What does /lit/ think about Jung's psychological theories?Pic somewhat related, because at the start of my journey I was mainly interested in understanding his typology, but eventually I branched him into his entire system, diving in very erratically between whatever attracted my attention in his CW or between random seminars/interviews/lectures/dream interpretations I could find around.Eventually I concluded it was a very honest attempt and an especially admirably open-minded approach at recognizing the psychological significance of all the more philosophical, spiritual, and arguably even "magical" ideas along with the related symbolic imagery, in a way that was less about arguing how "real" these things are, and more about putting them in the framework of what do they represent for our psyche - along with why they even came out that way to the men of the past.
>>25225096I've found his theories compelling, and have used them for my own practical benefit.The range of phenomena he elucidates is amazing: religion, romantic love, dreaming, schizophrenia, the mid-life crisis and much more.
>>25225119>and have used them for my own practical benefitSure hope I can find more of that myself(not including raw introspection, always done a whole lot of that purely out of curiosity and self-awareness). The core concepts and obviously the typology are practical everyday things that now I can just see around without really having to think much about it, but I don't work in a field even remotely related to psychology, and frankly I can't say I would consider that. Firstly because I'm not that much of a people-person, and secondly because I'm not unaware of what's the academical stance on these theories. It would be an endless battle between trying to stay true to what I really believe in, and subjecting myself to what I consider way too reductive and potentially harmful to the individuals.
Jungians are subhuman filth.
>>25225169That's what he said yes
>>25225169You should hear what they say about you.
>>25225193Not him but, if by "Jungians" we mean people who attach some sort of religious meaning to Jung's research, and are more attracted by the symbolisms rather than studying these things purely in the context of an individual's psychology, then I don't particularly care about what they say.What I liked about Jung's books is the open-minded approach which allowed him to invest into the most "unscientific" material and the respect paid towards the individual.I don't think he holds any real spiritual truth, at best it's a purely empathetic stance on how much anything produced by the various subjects actually matters to understand the psyche. In fact he often argues that religious practices taken on their own mean literally fuck all, they only gain meaning through inner resonance and the reason for why they acquired a "magical" character is because at some point, that had happened for a certain number of subjects - all thanks to the collective side of the unconscious.
>>25225169Jungians are the most persecuted species of today
