Was carl jung red or blue pilled ?
black pilled
Somewhat in between. I have read almost his entires works over the last decade and my conclusion is that his writings are bluepilled but the man was redpilled. His take on alchemy is non-sense though, never made an ounce of sense to me. Ultimately Guénon's critique of psychoanalysis and Jung sounds right.
This.
Cringe but redpilled
Red booked.
>Ultimately Guénon's critique of psychoanalysis and Jung sounds right.
tl;dr?
hes a mix of green and indigo
He was just further proof that psychology is pseudoscience, but his philosophy is pretty interesting, worthy of a quick read. Perennialists work, such as those of Jung and Evola, cannot be falsified and therefore contribute nothing to science, no empirical truth, poor inductive reasoning, therefore its all just metaphysics.
All science started as a pseudoscience if you used contemporary definitions of what can be considered scientific. Psychology did start with a lot of emphasis on the esoteric and the metaphysical but that's absolutely not the case now, at least for the branches of psychology that are actually respected.
Psychoanalysis is 100% pseudoscience though.
Ok. We can all agree it's not science but was he into some truth ? With the shadow stuff and all of that.
That depends on what you mean by red-pilled. The metaphor has been perverted on Yea Forums so now it doesn't mean seeing reality as it is but believing in a distorted right wing narrative of the world.
Red pilled means red pilled. If you believe in any narrative you're blue pilled.
jung is the reddit of psychoanalysis
oh yea and psychoanalysis is useless btw
>jung is the reddit of psychoanalysis
i thought freud was reddit.
C.G Jung's observations concerning America:
>Another thing that struck me [in the American] was the great influence of the Negro, a psychological influence naturally, not due to the mixing of blood. The emotional way an American expresses himself, especially the way he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the American papers; the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro.[3] American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance. The expression of religious feeling, the revival meetings, the Holy Rollers and other abnormalities are strongly influenced by the Negro. The vivacity of the average American, which shows itself not only at baseball games but quite particularly in his extraordinary love of talking – the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this – is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village. The almost total lack of privacy and the all-devouring mass sociability remind one of primitive life in open huts, where there is complete identity with all members of the tribe.
red(dit) pilled
what a weirdo
Gigabased
>i fell for the peterson meme but i hate jung pill
Well with how into alchemy he was, maybe gold pilled?
Jung's comparison of Hitler with Muhammed -> pretty red pilled
"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.”
― Carl Gustav Jung, The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings
How is it cringe you dummy? Go suck some freud dick while you are at it
He's saying they essentially have the same archetype of nationalist, warlock that rouses and embodies the spirit of the people.
The question of personal characteristics and morality is indifferent, you could try to argue whether Hermes or The Joker are alike characteristically and end up emptyhanded except for a few generalisations but their archetype is unequivocally 'jester'.
Why yes, I am a muslim, how'd you guess?
I mean if you consider the parallels, Napoleon is also similar. I think that'd be a fairer comparison but still not do it justice.
These persons were followed by a legacy of conquest and the codification of their dogma into law, for better or worse.
Fuck Jung for making such a dirty, unfair comparison. Dipshit.
Shit talking lunatic. Also leftist by default like Beterson. All psychologists are.
Jung is cancer thru and thru. Ever notice how all of his followers are hollowing dullards with serious parental issues? Avoid, lest you end up joining those pestiferous freaks.
Freud's where it's at anyway.
t. bluepilled
White pilled
Empiricism is limited and science is stunted because of it.
He is. Jung is too nuanced for rebbib
Fuck off poopskin
retard pilled
Based.
He's right tho. Read some Hume.
I'm a psychfag. Current clinical psychology has nothing to do with neither Freud nor Jung. Their importance is historical, like Newton's for current physics.
Hurr durr me only believe in what grug can poke with a stick
Current psychology stopped treating trannys as victims of paedophilia and started saying it was metaphysically really a soul planted in the wrong vessel so shut the fuck up
Hume shits all over reason too though, if you go the Humean route you end up knowing absolutely nothing with any certainty at all.
Oddly enough, that's a smarter sentiment than pseudo mystical woo woo
And yet you live your life relying on that very same reason, and all the technology it produces
I believe you should go there and peek under the curtain of our percieved linear reality and then come back and choose to live in it. But you should never become a filthy empiricist and forget the breadth of the unknown and become drunk with arrogance and hubris based on arbitrary measurements.
>become drunk with arrogance
Says the religious man who claims to know everything
You mean claims to know nothing.
for jung, early alchemy was the expression of the neverending tendency of human mind to seek ways into which transform itself into something new. all he ever wrote about the subject was basicaly his argumentation for such hypothesis.
he himself said that his pursuit was different from sciences. he was not interested (much) in scientific knowledge but the meaning of spiritual conjecture in men through history.
You are right, I know about hume's problem of induction, but Empiricism gave us vaccines, deductive arguments gave us the holocaust.
Are vaccines and the subsequent inflation of the human population objectively a good thing?
Then why does he claim a monopoly on truth and morality? Seems to me a pretty dumb idea if you know nothing
>morality
>260
your post ends with 260. I find that particularly interesting because today is the 260th day of the year.
Whoaaaaaa synchronicity bro
420 blaze it
you can say the same thing for empiricism. You can't use Hume to attack empiricism without also attacking reason.
Fuck Bacon and the scientific method and fuck technology
So both gave us positive results?
lol
both faggot
No but seriously, isn't the point of psychology to study the blue pill? Weird question.
This is the most based thing I've read today.
idk freud was more based. Incest porn trending and feminists trying to step into men's shoes without creating that much original content suggests penis envy. I mean, a female James Bond, female Ghostbusters, female generals, females in movies and literature that can beat the shit out of gigantic men shows a serious pathological problem with women.
Junds analysis of myth and dream are far superior.
The big difference between the two can be summed up to Freud thought people are all experience and nurture and Jung thought people have atavistic tendencies or are more nature.
I think you could also argue that the whole female penis envy in story is mostly because in terms of the hero's journey the female is inactive. For a woman life happens to them, they don't go out and make their own path like men do. Even in sex they don't fuck they get fucked. I think it goes beyond sex itself and into mythological archetype. There is no females heros journey so all they can do is emulate the males heros journey which.
Jung was purplepilled. His writings are enjoyable, but his focus on spirituality and esoterism made his writings less scientific, but more of literary/spiritual worth.
Freud however is exceptionally based. Specially when you read his texts.
Baby stemstudent had his 101 in Science studies how cute.
Superior psychfag reporting in. It depends on where you study in the world. Freud is unavoidable in psychology the same way christianity is in western atheist countries today: It's widely implicit in the way we think: Mental representation of objects, drives, the subject as an hermeneutical centrum, how memories are charged with emotion etc. etc.
I see it more commonly used as something that is approved of with questions like 'Is this movie redpilled?' and such.
>"distorted" right wing narrative ≠ reality
Yeah okay man.
based
56%ers are seething at this man
>The vivacity of the average American, which shows itself not only at baseball games but quite particularly in his extraordinary love of talking – the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this – is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village.
Damn son.
t. still sucks on his mothers tit
>Reads and lectures about Nietzsche
>Redpilled on the Jewish question
>redpilled on the negro question
>redpilled America
You forgot when he told Freud to fuck off with his baby theories
100 years later and still holds true and even worse, the world is being negrified spiritually and materially.
sneedpilled
>His take on alchemy is non-sense though, never made an ounce of sense to me
maybe your IQ is too low?
yea historically alchemy has never made an ounce of cents
To follow a single person in any field is to be bluepilled regardless of the person you are following. Read everything, compare everything, Freud's psychology was utilized to create modern marketing/propaganda, regardless of the fights between who matters within psychology as a whole - instead of viewing each idea separately - it is all useless if you only choose to follow one of them, if you follow anything at all you have become bluepilled regardless of what you follow. To be a Freudian or a Jungian is to have lost by default.
Checked
good, take the skepticpill and rejoice in the knowledge of your lack of knowledge
Psychoanalysis is a method devised by the counter-initiation in order to render people incapable of spiritual attainment. I wish I was memeing but that's literally what Guenon's brainlet take on psychoanalysis is.
Jung is empirical retard. Empiricism isn't enough to be considered science though.
The man of culture finds the whole past relevant; the bourgeois and the barbarian find relevant only what has some pressing connection with their appetites. Those who remember alone have a sense of relatedness, but whoever has a sense of relatedness is in at least the first grade of philosophy. Henry Ford’s statement that history is bunk is a perfectly proper observation for a bourgeois industrialist, and it was followed with equal propriety by another: “Creeds must go.” Technology emancipates not only from memory but also from faith.
The typical modern has the look of the hunted.
Blue fag
The hero can never be a relativist.
The comity of peoples in groups large or small rests not upon this chimerical notion of equality but upon fraternity, a concept which long antedates it in history because it goes immeasurably deeper in human sentiment. The ancient feeling of brotherhood carries obligations of which equality knows nothing.
His relationship with Freud was interesting. They were close associates in the beginning and Jung viewed him as a teacher. They diverged once he got a full glimpse of Freud's system, which he called "scatological"-- it depicted a view of human motivations that was greasy, soulless, lustful and driven only by base instinct.
Jung in contrast believed in the sacred , that human motivations were inspired, at their highest levels, by universal archetypes steeped in the most earnest and spirited, hopefull efforts of human nature over all time.
Granted both thinkers were products of their time, and both ended up on decidedly different ends of the Nazi beast. Freud had every reason to believe people were driven by demons, while Jung was sitting at his nazi approved university desk.
That's a pretty crass misunderstanding of Freud. Freud is more about Logos and reason overcoming instinct.
It is characteristic of the barbarian … to insist upon seeing a thing “as it is.” The desire testifies that he has nothing in himself with which to spiritualize it; the relation is one of thing to thing without the intercession of the imagination. Impatient of the veiling with which the man of higher type gives the world imaginative meaning, the barbarian and the Philistine, who is the barbarian living amid culture, demands the access of immediacy. Where the former wishes representation, the latter insists upon starkness of materiality, suspecting rightly that forms will mean restraint.
The average man of the present age … does not want to be a sentimentalist in his endeavors; he wants some measure for purposeful activity; he wants to feel that through the world some increasing purpose runs. … But since his metaphysic calls only for magnitude and number, since it is becoming without a goal, it is not a source of distinctions in value. It is a system of quantitative comparison. Its effect therefore has been to collapse the traditional hierarchy and to produce economic man, whose destiny is mere activity.
The theory of empiricism is plausible because it assumes that accuracy about small matters prepares the way for valid judgment about large ones. What happens, however, is that the judgments are never made. The pedantic empiricist, buried in his little province of phenomena, imagines that fidelity to it exempts him from concern with larger aspects of reality.
It has been remarked that when one passes among the patients of the psychiatric ward, he encounters among the several sufferers every aspect of normal personality in morbid exaggeration. … As one passes through the modern centers of enterprise and of higher learning, he is met with similar autonomies of development. … The scientist, the technician, the scholar, who have left the One for the Many are puffed up with vanity over their ability to describe precisely some minute portion of the world. Men so obsessed with fragments can no more be reasoned with than other psychotics.
A man of culture I see.
During the early part of the Second World War there came to light the story of a farmer from the back country of Oklahoma—one of the yet unspoiled—who, upon hearing of the attack on Pearl Harbor, departed with his wife to the West Coast to work in the shipyards…. [T]he new worker did not understand the meaning of the little slip of paper handed him once a week. It was not until he had accumulated over a thousand dollars in checks that he found out that he was being paid to save his country. He had assumed that when the country is in danger, everyone helps out, and helping out means giving.
>Was carl jung red or blue pilled ?
I have no idea.
If you're red pilled you just can't beat this board, I've done it many times, and I'm still blue pilled on the rest of the side. What's a new player to do?
If you're blue pilled, don't give up, you've got some very effective shots that you can utilize, you just need to practice.
Can real alchemist make an ounce out of a cent?
slightly besides the point, but that painting is fucking cool.
Guenon's take on psychology was rather spooked. He seemed afraid of it, instead of rationally critical. He failed to see the good fruits that could rise from it.
>the problem with psychology
It comes from the terrible interpretation that psychoanalysis, freudian, that is, is an excuse for self-indulgence, since all problems span from repression of desires. However, in his five essays on hysteria, Freud declares that the idea is not unconditional fulfilling of desires, but making desires conscious AND THEN making a decision upon them -- now that you are conscious of your desires, you can decide if the repression made sense, or whether you could indulge that desire.
Sadly, most modern academia tends towards the latter instead of a balanced view. But this wasn't Guenon's criticism. This is my criticism.
>guenon's criticism of psychology
His criticism was actually one such that since initiation happens through the mind, and considers that which is revealed to be above the individual mind, then that it cannot be considered as something of the subconscious mind. However, this is more of a linguistic confusion than an epistemological or ontological one. The issue is, "subconscious" does not NECESSARILY mean "below ordinary consciousness", but rather "outside" of it. It is simple: you cannot be aware of all things at the same time. Attention requires focus. For that reason, many psychologists, Jung included, used the term Unconscious -- that which is ordinarily known by the conscious mind.
However, if you read Jung, it is blatantly obvious that although his Works are extensively erudite, he dumbed it down so that it may fit the scientific box. His goal was to make Depth Psychology -- that branch of psychology that deals with religious experiences as well as with the metaphysical nature of mind -- accepted as a scientific corpus.
>alchemy
Jung's works on Alchemy, mainly on "Psychology and Alchemy" and "Alchemical Studies" are deeply complex, and requires a mind versed in symbols, both felt and thought of. I could only understand part of it because I had been studying hermeticism for three years before I grabbed it, and even though most of remained opaque to me. To understand his commentaries on the nature of the Lapis, and the symbology of numbers in dreams, it was necessary for me to refer to Kabbalah as well as geometrical/numerological symbolism, and still I feel like there is so much more to be extracted from it. The Massa Confusa has to be separated before it can make sense. Only when all the Elements of the Massa Confusa have been thoroughly individuated can they be joined so as to bring about the realization of the Lapis.
>For that reason, many psychologists, Jung included, used the term Unconscious -- that which is ordinarily UNknown by the conscious mind.
fix'd.
good post. thanks user
What are you talking about? Are you on crack
>"pseudo mystical" woo
Go back to Rational wiki you tranny
Too much exposure of him on this board, he's going to get straw manned at this rate
Read all you can about his work
Based but bluepilled.
Napoléon is very different from these.
Another more similar would be Alexander.
Seems like new-age nonsense to me, just from reading "Man and his symbols".
Wasn't his academy just a giant scam and he was propped up by weirdo aristocrats?
>Wasn't his academy just a giant scam and he was propped up by weirdo aristocrats?
what?
Yeah Jung was granted a large sum by an aristocrat to open his own school or something and it was just a bunch of bullshit so he could be a new-age priest and absolve rich irreligious people of their guilt through psychoanalysis or something
E Michael Jones did a thing on it
Based and /pol/pilled
both Alexander and Napoleon tried to elevate themselves into near-godhood by means of conquest, both embodied a national spirit, Alexander even less so
Hitler is least like them all, but Jung just wanted to shit on Islam for keks
Just because the tech from empiricism is that gud doesn't mean it can ever be an all encompassing world view. Therefore there's room for metaphysical interpretation of the world. If you haven't found metaphysical views which are useful for yourself, then your just a coping brainlet (typical STEM materialist).
>E Michael Jones is sort of a retard himself when it comes to more esoteric topics
I agree
White pilled. Although, it's important to note that his best ideas—the shadow, its integration with the self and individuation—were just from Nietzsche. There is even a section in Human, All Too Human titled The Wanderer and His Shadow. The idea of the self as being multiple drives competing for domination of the others and integrating one's shadow into the self is all Nietzsche.
Does nietzche go in depth on the anima/animus and its integration after the shadow?
Nothing on the anima/animus. That idea is far-fetched and doesn't portray a very accurate picture of the self. The multiple drives that make up the self are genderless.
>the idea is far fetched
>archetype constantly repeated in mythology throughout all cultures and traditions
To me it sounds like Nietzsche lacks the depth Jung had on archetypal entities.
>muh archetypes
is there an archetype for platonic forms because it seems like people just won't give up on trying to force that dumb shit to come back
The shadow its self is an archetype, how can you be this retarded. Hell even the self is an archetype.
is there an archetype archetype?
Sure
Kek. The fact that people are calling you bluepilled proves your point.
>The metaphor has been perverted on Yea Forums
Ironically, the message was already perverted by The Matrix where the red and blue pills even come from. Baudrillard's point in Simulacra and Simulation was the same as Nietzsche's.
this post reeks of blue pill
I'm curious if there is a good starting point to read through Jung's essays and works, if possible. I've read through his Man and his Symbols stuff, and was curious if there was more that I could read.
Was he, really, towards the end? I know he got the boot for questioning his master, but did he really go black pill rather than drift into a fugue until he perished?
Absolutely based.
Next runner up is treating traditional male behavior as toxic masculinity and a mental illness that needs to go away.
what are some essential Jung books?
Actually it's a conception as old as man, most obviously seen in religiosity's such as the Occult. Jung borrowed much from it.
Man and his Symbols is actually a pretty bad introduction, it's made for the layman and so naturally bastardises his psychology with simplicity, the archetypes seem as toys. None the less Man and his Symbols is of the smallest fraction of Jungianism. Read the true introduction Modern Man in search of a Soul. The first couple essays are just the typical principles of dream interpretation, therapy and the likes. Each essay better than the last. Especially the chapter on literature. Anyhow. After that read Psyche and Symbol. Maybe Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Maybe his biography Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Things like that, until you want to have a completely in depth reading of Jung from start to finish you can never dive into Jungianism in whole.
In this order.
>Modern Man in search of a Soul
>Psyche and Symbol
>Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
>Memories, Dreams, Reflections
At this point you can continue to just read around or completely dive into Jungianism. If so read these:
>A History of Modern Psychology (Jung Lectures at Zurich)
>William James: Writings 1878 - 1899
>William James: Writings 1902 - 1910
>Or if you wish to skip reading the entirety of James' work you can instead read his Principles of Psychology
>The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud
>Psychology of the Unconscious (This is what caused the split between Freud and Jung and contains the seed of the rest of Jung's psychology in life, such as the archetypes, the collective unconscious, or even simply the respect of art as something in and of itself apart from individual representation)
>A Theory of Types
>Contributions to Psychology (I forget the name but Jung wrote a paper along the lines of this in the early 30's)
>Etc
>All the way to books like Essays on Contemporary Events and Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self
Once you find yourself in a sound standing read Liber Novus, or better known as the Red Book.
What thing?
>if you go the Humean route you end up knowing absolutely nothing with any certainty at all
If you go the Humean route then you lack certainty in things that are uncertain rather than maintaining certainty over things that are uncertain. The fact that this may be uncomfortable for an individual does not make it a wrong path.
