>At that moment Freud slid off his chair in a faint.
>As I was carrying him, In his weakness he looked at me as if I were his father.
Have you ever won a debate so hard that your opponent faints so badly he wakes up and looks at you as if you're his parent?
Source?
Memories, Dreams, Reflections
Was it a memory, or a dream? And what did he say?
It was during a convention when Freud was discussing a pharaoh, suggesting that all his actions were motivated by a father complex. Jung interjected, explaining that the pharaoh was deeply religious and that it was customary for pharaohs to desecrate the name of their fathers.
This wasn't the first time Freud fainted. He told Jung that he thought he wanted to kill him.
That's pretty based of Pharaohs and is fully in-line with the Cannibal Hymn, which is going to be an important scripture in my new world religion, Infinitism.
I guess you might say that Freud was……….. projecting
JUNG BROS WIN AGAIN
I always assumed the essential problem between them was that while they were both intelligent men they were opposites a reversed Plato and Aristotle. Freud was a israeli outsider and a modern committed to an empirical mechanical view of the soul as nothing but a byproduct of sex and selective pressures. Jung was a visionary mystic and pioneer who wanted to tap into the centuries of spiritual wisdom and stood in awe of the mysteries of the psyche. Freud knew that his project was fragile and that if Jung tried to go beyond the scientific empiricism two things would happen. The culture elite would declare him a religious nutcase and dismiss the whole enterprise of psychoanalysis which they did. Secondly all of Freud’s contributions would be sidelined and ignored which they were.
Behaviorism was always going to win out among the academy. Jung was right to lean into the unconscious.
>The culture elite would declare him a religious nutcase and dismiss the whole enterprise of psychoanalysis which they did.
Far from it, the psychoanalytic framework is still strongly in use, whether in the arts/academia/literary culture to discuss art, film, poetry, literature, etc., or well-learned psychologists who are open-minded and don’t just automatically dismiss older insights or frameworks just because they seem “old-fashioned” or “debunked” now, while also still keeping up with advancements in their field.
Jung has almost always in many spheres been respected for a while now more as a mystic and philosopher, by many artists, thinkers, and writers, than strictly as an empirical scientist/psychologist — nevertheless, his work (and, by extension, psychoanalysis as presented by Jung) will live on for a while, even if more through the lens of the humanities than of scientists.
>Secondly all of Freud’s contributions would be sidelined and ignored which they were.
Again, far from it. Even very simple divisions like the conscious-unconscious, the idea of complexes, repression, a psychosexual component to mental distress, the id-ego-superego division, etc., these have been absorbed into culture and are still used by many, Freud’s influence is still there and he’s not just out-of-hand dismissed.
>the conscious-unconscious, the idea of complexes
These aren't Freud's contributions.
yes they are... at least spend 5 minutes googling this shit so you don't say something blatantly incorrect like this, dumbass
correct.
when someone says "freudian/jungian psychology is outdated and not used anymore" what they're actually telling you is that they're a sophomore psych major, or consider themselves too progressive to buy into "gender essentialist" theories as espoused by jung/freud.
anyone with a brain realizes that the main ideas of freud and jung were likely correct and continue to be relevant
Most psychologists I am aware use the Cognitive Behavioral model of psychology or the neuroscience /neurochemistry model. Jung is still popular with spiritual seekers but is basically out of mainstream psychology except for Peterson. Also Freud has been dismissed as the Oedipus guy and thought of as a kooky ancestor of psychology. At least that’s my limited experience in America.
>cognitive behavioral modes
But that has Freud as a foundation...
Just to expand on my previous comment, Aaron Beck on of the principal developers of CBT was a trained psychoanalyst.
the only problem between them is that Freud comes from a matrilineal culture whereas Jung draws from the patrilineal heritage of Christianity. It's why Jung is associated with mothers and Freud is associated with fathers.
>>I always assumed the essential problem between them was that while they were both intelligent men
you know atheism is here to stay when atheists put on pedestal bourgeois sex addicts
Atheism has been "here to stay" since the Enlightenment.
Freud was playing a different game within the space. A lot of it was pandering. He had to come up with bullshit psychoanalytic material that sounds amazing to the midwit and then call it science. At least Jung was honest enough to say it's really a mix of domains and the best we can do is try to be precise in our thinking. So Jung was fundamentally a threat. Freud's concepts of life and death drives are examples of poorly his thought out material getting praise when even a little bit of reasoning would dismantle everything. Jung would of course go on to criticize such things while Freud would take credit for being first in the door.
>At least Jung was honest enough to say it's really a mix of domains and the best we can do is try to be precise in our thinking.
I feel like the people who call Jung a mystic wish to handwave the fact he did ridiculous amounts of research and treated what he did as a science.
>to handwave the fact he did ridiculous amounts of research and treated what he did as a science.
You can do ridiculous amounts of research into flat earth and that doesn't make it valid either
>centuries of spiritual wisdom
evola/nietzsche/mishima trannies need to be lined up against the wall fricking homosexual schizos
Why was Freud so obsessed with the Egyptians? Even more than a israelite should normally be.
Egyptology was exploding while he was writing
Huh. I always thought the whole big renaissance of Egyptology was the early 19th century (Napoleon, etc) and not early 20th century.
For the longest time going by the way people talked about their relationship I thought Jung was actually a disciple of his but apparently he didn't even do his doctoral dissertation under him or anything but rather did it back in switzerland and only met with him afterwards, as an external member to Freud's already established circlejerk.
Freud's non-asinine (you want to frick your mother) contributions were ripped from philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Keierkegaard
Oh cool I didn't know that. Where is it in Schopenhauer?
It isn't. He's just making shit up.
This is hardly a hot take. Heres literally the first Google result for "schopenhauer before freud" you lazy (uninformed, to boot) homosexual
http://www.the-wagnerian.com/2012/07/schopenhaur-freud-one-and-same.html?m=1
You missed Wagner.
Jung's legacy is being taken serious only by capeshit (or protocapeshit in the case of Star Wars) writers and people who took too much psychedelics
You can use Jung to write good fiction. But I think A Dangerous Method shows that Lacan was right.
Jung also had fainting spells, but okay
>How sweet it must be to die.
I learned fairly recently that the Cronenberg movie was based upon a lot of documentation, mainly the correspondance between Jung and Freud, which we see them write in it.
Haven't bothered to look at it but I wonder if this line/ sentence was really uttered by Freud.