I'm not saying that I agree with everything that they said, that they didn't have wacky ideas, that Freud didn't project himself on his work quite a bit, or that Jung's mysticism is not off-putting to many, but I think their core ideas are solid. It makes sense to me that the very core of our consciousness, the source of our most innate drives and fears, formed long before our brains developed the capacity for higher forms of thought, works on a more symbolic basis instead of a rational basis. Why are they considered to be pseuds, or to be more precise, how were they debunked by later psychologists? I'm sure there are many of you who are way more knowledgeable about this subject than I am, so could someone please explain that to me? Thanks.
Why are they considered to be wrong nowadays?
They both considered that men and women were psychologically different, which elicits a big REEEEEEE from the trannies infesting modern academia.
Discredited by stem retards because a lot of the assumptions they made about physiology don't hold up anymore. The essence of their insights is still useful though.
They presented themselves as scientists of the soul, yet their thinking was based on their own conjunctions and theories rather then on experimental evidence. Freund in particular had a cult following and had accused his critics with antisemitism.
i think more accurate it's less that they're wrong and more that psychology has developed beyond them. quantum mechanics doesn't meant that newton newton is wrong. modern critics act like freud and jung were working with the benefit of imaging technology that's only come into its own in the last few decades. we should admire the accuracy of many of their insights despite their (to our eyes) crude methods
additionally, despite half a century of pharmaceutical treatments it has become i think more than slightly obvious that outside of people with severe physiological issues most mental disease stems from a need to examine and resolve inner struggles and contradictions, which of course takes a lot longer than writing a prescription for whatever amphetamine variety is currently popular.
> theories rather then on experimental evidence
Jung's theories were the product of 20 years of psychotherapeutic practice. Freud had similar credentials. They were empiricists first and foremost. It's just that their subject of study was more elusive than in the hard sciences.
Easy: evolution of neuroscience.
>Jung's theories were the product of 20 years of personal anecdotes
Wow, it's nothing.
>he thinks reductive materialism is a substitute for psychology
Jung saw consistent patterns in his cases, which he formulated into a theory. The method was no different to a physicist formulating models of empirical phenomena. Also, you're a retard.
Wasn't Freud basically a Jewish activist?
Basically the Tim Wise of his day.
All the people smart enough to undertand them either went into industry or STEM. Psychology was left with people too dumb to build on them. Freud was a charlatan, but Jung's theories are like the ruins of the Coliseum in dark ages Rome. To go further, JBP is like some local wheat farmer that uses the ruined stones to build a shitty donkey shed
Their ethnicity and personal lives are irrelevant.
If neuroscientists were smart they'd be trying to map brain activity patterns to the psychic structures highlighted by Jung. What neuron firing patterns compose the anima, and stuff of that nature. But they won't because they're midwit niggers
Not according to their own worldview and philosophy.
Citation?
psychology hasn't developed beyond them. The five factor model is just obviously retarded, and DSM5 can't pin point mental illness any more than the humors can explain physical illness. You have people that shift from borderline to narcissist to bipolar to depressed because it's a fucking stupid framework vastly inferior to the models of Jung or even Freud.
Freud, Sigmund. A figure of fun. Loathe him. Vile deceit. Freudian interpretation of dreams is charlatanic, and satanic, nonsense.
On the contrary, neuroscientists think they prove a lot of Freud's theories thought to be wrong to be actually right. But of course they are mistaken, as usually.
>Five factor
>Retarded
Prove it wrong then kiddo
prove the four humors wrong nigger, it's self obvious
If you absolutely need proof you could take anyone with identical scores on each trait and show that they had different etiologies
Freud:
>“I am, as you know, cured of the last shred of my predilection for the Aryan cause […] We are and remain Jews,”
>“The others will only exploit us and will never understand or appreciate us.”
The entire psychoanalytic movement is basically a Jewish cult, more or less like Objectivism
no, but he sought to understand why antisemitism was a thing and discovered it was a brainlet coping mechanism, which it is.
And what do these personal statements have to do with his actual philosophy?
Anyone who isn't /pol/ can see that
>and discovered it was a brainlet coping mechanism,
That's very convenient. Sort of like when Adorno discovered that a heterosexual family unit is essentially fascism, right?
The background of someone matters when looking at his worldview. Is it a coincidence when Marx, Freud, and Einstein all share a similar tendency of radically shaking at the root of our basic assumptions?
I don't understand the 'projection' criticism of Freud. In terms of appraisal as well, I think he was come full circle from being overrated to now underrated. He is the most important blackpill philosopher after Schopenhauer and death drive is an interesting concept with a lot of applications. A classical Freudian approach is pretty versatile.
They made falsifiable claims without rigor. They made no risks, and anything that might have threatened their position could be hand-waved away with some trick of rhetoric.
brainlet filtered
Modern academia doesn't like the sort of individualism that Jungian psychology proposes.
Thousands of minds went into creating these philosophies going all the way back and even further than Ancient Greece. It's irrelevant what ethnicity, eye colour, favourite drink these people had in common.
The learned scholars of Zizek know that anti-semitism is pokemon go.
>Thousands of minds went into creating these philosophies
What? Psychoanalysis is entirely the work of freud.
Marxism is cooked up by Marx, Einstein theory is unique, none of this has anything to do with pre-existing philosophies.
Go ahead and look up their influences. One person living alone in the woods doesn't come up with an entire philosophy, its shaped by all thinkers. Marx's philosophy was basically just Hegel applied to materialism. Are you going to tell me that the idea of a materialism is Jewish?
Not only are they framed in response to existing movements (Marxism modeled in response to German Idealism and is hegelian in thinking, etc.) but simply saying that they were jewish does not meaningfully categorize the philosophies in any way, nor does it serve as an effective dismissal of them. Are you going to reject Spinozism for the same reason? Your approach comes down to 'me no like so it wrongthink'.
Give me one claim for arguments sake so we can see if your description fits the bill.