This. Its always better to have the best of all worlds
Freud was a kike - what does a kike have to say about logos lmao
Is there any way to combine the two then?
Not really, Napoléon never went for this kind of hero worship.
He larped as Charlemagne most of the time. He recognized the authority of the pope. His ideas were of an administrative nature rather than charismatic. You could go on. Equating politicians like them to Alexander or Hitler is fucking retarded.
Pasteur gave us vaccines, massacres are done for empirical motivations. You may say they were wrong in their assessment but massacres happen after estimating empirically what people do.
Who's calling him bluepilled again?
>I'm a psychfag. Current clinical psychology has nothing to do with neither Freud nor Jung. Their importance is historical, like Newton's for current physics.
And this statement alone is why you should be let nowhere near another humans emotions and thoughts.
Based
I'm a psychfag and you're wrong. CBT is not the only way to go.
>tradfags
>materialists
>americans
>all shit on Jung
Didn't read him yet but this made me want to.
holy fuck i need to read jung. americans really can't shut the fuck up ever with their idle chatter.
I positively do not believe that Christianity is the only and the highest manifestation of the truth. There is at least as much truth in Buddhism and in other religions too. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. 1, Page 127.
>Alchemy
I bet you take his meanings of collective unconscious psychic networks literally too
Redpilled ofcourse
This is interesting, now i have a new rabbit hole to explore.
I fail to see that.
Why not let the modern bloodletters and poachers handle your kids? Are you perhaps spiritual or any other form of heretic?
Jung was an asset of the OSS (predicessor of the CIA) during WW2, he advised the allies on strategy based on the psychoanalysis of Hitler and co. His expertise was also used to some extent for the post war denazification process.
Either he was a plant before too or he changed his mind on Nazism when the war broke out. We may never know, most of his work for the allies is still classified.
>His take on alchemy is non-sense though
It's an allegory of individuation. Can you even fucking read?
hehe, you are trying really hard not to face truth now don't you?
Most redpilled thing I’ve read all year
>people in the thread actually value completely unfounded woo woo over empiricism
departure from justifying belief through the verification with observable reality is madness in it's purest form. Jung was completely debased
OY VEY - "The Post"
good luck observing the basis of your conscious experience retard
Kek
Interesting.
based
>believing in alchemy, ESP and astrology
>being red pilled
pick one
>taking a picture of your screen instead of a screen shot
Or it's a digital book?
Moron
This fucking guy was a living redpill
still a newb
Medievals all said that men carry an inner woman in themselves
It's not Platonic dualism. Jung maintains he is an empiricist throughout. You can have your thing in itself kept away from the inner working of the unconscious.
Medievals were evidently gay
>>
He also predicted WWI through his personal dream analysis
No u
>I am not addressing myself to the happy possessors of faith, but to those many people for whom the light has gone out, the mystery has faded, and God is dead. For most of them there is no going back, and one does not know either whether going back is the better way. To gain an understanding of religious matters, probably all that is left us today is the psychological approach. That is why I take these thought-forms that have become historically fixed, try to melt them down again and pour them into moulds of immediate experience.
you mean like electrical signals and chemical reactions in the brain?
Have a source for that quote? Might be relevant to what I'm working on and I'd need to cite it.
In the sense of a UML classifier, surely.
I don't see why it would necessarily have any profound meaning. Archetypes are meaningful insofar as they form the underlying framework of common behavioral structures observable in large subsets of humans. The question whether there is an archetype of all archetypes carries only epistemological ramifications.
Kant endeavoured to develop a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism, you should start there.
This is the best thing I have read in a while. Thank you user.
Nobody here gives a shit about what you are.
Have you ever seen scientific articles in journals of the social sciences? Most psychological and sociological research is just some silly surveys and then they do the statistical analysis to determine if there is a significant correlation. Pro-tip: the "scientists" adjust the significance value for their analysis so they are right. Most of it is literally LITERALLY pseudo-science.