>At that moment Freud slid off his chair in a faint.

>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?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Source?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Memories, Dreams, Reflections

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Was it a memory, or a dream? And what did he say?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I guess you might say that Freud was……….. projecting
            JUNG BROS WIN AGAIN

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Behaviorism was always going to win out among the academy. Jung was right to lean into the unconscious.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the conscious-unconscious, the idea of complexes
            These aren't Freud's contributions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes they are... at least spend 5 minutes googling this shit so you don't say something blatantly incorrect like this, dumbass

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >cognitive behavioral modes
            But that has Freud as a foundation...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just to expand on my previous comment, Aaron Beck on of the principal developers of CBT was a trained psychoanalyst.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>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

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism has been "here to stay" since the Enlightenment.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >centuries of spiritual wisdom
            evola/nietzsche/mishima trannies need to be lined up against the wall fricking homosexual schizos

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why was Freud so obsessed with the Egyptians? Even more than a israelite should normally be.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Egyptology was exploding while he was writing

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Huh. I always thought the whole big renaissance of Egyptology was the early 19th century (Napoleon, etc) and not early 20th century.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Freud's non-asinine (you want to frick your mother) contributions were ripped from philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Keierkegaard

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh cool I didn't know that. Where is it in Schopenhauer?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It isn't. He's just making shit up.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You missed Wagner.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can use Jung to write good fiction. But I think A Dangerous Method shows that Lacan was right.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jung also had fainting spells, but okay

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *