Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Carl Jung

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, 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.


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. -- (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-- (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. -- (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


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: / talk / contribs

Read The Jung Cult and The Aryan Christ[edit] 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)