| Revision as of 19:40, 8 December 2013 editYpnBot (talk | contribs)9,805 editsm added {{Vital article}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:48, 5 March 2014 edit undo159.118.158.122 (talk) →Nazi fascinationNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ==Nazi fascination== | ==Nazi fascination== | ||
| The Nazi section seems heavily revised by Jung defenders without giving the reader a chance to read the original allegations. These charges of Jung's fascination with the Third REich, even if false, should be spelled out loud and clear and not just rebutted from the get-go. 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | The Nazi section seems heavily revised by Jung defenders without giving the reader a chance to read the original allegations. These charges of Jung's fascination with the Third REich, even if false, should be spelled out loud and clear and not just rebutted from the get-go. 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| The focus of Jung's detractors with the false emphasis that he was a Nazi sympathizer belies and belittles much of his other work. It invariably is an attempt to discredit Jung via the tried and true method of character smear. ] (]) 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Untitled== | ==Untitled== | ||
Revision as of 15:48, 5 March 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carl Jung article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | ||||
|
||||
Nazi fascination
The Nazi section seems heavily revised by Jung defenders without giving the reader a chance to read the original allegations. These charges of Jung's fascination with the Third REich, even if false, should be spelled out loud and clear and not just rebutted from the get-go. 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.209.78 (talk)
The focus of Jung's detractors with the false emphasis that he was a Nazi sympathizer belies and belittles much of his other work. It invariably is an attempt to discredit Jung via the tried and true method of character smear. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Untitled
- Please place the newest entries at the bottom. A talk page is not a blog!
Archives
- /Archive 1: 2004 – August 2005
- /Archive 2: 2005 – April 2009
Hallucination
I have a problem with this factoid: "One night he saw a faintly luminous, indefinite figure, coming from her room. The head was detached from the neck and floated in the air, in front of the body."
This has no place in an encyclopedia. I think the above should be reworded in such a way so as not to imply that these sort of things actually exist. Perhaps it should be changed to "One night he claimed to have seen ..."
Flaviusvulso (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it does not belong, but I would favor incorporating a brief explanation of the family's move and his mother's problems into the previous or following paragraph and taking that paragraph out. Just my take.Rose bartram (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- These sorts of things do exist. The mind exists and its content is real, with its own kind of reality. Hallucinations exist, religion exists, etc. As Jung himself said, all the objects around us (chairs, computers, etc.) wouldn't be there if they didn't exist in someone's mind first. If "he" saw it, then "he" saw it. It was real for "him". If it's real as in consensual reality, that's another problem.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, according to conventional dualistic, materialistic, reductionist thought, material objects such as chairs and tables exist regardless of there being anyone there to perceive them. Would the chair exist if there was no human present but a rabbit was there? Hallucinations only exist in the mind. The wording of the article implies that the hallucination existed independently from Jung's mind which is clearly bat shit crazy. If there are no other objections I will amend the article accordingly. Flaviusvulso (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Before I get misunderstood, I'm not even worried about it. I just regret that some people decide to shorten the others' experience and access to descriptions of experiences, and do it with such absolute certainty. If you find these adequate or inadequate, that's just as fine by me! --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The Seven Sermons
An early writing by Jung, dating from 1916, was his poetic work, The Seven Sermons To The Dead ...
The Seven Sermons hardly qualify as poetry. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC) The Seven Sermons To The Dead was an early example of Jung's use of the technique of active imagination. It was never intended to be viewed as poetry.Analyticaljung (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Alcoholism section
One more revision needs to be made to this section, and I'm not sure of the best wording. The problem with the statement by Jung about an alcoholic from the Oxford Group is that no proof exists that Jung was referring Rowland Hazard. And if Jung was referring to Hazard, Jung's version is actually incompatible with Wilson's. In Jung's version, the conversation in which Jung refuses to treat the man and tells him to go back and be cured by Jesus again, occurs after the man has been used as an advertisement for the Group, and then relapsed. Nor does Jung say that he had just analyzed the man, or that he ever had (although perhaps he would have left that out to avoid identifying a former patient). So although the quote may have some relevance, it does not support Wilson's story even in its general outlines. It seems to me that there are three options which would be fair to the evidence: remove the reference to what Jung said, or provide a more complete explanation, or remove the claim that it refers to Hazard and supports Wilson's story. The problem with providing a more complete explanation is that it would take up a lot of space, probably out of proportion to its relevance. Does anyone have any ideas for a compromise?Rose bartram (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Carl Gustav Jung vs Carl Jung
In german speaking countries he is commonly referred to as "Carl Gustav Jung", which was his actual name. So I would suggest to change the page title to that instead of merely "Carl Jung".
- Except that, um, this is the English Misplaced Pages and Carl Jung is the more common usage in English-speaking countries. I'd say go make that comment on German Misplaced Pages, but it's already Carl Gustav Jung there. Who says nothing's perfect? Yworo (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In the English speaking old world he is known as Carl Gustav Jung. In the English speaking world I live in, if I were to say: Carl Jung, I found I got confusing glances. When I said Carl Gustav Jung I got immediate recognition. Anywhere I go I find the same, in the old world; English speaking! So it is untrue to say that; "In the English speaking world it is Carl Jung", perhaps because we are nearer to Germany.
MacOfJesus (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's right. Don't people finally realize what a huge disappointment C. G, Jung really was in his late years especially. The Red Book is worthless doodling of artistic nature. His opportunistic and scandalous behavior when the Nazis came power totally discredits his late work. And of the recent Jungians, there are a very few good ones. Maybe Scott Hyder is one of them. But essentially Jung succumbed to the collective psychosis he himself predicted. Also his analogies between Islam and Nazism are just plainly wrong and just feed into the current misunderstanding of Moslems. This is just a fact, and people still celebrate him as as a good psychiatrist, His teachers were much better, Bleuler and Freud really made a difference. But he just took the power that was due to the elimination of his jewish colleagues at the time. Also Jung's preoccupation with the occult more puts him into the category of Heinrich Himmler. That is also why, here in Switzerland, we don't teach him in schools. He became much more a cult personality than a scientists. Nobody questions his abilities but he had no integrity and he did not consider any political aspects or even philosophical and ethical consequences of his work and his affiliations. Jung is overvalued, clearly. We should rather focus on the work of other psychoanalysts such as Freud, Adler or Fromm. In fact, Fromm's critique of Jung was very accurate and fitting. Jung essentially became the desire for the mortuary of consciousness. ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC) To ring out the old year with some sentiments. Shouldn't we delete Jung altogether from wikipedia and put a swastika in its place? ML (I do sign this with my real name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei (talk • contribs) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you really want me to elaborate with regard to what really happened to the core group of Jungians, meaning the Institute here in Küsnacht? What became of those who followed Jung? Only a few very good ones in my opinion and in the midst of these talented people, raping analysts who had no respect for their patients. All what Jung followed in the end was a Nazism, that fell victim to his own analysis. Those Jungians then did not understand Freud anymore, did not even read him, became the worst and the most ruthless analysts ever practicing on the face of this earth. However, such names as Amann, Fergus, Hyder, Robin, Jacobi stood out as dignified members of the true Jungians while others sunk into the deep abyss of degrading consciousness and deceit. There was a line drawn and those who really understood Jung were able to reject him as well. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Wife's orgasm?
In the "later life" section it says " The marriage lasted until Emma's orgasm in 1955". Should this not be "her death"? Carpetphone (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
IPA
Someone has requested the IPA for Jung's name - I believe it is Template:IPA-de, but can someone please confirm this before I add it. Lfh (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand that his name is pronounced as you say: "Karl Gustav Young". This is certainly the way his name is pronounced in the English-speaking-old-world. Jung pronounced: "Young".
MacOfJesus (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Father Victor White
I recently started a page on Father Victor White - I shall be grateful if any readers could extend it above stub status (I thought here was where I would most likely find those with knowledge of him). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for starting this page. I'v left a comment on the talk page of Answer to Job. The letters are not easily available.
You know more than I do about him. Sorry. If I do come acorss anything I'll do my best to put it in.
Do remember though, that if the families are like this, they will be very conscious of copyright.
MacOfJesus (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I ask the Adm. and all: do not delete the page Father Victor White, as it is an essential auxiliary page to Carl Gustav Jung. The letters between the two are very important and the family concerned will not publish them, we believe for more money. They have only last month published The Red Book (Jung), at a heavy price! The letters started when Jung published "Answer to Job". All these Article pages are linked and are important. Do not attempt to delete. Study the subjects first!
