Where is the neither option?! (N)

I think this is a promotional post for the two attached youtube videos.

I've created this videos for discussion. You are too sceptical)

I'm created this videos for discussion. — disspeach

What do you want to discuss?

I found the videos dull, and didn't bother to comment. I don't see the connection to Jung and Freud, but in other news, based on my understanding of their understanding and definitely not your videos, I prefer Jung. Now what?

This is a philosophy forum, where arguments and points for debate are written out. It's OK to provide links to videos and other materials to support such arguments but simply putting up few words and a link to a video doesn't constitute a post in my view. Furthermore it doesn't do justice to such a weighty topic, which, in any case, is a matter for psychology rather than philosophy.

I'm not philosopher, but It seems to me that Freud and Jung represents not only two ways of thinking but two "scenes" (I don't have better word) of method. I've tried to make the videos of how I understand these scenes and want to watch a reaction. Maybe some thoughts.

Well it is my first post. What I'm interested in is the structure of public speech which replies to some urgent topics like "Jung vs Freud" without any clarification of this confilct. Sorry, I'm not a philosopher, just interested of what philosophically minded people think

didn't bother to comment.

Well, sorry you feel that, but it's internet

It seems to me that Freud and Jung represents not only two ways of thinking but two "scenes" — disspeach

Well I will tell you very very briefly why I prefer Jung to Freud and see if it matches in some way your 2 scenes.

It seems to me that Freud is limited in his theory whereas the psyche is unlimited. Freud is in some sense the originator of the scientific approach to human nature, although his theories are largely discredited in scientific psychological circles. Jung, also largely discredited, but surviving in 'personality types', seems to me to present a more person centred, relational, and thus open approach. The archetypes are not mechanical. I am not a fan of scientific psychology, for reasons that you can explore in my recent threads.

seems to me to present a more person centred, relational, and thus open approach.

I've never understand this argument. Isn't it clearly political? This argument estimate psychological method by the liberal criterion

I am not a fan of scientific psychology

I'm too. And I've tried to show this in the "scenes". Psychoanalysis is presented as a form of violence in both of them. But difference is what and how victim speaks in those situations.

Oh right. I start to see what you are getting at. Now can you say something in words about the nature of the violence, and how it hopefully differs from, say, this discussion? To be a little more specific, if you and I have differing views, as I think is to some extent the case, can we engage in a non-violent way?

hat I'm interested in is the structure of public speech which replies to some urgent topics like "Jung vs Freud" without any clarification of this confilct. Sorry, I'm not a philosopher, just interested of what philosophically minded people think — disspeach

OK now I see. I studied a lot of Freud's essays as part of an arts degree, doing psychology, and also his general theories. I think Freud was obviously a very brilliant thinker and major cultural influence, but I never liked his absolute materialism and 'scientism'. Also I thought that he is wrong in ascribing all human motivation to 'libido', it is essentially another face of Schopenhaur's 'Will', or the drive to survive which animates all life (which is why it is a natural complement to Darwinism). I think overall Freud's influence on society and culture has been strong and often malignant, even if, scientifically, he is no longer held in high regard. The idea that 'repression is the cause of neuroses and unhappiness' and that libido is the main animating driver of human development, was one of the main sources of the so-called sexual revolution and one of the sources of 'identity politics' and Western culturally-approved hedonism.

Jung saw through Freud's materialism, and declared that Freud's obsession with sexuality was too narrow a base for a truly human science. Jung is a very complex character and his hardly studied at all in psychology or liberal arts any more, which I think is regrettable. I think Jung ought to be understood as representing a gnostic or alternative tradition in Western thought. That's one of the reasons why his work is thoroughly repressed in modern culture, his ideas are deeply subversive to the current cultural order. It's very hard to get an in-depth understanding of Jung, it takes a lot of study, reading, and requires deep insights. Check out the books of James Hillman, he's a very interesting student of Jung.

I don't pretend to be deep thinker but I think that there are some themes that structure public discussion in very strict way. If you, say, ask what democracy is you will get the very specific set of arguments from public (audience). That's how I understand violence (violence of discourse). I think In discussion if you don't want to produce violence, you should not to support discourse yourself. In practice it means to consciously avoid some obvious arguments and lines of thought.

Thanks for reply.

I think overall Freud's influence on society and culture has been strong and generally destructive — Wayfarer

I also don't understand this argument. It sounds like you are talking on political debates. What is this destruction specifically and why we are afraid of destruction in science (or philosophy) at all?

I don't pretend to deep thoughts but I think that there are some themes that structure public discussion in very strict way. If you, say, ask what democracy is you will get the very specific set of arguments from public. That's how I understand violence (violence of discourse). I think In discussion if you don't want to produce violence, you should not to support discourse yourself. In practice it means to consciously avoid some obvious arguments and lines of thought. — disspeach

That's a bit dispiriting. If we cannot discuss without violence, then it seems unfair to complain that Freud and Jung cannot manage a talking therapy without violence. You seem to make it endemic in all social relations.

But consider this. When I go to the dentist, he pokes about in my mouth and causes me discomfort. Yet I do not consider this intrusion an assault, and undergo it willingly. So I wonder if violence is the right term to characterise human relations in general and psychoanalysis in particular?

