Was Jung a gnostic or taking inspiration from gnosticism? No cryptic bullshit please I'm in the middle of doing a thing.
He discussed some gnostic ideas but calling him a gnostic in terms of his identity seems off to me since he mostly had his own random ideas instead of subscribing to what gnosticism actually teaches or professes. Largely depends who you ask but most people would give you a wishy washy answer which counts as a "no"
>>42537177So Jung actually had the insight to realize that gnosticism like all religions is basically a map of the psyche in a way. Like when a car goes over a dirt path over and over again until it turns into a road. Religions are kind of like the wheel paths left in the dirt. They kind of map directly to the psyche. For example Christianity maps almost directly and exactly to lacans major theory and lacan stands on the shoulders of Jung as well
>>42537177Jung was basically a psychologist and not particularly religious. He was interested in spirituality in general and in alchemy and metaphysics and he tried, to some degree, to build a bridge to the "occult sciences".What he had in mind when he was talking about things like demons, gods, cosmic forces etc was something symbolic and psychological - but more powerful than just ideas, concepts and imaginations. He talked about Archetypes, forces in the psyche of humankind that are old and beyond the surface personality.People can be possessed by Archetypes, what shows as an actual possession, in a way that the Archetype overrides the conventional personality of the person and drastically changes the behavior. But it's not that these forces are seen (by Jung) as beings that exist outside the humans mind. It's a bit of a grey area between psychology and occultism.It's an interesting field to explore.
why are so many /x/oids obsessed with Jung of all people. He's just some nut who tried to incorporate a little bit of everything in his theory because it was about symbols and subconscious. Like of course he would utilize hermetic and abstract concepts.
>>42537254>basically a psychologistLiterally a psychologist. A student of Freud.
>>42537361Well he was more than just that, I would say. Freud had no spiritual dimension (and not talking about his connections to the pedo upperclass in Austria), but Jung had. He brought psychology on another level.
>>42537177He was taking inspiration from mysticism astrology in particular
>>42537353Hegel neitzche freud Jung lacan and zizek in that order and the esoteric gains if u can parse them are unfathomable, lacan in particular changed my entire life like some bloodborne insight shit
>>42537353>He's just some nut who tried to incorporate a little bit of everything in his theoryYes we know that he was an Aquarius
The most common guess is that Carl Jung was INFJ.People who argue for INFJ point to:Introversion (I): Jung explicitly described himself as introverted and wrote extensively about introversion versus extraversion.Intuition (N): He was deeply interested in symbols, myths, dreams, archetypes, religion, and the unconscious rather than focusing primarily on concrete facts.Feeling (F): Supporters argue that his work emphasized meaning, values, human development, and psychological wholeness more than detached logical analysis.Judging (J): INFJ proponents often associate his systematic theories and long-term vision with Judging.
>>42537361He wasn't a "student" of Freud. They were colleagues. He didn't study under Freud. They worked together to found the Zurich School of Psychoanalysis in Germany, until Jung split with Freud and founded his own Swiss school using his own methods, which became known as Analytical Psychology.You're thinking of Lacan maybe? Lacan was Freud's prize student who carried on his legacy and arguably expanded upon it in ways that are truly quite profound. At least as profound as Jung's work. Not to compare them or anything, but just, they were both great men who produced very powerful concepts that others before them hadn't really articulated quite as well.
>>42537726Jung himself stated repeatedly that he was a thinking type, and later on in his career he said he was a thinking intuitive type.If you search for it on youtube there is a very old restored footage of him in an interview with someone shortly before he died where he explains how the cognitive functions work, especially intuition, and he identifies himself as a thinking type.
>>42537382this^Bro wtf are you me? Holy shit, I've read every one of those and those are my heros, in that order as well. Goddamn. Based as hell.
>>42537177He accepted their beliefs why does it matter if he considered himself one?You people are obsessed with labels
>>42538038Ni and Ti makes an INFJ. I think his Te is usually understated though and rigid function models don't account for him well, as they don't for most people.
>>42537177Jung publicly leaned on intuition and experience, so maybe. Heard accounts of him being very direct and brief in exchanges even with associates.
>>42538657He was Ti-Ni, not Ni-Ti.Read Marie Louis Von Franz descriptions of the Inferior Functions. She was his colleague and favorite student. She objectively states Jung was a dominant thinking type, with inferior feeling. His feeling function was the gateway into his unconscious through which he discovered the collective unconscious and composed the Red Book.MBTI has given everyone brainrot. There is no such thing as Ti-Ne or Ne-Ti or whatever MBTI has brainwashed you into believing.Attitudes are not derived from functions as if functions are fixed to specific attitudes all the time and there are therefore 8. That is false. There are only 4 functions and that is it. There are also two general attitudes, extroversion and introversion, and those are completely independent of the functions entirely. A person is primarily either an extroverted type, or an introverted type, before you even look at their primary function. Then you look at their primary function, which will always share the same attitude as whatever their general conscious attitude is, habitually. That implies the general attitude of the unconscious, which will always be the opposite of whatever the general attitude of consciousness is. Then we can say what the attitude of the conscious function is, just whenever someone is making active, directed, conscious use of a function at any given time, in any given circumstances. That is how you determine what the primary function of preference is, and that tells you what the inferior function is. The inferior function will always have a "backwards" and "retarded" and "concrete" quality to is because it is "slow" and "awkward" and "foolish" and so forth. It is the "black sheep" function.Look, just read Marie Louis von Franz. I can't take anyone seriously who wants to argue with me and hasn't read her work. If you don't even know who Marie Louis von Franz is in the first place, shame on you for trying to teach people concepts you dont fully understand.
