I read Campbell, and also Moore and Gillette, and found myself enjoying and agreeing with their analysis. Then I moved on to Jung but I don't quite 'get it'. Super easy for me to map symbols and archetypes to for the sort of myths and legends Campbell writes about but I can't as easily map symbols outside of stories. Am I just retarded or am I missing something?
>>25352861Jung is schizo nonsense
>>25352861Been trying to find a cheap, used SOFTCOVER copy of this for years.
>>25353613ive seen this a few times while thrifting. not really an uncommon book
>>25353630I only ever see the hardcover version.
>>25352861You can't just pick up a random book by Jung and expect to get it. You should start The Myth of Meaning by A. Jaffe or The Symbolic Quest by Whitmont. Then you can read Man and His Symbols, then Memories, Dreams, Reflections, and then you can start reading his other stuff, but for this you will need a certain degree of familiarity with the Western canon, i.e. the Greeks, the Bible, and interpretations thereof. If you have no idea where to start with this then get The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas, which, incidentally, has been endorsed by Campbell.
>>25352861Jung was a psychologist. His entire thing is that he is using myths to illustrate claims about psychic truth, whilst also claiming that the psychic instinct of projection created those myths in the first place. If you aren't aware of Jung's model of the psyche, the way people mature psychologically, or concepts like libido, enantiodromia, individuation, and the ego-Self axis, then you will not understand what's going on.The main point about archetypes in Jung is that they are part of our instinctive nature, not just a recurring theme or trope as some literary analyses show.Read Jung In The 21st Century in order to start mapping some of this stuff to what you might be more familiar with.
>>25353613https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/hero-with-a-thousand-faces-9781577315933
>>25353572FPBP>>25352861Try the Golden Bough, skip Jung
>>25354828Dipshit retard. Frazer was a hack who tried to subsume religion into his progressive worldview. It's so embarrassing that faggots like you will recommend books that have been systematically torn apart by proper criticism for over a century and reject serious work because it filters you. I guarantee you haven't ever done serious religious studies investigation.