On the other side, though, I do see the potential for violence in the relationship that inevitably examines the faults, failings, madness, disorder, of the client, from the point of view of authority, sanity, and expertise of the therapist. It can be violent, but I don't think it must be.

if violence is the right term to characterise human relations

Maybe not. But I don't think that the violence is something bad in itself, it just a fact. And by that reason I would probably choose the side of Freud, because Jung propose something worse than the violence - the (I believe) fake liberation from neurosis through myth. Freud is more honest and he don't play with hope of patient. I think that you are victim of the violence (in this context) when you feel guilt for not doing something. If someone force you to go to the dentist it is violence but it is obvious so you can confront it. But if you feel guilty for not visiting dentist is more like hidden violence and I believe it more effective.

I would probably choose the side of Freud — disspeach

the fact that people advocating such views prefer Freud is a validation of my attitude, I feel.

Honest answer. That's why I like philosophers: they don't make me guilty for not leaving :)

Neither, I vote Fromm or Rank.

I prefer Jung, though by his own suggestion, he was an artist.

I think though, that the moment you give anyone more authority over your experiences, you've created a recipe for being gas lighted. Driven insane by being made to deny your own intuitions and accept someone else's about your own experiences.

I won't say "maybe I'm paranoid, because it is a certainty -- but besides offer perspectives and such, or as a consultant, I don't think that you should ever hold anyone as an authority over your own experiences. Psychologists are the only doctors that don't know anything about the organ they're supposed to be treating too. Neurological disorders can manifest in many different arrays of symptoms, and only neurologists can diagnosis what kind of treatment or medication would be appropriate. I also think that if the neurologists can't find anything wrong with you, then there isn't.

Neither, I vote Fromm or Rank.

Yep, Rank is pretty fundamental but I've never understand what people find if Fromm. Why Fromm is important for you ?

Driven insane by being made to deny your own intuitions and accept someone else's about your own experiences.

Thanks for reply. But let's say you have a symptom. For example, you feel the need to wash your hands every 3 hours. Isn't it a sign that your own intuitions of how your desire works failed.

I wasn't suggesting that neurological disorders don't exist, just that psychologists aren't helpful. Or at least aren't needed, though therapeutic they may be, like listening to music, or a brisk stroll.

Freud or Jung? I'd change majors.

Slightly more seriously, with the first one, given only ten seconds, I doubt I'd be able to come up with anything more than, "I'm the god of thunder--and rock & roll. The spell you're under will slowly rob you of your virgin soul."--In other words, I'd wind up quoting KISS lyrics. I doubt it would mean anything to them.

With the second one, that was far easier. I'd simply say, "Man, it's even worse than the beginning of the 90s--the Bills have made it to the Super Bowl ten times in a row now and they've lost every time!"--if saying something traumatic would work, that would do it. He's from Buffalo and a huge Bills fan. You don't schedule anything with him when the Bills are playing. He has to be in front of a TV and he won't brook any interruptions whatsoever. As I'm a Dolphins fan, this creates a (kind of) friendly rivalry for us.

bhaha, nice.

I didn't find the videos at all interesting or helpful.

Both men are irrelevant from the perspective of current psychological practice. Freud's ideas dominated the field up until the 1960s (a good 60 year run); Jung's ideas did not have traction as a therapeutic method, but he has been somewhat popular as a cultural vehicle. I would credit Freud with being more influential. Both Freud and Jung are worth studying, if one has nothing better to do, but other psychological theorists are more useful. Freud's schema was more complete than Jung's.

Pioneers can have brilliant ideas alongside some that are just plain cuckoo. Wilhelm Reich, one of Freud's apostles, cooked up the 'Orgone Box' which was supposed to concentrate psychic energy (one sat in the Orgone Box.) Nutso, to use the technical terms. On the other hand, his ideas about authoritarian personalities and adolescent sexuality are very substantial.

I think Freud was wrong about a lot, but some of his ideas about psycho dynamics (Id, Ego, Superego) reflect human behavior. The Oedipus and Elektra complexes are pretty much worthless, and men have a lot more penis envy than women do.

It is important to remember where Jung and Freud came from. Both were born in the 19th century--Freud I'm 1858, Jung 1875. Jung was Swiss, Freud was Viennese. Both were more or less bourgeois. The field of psychology really was hatched around this time. William James, born in 1842, was the first person to offer a "psychology" class in college. This generation created the field.

Didn't get it all right? Not to worry. We still haven't gotten it all right.

In siding so heavily with neurology, you are overlooking psychodynamics. Neurology will probably never explain why mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, have all the hostilities they sometimes have for each other. Or the unusual affection, either. Or how suddenly some people switch from being a nice sibling to being a total son of a bitch sibling.

I can't seem to keep my right hand on the proper keys today. I keep typing "m" when I mean "n". Who can better explain this? Freud? Jung? Dr. Neurologist? A deck of tarot cards?

Thanks for reply and things to think about.

Both were more or less bourgeois.

I accept that their texts was influenced by the social context. But (even being kind of leftist) I must admit that our current 'democratic' psychology (I mean these group therapies and neurology) is huge step back of what Freud did.

I think Freud was wrong about a lot,

I actually don't understand how such statements works, how they are valid.