This subverse focuses on topics of interest to the Western world from politics to high culture.
Free speech is respected here. Just please observe the following:
Please click New to see the most recent submissions.
Is Voat a fed nest?
Very possibly. Particularly in the system subs where brigading is possible. But this sub is an oasis from it. Their downvotes will have no effect on your CCP here.
We reserve the right to ban anyone we deem to be disruptive without notice.
If you are observed calling another poster Jewish on Voat you will be banned in this sub.
Sort: Top
[–] Quaestorr 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Mildly favorable. And I say 'mildly' mainly because it has been quite a while since I read something about and/or (can't even remember quite well), and this wasn't enough to have a conclusive opinion on him.
I like the concepts I do remember (archetypes, persona) and think that his approach to psychology is still applicable, as opposed to Freud's which has been mostly outdated (but has nonetheless left many traces in colloquial modern language).
[–] Hammish 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
My world view is very much Jungian.
Not in its entirety, but I believe his discoveries are closer to the truth than most.
However, I find it easier to understand his earlier works, then what he produced later in life.
[–] Oswy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
A great genius. A prophet.
[–] gazillions 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
He's probably the only one of his sort that I like. He had an instinctive understanding of understanding of human nature. What he had can't be learned. We could drown in all the people trying to emulate Jung. Freud was a shallow fraud that scraped the surface and then slapped a pretentious template over it to fit. His entire game was built around demonizing dissent of his findings. Horney, Skinner and all the other mid century analysts were cold and self serving. Jung had a non judgemental respect for humanity that saw the benefits in what we call faults and the deficits of our virturs; but that's what happens if you aren't judging I guess.
The Briggs Myers personality test seems to be based on Jung's work. To me it's another example of trying to copy a master. I don't think Briggs or Myers understood how much of what they parrotted came from astrology. (Most people have absolutely no clue what astrology is) If they had, they would have studied that, they would have had more rounded and original construction on their hands. You have to build your own foundation, and few do that.
[–] 9914215? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
All I know about him is that Jordan Peterson talks about him a lot. Jordan Peterson has a number of really good ideas about the world, and he often cites Jung. So for now the man is good in my books; I would have to actually read some of his works to properly decide, though.
[–] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I've read a few of his works. My opinion would have had more depth years ago but his comment in the Tavistock Lectures that he needed to teach his audience information they needed to even understand the info he was presenting is an issue I've found myself encountering repeatedly online and off over the years.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] Hammish ago
Plus one for retro fitting Freud into the Jung thread.