I'v only come across one student/professor of this study who studied the letters in dept, as they were lent to him through a University, (conditions prevailed).
MacOfJesus (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
political views
I can understand how some of the rhetoric for the political views section would have been shifted to make the section more neutral, but I sincerely think that some of it was neutering Jung. I included the specific comment about Jung constantly referring to the state as a form of slavery because he really did chatter that much about how he thought it was a form of slavery. Im not jumping to conclusions or assuming premises. I figured someone would find that sketchy or not neutral, but I didnt supply 4-5 references with Jung talking about 'state slavery' for nothing.
Also, I don't think it is an improper synthesis or 'original thought' to say that he stressed the importance of the individual and his rights, that was the main thesis of 'The Undiscovered Self', the book sourced the most in that section. This is what the summary on the back of that book says just to help give you an idea; "In this challenging and provocative work, Dr. Carl Jung =one of history's greatest minds= argues that civilization's future depends on our ability as individuals to resist the collective forces of society. Only by gaining an awareness and understanding of one's unconscious mind and true, inner nature -"the undiscovered self"- can we as individuals acquire the self-knowledge that is antithetical to ideological fanaticism. But this requires that we face our fear of the duality of the human psyche- The existence of good and capacity for evil in every individual. In this seminal book, Jung compellingly argues that only then can we begin to cope with the dangers posed by mass society ("the sum total of individuals") and resist the potential threats posed by those in power." ProductofSociety (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. I would like to challenge the one who indicated on the Article page at the point of "Politics" to justify stating, there is an unfair influence.
Jung, would appear to me to defend the independance of the human mind and to identify any encrouchment on that freedom. Hence, his thought here would be true to what we know of him, as evident in his conflict with Father Victor White as seen in his opposition to privatio boni. Hence, I accept that this entry is true to Jung, I am less sure if it fits as his "political views".
MacOfJesus (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Influences
In the article page, underneath the photograph of Carl Gustav Jung there is a list of people who influenced Jung. In it should be "Father Victor White" who (according to Jung himself, was one of the few people who "knew the problems facing pschology in the modern world"). In the Article page of Father Victor White I'v written to this effect, and his influence on Jung and vica versa.
I do not think that I can edit that entry?
MacOfJesus (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I can! And I did!
MacOfJesus (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone has removed the declared influence of Jung on The AA. I quote here from the Article page from the paragraph concerning Alchololism:
"The influence of Jung thus indirectly found its way into the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous, the original twelve-step program, and from there into the whole twelve-step recovery movement, although AA as a whole is not Jungian and Jung had no role in the formation of that approach or the twelve steps."
Hence, Jung had an indirect influence on The AA. This is an important witness to his work with this form of adiction.
I propose to replace this entry at the place indicating: "influences" at his photograph.
MacOfJesus (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- The reason it was removed was that the link went to a disambiguation page, with a whole list of different entities abbreviated AA. Read the edit comment, it said as much. Yworo (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
So what do you propose? "Alcoholics Anonymous", or fully "The Alcoholics Anonymous Society". It is surely not an option to just delete. Also: "Father Victor White", you could say must be distinguished from "Victor White", (An Ace-Pilot), who lived at the same time. Hence: "Father Victor White" would be better than: "Victor White". This was a confusion that was sorted out last year and the article page "Father Victor White" was written. So too, "Victor White (flying ace)"
I am concerned with writing a true article page, true to history, and to Jung.
MacOfJesus (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Victor White is distinguished simply by linking to the correct article, Victor White (Dominican), which has been done. There is no reason to include his title in the link. Yworo (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What yard-stick is here? For if that is the case; then it should be: "Victor White, OP". & "Victor White, RAF". Clinicaly speaking this would be correct. To leave it the way it is then the titles are still in but at the end of the name not at the fore. So the stand you take is alogical.
MacOfJesus (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you actually studied the article pages in question?
