1

I thought he was mainly a philosopher since his theories are mostly philosophical (or at best quasi scientific). Since he is rarely cited by philosophers it makes me wonder if he is considered a serious philosopher by researching philsophers?

  • 2
    Is Descartes "primarily" a philosopher or "primarily" a scientist/mathematician? What matters to philosophers is that he was, in particular, a philosopher. Who he was "primarily" is more of a question for biographers. Jung (like Freud) arguably focused more on psychology and psychiatry, that was his day job. He certainly philosophized, but mostly on related issues, which is a niche topic in philosophy, so philosophers would only cite him when that is what they are researching, see Jung and Philosophy. – Conifold May 24 at 23:29
  • 1
    @Conifold Isn't most of his work on the philosophy of psychology/psychiatry ? I have read very little of his work but it kind of gives me the impression that he thought he created some sort "algebra of the psyche" that later psychologists/philosophers would sort it's details out. It seems to me that later on his theories were mostly abandoned since most of the later researchers depending on their ability either found them too difficult/abstract to be able to decode and extend them or trivial/dubious to be useful to them. – GEP May 24 at 23:59
  • 2
    The boundary between theoretical psychology and applied philosophy of psychology is vague, and was especially in his time. Like Freud, he thought he was mapping unconscious psychological structures, and he branched out into other areas of philosophy even less than Freud. Some of his conceptions, like collective unconscious and archetypes, are philosophically current, and there is a revival of interest in others, as the linked volume indicates. It is fair to say that to date he was not as much explored by philosophers as Freud or Fromm, especially on the analytic side. – Conifold May 25 at 3:18
  • See Carl Gustav Jung: "was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who founded analytical psychology. Jung's work was influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, philosophy, and religious studies. Although he was a practicing clinician and writer and as such founded analytical psychology, much of his life's work was spent exploring related areas such as physics, vitalism, Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts. 1/2 – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 25 at 8:39
  • Jung's interest in philosophy and spiritual subjects led many to view him as a mystic, although his preference was to be seen as a man of science." 2/2 – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 25 at 8:39
0

No, he is not.

A good indicator for that is the fact that C.G. Jung does not have an entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. A man of his acamedic weight in psychology would certainly have such an entry if his work was considered influential in philosophical circles as well.

Freud does not make the cut, either. However, the much less broadly known Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt, for instance, is in. Not only is he considered the father of experimental psychology but he is also accepted as a philosopher of mind and, hence, as a philosopher in his own right.

In my opinion, in the absence of a deep empirical investigation into how many philosophical papers refer to Jung, this settles the case quite well.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.