Pretty sure the part that we’ve moved way beyond was his somewhat central ideas that everything was sexual, relating to the penis or the lack thereof. Things like if you have a skat fetish you are into the idea of a phallic thing (poop) coming from the anus which then represents a reverse vagina, or oral sex is a man’s attempt to feed their partner with the penis acting as a sort of perverse breast- crazy coked out ideas like that.
He went much further saying everything’s a penis and women want to have them and thats why they’re so angry, (not because society has made life 10 times more difficult for women than it has been for men since the dawn of time). So one could see why a lot of poeple really don’t like him and toss his good ideas in with the terrible ones.
In my experience most of his ideas about the psychological processes (sub-consious motives, transference, displacement, projection etc.) that I mentioned and that you also touched on as well are still seen as valid and foundational to understanding psychological functioning.
He went much further saying everything’s a penis and women want to have them and thats why they’re so angry, (not because society has made life 10 times more difficult for women than it has been for men since the dawn of time)
Women back in his time wanted something that men had, the symbol that he used for that was the phallus. Much of the issue with understanding psychoanalytical lingo is to try to understand it on a level that is insufficiently symbolic. On that symbolic level, women getting the right to vote is literally them growing dicks. Magical wands that can make things happen. Don’t look for logic in that it’s pattern matching and association before getting filtered through logic, or notions of propriety.
I agree though that Jung was way better with that kind of stuff. Not Jungians, though, who by and large like to ignore that archetypes are the self-portrait of instincts, again, symbols, instead of things in themselves. As the man himself said: “I’m glad I’m Jung and not a Jungian”. That even goes for things like the shadow. It’s important to understand “the map is not the territory” not on the level of the map, but on the level of the territory. Yet another caveat, though: The reason so many Jungians don’t get that is because they neglect Freud and Adler. They all had their own foci, and trying to understand the symbolic (Jung) without the social (Adler) and individual instinctual (Freud) is bound to lead to mixups. Also kinda curious btw that when it comes to dissing those founding fathers people always forget Adler.
If you’re trying to say that he was using the English language in an intentionally misleading way, I don’t think it improves his credibility in the eyes of the average person. Responsible scientists know that words have meanings and if they’re going to use them in unusual ways, probably they shouldn’t, and if they’re still going to, they should damn well make sure they clarify everything in the preface.
The language comes directly from observed dream images. It would be dishonest to report dreams about phalli in a way that doesn’t involve phalli.
What the larger population did is essentially saying “nah that’s uncough we’ll pretend that none of that makes sense and that we never have any dreams like that”.
Things like say the Oedipus complex are indeed better conveyed to a general audience in terms of developmental psychology, a bit removed from raw instinctual images, but that doesn’t mean that those images are false or misleading. Humans have searched for non-icky ways to express that kind of stuff for aeons, to wit, the original Oedipus story, don’t blame Freud for saying “let’s cut that BS crap for a second and admit that there’s something here that noone is daring to talk about without layers of metaphor”. A patient’s interpersonal conflict won’t surface in sanitised images, sanitised language, you gotta allow the nasty and icky or all you’re doing is forcing the patient to repress.
Less ick around the will to power and things like overcompensation are just easy to spot in people, I’d say, the concept even entered everyday language without getting mangled up. Contemporary humans are attuned to the social sphere of things (alienation nonwithstanding) while the instinctual and symbolic are scary and foreign in their own ways.
Pretty sure the part that we’ve moved way beyond was his somewhat central ideas that everything was sexual, relating to the penis or the lack thereof. Things like if you have a skat fetish you are into the idea of a phallic thing (poop) coming from the anus which then represents a reverse vagina, or oral sex is a man’s attempt to feed their partner with the penis acting as a sort of perverse breast- crazy coked out ideas like that.
He went much further saying everything’s a penis and women want to have them and thats why they’re so angry, (not because society has made life 10 times more difficult for women than it has been for men since the dawn of time). So one could see why a lot of poeple really don’t like him and toss his good ideas in with the terrible ones.
In my experience most of his ideas about the psychological processes (sub-consious motives, transference, displacement, projection etc.) that I mentioned and that you also touched on as well are still seen as valid and foundational to understanding psychological functioning.
Women back in his time wanted something that men had, the symbol that he used for that was the phallus. Much of the issue with understanding psychoanalytical lingo is to try to understand it on a level that is insufficiently symbolic. On that symbolic level, women getting the right to vote is literally them growing dicks. Magical wands that can make things happen. Don’t look for logic in that it’s pattern matching and association before getting filtered through logic, or notions of propriety.
I agree though that Jung was way better with that kind of stuff. Not Jungians, though, who by and large like to ignore that archetypes are the self-portrait of instincts, again, symbols, instead of things in themselves. As the man himself said: “I’m glad I’m Jung and not a Jungian”. That even goes for things like the shadow. It’s important to understand “the map is not the territory” not on the level of the map, but on the level of the territory. Yet another caveat, though: The reason so many Jungians don’t get that is because they neglect Freud and Adler. They all had their own foci, and trying to understand the symbolic (Jung) without the social (Adler) and individual instinctual (Freud) is bound to lead to mixups. Also kinda curious btw that when it comes to dissing those founding fathers people always forget Adler.
If you’re trying to say that he was using the English language in an intentionally misleading way, I don’t think it improves his credibility in the eyes of the average person. Responsible scientists know that words have meanings and if they’re going to use them in unusual ways, probably they shouldn’t, and if they’re still going to, they should damn well make sure they clarify everything in the preface.
The language comes directly from observed dream images. It would be dishonest to report dreams about phalli in a way that doesn’t involve phalli.
What the larger population did is essentially saying “nah that’s uncough we’ll pretend that none of that makes sense and that we never have any dreams like that”.
Things like say the Oedipus complex are indeed better conveyed to a general audience in terms of developmental psychology, a bit removed from raw instinctual images, but that doesn’t mean that those images are false or misleading. Humans have searched for non-icky ways to express that kind of stuff for aeons, to wit, the original Oedipus story, don’t blame Freud for saying “let’s cut that BS crap for a second and admit that there’s something here that noone is daring to talk about without layers of metaphor”. A patient’s interpersonal conflict won’t surface in sanitised images, sanitised language, you gotta allow the nasty and icky or all you’re doing is forcing the patient to repress.
thats a good point. why does he get a pass?
speaking of disses though, that quote from old Carl is pretty brutal
Less ick around the will to power and things like overcompensation are just easy to spot in people, I’d say, the concept even entered everyday language without getting mangled up. Contemporary humans are attuned to the social sphere of things (alienation nonwithstanding) while the instinctual and symbolic are scary and foreign in their own ways.