User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Freud vs. Jung

  1. #1
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default Freud vs. Jung

    Freud:
    -Believed religion was psychopathic: the religious experience for him was a sign of mental disability
    -Analyzed people from the perspective of what is wrong with them
    -Believe that Carl Jung opposed him

    Jung
    -noticed patients who believed in an after-life enjoyed greater psychic function in late life so attributed health to the religious experience
    -analyzed people from the perspective of what works very well...asked what is healthy and worked from there since that was the only thing provable.
    -Believed that he was the natural evolution and/or co-dependent camp of thought to Adler and Freud

    Who wins?

    Notable Jungian - many renowned Nobel peace prize winners and creators such as George Lucas.

    It seems that these people are also Freudian though in the sense that they are Jungian. A jungian in other words is a freudian + much more where as a freudian is just a Freudian, he does not ascribe to Jung at all.

    Seems like Jung is a healthier view based on my opinion and experience. Freud seemed to be warped and projecting a lot of his own issues on to the matter. For example his notion of the id is inferior to Jung's notion of the unconscious in that Jung acknowledge several different forces of the unconscious where as Freud's id was a jarbled slew that averaged out to one force.
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes cm81 liked this post

  2. #2
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GarrotTheThief View Post
    Freud:
    -Believed religion was psychopathic: the religious experience for him was a sign of mental disability
    -Analyzed people from the perspective of what is wrong with them
    -Believe that Carl Jung opposed him

    Jung
    -noticed patients who believed in an after-life enjoyed greater psychic function in late life so attributed health to the religious experience
    -analyzed people from the perspective of what works very well...asked what is healthy and worked from there since that was the only thing provable.
    -Believed that he was the natural evolution and/or co-dependent camp of thought to Adler and Freud

    Who wins?

    Notable Jungian - many renowned Nobel peace prize winners and creators such as George Lucas.

    It seems that these people are also Freudian though in the sense that they are Jungian. A jungian in other words is a freudian + much more where as a freudian is just a Freudian, he does not ascribe to Jung at all.

    Seems like Jung is a healthier view based on my opinion and experience. Freud seemed to be warped and projecting a lot of his own issues on to the matter. For example his notion of the id is inferior to Jung's notion of the unconscious in that Jung acknowledge several different forces of the unconscious where as Freud's id was a jarbled slew that averaged out to one force.
    Carl Jung was the son of a religious Minister. And Carl was never able to resolve his relationship with his Minister father. So Carl had a father fixation all his life.

    Carl started his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud who sought to analyse Carl's father fixation, but Carl resisted the analysis to such an extent Carl terminated the analysis.

    This is hightly significant because without completing his analysis with Sigmund Carl could not become a psychoanalyst, and in his disappointment and rage became a quasi religious guru to compete with his Minister father.

    So Carl started with a father fixation on his Minister father, first transferred his father fixation to Sigmund Freud, who did not take advantage of Carl. But then Carl transferred his father fixation to the Fuhrer, who did take advantage of Carl, through the Fuhrer's deputy, Reich Marshall Hermann Goering.

    In the meantime, as a failed psychoanalyst and a devoted follower of the Fuhrer, Carl Jung sexually abused his female patients, and developed a florid psychosis which is evidenced in, The Red Book, by Carl Jung.

    The Red Book was so explosive, it was kept under lock and key for 70 years and only recently published.

    It is interesting that the Americans not only borrowed the rocket scientists from the defeated Fuhrer but also the psychotic, abusing Carl Jung.

  3. #3
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Carl Jung was the son of a religious Minister. And Carl was never able to resolve his relationship with his Minister father. So Carl had a father fixation all his life.

    Carl started his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud who sought to analyse Carl's father fixation, but Carl resisted the analysis to such an extent Carl terminated the analysis.

    This is hightly significant because without completing his analysis with Sigmund Carl could not become a psychoanalyst, and in his disappointment and rage became a quasi religious guru to compete with his Minister father.

    So Carl started with a father fixation on his Minister father, first transferred his father fixation to Sigmund Freud, who did not take advantage of Carl. But then Carl transferred his father fixation to the Fuhrer, who did take advantage of Carl, through the Fuhrer's deputy, Reich Marshall Hermann Goering.

    In the meantime, as a failed psychoanalyst and a devoted follower of the Fuhrer, Carl Jung sexually abused his female patients, and developed a florid psychosis which is evidenced in, The Red Book, by Carl Jung.

    The Red Book was so explosive, it was kept under lock and key for 70 years and only recently published.

    It is interesting that the Americans not only borrowed the rocket scientists from the defeated Fuhrer but also the psychotic, abusing Carl Jung.
    I think some of your facts might be off. I'm simply speaking on the level of Jungian vs. Freudian practice today. Let's not generalize and assume more than is evident based on someone's national origin. Jung left Germany for several reasons.

    We might keep this conversation objective by speaking on rumors about Freud too who might be said to be much worse if we were to judge. Not only did he have a cocaine habit but he was responsible for propagating an ideology, something Jung was vehemently against. Furthermore, the it was chronicled that Jung analyzed Freud to the point where Freud broke down and started screaming and crying.

    I do agree though that patients should not sleep with their caregivers and it does sound a bit atrocious.

    However, in that time and place it was not uncommon for a young man, no pun intended, and a young woman to develop feelings for each other in any respect. People would sleep with anyone who was charming, educated, and affluent and that was just the nature of the beast.

    In today's society this would constitute a malicious and criminal thing, but in Jung's time, it was quite common, in fact if we assume that Freud didn't at some point in his youth have an affair we would be naive and stupid. Both Jung and Freud at the time were considered a hot commodity.

    Also, it is now a proven fact that faith releases certain brain chemicals which enhance mental health. Jung was a pioneer and ahead of his time. We could pick on him though for being a bit sexist, but to be quite honest, out of all the male figures of that era, he was the least sexist and was very liberal.

    Freud on the other hand destroyed many of his patients and was somewhat of a butcher in comparison when we look at the results. The girl that Jung slept with went on to be a big figure in Psychoanalysis in Russia and was considered a healed schizophrenic so something he did was correct.

    Also, Freud was very anti-American, a supporter of Mussolini, and in general out for fame - many today believe he suffered from narcissistic personality disorder. Most atrocious of all though are Freud's theories on race which are nothing short of racist to the extreme degree.

    As far as Jung is concerned, it seems you don't really understand what the Red Book is because you're using it as a source of information when really it was a project for art and art can't be used to make assumptions about someone's believes that aren't overtly stated. Any attempt to assume such negative things is a step towards fascism. I could picture a fascist officer arresting someone for drawing a heart and claiming, "you scoundrel how dare you imagine the heart of late emperor about to explode."

    Freud Racist | Psychiatrist faults Freud for many ills afflicting society - Baltimore Sun
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes Evee liked this post

  4. #4
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Carl Jung was the son of a religious Minister. And Carl was never able to resolve his relationship with his Minister father. So Carl had a father fixation all his life.

    Carl started his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud who sought to analyse Carl's father fixation, but Carl resisted the analysis to such an extent Carl terminated the analysis.

    This is hightly significant because without completing his analysis with Sigmund Carl could not become a psychoanalyst, and in his disappointment and rage became a quasi religious guru to compete with his Minister father.

    So Carl started with a father fixation on his Minister father, first transferred his father fixation to Sigmund Freud, who did not take advantage of Carl. But then Carl transferred his father fixation to the Fuhrer, who did take advantage of Carl, through the Fuhrer's deputy, Reich Marshall Hermann Goering.

    In the meantime, as a failed psychoanalyst and a devoted follower of the Fuhrer, Carl Jung sexually abused his female patients, and developed a florid psychosis which is evidenced in, The Red Book, by Carl Jung.

    The Red Book was so explosive, it was kept under lock and key for 70 years and only recently published.

    It is interesting that the Americans not only borrowed the rocket scientists from the defeated Fuhrer but also the psychotic, abusing Carl Jung.
    not to beat the dead horse anymore than is needed but here's a recent scientific finding that religion/spirituality improves the quality of life and mental health. I know, I know, why would nature wire us to believe in something that might not be real. Either that thing is real or nature doesn't care much for logical consistency, after all the idea that time is a linear thing is a subjective sentiment which is only useful on a newtonian scale (reductionists stagger back and fall to their knees) - gee golly maybe we do have souls? Ya think?

    The link just proves how much more advanced Jungian thought was relative to Freudian, and demonstrates it truly was the next step or evolution of Freud's ideas.
    Religion or spirituality has positive impact on romantic/marital relationships, child development, research shows -- ScienceDaily
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Yaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    292

    Default

    I think both could have been even more awesome without being limited by their faithful beliefs. Psychologist and Philosophers should be free from any religious preference/prejudice but still know accurately each one of them (and maybe have experienced them a bit enough to know exactly what they are dealing with) to have a clearer/objective view on life and people.

    Personality traits: a summary by Yar'Chun
    Introverted - Independent bitch
    Extraverted - Weak
    Intuitive - Creative 4th dimension spacelord
    Sensing - Dumb
    Feeling - Such confused wow
    Thinking - Smart
    Judjing - Nel mio intimo c'è Chilly
    Perceiving - Oooh butterflies

    Likes GarrotTheThief liked this post

  6. #6
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GarrotTheThief View Post
    I think some of your facts might be off. I'm simply speaking on the level of Jungian vs. Freudian practice today. Let's not generalize and assume more than is evident based on someone's national origin. Jung left Germany for several reasons.

    We might keep this conversation objective by speaking on rumors about Freud too who might be said to be much worse if we were to judge. Not only did he have a cocaine habit but he was responsible for propagating an ideology, something Jung was vehemently against. Furthermore, the it was chronicled that Jung analyzed Freud to the point where Freud broke down and started screaming and crying.

    I do agree though that patients should not sleep with their caregivers and it does sound a bit atrocious.

    However, in that time and place it was not uncommon for a young man, no pun intended, and a young woman to develop feelings for each other in any respect. People would sleep with anyone who was charming, educated, and affluent and that was just the nature of the beast.

    In today's society this would constitute a malicious and criminal thing, but in Jung's time, it was quite common, in fact if we assume that Freud didn't at some point in his youth have an affair we would be naive and stupid. Both Jung and Freud at the time were considered a hot commodity.

    Also, it is now a proven fact that faith releases certain brain chemicals which enhance mental health. Jung was a pioneer and ahead of his time. We could pick on him though for being a bit sexist, but to be quite honest, out of all the male figures of that era, he was the least sexist and was very liberal.

    Freud on the other hand destroyed many of his patients and was somewhat of a butcher in comparison when we look at the results. The girl that Jung slept with went on to be a big figure in Psychoanalysis in Russia and was considered a healed schizophrenic so something he did was correct.

    Also, Freud was very anti-American, a supporter of Mussolini, and in general out for fame - many today believe he suffered from narcissistic personality disorder. Most atrocious of all though are Freud's theories on race which are nothing short of racist to the extreme degree.

    As far as Jung is concerned, it seems you don't really understand what the Red Book is because you're using it as a source of information when really it was a project for art and art can't be used to make assumptions about someone's believes that aren't overtly stated. Any attempt to assume such negative things is a step towards fascism. I could picture a fascist officer arresting someone for drawing a heart and claiming, "you scoundrel how dare you imagine the heart of late emperor about to explode."

    Freud Racist | Psychiatrist faults Freud for many ills afflicting society - Baltimore Sun
    This post parts company from reality and so is special pleading.

