Freud vs. Jung

[GarrotTheThief]

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

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

 

[GarrotTheThief]

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

 

[Yaru]

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Pionart]

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?

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

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.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

To elaborate on the above...

Take the reason why wars are done today. We could say that most wars are fought over cultural ideology but in truth, based on actions of people, wars are fought for gold and resources, never for any other reason in terms of primary cause, or economic ideologies.

So we have the scientific idea that resources are limited. A smart man says that there can only be so many balls in the box.

Well guess what. The earth isn't a box. No one is certain if resources are limited or not. There could be an infinite amount of resources in the galaxy and the idea that resources are limited in absolute is as much superstition as Santa or a black cat crossing your path. Yet...it's excepted as a fact because in certain analogical situations we use the scientific method to demonstrate resources are limited.

So then generals are sent to plunder for resources based on an ideology which is rooted in the scientific method.

Are we to say that we are fighting wars now because of science or because we are humans and failing ourselves? The first part would be a Freudian thing, since frued himself was one of the many who unconsciously were of the religion scientism. Jung on the other hand removed himself and was honest and humble. He knew that science could not solve the problems of the world and therefore he realized that the individual must be accountable for evil, not any external locust which was simply a tool. He was humble because he was actually more of a scientist than Freud and this weakened his argument at the time, however he was right in assuming that it would strengthen his argument after he was dead and his legacy was left behind. Humility always trumps pride in the long run. Only the truly humble can serve humanity. Humility is a guardian.

In fact in the first few pages of Man in Search of His Soul Jung makes the bold claim that anyone who is too religious, as in dogmatic, and anyone who is too scientific and leaves to room for mystery fall into the same type of traps and are actually very similar in nature. Only someone in the middle can individuate and become truly mature.

Hence we have the old crusty man who disdains the imagination and who thinks he is mature but in truth is crusty and brings misery to every room. This in itself, crusty and morbid seriousness, should not be confused with maturity. Maturity is not killing the inner child but integrating it. This is an idea of Jung's. Integration brings maturity, not extremism.

 

[cm81]

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.

He couldn't think past his feminine envies toward respectable conclusions; guy was a nut case.

 

[Mole]

This is why Freudian psychology is all but dead today and Jungian psychology is experience a rebirth.

The cult of Carl Jung is reborn in a country that buys and sells Nazi memorabilia at very high prices, and which buys and sells guns at any price.

What a combination: the Furhrer-lover Carl Jung, Nazi memorabilia, and a gun in every house.

 

[Alomoes]

The way I see it is that Freud said that Jung obviously had insert_complex_here because he was what he was, which pissed Jung off because he was obviously a functioning human being. Now I think the error was in Freud's criticism of people with these personality styles. He assumed people could not cope with them, while Jung said "Of course they can, I'm living proof!"

Probably wrong because of the lack of research devoted to the subject.

I've started to turn away from Jung though. Freud's theories are more practical, and I like practical. Jung's theories suffer from fitting facts to the theory. I'll likely come back with my own theory given enough time though that builds upon everything.

 

[Mole]

The way I see it is that Freud said that Jung obviously had insert_complex_here because he was what he was, which pissed Jung off because he was obviously a functioning human being. Now I think the error was in Freud's criticism of people with these personality styles. He assumed people could not cope with them, while Jung said "Of course they can, I'm living proof!"

Rather than being a functioning human being, Carl Jung failed his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud, sexually abused his female patients, became a florid psychotic, became a passionate follower of the Fuhrer, and supported the SS Death Head Cult.

So it is no surprise to find that the followers of Carl Jung today support the current Cult of Death we read about in our newspapers and see on our TVs every day.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

You guys seem to forget that if we look at what is more successful today, it is depth psychology, or Jungian styled psychoanalysis.

Freud said that if you had an Oedipus complex you were sick.

Jung said it was how you deal with the Oedipus complex which determines if you are sick not the fact that you have it since every human has a relationship with their parents, all humans have a complex which is called and Oedipus complex. Even not having an Oedipus complex in the traditional sense is still within the parameters of having one, even speaking non-dualistically.

So Jung is actually more practical than Freud. The idea of an ID for example, is just entirely false. There is not a single unconscious drive. Furthermore Jung studied people from all countries and all cultures. Freud only worked within a small frame work of humanity.

Jung was also more objective in this regard. He was able to compare indigenous people who were undisturbed by modern civilization for 1,000's of years and find how they were just like us and draw deeper conclusions regarding the human psyche than Freud.

Remember,. we do no simply have what Freud called a drive for sex. We have a drive for power and we have a drive for other things as well. This was Jung's contribution to psychoanalysis not Freud. Freud believed your sole axis of existence was procreation which is clearly false since people live for other things. I mean it's right in front of our faces as Jung said, the human does not live for the same reasons most animals who are unaware of their existence do. To say so would be to deny the very basic objective evidence of the fact that people simply do not, by their own admission, and by their action, live for procreation alone.

In fact...people tend to live more for power, than procreation. The argument is that people want power for procreation and procreation is central which is again proven false. There are many people who live for power and do not procreate so such a statement would be like believing in the tooth fairy.

Finally, Jung emphasized the existence of the psyche as more than the sum total of drives coming from the parts of our brain and body. He was the first person in psychology to notice that we experience our existence as a unified whole and not a series of cells.

When you think, you do not think as a finer, as an adrenal gland, you think as a unified person. This is what he refers to as the psyche, a unified whole.

Freud on the other hand said that you were just the parts you were made of. Again reductionist is flattering in the short run because it helps us understand the world but as a belief system it is simply untrue. Not a single thing can be reduced to a level of unyielding certainty. If you reduce a chair to it's atoms you still do not know what make up atoms beyond the level of the frontier of scientific measurement with regards to quantum. And no person will ever reach that depth. We will get deeper, and deeper, but never to the bottom of what makes up anything really.

Jung knew this. Freud did not. I suspect Freud would have known more if he had not dipped his nose into the angel dust, but cocaine will corrode your logic processors beyond a certain point of practical functioning.

 

[á´…eparted]

So it is no surprise to find that the followers of Carl Jung today support the current Cult of Death we read about in our newspapers and see on our TVs every day.

This is just rediculous. Cult of Death? LOL! This is nothing more than you linking your hatred of various cultures with your hatred of Jung simply because it suits you.

 

[Passacaglia]

Is this like a Brittney Spears vs. Miley Cyrus popularity contest? Kinda confused on why there needs to be a 'versus' in the discussion.

I'm not deeply educated in either one, though I did write a paper about Jung in high school. Interesting stuff, though it's all very hazy in my memory now. Freud had a few nutty ideas -- penis envy, anyone? -- but then, many trailblazers are remembered for the things they got wrong rather than the things they got right. I think Jung's ideas about archetypes and religion are interesting, but I also think that humanity will eventually progress to the point where religion more-or-less fades away completely. Assuming we don't destroy ourselves first.

...the Furhrer-lover Carl Jung

Citation, please?

...Nazi memorabilia

...?

...and a gun in every house.

I'm not sure what the percentages are, but I can assure you, there's not nearly a gun in every U.S.A. house.

 

[Mole]

I'm not sure what the percentages are, but I can assure you, there's not nearly a gun in every U.S.A. house.

I understand there are as many guns is civilian hands in the USA as civilians, even though the Right to Bear Arms is not, and never will be, included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Mole]

Is this like a Brittney Spears vs. Miley Cyrus popularity contest? Kinda confused on why there needs to be a 'versus' in the discussion.

It's a moral choice. Do you choose Sigmund Freud the Jew who was driven out of his home and his extended family murdered by the Fuhrer and his SS Death Head Cult, or do you choose Carl Jung the Aryan who adored the Fuhrer as as a father figure and supported the SS Death Head Cult by following the orders of Reich Marshall Hermann Goering?