Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Talk:Carl Jung

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon psychology.svg

This Psychology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Jung and pseudoscience! Any refutation?

It is known that Carl Jung was a pretty crazy guy, I mean, he was psychologist but he believed in all sort of woo woo stuff, gods, mythologies, alchemy, ufos and so on. In my opinion he tried to join the imaginary dots of the irrational and by this way making men seriously doubtful about their psyche. What does the rational people think? Any refutation of this learned man's crazy ideas about life? I mean the "religious self" shit, the jesusinyou type of thing, why's that? To him it was all about religion, but he was a scientist! No real refutation of his theories are in the article, i think a serious logician, or psychiatrist or psychologist, or any debunker should do it, because this guy let theosophy and magic and woowoo ( that kind of "you are not what you think you are rationally, you are what occult says you are", which to me is a dangerous and fake idea)have a pseudorational (or at least an authoritarian point of view) side. I think a lot of modern "mystics" borrow ideas from Jung to get some kind of "scientific" thing going on, but was Osho for example, scientific? (Obviously not, but i'm just making a kind of reductio ad absurdum here) Heeeelp! :)

Gianga23 (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jung was NOT a scientist. At least I am not aware of anything where he applied something that might be called scientific methodology by today's standards. --2.206.101.34 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Noticeably sanitized[edit]

this Article was once very critical of Jung but it seems to have been edited without any discussion to remove all that. one might wonder why RW even has a page on the guy--100.8.151.24 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I second this. Carl Jung is very respected in various pseudo-scientific psychobabble/mystic circles for his cranky and unfalsifiable hypotheses, such as that of synchronicity and collective unconscious. He was also a lover of pseudo-science - during his life, he believed in pretty much every pseudo-scientific mythology out there - ranging from astrology to telepathy.
Having a page on here which sheds Jung's mystic pseudo-scientific theories in positive light is against our mission statement, and more has to be done to bring the scientific point of view to this page.--EternalSkeptic (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Science, pseudo-science, religion, myth... all are just merely words, what does it have to matter. Everything is Knowledge for the hungry-mind, my friend. --Actualrational (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
well, some words give you concepts with predictive capabilities, while others (including Jung's) just give you a headache. Or, to put it in your metaphor: some words are nourishing, and others leave the hungry mind still empty. --2.206.101.34 (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
What the above comment says is true and very wise. Some words like STEM, mainstream medicine, survival skills, history, analytical philosophy, feminism, postcolonialism, critical race theory, critical theory, nourish the mind and produce tangible positive good both physically, intellectually, socially, culturally, emotionally and mentally whereas some only act as worms such pseudoscience, heterodox economics, religion (both spiritual religions such as a Dharmic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism and Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and political religions like Nazism, Fascism, Jacobinism, and Marxism) only impoverish it and make vulnerable to hucksters and cult leaders.Jakester499 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

This is indeed way contrary and treats a fellow who approved of Astrology and faked data to support his emotional conclusions as though he is legitimate. — Unsigned, by: 108.167.51.181 / talk / contribs

This I agree with. He fabricated data, created a mysticist völkisch cult in the name of science, tried to legitimize the Hellenistic cosmology, abused patients emotionally and sexually, used confabulations and generally untestable data, sexist, believed in the paranormal, occultism, UFOs, and at best was no different than his contemporary Freud, which he is like in every way except for focusing on spirituality instead of sexuality like Freud, even though he burrowed a lot from Freud. He is essentially is like his mentor Freud in every way, and it is unfair to let him off the hook and tear Freud a new asshole. This video explains more https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDUkCT6VThIJakester499 (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Read The Jung Cult and The Aryan Christ[edit]

http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/jung_talk.htm https://www.hgi.org.uk/resources/delve-our-extensive-library/interviews/mysterious-jung-his-cult-lies-he-told-and-occult It’s clear that Jung was almost a borderline volkisch nationalist and a cult leader --Jakester499 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So he founded a psychological school of thought, had followers, and loved the occult. That does not make someone a cult leader. HairlessCat (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Without taking sides here The Jung Cult by Richard Noll has its critics too. DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Right, a youtube video, the highest form of intellectual confrontation.../s Jokes aside, this is the material they reference. And I know I should probably do my due diligence and not attack the guy, but my balls exploded when he stands to circlejerk about his own "personal affinity" with Jung based on the fucking MBTI (and his spiritualist upbringing). Bonus points for the most backwardly inane account of mental states and empiricism I have ever seen: this ain't no psychologist, he's a surgeon specializing on pushing woo.
You can even find some other criticism then, but they all feel phony once you get wind of the flip-flopping and stonewalling behind. Noll and others were bullied by the Jung foundation (so much so he had to abandon publishing his last book), and no shit he eventually turned the page in his life. --Mirh (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
What Mirh says the Jung institute tried to do combined with Richard Noll says in his books should be the closing chapter of Jungian psychology as for how this wiki sees Jung as just another crackpot.Jakester499 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Just another crackpot who is commonly regarded as one of the founders of modern psychology. We do care about the history of science. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Except he fabricated data, sexually abused his patients, believed in the supernatural, the occult, UFOs, psychic powers, völkisch pseudo-Mithraism, believed to have literally achieved an apotheosis, created a charismatic following, created some of the bedrock of the new age movement,. Honestly Freud was a massive influence on the history of psychology for talk therapy but we rightfully dismiss his ideas, because as they say, what was true about his theories wasn’t new and what was new about his theories wasn’t true. His sexism, Volkisch nationalism, superstitious beliefs led to the Antisemitism, Sexism, Cultural Appropriation, authoritarianism, and Bullshit of Jordan Peterson, Joseph Campbell, New Age movement, Men’s movement, mythopoeia, Strauss and Howe etc.Even if he contributed to the history of science, so did Freud and we rightfully tear him a new asshole. Same thing with Jung. Most modern mythographers and mythologists look at the differences between myths rather than the similarities, as the differences are far more telling than the similarities. He disvalued logic in the name of “intuition” and prioritized emotional reasoning over logical, rational empirical reasoning. His methodology was flawed, he fabricated or at the very least embellished details of his case of the solar phallus man, a patient he didn’t even treat himself. His teachings are taught in literature classes rather than in psychology courses. And rather than his teachings adapting to new data, instead his institute tried to be rigid as possible in its teachings, bullying Richard Noll for his 3 part critique of Jung. Like with Freud, most of his ideas are untestable, usually in the same way.Plus his ideas haven’t gone away, and if it wasnt pseudoacademic, than they certainly are now https://historypsychiatry.com/2016/08/15/interview-with-richard-noll-on-carl-jung-and-his-legacy/amp/ https://www.hgi.org.uk/resources/delve-our-extensive-library/interviews/mysterious-jung-his-cult-lies-he-told-and-occult https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDUkCT6VThI Jakester499 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I really am not an expert on Jung, but his reputation is gigantic next to his greatest detractor. Google his name and try to find this type of trash talk. It really doesn't matter what his private views may have been, his books speak for themselves. What have you read by Jung? If you havn't gotten to it yet, I recommend Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Jung's gross detractors are very clearly outliars. Long after Jung's Death, it came to light that Jung was a spy for the OSS.Allen W. Dulles, said of Jung, "Nobody will probably ever know how much Prof Jung contributed to the allied cause during the war." So, a hero has a thousand faces.. He was a very educated man who wrote books on speculative psychology. It is no surprise to me that appreciation for such writing is affected by the fashions of the time. They are not, however, pulp fiction, that can be easily discarded with bullshit claims.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)