MacOfJesus (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Bernard, the reason is because of the way Misplaced Pages uses disambiguation to resolve conflicts in article titles. Please read the page Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation to get a better understanding. Misplaced Pages:Article titles is also relevant, particularly WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME. -- œ 10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Can this article PLEASE get the book by Krafft-Ebbing correct
This article - erroneously - claims that Jung was inspired by the famous book by Krafft-Ebbing "Psychopathologia Sexualis" to study psychiatry. In fact, it was not this text, but Krafft-Ebbing's "Lehrbuch als Psychiatrie" which inspired Jung to study psychiatry - this information can be found in Storr, Anthony (1973) Jung. Fontana (one of the Fontana Modern Masters series of books). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Confusion of name
In the article page of Jung we see a reference to Father Victor White, whose article page was written last year together with another Victor White, an ace-pilot, both lived approx. the same time, and confusion occured because we thought they were one and the same person! The person that was confidant with Jung was Fathe Victor White. Hence, it is important to put in "the Father", as that is how Jung knew him. There are now two article pages one to each. To avoid confusion it is necessary to keep in "the Father". I was one of the people who wrote this article page, of Father Victor White. It is to the credit of the editors who sorted this confusion out, initally. Now we have to keep it that way, devoid of ambiguity.
MacOfJesus (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- How Jung knew him has nothing to do with it. We typically don't include titles, religious or otherwise, in article names or links. There is no valid reason to do so here. What matters in that the name links to the correct article. Yworo (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The content of the article pages explain. The student looking at the article page and printing the page off my not be aware of this. The Jung/White relationship explains further. We were confused before it became clear there were two people of the same name living at the same time. Again the content of the article pages in question explains.
MacOfJesus (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What yard-stick is here? For if that is the case; then it should be: "Victor White, OP". & "Victor White, RAF". Clinicaly speaking this would be correct. To leave it the way it is then the titles are still in but at the end of the name not at the fore. So the stand you take is alogical.
MacOfJesus (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you actually studied the article pages in question?
MacOfJesus (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Bernard, Please read this page: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. Also relevant to this discussion are WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME. Please read these pages to get a better understanding of Misplaced Pages's processes. -- œ 10:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank You, again OIEnglish, I have read them and see the criteria. What annoyed me was someone deleting without correcting, when that was well within their capacity and (I presume, brief). I understand that "The AA" could be associated with a lot of things, but it was quite clear that The Alcoholics Annonomous was meant. They changed "Father Victor White" to "Victor White" which of couse does link up up to Victor White (Dominican), but in the Article page under the heading: Influences, then it should be: Victor White (Dominican), as it is ambiguous the way it is, and that ambiguity is unworthy to the article page Jung.
So my valid reasons are: 1. Ambiguity, as the name could easily read, Victor White (Dominican), not "Victor White", as it is now! 2. This list of Influences of Jung are listed at the top of the article page and, this above all, should be clear and precise, as anything else is unworthy of Misplaced Pages.
I put in "Alcoholics Annonomous", but my entry of "Fr. Victor White" was changed, hence, I am reluctant to touch it again. Also it could be in alphabetical form, or time-related form.
MacOfJesus (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Paranormal
Did Jung have any faith in supernatural ? As far as I know Freud did not beleive that any entity does survive bodily death. But Jung's collective unconscious is some what near and dear to spooks...no ?
Jon Ascton (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see the article page Victor White (Dominican), it seems to give credence to the notion that he accepts this, for he said there was plenty of evidence for the Devil and others. You will see this under the section called: "The letters".
MacOfJesus (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
However, you could ask: "Did Jung have any faith?" He accepted Christ but only in a myth/reality sense, perhaps not as a faith, for he referred to the Gospels as propaganda (Answer to Job).
MacOfJesus (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So you could say that Jung accepted the existence of devil and demons, but not a faith in a supernatural. Certainly not "faith", in the sense of the consent of the will, or orientation of the heart to. He accepted these existed in a very real sense of myth/reality. So it would not be correct to say that he had a faith in supernatural. Such a free thinker could not allow his mind/heart to be governed by faith. He also warned about accepting country/goverment control of person.
MacOfJesus (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of those familiar with his works as they progressed see that he considered himself to be Gnostic. This was never explicitly discussed, but it is the most logical implication with his strong interest in the study of the early Gnostics, the way he spoke of Gnosis as a personal mystic path, and some interesting quotes such as in the 1959 Face to Face interview when asked "do you believe in God" his response was, "difficult to answer... I know. I needn't... I don't need to believe... I know." While a distinction can surely be made that Gnosis is different than Faith, in modern language, the distinction is difficult and Faith may be just as good a word as any for the phenomenon. I'm unsure if this is necessary for the article, though most Jung scholars should be aware of this element of his personal belief system, especially in later life. As for what a "free thinker" could allow his mind to do, that is speculation and limited in scope. Jung's psychological theories are extremely complicated and draw from many types of experiences. It seems logical that his personal spirituality would be just as diverse.
JDClaunch (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDClaunch (talk • contribs)
I do accept Jung as a believer in Jesus. I base my argument on his statement to: B. Wilson as stated in the article page under the heading; "Spirituality as a cure for alcoholism". I quote: "The above claims are documented in the letters of Jung and Bill W., excerpts of which can be found in Pass It On, published by Alcoholics Anonymous. Although the detail of this story is disputed by some historians, Jung himself made reference to its substance — including the Oxford Group participation of the individual in question — in a talk that was issued privately in 1954 as a transcript from shorthand taken by an attender (Jung reportedly approved the transcript), later recorded in Volume 18 of his Collected Works, The Symbolic Life ("For instance, when a member of the Oxford Group comes to me in order to get treatment, I say, 'You are in the Oxford Group; so long as you are there, you settle your affair with the Oxford Group. I can't do it better than Jesus.'" Jung goes on to state that he has seen similar cures among Roman Catholics.)".
It is not he/she who knows that they believe that believe. We don't know until put to the test. Discernment of thought as to what or not to believe in, is natural to the human mind and human will. Jung warned against putting trust or acceptance in State nationalism. This is a point made when referring to his acceptance / non-acceptance of the Hitler Regime.
MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Jung may or may not have had faith. That's besides the point. What we should be concerned about his questions. He is not trying to convince anybody about his faith. He is talking about the unconscious mind. Squarrels (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This point nobody disputes, and is taken. But man is one. Faith & trust; do they belong to the conscious mind or the unconscious mind? MacOfJesus
Please see the user page: Jungian interpretation of religion, and the discussion page of the same. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Jungian ideas are covered by both Psychology & Humanities not either
Hi, this subject was disputed, and I tend to agree against the OP. Humanism is discussed in Psychology in the first year of course work, and how could Jung not be, as some consider him a driving force between fanatics of various other vices - like AA. I know not how to add this from Wikipedias' Humanism to support my claims - into Notes and references? http://en.wikipedia.org/Humanism#cite_note-15 TIA. Mutuussentire (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- While it's good you provided a ref your change of the wording has introduced a sentence which doesn't make much sense. His work is covered in which Faculty of Humanities? The Faculty of Humanities of the University of Zürich?
- What does the source actually say? If the source says his work is covered in the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Zürich or whatever, I question whether this is of sufficient relevance to mention the article. If the source says it's often covered in humanties departments or faculties (which in some universities may include psychology anyway) thoroughout the world then we should say something like that (and it's likely of relevance), rather then saying it's covered in some particular Faculty of Humanities.
- If your note sure how to get the wording right, perhaps because English is not your first language then feel free to explain what you're trying to say and I'm sure someone will help you. Perhaps provide a quote from the reference you are using.
- Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The article page mentions him having an indirect influence on the AA, and explains the influence in the paragraph on Alchololism, in the article page, and naming the people he helped, who went on to found the Oxford Group and later became the AA. I think it is very clear and factual, not OTT at all. However, I am not clear if this is what you are referring to? Did you notice that when some wanted to come back to his Clinic, because of relapse, he would not let them; saying: I cannot heal you better than Jesus. Also, did you notice that Jung had great empathy with the patient. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could move the whole article to the section above the Contents?
130.130.37.12 (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by this. -- œ 10:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is this not a vandalism motivated point? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Alphonse Maeder
Hi, i am quite surprized about the fact this fellow isn't known on :en. See french article about this Jung's friend and other major funder of analytical psychology. --Prosopee (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Influence in Film and TV
Boggles the mind NOT seeing Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" listed under influences on film. There may not be a a more accessible way one can teach young people the importance of his ideas. The varying responses of the new recruits to the attempts by the drill instructor, to turn them into killers, (and how they play out throughout the film) are at the root of Jungian philosophy, and is an essential point Kubrick makes in the film. Really should be added to that section.
Respectfully, mbpinnyc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbpinnyc (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Criticism???
There should be a section for criticism. There is plenty to criticize considering many of his ideas cannot be scientifically understood. --72.82.17.84 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, there shouldn't. Criticism sections are deprecated. Typically criticism is integrated into the article where the ideas are discussed. Criticism sections tend to attract edit wars. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there SHOULD be a section for Criticism. He is a Kook, just like Freud. You know, the Cocain-addicted sexual deviant? And apparently Jung was just as deviant. And possibly Schizophrenic as well. Why should we consider them great? I say, let there be a Criticism section and God Bless it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.130.223 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an Encyclopaedia, not a critism forum. The Article page Hitler, would be open to such. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please refrain from adding unreferenced opinions see - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems very weird that one cannot criticize Jung at all. It is just not allowed. Although the work of C.G Jung is tremendous, it turned out to be some type of cult more than a psychology. Jung was not always right, certainly not. His analogy between Nazism and Islam is ridiculous and wrong. Who is guarding the page? Certainly not a Freudian Jung more an absolute Jung. Carl Gustav Jung was not an absolutist, certainly not. And even if he analyzed Nazism for the Strategic Services in 1943, it came a little late. And we have no reference to that either. I am starting an edit war. Just because his remark about Islam is wrong and a comment needs to be added to relativize this misconception. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) My comment was in reference to my addition: Jung’s remark proved his serious misconceptions of the Islamic faith since Nazi ideology was driven by pre-abrahamic symbols, paganism and the extermination of monotheistic religions including Judaism and Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody has said the Jung cannot be criticized. Notable, cited criticism may of course be added at an appropriate point in the article. However, it should not be put into a separate criticism section. Also, the criticism may not be your personal criticism. It must be verifiable criticism written by others. This is an encyclopedia, we don't make the news, we merely report it. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
True, but there are other entries here that are not verifiable or lack citation including that C.G. Jung worked for the Office of Strategic Services in 1943. Even basic disagreements between Freud and Jung (e.g libido theory) lack clarification. And, as I remember, I did NOT create a new criticism section; it was already there, and I added to it. And in general, how much can a criticism be verified? I did cite a source of my critique, namely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbslFJ96iaQ&feature=related (Schwarze Sonne - Kultorte und Esoterik des III. Reichs). Ok, that might not be academic enough. I keep on looking for a better one. Essentially, we can only rewrite and add somebody else's criticism? Right now, there isn't even a section where we could add newer thoughts and interpretations about what Jung said. So, basically we need to treat the C.G. J. monograph as a static entity.
Jung's remark about Islam and Nazism is in itself contradictory. -We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammed- Why wouldn't we know if he is already on the way? Maybe I don't understand what Jung meant.
I know people again and again try to find parallels between Nazism and Islam, and it is true that Mohammed did lead a warring faction, however, the analogy seems faulty considering what an important role the children of Israel played and play in Islam. What about all the great arabic intellectual minds of late antiquity and those who closely associated with Judaism? I think what Hitler wanted had absolutely nothing to do with Islam. The few moslems in Germany at the time were also deported to KZ's by the way (citation needed)(http://www.1001-idee.eu/index.php?id=3413&L=0) Nazi spiritual ideology was rather a product of germanic mysticism, and von List's esoteric ideas. In the end, the remaining Nazi Christians wanted to eliminate Abraham from the scripture altogether. Again, that doesn't look like a new Islam to me. And please don't be so harsh on me by threatening to block me from wikipedia. Of course, other contributions of mine have been taken out before, that's OK. I admit, I prefer to contribute to the science sections. Overall, wikipedia contributions are "organisms" that survive or die out depending on their survival and selection in the "natural" environment. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The key point in the analogy is "The emotion in Germany...". The whole mass spectacle that was going on. Not the ideological or esoteric mental dogmas of the leadership. So I think you're intellectualizing too much from that angle. Also, the quote itself is a fascinating picture of Jung's thought. There are plenty of quotes on Misplaced Pages that are "incorrect". That doesn't mean they were not in fact said by the subject, and well-known enough to be notable for inclusion. Mbarbier (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Most well-known works
Highly subjective statement as to Jung's most well-known works. How exactly can one prove these two works are his most popular? the paperback editions of 'Alchemy and Religion' and 'Alchemical studies' have in all probability outsold the two volumes cited.Norwikian (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
More influences on popular culture
Can someone more familiar with editing and article composition guidelines than I please add to the article the following:
Jung's teachings on the "shadow" and collective unconscious have been extensively referenced in several songs from the band TOOL, most notably in the track Forty six & 2, which also incorporates Melchizedek's theories on evolution of chromozone harmony.
The book "Between the Bridge and the River" by Craig Ferguson features Jung as a mentor to one of the characters through his dreams, and is an important figure in the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.154 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation of why my edit to the article was removed. (I had added on 26 Oct a reference to the Hellboy II film.) I'm still learning the ropes, and that was very helpful.
Mike-c-in-mv (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Mike-c-in-mv
Also, the Shin Megami Tensei Persona games are strongly based on his theories about the "persona" and the "shadow". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.79.106 (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Lasting Influence
The idea that Jung is only taught in intro psyc courses has no basis and is completely wrong. I will graduate in May with my MS Clinical Psychology and Jung is very much taught in both senior level undergraduate courses and at the graduate level. One can say he is "in many cases not taught" at these levels but in fact many are the professors that DO teach him at this level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.190.70 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jung's ideas are taught in some disciplines outside Psychology, for example, his ideas are taught in the Religious Studies Department at the University of Lancaster. If this article is to be fully comprehensive, this should get adequate reference in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I put in a few lines on the psychology of religion. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed for the Jung´s Influence in the Olympic Games
Hi,everyone.
Somebody wants to know where is the citation about that the Carl Gustav Jungs influenced in the Olympic Games. Well, pals the Misplaced Pages article about the Olympic symbols especially in the section "Olympic Rings" says the idea of the world wide famous symbol came to Pierre de Coubertin for the Jung´s conceptions of the ring besides from the USFSA emblems. Please I invite to read the link "This Great Symbol".
Good Luck to all from MX.Nekko09 (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Relationship with Freud
The article has these following lines:
Jung was thirty when he sent his Studies in Word Association to Sigmund Freud in Vienna in 1906. The two men met for the first time the following year, and Jung recalled the discussion between himself and Freud as interminable. They talked, he remembered, for thirteen hours, virtually without stopping.
Is "interminable" the right word? It implies the conversation was tedious, and seemed like it would never end. One would think if these two met for the first time and talked for thirteen hours it would be because they found each other's ideas stimulating.
There is a problem with the following paragraph:
"Jung was thirty when he sent his Studies in Word Association to Sigmund Freud in Vienna in 1906. The two men met for the first time the following year Six months later, the then 50-year-old Freud sent a collection of his latest published essays to Jung in Zurich, which marked the beginning of an intense correspondence and collaboration that lasted six years and ended in May 1910."
The above paragraph is internally inconsistent. He sent his studies to Freud in 1906, met him for the first time in 1907 and six months later they began a collaboration that lasted six years but ended in May 1910? Besides, Freud was born in May 1856, so would be 51 six months after their meeting, if they met in 1907 as the paragraph states. This webpage confirms that they met in 1907, and that the end of their collaboration was in 1913, which fits the six years of the article. Anybody who knows more about this, or has other sources, who can correct this paragraph? It's not my field of expertise so I won't change the page at the moment. MeDoc (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Jung Based Assessments
Paragraph 3 of this article gives the wrong impression that the MBTI is the only assessment based on Jung. I tried to make a gentle change - my first as an Misplaced Pages editor - but it was refused twice because of a lack of proof, which I understand.
Here is some proof:
A Google search on Jung Based Personality Assessments
Some specific other assessments:
This list can be extended a lot, but I hope it is proof enough to make my point.Robert.bosman (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Quotations in Introduction
The "by nature religious" quotation seems a bit vague for the introduction paragraph, where facts should be stated simply. Could someone elaborate on that excerpt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeBananaSlug (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a quote from the introduction by Aniela Jaffe to "Memories, dreams, reflections". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
question about research
I came to this article trying to find out which concepts and theories have been discredited. From the article it seems that basically none have! I find this hard to understand since the balance of his work appears to be untestable scientifically. This would put much of this work in the category of pseudo-science or even anti-science. Should there be some discussion on how Jung claimed to be a scientist but much of his concepts and theories are actually hard or even, in some cases, impossible to test? Yendor of yinn (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- That would be very welcome! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article should indeed cover this in detail. The current version makes it appear that Jung contributed his theories to the scientific world, and they were pretty much incorporated into the scientific consensus. My understanding is that contemporary psychology has rejected the great majority of Jung's thought, mainly because Jung didn't use statistics and his ideas are very hard, or even impossible in many cases, to put to any straightforward empirical test. Does anyone know of any good secondary sources that talk about this? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
"The Jung cult" of course gives insight in the reception of Jung, and his popularity in mainstream spirituality. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Anti-semitism
User:Primalchaos recently restored the following passage to the article, after I earlier removed it:
There are writing which indicate a possibly antisemitic attitude, where Jung spoke of Jewish weakness or their collective consciousness being undeveloped compared to German peoples. In 1918, he wrote the Jew "is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below. This chthonic quality is to be found in dangerous concentration in the German peoples.... The Jew has too little of this quality - where has he his own earth underfoot." And spoke of the superior nature of the 'Aryan' consciousness in 1934, saying "the 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish," and "The Jew who is something of a nomad has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development." Jung's ideas of consciousness tied with heritage and nationhood were similar to the German ideology of blood and soil, which heavily influenced Nazi philosophy.
Primalchaos, I would strongly urge you to re-read WP:NOR. What you have presented in that passage is your opinion of Jung, based on your interpretation of certain of Jung's writings, eg, "The Role of the Unconscious". That you have a source does not mean that what you added to the article is not original research, since OR includes personal analysis of primary source material. The "possibly" part of that first sentence may have been added in the interests of neutrality, but it frankly only suggests that you aren't sure of yourself. WP:WEASEL is a relevant guideline here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Jung
Prior to World War II, Jung was the leader of a secret occult lodge that pandered anti-Semitic myths of Aryan supremacy, Thule-style, lavishly funded by Edith Rockefeller McCormick, daughter of John D. Rockefeller and heir to the International Harvester fortune. Jung, who hailed from a family of clergy and believe himself a deity, was president of the General Medical Society for Psychotherapy, an organization that promoted Nazi eugenics policy in its journal Jahrbuch für psychologische und psychopathologische Forschungen, edited by Jung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.79.25 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Scanning "one-tenth of a millimeter at a time"
I don't really know how the scan was conducted, but think this description is overly dramatic and not helpful. (Aside: I read the original NYT article on the subject, hoping to find more information there--the same phrase is used there.)
Presumably the reference is to one of two things:
- (most likely) to scanning one page at a time, with each page maybe being approximately one-tenth of a millimeter thick
- (unlikely, imho), maybe the scanner is a progressive line scanner (not sure of the right description) that scans 10,200 pixels per line, and scans a new line every one-tenth of a millimeter. If it is, it is unlikely to have required the operators to do anything "painstaking" like manually advance the line scanner one-tenth of a millimeter between line scans, it is more likely the scanner automatically advanced down the page.
The phrase is not informative, and an effort should be made in an encyclopedia to provide a more accurate, informative, and simple description of the scanning process.
A Section is Missing
In a hospital in Switzerland in 1944, Jung broke his foot, had a heart attack and subsequent near-death experience, which had a profound effect on him. This article is omitting all mention of this chapter in his life. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- You mean this article? It's pretty shaky form what I saw. By 1944 Jung had been interested in occult, mysticism et cetera for more than thirty years, and had drifted far away from being the world's most renowned psychologist. trespassers william (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, because he had a lifelong interest in esoteric things that had overshadowed his psychological career, it's not okay to relate his 1944 report of an NDE here? If you understand anything about Jung, you know that such occurrences and interests of Jung's are part of an overriding goal of wholeness of the Self, of which his psychological career was one facet. Jung relates the experiences in his biography Memories, Dreams, Reflections. It's not just secondhand hearsay on the internet. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- "The Role of the Unconscious", vol. 10 (1918).
- C.G. Jung, "The State of Psychotherapy Today", Collected Works (Routledge), vol. so 1934)
- http://www.history.ac.uk/resources/e-seminars/samuels-paper
- Gods and Beasts, Nazis and the Occult, by Dusty Sklar. New York, Dorset Press, 1977
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- High-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosopher articles
- High-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Switzerland articles
- High-importance Switzerland articles
- All WikiProject Switzerland pages
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- B-Class New religious movements articles
- High-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles