It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who was better Freud or Jung

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I just wanted to see what people think about Freud and Jung
and which one did more for Psychology
please give your reasons why and if you think of anyone else please mention it
and if you were able to see one
which one would it be?
for me it would be Jung im am fascinated by his work you probally could tell by my avatar

cheers
love to hear your thoughts




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Jung for Prez


His work with archetypes are a true revelation. Freud may have made Jung's work possible, but Jung for the win.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I agree with you, Jung did more for psychology.

Freud was, IMO, a bit of a fraud. Calling him the father of modern psychology may be right, but one has to look at the state of modern psychology to know whether that label is a mark of honor or just the opposite.

When I read Jung I get a sense that he was a more thoughtful, patient, and considerate evaluator of the world around him, less inclined to force the world to fit into the boxes he had created.

I may be way off base, and there are many people with a better grounding in pyschology who would be more qualified to speak on the subject, but I think Jung is the man.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
thanks for the replys
so i guess you would want Jung to see you
me too lol



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I'll vote for Jung as well. Freud had some... how should I put it... issues with sex...



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Freud. Not because he was correct, don't missunderstand! But because as far as psychology is conserned, before freud there was nothing. This was the foundig father so to speak, the guy that came up with the inkling and means of trying to study something we can't see.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Would have to go for Jung ...



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Well as a Jungian-oriented therapist, you can guess how I feel.
Jung presented us (modern Western society) with an entirely new way of looking at life. He urged us to examine our Shadow (the dark side of oursevles) and knew that that was wehre we would make our most astounding changes. He addressed not just the mental aspect, but the spiritual as well. It is a 3-dimensional view, rather than the 1 dimensional which we see in the modern world. A tree is not just a tree; it is much more than that, it provides homes for all sorts of creatures, etc., you can do visualizations/meditations with it. When I started using Jungian methods with my clients, I immediately saw deep, big changes in them, not the surface ones produced by the rest of psychology. IMHO, I think psychology can do without the other theories. Jung doesn't address the client as if he's "sick" and needs to be cured by a "professional", as so many other psychological models would do. Jung's approach actually gets the clients excited about doing the work because they learn so much about themselves. It is also client-centered, meaning the therapy is not something that is "done" to the client, it uses the client's belief systems as a starting place and then explores their Shadow, the things that they are uncomfortable with about themselves. He teaches us that if we make friends with those uncomfortable things about ourselves, that we can then work with it to bring about the changes in ourselves we desire. He also uses imagery and symbols to communicate directly with the unconscious. Hope this is understandable, his views have always been very difficult for me to explain.

Lastly, it is a very non-shaming therapeutic process. Most other models deal with the client as a patient who needs to be fixed by the therapist and they rely on behavioral changes, but they don't create any big, deep, lasting changes with the client and meanwhile, the client is treated as a sick person who needs to get well. Not so with Jung, he thinks of it as an adventurous journey to learn more of the Self.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
ForestLady excellent reply you truly no Jungs work



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Jung, besides all that mentioned before, he´s the father of the new age.

If you haven´t read his biography, you should. Most of it is written by one of his students, but there are parts by himself too.
Astonishing insights and several statments about his frienship () with Freud too.

And there is an other book I´d recommend by one of his students:
"Female Mysteries". Pure illumination about the historic progress of religions.

Unfortunately I don´t have the (anyway in french) books at hand,
so forgive me if the titles are different in English.

As for Freud, it´s not true that there has nothing been before:
There are numerous books, covering anything of so called"modern" psychology, social behavior, ... from about 1750 onwards.
Most of them are forgotten unfortunately, they are in French or German, Russian or Polish and never made it to the English tongue anyway ...

One of my ancestors, a Psychiatrist, left about 30000 (!) hand-written pages when he died at the age of 42 (!) . He released a small part of his work, 6 books, between 1802 and 1809 and there are numerous others.
Freud had a wealth of sources and most of his conclusions are second hand.

As for Jung, he was looking in Shamanism, Mysticism, Religion and all the esoteric stuff from Eliphas Levi to Madame Blavatski.

Freud scratched the surface, Jung digged the gold.

May I add:
Following in the footsteps of Freud a man called Skinner (what could this name mean ?) came along, the father of todays Psychology.

"Oh god ... noooo ...", she cried, covering her head in horror ...



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Thank God Psychology finally became a competition sport.

When is the psych off between Skinner and Maslow. That should be a match up!!

I vote Jung on his imagry alone. Freud had the experience but Jung had the punch.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
As for the books I´d recommend (for everyone in conspiracies, religions and mysticism),
besides the usual of course:


- Memories, Dreams, Reflections, by Aniela Jaffe ( Jung´s biography )

- Women´s Mysteries, by Esther Harding ( about the origins of religion )


As for some statements about Skinner I´d recommend a Google search on anything
Timothy Leary (who was working for Skinner in the fifties) had to say about him.
Or, get "a picture" of Skinner on Wikipeda.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
~~

earlier i submitted a (to myself a pretty good post) which either got
'eaten up' by the server....or deleted (as in filed into the infernal
server not responding, 'purgatory')

I decline to save or copy these posts in response to a thread,
and i will, from now on, limit myself to the 'one liner' &/or lack-of-depth-replies....

it's just not worth the effort..............................................................................

Freud ties Jung,

think about it yourselves on how that was determined


i also said that philosophers Heidegger & Guiardeff (?spelling?) were large
in my 12-16 year old worldview



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CYRAX
ForestLady excellent reply you truly no Jungs work


Thanks for the compliment, Cyrax. I am honored.

To the person who says it's a tie between Jung and Freud: you need to explain why you think so, I would be interested to hear why you think that.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by CYRAX
ForestLady excellent reply you truly no Jungs work


Thanks for the compliment, Cyrax. I am honored.

To the person who says it's a tie between Jung and Freud: you need to explain why you think so, I would be interested to hear why you think that.

no probs



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngelaLadyS
Freud. Not because he was correct, don't missunderstand! But because as far as psychology is conserned, before freud there was nothing. This was the foundig


There's always been philisophical healing, an approach modern day psychology lacks, significantly.
As in, giving the person hope that there's something better than what occurs within themselves.
Today's approach seems to be one of limiting, rather than reaching.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Jung, by far. Freud had the disturbing obsession with everything relating to people wanting to have sex with their parents. Plus, he did alot of coke.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Yeah, that's what I mean when I say Freud seemed to want to cram everything in the world into his own model, which was created and defined by his own issues.

He was imposing his own psychosis on everyone else, or so it seems to me.

Anyway, I like the idea of a Philosopher Royal Rumble - someone get Celebrity Deathmatch's event organizers on the phone.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
"Anyway, I like the idea of a Philosopher Royal Rumble - someone get Celebrity Deathmatch's event organizers on the phone."

That would be funny



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
i think freud needing jung moreso then vice versa. plus, freud .. was sorta evil. his nephew actually and quite literally wrote the book on modern propaganda. jung's works still are timeless i continuosless read his works and am appriciative of them. i have a friend who is a psycology student and had a long conversation with her recently on who is better. we accumulated pound for pound, jung just owns freud. i forget the name of the works but jungs better works are hard to find.. my friend recently got the only book on him in all the libraries of canada.. i forget the name of it but it was awesome something to do with 'rex and regina'. Jung.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by scion1985]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join