jung or freud?
By jb78000
@jb78000 (15139)
September 23, 2009 10:58am CST
both very famous and very influential. freud's work in particularly has been largely discredited but i think there's something in some of his ideas. in particularly he revealed himself to be a man with a one track mind - biggest freudian slip of all time perhaps? so which of their ideas do you think make sense and which do you think are basically burble and why?
ps also can i get some credit for the enormous restraint i showed in not calling this 'jung at heart'?
3 people like this
4 responses
I'm afreud when I was junger, I did not study psychology, so I'm going to slip away without answering the question...@jb78000 (15139)
•
23 Sep 09
excuses, excuses - come on some of their ideas are so famous that even americans will have heard of them - what about oedipus complex? more of the vast stack of evidence that freud really was a man with only one real interest. archetpes, slips, bad puns, etc.
2 people like this
@dawnald (85137)
• Shingle Springs, California
23 Sep 09
I've read some about Freud and I even remember some of it, not so much Jung. And since I'm not as jung as I used to be, it will give me no joy (Freude in German) to go read about it. 
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
24 Sep 09
Jung all the way for me. Freud certainly deserves credit for starting the whole thing off, but his students far surpassed him. Of course mainstream psychologists refer to Jung as a "mystical philosopher", but for me his studies of psychological type, archetypes, and the anima/animus complex have been extraordinarily important. He does get a bit mystical at times, and can be very hard to understand, but in those areas particularly he is fairly plain. Probably it is the work of his followers in Type and Archetype that is his most important contribution.
Lash
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15139)
•
24 Sep 09
completely agree. yes, freud was innovative and what he started was taken up by others and vastly improved. i still find jung interesting, again obviously the psychological ideas have been developed further. i actually find his more mystical ideas thought provoking as well... also just realised that unlike freud only one of his things has entered lay knowledge - archetypes. is this because freud's work was more simplistic and therefore easier to understand?
@fruitcakeliz (2638)
• United States
23 Sep 09
You get a demerit from me LoL. i think you should have gone with your original title! Witty things such as that draw me into a discussion! (though here i am anyways...so i suppose it isn't really THAT important...) Unfortunately i don't know too terribly much about either of these men, so i have no valid answer to your discussion..sorry.
@wmraul (2552)
• Bucharest, Romania
23 Sep 09
Hardly Jung. he was a good psyhologist but he allowed himself to have a mix psyhology with phylosophy. Didn't study him to deep while i have disagreed his basics. Yet I see it quoted by other big names ... maybe one day I will get deeper.
Freud ? We may have miss the psychoanalise as science if he wouldn't have think to it and share it with us ... Not to mention he managed to be very good friend with the most famous frigid of all times, Maria Buonaparte 
@jb78000 (15139)
•
23 Sep 09
freud was a pioneer but some of his ideas were downright silly. and he did seem to have an unusually strong interest in one thing. jung i quite like - his ideas are interesting even if i don't go along with all of them. i also liked the bit in his autiobiography where he gets really stuck into freud.
