Freud or Jung?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well? Pick your dead guy!

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ditto.

Whenever I create a poll, I abstain from voting at first because I do not want to influence the votes.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I voted for Freud - the guy is a lot more radical and challenging with his presentations, rather than his more moderate and holistic counterpart in Jung.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I like Jung. My understanding of Freud is that he reduced everything to sex, which irritates me. Would I be mistaken in this assumption? I think there's more to us than that.

 

[Ene]

Freud and I have never gotten along well. I keep his corpse in my basement wall, and his brain in a jar, but I tell you the anatomy's all wrong and I haven't learned a decent thing from him in years. Jung on the other hand, he had some funky stuff going on and his dissection is always a great discovery. I have a sarcophagus for him and some conopic jars.

disclaimer: if you take me literally, you have obviously never been to my basement.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I actually like Jung more for his intensive introspection and insights centered on the many dimensions of being; I just wanted to vote for something less popular. If it weren't for Jung, we might not even be on this forum!

 

[Typh0n]

I dont want to vote yet. I want to think about it a little, because I can see pros and cons to both thinkers; Freuds methods were heavily flawed, and Jung was the more liked of the two for pleasing his audience, which I think may have an unscientific streak to it(I got my flame suit on). On the other hand, I think Jung was more open minded as a person and less categorical. Freud was concerned with a more "clinical" approach which also has it merits.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Freud always made more sense to me, regardless of Jung's typology and the cognitive functions, which I have adopted as a purely intellectual interest rather than considering it as a theory accurately representing the reality of the human mind.

 

[Typh0n]

Ok, I voted.

I think that all in all, Freud wins to me because his ideas are just more contraversial, despite him appealing that they werent meant to be, which makes me think he may have been sincere. Not that Jung was insincere. Just his ideas rock the boat a bit less, especially on a typology forum

 

[Lark]

I voted Jung. I think he's the better theorist and whereas a lot of Freud's theory is passe to be honest Jung's still challenges the boundaries of philosophy and spirituality or science.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It may seem a moot question, but it's interesting to me how Freud gets accorded more respect by some people, as though his ideas have acquired a level of empirical confirmation that they never actually achieved.

Neither has been proven right, really, but one seems less ridiculous.

Also, Keira Knightley's overacting notwithstanding, I enjoyed A Dangerous Method.

 

[Typh0n]

It may seem a moot question, but it's interesting to me how Freud gets accorded more respect by some people, as though his ideas have acquired a level of empirical confirmation that they never actually achieved.

Neither has been proven right, really, but one seems much less ridiculous than the other.

I think its just going along with the times...in 50 years its possible Jung will look bad too. In fact he probably will, his ideas at least. In the meantime, here we are.

Or maybe its because this is a typology forum, hence anyone who says Freud over Jund gets ostracisized.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think its just going along with the times...in 50 years its possible Jung will look bad too. In fact he probably will, his ideas at least.

Or maybe its because this is a typology forum.

Yet we have at least one member who hates Jung with a passion (I don't know why that person hangs out here, either). I wonder if this is because that member prefers Freud (which I suspect to be the case). I also wonder if we have other disciples of Freud.

 

[Typh0n]

Yet we have at least one member who hates Jung with a passion (I don't know why that person hangs out here, either). I wonder if this is because that member prefers Freud (which I suspect to be the case). I also wonder if we have other disciples of Freud.

Heh. That is odd. I've noticed some people hang out on forums in which they have no interest in if it wasnt for habit, though not sure what got them started.

I dont hate Jung, btw, like I said he has his merits as thinker and if it wasnt for him I wouldnt be here(on this forum), though Im not sure I get today's Freud bashing either.

 

[Ginkgo]

Jung, but if it weren't for Freud, Jungian psychology as we know it may not even exist. Jung's reasons for creating typological systems were in part due to his need to explain his disagreements with Freud... funny how things work. Overall I'm choosing Jung because I think his work is the product of a painstaking level of inquiry and introspection; I can respect that level of dedication. However, I also think both of them are extremely overrated.

 

[Lark]

It may seem a moot question, but it's interesting to me how Freud gets accorded more respect by some people, as though his ideas have acquired a level of empirical confirmation that they never actually achieved.

Neither has been proven right, really, but one seems less ridiculous.

Also, Keira Knightley's overacting notwithstanding, I enjoyed A Dangerous Method.

I really dont know how accurate that movie is, really it was Freud that had more controversaries with clients, going so far as to suggest that an entire therapeutic technique be developed as a result of them, the whole sitting behind out of sight of the client on the couch.

Seriously, you would not believe the major controversaries between his followers about whether or not they should sit across from the client, make eye contact, show any emotional response, light years behind the discussions of today about self-disclosure, telling the truth vs. attempts at value neutrality.

Erich Fromm wrote about this exact thing you've mentioned, attacking the developing "party line" position of some of its leading lights, he thought it mirrored developments among Marxists and other grand theories, without thinking that grand theorising was bad per se.

 

[Lark]

Yet we have at least one member who hates Jung with a passion (I don't know why that person hangs out here, either). I wonder if this is because that member prefers Freud (which I suspect to be the case). I also wonder if we have other disciples of Freud.

There's a lot, lot more to Jung than typology.

If you're talking about Victor I always assumed it was just Victor's whole hatred of religion and religiosity extended to Jung because he wasnt an atheist like Freud.

 

[Lark]

Jung, but if it weren't for Freud, Jungian psychology as we know it may not even exist. Jung's reasons for creating typological systems were in part due to his need to explain his disagreements with Freud... funny how things work. Overall I'm choosing Jung because I think his work is the product of a painstaking level of inquiry and introspection; I can respect that level of dedication. However, I also think both of them are extremely overrated.

I really dont think either is over rated to be honest, I also would say that Jung would have made out rightly without Freud, there's a lot of theorising by each of them which was happening in parallel.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There's a lot, lot more to Jung than typology.

If you're talking about Victor I always assumed it was just Victor's whole hatred of religion and religiosity extended to Jung because he wasnt an atheist like Freud.

Yup, I am. But he says stuff that sounds like he might be into Freud a lot. I don't know for certain, but it's a hunch I have.