-1

I was wondering how people view Analytical psychology, and a lot of the theories connected to it.(Jungian Psychology & Analytical Psychology are the same thing)

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    If you want to ask something like this here, you need a more specific question, that calls for the application of positions to a situation. We want to avoid a simple war of opinions, as that can only become circular.
    – user9166
    Jun 2, 2017 at 18:05
  • 2
    Hi and welcome to Philosophy.SE. Please take the time to take the tour. You may find that this question is not well received because it is inherently asking for opinion based answers. You can refer to the following guidelines to better understand the guidelines for asking questions for this forum LINK .
    – Eliot G York
    Jun 2, 2017 at 20:44

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Karl Jung is not a big deal guy in philosophy. His theory surrounding archetypes and collective unconscious might have influenced theories in literature, For instance, the theory provided the theoretical foundation for Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which became a bible for George Lucas and Wachowskis Brothers. So we can thank Jung for the births of Luke Skywalker and Neo. But when a philosopher looks at his theory, it is clear that Jung's theory is a copy of Plato's theory of Forms (archetypes) and the world of Forms (collective unconscious).

I am always eager to hear Objections!

Improve this answer
5
  • Thanks for that, I have so many novels that go on the philosophical and ideological end of Jungian psychology. (The Chronicles of Amber being one, great read, highly recommend) and I hadn't known about this little history, that was enlightening to say the least.
    – Micah-William Bunnell
    Jun 2, 2017 at 15:59
  • Thanks, and I am not bs-ing that Jung got the idea from Plato: Jung himself justifies his postulate of collective unconscious by appealing to Plato. And he had to since Jung's enemy was Freud who denied the idea of collective unconscious.
    – Nanhee Byrnes PhD
    Jun 2, 2017 at 16:44
  • 1
    OK, but Jung naturalizes Plato psychologically. So they are not saying anything like the same thing. If the Forms exist because of interactions between minds, they do not pre-exist life or thought -- shooting down a primary principle of Platonism. Plato would never accept that Archetypes arise from shared human experiences like having a parent or facing death. Jung presumes this pretty strongly. It really is an advance, in Philology if not in Philosophy.
    – user9166
    Jun 2, 2017 at 23:19
  • So Jung is important to critical and literary theory but maybe not so much to pure philosophers since it's just Plato? :) --It would be great if you could point out Jung's reference to Plato w.r.t. the collective-unconscious origins of the archetypes; I feel like that would add a lot here
    – Joseph Weissman ♦
    Jun 4, 2017 at 19:22
  • jung says "The Platonic world of ideas [corresponds to] Thinking and Sensation on the mystical level."
    – Nanhee Byrnes PhD
    Jun 4, 2017 at 19:48

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .