.

Freud's theory is sexual, in a sense much broader than we use it today which incorporates much of the psycho-social, while Jung's is symbolic, so for Freud symbols will disguise sexual meanings while for Jung sexual meanings are themselves only symbolic of something. At least that's my interpretation/understanding from reading.

But the idea is still the same, no? That the mind runs away from things that it finds intolerable and reminds us in the form of symbols. I suppose what you're saying is that Freud thought the intolerable thoughts concern sex, while Jung thought they concerned thoughts about ourselves and our defects (the Shadow). Jung is like Freud version 2.0. Same basic design, but updated and easier to navigate.
 

SecondBest

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
844
MBTI Type
eNxp
Enneagram
5/7
Jung is like Freud version 2.0. Same basic design, but updated and easier to navigate.

That's very well put. I think it all has to do with the fact that Jung was a sharper and more analytical thinker than Freud. His systems and thoughts are far more easy to follow. Don't know what the consensus is with regard to Jung vs. Freud in terms of personality type, but, in my eyes, this issue of clarity in each thinker is the distinction between INTJ and INFJ, respectively.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
That's very well put. I think it all has to do with the fact that Jung was a sharper and more analytical thinker than Freud. His systems and thoughts are far more easy to follow. Don't know what the consensus is with regard to Jung vs. Freud in terms of personality type, but, in my eyes, this issue of clarity in each thinker is the distinction between INTJ and INFJ, respectively.

Freud got really abstract and theoretical, and I think that'll kill any theory as it becomes further removed from reality. Jung kept things a little more practical, so his theories are easier to understand and appreciate.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
NT vs NF

It's all perspective.

What do you mean Jung kept things more pratical? Freud's theories seemed easier to comprehend to me...
 

SecondBest

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
844
MBTI Type
eNxp
Enneagram
5/7
It's actually probably the practical element that I was really drawn to and appreciated with Jung. I tend to be very abstract as well, but definitely with a practical objective in mind. After all, I am a Capricorn.

Regardless of practicality though, I'd still stay Jung was a better system builder than Freud was. Far more refined, I think. Hard to say that without inviting attacks, but there it is. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
I keep wondering if the Zodiac is a NF thing.

Or maybe it's not type related.

---

I don't really see a Jung Vs. Freud
What I see is more Jung + Freud
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Freud's family was murdered by you know who, and Freud was forced to flee for this life, while Jung supported the murderers.
 

SecondBest

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
844
MBTI Type
eNxp
Enneagram
5/7
NT vs NF

It's all perspective.

What do you mean Jung kept things more pratical? Freud's theories seemed easier to comprehend to me...

Re: comprehension. To each his own. I think practical in the sense that there is a closer correlation between everyday life and his theories. Cognitive functions being the obvious example. Freud on the other hand remained almost exclusively in the inner workings of the mind, coming up with some very abstract and very insightful stuff, but only taking that brief foray into the expanding his theories into the world at large in Civ and Discontents. I think this is what was meant by the use of the word "practical." Hope that makes sense, but that's how I read it.

I keep wondering if the Zodiac is a NF thing.

Or maybe it's not type related.

---

I don't really see a Jung Vs. Freud
What I see is more Jung + Freud

LOL. The zodiac thing might be an NF thing. I get a lot of crap about that and though I used to be quite the astrology skeptic myself, I got into it about a year ago and has since helped me a great deal in understanding why I've done the things I've done. Especially my own moon-sun sign combination - that was quite revelatory for me.

Yeah, this little diversion with readability and methodology is trivial, at best. I would agree with you and say it's a Jung AND Freud thing.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I keep wondering if the Zodiac is a NF thing.

Or maybe it's not type related.

---

I don't really see a Jung Vs. Freud
What I see is more Jung + Freud

The Zodiac isn't just an NF thing (at least not universally). Certainly not a believer, myself. Supposedly Jung found plenty of archetypal matter in the Zodiac and would sometimes calculate horoscopes for patients he was otherwise flummoxed by.

I think Freud was a far clearer writer Jung was. Jung was desperately in need of a good editor (or at least a good summarizer) but didn't allow such... in fact, he tended to attack anyone who attempted to summarize his theories. There's a lot in Jung's writings, but it's not terribly digestable. Plus his thought shifted over time, so the same term might have somewhat different meanings depending on when he was using it. Jung's many page (and mostly pointless) tangents make reading his work less enjoyable than it might be.

Still, I think Jung was more complex and a bit less dogmatic (or at least his dogma changed a bit over time). I also agree that Freud's theories aren't well regarded by modern psychologists except for his listing of basic defense mechanisms. I think Freud generally comes across as more reductionistic, despite being by most accounts a deeply humane man.
 

SecondBest

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
844
MBTI Type
eNxp
Enneagram
5/7
The Zodiac isn't just an NF thing (at least not universally). Certainly not a believer, myself. Supposedly Jung found plenty of archetypal matter in the Zodiac and would sometimes calculate horoscopes for patients he was otherwise flummoxed by.

Interesting, I did not know that. And no, I didn't mean it was just an NF thing, but NF tend to be more interested? I don't know.

I think Freud was a far clearer writer Jung was. Jung was desperately in need of a good editor (or at least a good summarizer) but didn't allow such... in fact, he tended to attack anyone who attempted to summarize his theories. There's a lot in Jung's writings, but it's not terribly digestable. Plus his thought shifted over time, so the same term might have somewhat different meanings depending on when he was using it. Jung's many page (and mostly pointless) tangents make reading his work less enjoyable than it might be.

I'd say it depends on what you're reading but now, in retrospect, it may be that I just relate to him more and that made him clearer to me in my eyes, rather than his writing actually being clearer. My approach to Jung was browsing through the general secondary material (summarizing his theories, *gasp*), and then going to the primary. It's been too long since I've read him so I couldn't give you any specific examples and I'm too lazy to look up specific examples. But yeah, fair enough.

Still, I think Jung was more complex and a bit less dogmatic (or at least his dogma changed a bit over time). I also agree that Freud's theories aren't well regarded by modern psychologists except for his listing of basic defense mechanisms. I think Freud generally comes across as more reductionistic, despite being by most accounts a deeply humane man.

I'd agree with your assessment of Jung, though without being able to cite examples, I am skeptical of what I interpret to mean "humane" in describing Freud. He is or was interested in humanity, certainly, but not too certain about his "humaneness" in personal quality, especially with regard to his relationship with other people. Speculative, but I thought I'd throw that out there...
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
Freud gave psychology a big kick in the ass to move it forward. Even if his theories are now obsolete, and one may ridiculize some of his stuff, I admire he had balls to start this.

To me he's quite an inventor/explorer.


----------

Most NFs I know are quite attracted to the zodiac.
Mom has a ton of books about this, she used to read all that stuff to me...it was interesting.
 
Top