  7. #7
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GarrotTheThief View Post
    not to beat the dead horse anymore than is needed but here's a recent scientific finding that religion/spirituality improves the quality of life and mental health. I know, I know, why would nature wire us to believe in something that might not be real. Either that thing is real or nature doesn't care much for logical consistency, after all the idea that time is a linear thing is a subjective sentiment which is only useful on a newtonian scale (reductionists stagger back and fall to their knees) - gee golly maybe we do have souls? Ya think?

    The link just proves how much more advanced Jungian thought was relative to Freudian, and demonstrates it truly was the next step or evolution of Freud's ideas.
    Religion or spirituality has positive impact on romantic/marital relationships, child development, research shows -- ScienceDaily
    Whether or not religion has a positive effect on our lives has nothing to do with the truth of religion.

    Would you sell the truth just to feel good?

    And the simple fact is we respond to our imagination in almost the same way we respond to reality. So those who want to control our thinking confuse imagination and reality. And religions and mbti do just that.

    The work of children is play. And the purpose of play is to learn to distinguish between imagination and reality. But religion teaches that we must become as little children to enter the Kingdom of God. In other words, we need to regress to childhood where we could not yet tell the difference between imagination and reality.

    So we can only conclude that religions act in bad faith.

  8. #8
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    How could you take the truth of reality, and give it the psychic power of religion?

    Or, should such a thing be done, or is there something inherently wrong with the kind of thinking done in religion, regardless of truth?

  9. #9
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    How could you take the truth of reality, and give it the psychic power of religion?

    Or, should such a thing be done, or is there something inherently wrong with the kind of thinking done in religion, regardless of truth?
    What I notice in religion is that religion and its founders are idealised.

    The followers then identify with the idealised leaders, so christians follow the imitation of Christ, while muslims follow the example of Mohammed.

    And any attempt to apply critical thinking to Christ or Mohammed is met with opposition, suppression, and in the case of Islam, with a fatwah of death.

    Idealisation is a function of childhood where we idealise our parents, and we dare not criticise them because our physical and psychological survival depends on our parents.

    So criticism of religion stirs our survival instinct. And our survival instinct is our most powerful instinct.

    This is why religious wars are so terrible as both sides are fighting for survival, so no compromise is possible.

  10. #10
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    You guys are missing the point here. There is objective evidence that spirituality improves the quality of life and cognitive health. Going into specific religions is pointless. Someone can follow a religion dogmatically and still not have the religiousness or spirituality alluded to in the article.

    Much of the bias against religion comes from this belief that religion itself does things. People do things. If people commit heinous acts it's not because of religion, it's because of them. A tool doesn't just get up and do things. It is inert. It is people who use the tools to do things which are wrong or right.



    As for objectivity though, we might consider the fact that nothing is truly objective since we don't know anything at all. I'm not talking about an ideology. We simply do not know what things are. We know a little about them but no one knows what a thing is because then they would know what composes it. How can you know something if you don't know what composes it?

    At the end of the day this is nothing new. Socrates said it best. We know nothing and he was killed for it. Anyone who mentions that what people call objective is simply what they can measure but what we measure changes when we measure it in ways we cannot measure is always looked at with suspicion by ideologist.

    As soon as we start leaning on ideology and claiming things which are simply not part of our experience we have lost. This is what Jung was alluding too. This is why Freudian psychology is all but dead today and Jungian psychology is experience a rebirth - to get back on topic here...this is a thread about Freud vs. Jung but everything above is relevant.

    Just want to make sure it stays relevant if possible. If not, hey who cares.
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes cm81 liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 08:14 PM
  2. Freud or Jung?
    By Julius_Van_Der_Beak in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-13-2013, 10:27 AM
  3. Freud/Jung's Type
    By heart in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 04-02-2012, 12:03 AM
  4. Jung Vs. Freud
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 09-03-2010, 07:09 PM
  5. Freud and Jung
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 03:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO