Talk:Carl Jung: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:03, 16 October 2006 editCswrye (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,748 editsm Fixed WP Psychology tag← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:37, 2 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,868,644 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(735 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{{V0.5\|class=A\|category=Socsci}}
			{{Article History
	{{WPBiography\|living=no\|class=B\|priority=High}}
			\|action1=PR
	{{WikiProject Psychology\|class=B\|importance=High}}
			\|action1date=10:15:13 03 September 2015 (UTC)
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Carl Jung/archive1
			\|action1result=reviewed
			\|action1oldid=938530397

			\|otd1date=2017-07-26\|otd1oldid=792397056\|otd2date=2019-07-26\|otd2oldid=907900879
	::'''Please place the newest entries at the bottom.''' A talk page is not a blog!
			\|otd3date=2021-07-26\|otd3oldid=1035494282
	==Archives==
			\|otd4date=2023-06-06\|otd4oldid=1158771042
	]: 2004 – August 2005
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|listas=Jung, Carl Gustav\|blp=no\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography\|s&a-work-group=yes\|s&a-priority=Top\|core=no}}
			{{WikiProject Psychology\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=Low\|society=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Philosophy\|importance=Mid\|philosopher=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Top\|NRM=yes\|NRMImp=High}}
			{{WikiProject Switzerland\|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{Old moves
			\|title1=Carl Jung
			\|title3=Carl Gustav Jung
			\|list=
			*RM, Carl Jung → C. G. Jung, '''Not moved''', 8 December 2006, ]
			*RM, Carl Jung → Carl Gustav Jung, '''Not moved''', 14 November 2016, ]
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(365d)
			\| archive = Talk:Carl Jung/Archive %(counter)d
			\| counter = 4
			\| maxarchivesize = 150K
			\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 10
			}}

	== ~~Expanding this article~~ ==		== Influences ==

			He influenced Christopher Booker ] (]) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
	I would really like to see a bit more information about Jungs various books, and his interest in eastern philosophies. I would do it myself, but I'm not very knowledgable about Jung in general.
			:Add to Infobox if you can support it. ] (]) 00:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	Spellings and Word Meanings. I see that this page has the spelling "extroversion", but I believe that the accepted spelling today is "extraversion". Also, I should say that some one should establish a hyper-link or wiki-link to the word "extraversion", as this word has been defined in different ways at different times.

			The Christopher Booker citation has been added to the main text. It should be in the references. ] (]) 00:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
	I agree with this comment, the article remains sub-standard. ] 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

			:Your edit was not the correct way to cite a source. Please see ] and examine some existing Misplaced Pages articles to see how other editors have cited sources.—] (]) 01:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
	== Joseph Campbell ==

			==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
	Does such an outstanding thinker as Joseph Campbell only merit his mentioning through two pop cultural avenues like Star Wars and The Matrix?
			] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-07">7 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-04-26">26 April 2019</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ].

			{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	:I'd argue whether the line should even exist in the article, I don't think there's '''any''' evidence that his thoughts ''led to'' the Star Wars movies. It may be possible to look at them in a Campbellian or Jungian light, but neither ''led to'' them. ]
	22:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
	::Look at this (admittedly unsourced) quote from the ] article Mythology subsection: ''Lucas has stated that his intention was to create in Star Wars a modern mythology based on the studies of his friend and mentor Joseph Campbell.'' What is not stated in either article is Campbell's relationship to Jung. --] 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

			== Birth Name ==
	::Campbell and Lucas were in good relations. I read somewhere that Campbell recorded video documentaries in Lucas's ranch. If we try harder, I guess better evidence will come up. But do we need? --] 01:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
			Given that there is reference to his grandfather Karl and this guy is Carl, it is strange that in the righthand bio his name is
			<br>birth_name = Karl Gustav Jung
			<br>So is he Carl or Karl? (I suspect Carl based on a quick Google search, but that's not authoritative enough for me to just change it. ] (]) 12:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

			I have a biography of Jung in which it is said he was originally called Karl. I can supply the details when I have consulted this text. ] (]) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
	== Tech problem with HTML. ==

			==Biographies==
	For some reason, only on Carl Jung page, all of the carriage returns are lost and the words carry over endlessly to the right. The page is impossibly wide, and each paragraph is only one or two lines up and down. No other page seems to have this problem. I have IE 5.5 on Windows NT.
			There have been numerous biographies of Jung, quite apart from his autobiography ]. It would be good if the "Further Reading" section had
	Robert Moore, moved here ]. --] 16:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
			a sub-section which listed some of these biographies. ] (]) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

			== ] as a follower? ==
	:This happens if you leave a blank space in the first column of any line. It is a design "feature", not a browser problem. --] 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

			Paglia has mentioned Jung many times in her work and declared herself a subscriber to his theory of synchronicity in her work '']'' (1990). Wouldn't it be worth mentioning her in the Jung template as a follower or inspiration? ] (]) 09:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
	== Rumored... ==

			== Behaviour, Ethics and Reciprocity ==
	:Although Jung was wary of founding a "school" of ] — he was once rumored to have said, "Thank God I'm Jung and not a Freudian." — he did...
			C G Jung is credited with developing the psychological theory that what one does to others, is also what one does (unknowingly) to oneself. This may be extended and understood in all areas of human behaviour.] (]) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
	One of you two: cite a source. Better still, since I'm sure you'll find both, find out where it came from. Please don't add it back to the page, as at present it is unverified. --] 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

			== Family ==
	Google search supports "jungian" (which I reverted to) which also fits best with the context of the sentence. ] 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
			Is more than something to be said about his sons and daughters and their lives, mission and legacy?] (]) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

			== "Psychoanalyst" is a wrong descripion ==
	:"Supports" here is a single link. I think some firmer grounding is needed. --] 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

			{{u\|Almanacer}}, the first source I've used () states: "Between the years 1907 and 1912, when Jung was a psycho-analyst". He abandoned that technique after that, and the most neutral term to describe most of his life's practice is "psychotherapist". Also, quoting the second source (): "Freud (1914/1957a) asserted bluntly, psycho-analysis is my creation"; "He emphatically made the point that Adler and Jung should stop using the term. And, indeed, they did."; and: "If Adler’s response to Freud’s declaration of ownership was defiant, he nevertheless agreed to give up the term psychoanalysis. Jung, by contrast, at first entirely withdrew from organizational life. He resigned all institutional positions after resigning as president of the IPA, including his
	Please look more closely at the results - I saw 2 separate sources in my search. Another search found 2 sources on first page for "not a jungian"
			university professorship. He also abandoned the Zurich Psychoanalytic Society and only gradually found a way back into organizational life as an “analytical psychologist.”. Their respective pages are cited in the note. As it is, it seems you didn't even read the sources. You are the one allowing historical inaccuracy here if you think that "psychoanalyst" is the best term for describing Jung's profession! I'm in close contact to the field of research of both psychoanalysis and analytical psychology (and history of psychology in general). ] (]) 20:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Integral Leadership - The San Diego Ken Wilber Meetup Group ...
			:Also, if you think the word "psychotherapist" is anachronical, search also in the first source the terms "psychotherapy" and "psychotherapist": they were already the most general terms even during Jung's time. ] (]) 20:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Jung said once to his colleagues -- thank god I'm not a Jungian. Well -- I am not a Wilberian. http://kenwilber.meetup.com/261/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1610478
			::My contention here is not that, as you put it, "psychoanalyst" is the best term for describing Jung's profession and I accept that after breaking with Freud Jung ceased to describe himself as a psychoanalyst. I am arguing that since the article references Jung’s time as a psychoanalyst – as does the first source you cite – it is appropriate to have this in the lead where it is no more definitive of his career than the mention of him as a psychiatrist is or, to take a similar example, is mentioning in the lead on ] that he was a neurologist. I added clarifying wording to indicate the appellation was historic in its application. I agree that further detail and clarification are needed in the article on the break with Freud but would prefer it to be in the body of the article rather than in the form of a note (unusual for substantive content) and I will propose amendments accordingly in due course.
			::My reference to historical inaccuracy is to the account of Jung resigning from the Zurich Society. The standard accounts are that the Zurich Society disassociated itself from the IPA after Jung resigned the presidency (Jones Vol. II, p. 170, Clark pp. 335-36). They make no reference to Jung resigning from it. ] (]) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks for explaining now, {{u\|Almanacer}}. Indeed, consulting the sources, now I understand that the affirmation about the Zurich Society is inaccurate, and it can be properly removed: after the Zurich Group split, it was renamed "Association for Analytical Psychology", and Jung didn't abandon it. But the main question still remains: according to ] and ], we should prioritize the most noteworthy positions and roles. This involves proportion: the activity that characterizes Jung's fame and better represents his whole life was psychotherapy in general; his role as a psychoanalyst was "incidental" and is a subcategory of "psychotherapy", it should not appear first among the descriptive terms, as if representing the whole of his main activities and fame. While he was a psychoanalyst for 6 years, he went on to become a psychotherapist of his own for more than 40 years. Indeed, "neurologist" and "psychiatrist" are also "integral to the person's notability" (in the case, Freud's and Jung's); but psychoanalysis was secondary to Jung, when considering that the proportion of his notability was mainly derived from his independent trend and works of psychotherapy. I do not contend that there should appear somewhere in the lead section an affirmation that Jung was psychoanalyst for a limited period of time; but the most neutral and encompassing term that agrees with the criterion "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." and that should appear first is "psychoterapist". ] (]) 21:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::I’ve reviewed some of the relevant sources and find that in significant reference works psychology is the favoured description for the articles on Jung eg. ''Britannica'', ''Oxford Companion to the Mind, Fontana Biographical Companion to Modern Thought'', the latter written by Gerald Adler a notable Jungian scholar. So I have added ‘psychologist’ into the lead sentence (it’s already in the infobox). Important because it encompasses his theoretical work in a way ‘psychotherapist’ does not. I accept that ‘psychoanalyst’ could be seen as misleading, notwithstanding my clarifying additions. I’ve added a new short sentence consistent with the text in the article and amended the note as per your remarks. ] (]) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thank you very much, {{u\|Almanacer}}! The way you wrote is excellent now. Best regards! ] (]) 11:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::::You’re welcome. Thanks for posting here. ] (]) 13:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Legacy (last paragraph) ==
	::ANZAPT - Australia & New Zealand Association of Psychiatrists in ...
	::I should also add that I am not a Jungian (“Thank God I’m not a Jungian!” said Jung) but rather a “Jamesian”. That is, like many psychotherapists, ... http://www.anzapt.org/mambo/content/view/121//
	-- ] 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

			The last paragraph of the "legacy" topic (which makes up about 1/3 of all the words in said topic), to me reads as if it's trying to imply that Jung was actually correct all along, and the scientific community just wasn't ready for his theories yet. While I don't want to neglect the contributions that Jung did make to the field of psychology, and appreciate views challenging the status quo, I don't feel like this much attention or weight should be attributed to this book. As of yet, it has no citations (as found on researchgate.net) and I cannot find it on Scopus, and its author has a h-index of 3. Neither is a reason to dismiss the findings, but it is a reason to not (yet) embrace them as facts, and especially not to treat it as the new status-quo or zeitgeist in psychology.
	==Burghölzli==

			Personally I believe this paragraph might best be removed. At the least, how important this book and its findings are presented as should be toned back, presented as the fringe science that it currently is.
	Re THANK YOU. I want to thank everybody who participated in creating this wonderful article. Carry on the good work! So many new things to learn. Even for a native Swiss like me. Thank you for the heartwarming story of how the great scientist cured an Alcoholic. Thank you for letting me know about how he visited India and other far off places, and what interesting dreams he had there. Thank you for pointing out his influence on Laurens van der Post and all the beautiful albums and video games. Thank you above all for what you did NOT mention: the rumors surrounding Jung's Presidency of a certain ''Verein'' and a certain ''Zeitschrift'' 1933-39 in a certain country somewhere North of Switzerland. These are, of course, nothing but ugly propaganda lies, totally unfounded and UNSOURCED. Pure POV and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, spread by disgruntled students who flunked their exams and are now using the internet as their private little SOAPBOX to get back at their professors. Thank you for not lending your ears to these sinister calumniators!<br />
	One little question: Three months ago, when we came down from the mountains to visit Zürich, the ''Burghölzli'' (or '''Klapsmühle''', as Jung called it) was still in the city. But apparently it was moved in the meantime because, as the article states, it is now "near" Zürich. So I would be grateful if you could inform me of its new location. Also, while you are at it, you might indicate where, exactly, that other clinic, the ''Burgholzi'' (the one "in" Zürich according to the article), can be found. Looking forward to your answer.
	--] 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I believe an anonymous editor who thinks Jung to be a behaviorist changed it at some point to "near Vienna"; this is wrong, of course, but I may have only changed the city and not the preposition. Feel free to make any changes you see fit! --] 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

			Before making these edits, I would like to know the opinions of others regarding this matter, in part because I am not an expert in the field, in part because I'm not sure how to handle this in regards to "Misplaced Pages etiquette". ] (]) 10:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	Re CHANGES. Why on earth should I want to change anything in the article, Mgreenbe? As far as I am concerned, the article is PERFECT. An article has to document current opinion ("knowledge", in WPish). And this is what the article does, Mgreenbe.<br />
	The commentary (the discussion page) is another thing. I would have expected you to understand this.--] 09:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

	==Der Schoss ist fruchtbar noch, aus dem das kroch! (B.Brecht)==

	Re MAGGOTS. No one who understands German will fail to be moved by the powerful image of a cunt crawling with big fat maggots suggested by the closing lines of Brecht's ''Arturo Ui''. No translation comes close to it. Not the standard ''The womb is fertile still, from which this fruit was born'' (so flat and so genteel), and not the alternative ''..., from which this crept'' or ''..., that this crawled out from''.<br />
	Mr Ui and his henchmen are no more, Brecht tells us, but the "womb" that this crawled out from is very much alive: the '''IRRATIONAL''' i.e. the schools like the one founded by C.G.Jung that teach among other things that a man can acquire knowledge magically, i.e. '''ohne Sinnesorgane''' (no need for any of the senses) or even '''ohne lebendes Hirn''' (without a living brain, but a dead one will apparently do for the Herr Professor). It is hardly a coincidence that the real Mr Ui always claimed, and firmly believed, that he possessed a '''Sixth Sense'''.<br />
	All this, Bertolt Brecht showed us clearly. But it does not come across in translation. It cannot. A word like ''fruchtbar'' e.g. has no equivalent in English. Of course, it does mean ''fertile'', but it also looks and sounds like '''furchtbar''' (terrible, horrible, horrid). There you have it. There is no way around it. You have to learn German if you want to see the maggots.
	--] 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Jung on the numinous ==

	Does anyone know how precisely Jung's concept of the ] differed from that of ]? I'm trying to improve the article on the numinous, but it's been a while since I read Jung's view on the subject. ] 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

	:He sometimes uses the term to describe archetypes of a spiritual nature. And in ''Psychology and Religion'' (par. 6-9) he described Otto's word ''numinosum'' as "a dynamic agency or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will", so that the experiencer is "victim rather than creator." Then "the ''numinosum'' is either a quality belonging to the visible object or the influence of an invisible presence that causes a peculiar alteration of consciousness." However, he admits that many ritualistic practices are done with the purpose of producing a ''numinosum'' effect. He then goes on to define religion as "the attitude peculiar to a consciousness which has been changed by experience of the ''numinosum''." --] 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

	::Great, thank you for that, Blainster. I'll try to think of a way to incorporate that in to the article. ] 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

	== "Spiritualism(!?!) as a Cure (!?!) for alcoholism ==

	This Section clearly bears the mark of someone with no clinical background, and certainly, no objectivity.

	First of all, it is ‘Spirituality’ not ‘Spiritualism’ (there is a great difference!) Second, the use of the word ‘reform’ substantiates both of the above criticisms. Even Jung (with his own personal issues) would not refer to a patient as needing to be ‘reformed’ any more than he would refer to a diabetic as needing to be ‘reformed’.

	Blaming the patient! To convince someone with a disease that the problem lies with a substantial deficiency in their ‘self’ is unconscionable to a competent professional.

	I suggest the author of this section read some good, objective material on the life of Carl Jung. Jung could not, and would not, admit to not being able to help a particularly difficult patient; his ego and self-concept would not let him. His own struggles with the patient ‘Rowland H.’ (which is clearly the basis for this Section) are a classic part of the literature on Jung.

	If this Section must remain a part of the Article on Jung, I am very troubled by its present form. It needs to be reworked!
	:] 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

	If you can find some source material to back up your claims, by all means please add them to the page. I agree that the section is in need of clean-up. ] 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Page Organization? ==

	Seeing as their are pages on Jungian psychology, the order of sections in this page seems quite awkward. "Jung's Life" seems to occur in the middle of discussions of his theories. I think "Jung's life" and "Jung and Freud" should be moved to the top? ] 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	I disagree. Jung's life is significant only because of his thinking. A ''concise'' overview of his central ideas--that which makes him a relevant thinker in Western history--should come first, then the details of his life--which are of secondary importance to the history of Western thought. As far as your point (which is a good one) regarding the page on Jungian Psychology, I think there could be a good argument made for getting rid of the page on "Jungian Psychology" and just having one page. It would be silly to have one page on Aristotle and then a different on Aristotelian philosophy, or one on Shakspeare and another on Shakspeare's works. ] 17 May 2006

	== Photo? ==

	Does anyone know of a public domain photo of Jung? Perhaps one from when he was a young man that would be 100 years old by now? This page could use one. ] 15:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Talk Archive ==
	As part of a general page clean-up, I have archived all of the discussion that has been completed under the link above. ] 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Jung and the Nazis ==
	I have added a section about Jung's involvement with the Nazis. I have cited several sources and tried to remain as neutral as possible, marking it as something that is debated among scholars and trying to show both sides supported with facts. This topic is indeed quite controversial, but I feel that it can not be overlooked on a page about Jung. If anyone feels differently, we can use the talk page to discuss. ] 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	:Re CONTROVERSIAL. "Controversial", JKillah? Then please explain how far Jung (a Swiss citizen living in neutral Switzerland) would have had to go in his active support of Nazi Germany so that Misplaced Pages NPOV would allow us to call him a '''Nazi'''. What more could the Herr Professor have done without actually running afoul of Swiss law? Name one thing! --] 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

	Relax, Bruno. This is an editing community, not the ]. --] 04:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


	Re INQUISITION. In what way exactly am I interfering with the editing of what you call the editing community, Blainster? Did I make any changes in the article? Did I suggest or advocate any such changes? How many times do I have to repeat that in my opinion the article ought to reflect what is considered to be knowledge by exactly that editing community? If even a commentary is too much for you, Blainster, I can't help you. Well, maybe in a small way I can: Seeing how you and some other people here react to criticism in any form, shape or manner, it isn't exactly the smartest move on your part to bring up the word '''Inquisition'''.--] 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

	I have moved a couple of paras in here because I don't think they present a neutral or well researched viewpoint:

	Some scholars feel that Jung's reversal was not enough to compensate for his complicity in the "nazification" of pscyhoanalysis. Jung published several articles while working at the Göring Institute that claimed superiority for the "]", in particular that the Aryan race had a more "creative unconscious" than the Jewish race. Jung wrote a commentary at that time that can be considered ]:

	"The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development … In my opinion, it has been a grave error in medical psychology up to now to apply Jewish categories … to German and Slavic Christendom. " - Carl Jung (par. 27)

	In the first paragraph, a strong assertion is made, stating as fact that Jung published certain articles; I think an external link is required here to back up that assertion.

	In the second paragraph, the quote attributed to Jung is from an article that attributes that quote to Jung but gives no reference. If you are going to say that Jung said x, it is vital that you reference exactly where Jung said x. If you don't, then the best you can say is 'person x claims that Jung said y'.

	I'd like to add that I have no interest in brushing any complicity Jung may have had in Nazism under the carpet; I just think that allegations of such a serious nature really need to be made in more academically vigorous manner than they currently stand in these two paragraphs.

	Please bring these paras up to standard and then re-insert them into the main article. ] 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Definition of the Shadow ==

	Just a question here, but according to other sources I have read, the Shadow is not necessarily the diametrical opposite of the person's general character, as seen in the case here. It is defined as ''amoral'', being the remnant within our soul of our prehistoric animal past, the last of the instinctual habits which we can do nothing about, do not understand and can never get rid of. Because animals are not usually understood as ''self- conscious'' in the usual sense of the word, they are not usually considered either barbaric or gentle within their definitions, animals just ''are'', and thus came the definition of the Shadow as the amoral aspect of the psyche. However they ''are'' usually represented in apparently dark or unpleasant figures in our dreams, for they often disturb us with apparent ruthlessness, yet at the same time fearfully appears to be something which we can never deal with, whether courageous or else. ] 11:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Philip Pullman and Carl Jung ==

	Does anyone know if the famous author ] has an exceeding interest upon the works of Jung within psychology? Observe, for instance, his description and application of the concept of the individual's ]. It is drawing very close to Jung's own use of the animus and the anima! ] 12:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

	The concept of an "inner demon" should not be entirely attributed to Carl Jung, even though he certainly "brought it to the masses".
	] 08:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Jung & thermodynamics ==
	{{main\|psychodynamics}}
	I'm rather new to Jung. I know that Freud tired to model the dynamic mechanism of the psyche on the 1st law of thermodynamics (related to conservation of mental events) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (related to mental driving forces and conflicts of energy); does anyone know what books I should read to find such application by Jung? For example, in an introductory discussion of "the shadow" I found the following: ''“The person who suppresses the animal side of his nature may become civilized, but he does so at the expense of decreasing the motive power for spontaneity, creativity, strong emotions, and deep insights.”'' (Hall, C.S. and Nordby, V. J. (1999). A Primer in Jungian Psychology. New York: Meridian.) Subsequently, for example, what core book would I find Jung discussing such concepts as: ], ], ], ], ], ], etc.? Thanks if you can help: --] 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

	===Jung & chemistry===
	Does anyone know the date and source of the following Jung quote:
	<div style="font-size:125%">
	{{cquote\|The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances; if there is any reaction, both are transformed.}}</div>

	Thanks: --] 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Capitalization? ==
	should "analytical psychology" be capitalized? i dont think so. changing... - ]

	== The Cara ==
	Can someone help me understand the mysterious "the Cara " entries?
	Why is § 2.2 (which is relative to the relationship between Jung, Nazism and anti-semitism) titled "Jung and '''the Cara'''".

	Why is § 3.2, which is about "The shadow", bear in parentheses the mysterious caption "Fifth Business and '''The Cara'''"

	My Google search only delivered the following:

	'''What is Anam Cara?'''()

	"According to Celtic spiritual tradition, the soul shines all around the body like a luminous cloud. When you are very open ~ appreciative and trusting ~ with another person, your two souls flow together. This deeply felt bond with another person means you have found your anam cara, or "Soul Friend." Your anam cara always beholds your light and beauty, and accepts you for who you truly are. In Celtic spirituality, the anam cara friendship awakens the fullness and mystery of your life. You are joined in an ancient and eternal union with humanity that cuts across all barriers of time, convention, philosophy, and definition. When you are blessed with an anam cara, the Irish believe, you have arrived at that most sacred place: ~HOME~"

	Is there any connection? Am I on the wrong track? Why such mysterious input, with no explanation whatsoever in the main article?
	--] 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

	As nobody replied my questions about "the Cara" entries (see above), I have decided that they were deliberate obfuscation of Jung's links with Nazism and anti-Semitism, and "cleaned up" the main article accordingly.--] 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Memories, Dreams, Reflections ==

	So we can be clear on this, MDR is an autobiography, edited by Jaffe. The work started out as a biography, one which Jung was reluctant to have done for various reasons concerning feasibility. However, at some point, Jung became enthused, and started to write large chunks of it himself. As a result of this, Jaffe slipped into an editorial role, allowing Jung to tell his own story.

	All this is explained in the Introduction of the book itself. Bungling, if you have strong reasons for thinking it should be noted as otherwise, please explain them here. In the meantime, I've reverted the article. ] 08:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I will refrain from general exposition regarding my -- thoroughly justified -- alteration which does not necessitate "reasons". Perhaps the secondary literature on Jung ''in context'' would be the veriest suggestion, but by whatever means let us not waste our time on such a boring topic... too bad the "big guns" died before he could irradicate such "autification". Gruss, ] 10:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

	::I didn't understand anything after the first sentence, sorry. Justification does necessitate reasons; justification is built out of reasons. I'm happy with not wasting time arguing over it. But please, don't change the title of a sub-section I've created for the purpose of talking to you just so you can make your point. ] 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

	==Jung and tarot==
	I removed the reference to Jung using tarot. If he ever did, the evidence is lacking, although he was certainly aware of it, and his institute once considered using it as part of a study of several divination methods. The book titled just uses Jungian methods to analyze tarot and does not claim that Jung used tarot. This discusses the matter and finds no clear evidence that he used it. --] 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Recent anonymous edits ==

	I traced back and found a number of edits (starting with ) that seemed out of place. I put html comments around them, will someone who is more familiar with the subject please review his edits and remove the comments? --] 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:37, 2 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carl Jung article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 3, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 26, 2017, July 26, 2019, July 26, 2021, and June 6, 2023.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Psychology Top‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Philosophy: Philosophers Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Switzerland High‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Carl Jung

Discussions:

RM, Carl Jung → C. G. Jung, Not moved, 8 December 2006, discussion
RM, Carl Jung → Carl Gustav Jung, Not moved, 14 November 2016, discussion

Influences

He influenced Christopher Booker 193.1.86.99 (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Add to Infobox if you can support it. Errantius (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Booker

The Christopher Booker citation has been added to the main text. It should be in the references. 93.107.174.31 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was not the correct way to cite a source. Please see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and examine some existing Misplaced Pages articles to see how other editors have cited sources.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reidster12. Peer reviewers: Jjami70.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Birth Name

Given that there is reference to his grandfather Karl and this guy is Carl, it is strange that in the righthand bio his name is
birth_name = Karl Gustav Jung
So is he Carl or Karl? (I suspect Carl based on a quick Google search, but that's not authoritative enough for me to just change it. 47.186.47.121 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a biography of Jung in which it is said he was originally called Karl. I can supply the details when I have consulted this text. YTKJ (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Biographies

There have been numerous biographies of Jung, quite apart from his autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections. It would be good if the "Further Reading" section had a sub-section which listed some of these biographies. YTKJ (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Camille Paglia as a follower?

Paglia has mentioned Jung many times in her work and declared herself a subscriber to his theory of synchronicity in her work Sexual Personae (1990). Wouldn't it be worth mentioning her in the Jung template as a follower or inspiration? Ashton 29 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Behaviour, Ethics and Reciprocity

C G Jung is credited with developing the psychological theory that what one does to others, is also what one does (unknowingly) to oneself. This may be extended and understood in all areas of human behaviour.JohnEC Jr (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Family

Is more than something to be said about his sons and daughters and their lives, mission and legacy?JohnEC Jr (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Psychoanalyst" is a wrong descripion

Almanacer, the first source I've used () states: "Between the years 1907 and 1912, when Jung was a psycho-analyst". He abandoned that technique after that, and the most neutral term to describe most of his life's practice is "psychotherapist". Also, quoting the second source (): "Freud (1914/1957a) asserted bluntly, psycho-analysis is my creation"; "He emphatically made the point that Adler and Jung should stop using the term. And, indeed, they did."; and: "If Adler’s response to Freud’s declaration of ownership was defiant, he nevertheless agreed to give up the term psychoanalysis. Jung, by contrast, at first entirely withdrew from organizational life. He resigned all institutional positions after resigning as president of the IPA, including his university professorship. He also abandoned the Zurich Psychoanalytic Society and only gradually found a way back into organizational life as an “analytical psychologist.”. Their respective pages are cited in the note. As it is, it seems you didn't even read the sources. You are the one allowing historical inaccuracy here if you think that "psychoanalyst" is the best term for describing Jung's profession! I'm in close contact to the field of research of both psychoanalysis and analytical psychology (and history of psychology in general). Bafuncius (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you think the word "psychotherapist" is anachronical, search also in the first source the terms "psychotherapy" and "psychotherapist": they were already the most general terms even during Jung's time. Bafuncius (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

My contention here is not that, as you put it, "psychoanalyst" is the best term for describing Jung's profession and I accept that after breaking with Freud Jung ceased to describe himself as a psychoanalyst. I am arguing that since the article references Jung’s time as a psychoanalyst – as does the first source you cite – it is appropriate to have this in the lead where it is no more definitive of his career than the mention of him as a psychiatrist is or, to take a similar example, is mentioning in the lead on Freud that he was a neurologist. I added clarifying wording to indicate the appellation was historic in its application. I agree that further detail and clarification are needed in the article on the break with Freud but would prefer it to be in the body of the article rather than in the form of a note (unusual for substantive content) and I will propose amendments accordingly in due course.

My reference to historical inaccuracy is to the account of Jung resigning from the Zurich Society. The standard accounts are that the Zurich Society disassociated itself from the IPA after Jung resigned the presidency (Jones Vol. II, p. 170, Clark pp. 335-36). They make no reference to Jung resigning from it. Almanacer (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining now, Almanacer. Indeed, consulting the sources, now I understand that the affirmation about the Zurich Society is inaccurate, and it can be properly removed: after the Zurich Group split, it was renamed "Association for Analytical Psychology", and Jung didn't abandon it. But the main question still remains: according to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:ROLEBIO, we should prioritize the most noteworthy positions and roles. This involves proportion: the activity that characterizes Jung's fame and better represents his whole life was psychotherapy in general; his role as a psychoanalyst was "incidental" and is a subcategory of "psychotherapy", it should not appear first among the descriptive terms, as if representing the whole of his main activities and fame. While he was a psychoanalyst for 6 years, he went on to become a psychotherapist of his own for more than 40 years. Indeed, "neurologist" and "psychiatrist" are also "integral to the person's notability" (in the case, Freud's and Jung's); but psychoanalysis was secondary to Jung, when considering that the proportion of his notability was mainly derived from his independent trend and works of psychotherapy. I do not contend that there should appear somewhere in the lead section an affirmation that Jung was psychoanalyst for a limited period of time; but the most neutral and encompassing term that agrees with the criterion "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." and that should appear first is "psychoterapist". Bafuncius (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed some of the relevant sources and find that in significant reference works psychology is the favoured description for the articles on Jung eg. Britannica, Oxford Companion to the Mind, Fontana Biographical Companion to Modern Thought, the latter written by Gerald Adler a notable Jungian scholar. So I have added ‘psychologist’ into the lead sentence (it’s already in the infobox). Important because it encompasses his theoretical work in a way ‘psychotherapist’ does not. I accept that ‘psychoanalyst’ could be seen as misleading, notwithstanding my clarifying additions. I’ve added a new short sentence consistent with the text in the article and amended the note as per your remarks. Almanacer (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Almanacer! The way you wrote is excellent now. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Thanks for posting here. Almanacer (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Legacy (last paragraph)

The last paragraph of the "legacy" topic (which makes up about 1/3 of all the words in said topic), to me reads as if it's trying to imply that Jung was actually correct all along, and the scientific community just wasn't ready for his theories yet. While I don't want to neglect the contributions that Jung did make to the field of psychology, and appreciate views challenging the status quo, I don't feel like this much attention or weight should be attributed to this book. As of yet, it has no citations (as found on researchgate.net) and I cannot find it on Scopus, and its author has a h-index of 3. Neither is a reason to dismiss the findings, but it is a reason to not (yet) embrace them as facts, and especially not to treat it as the new status-quo or zeitgeist in psychology.

Personally I believe this paragraph might best be removed. At the least, how important this book and its findings are presented as should be toned back, presented as the fringe science that it currently is.

Before making these edits, I would like to know the opinions of others regarding this matter, in part because I am not an expert in the field, in part because I'm not sure how to handle this in regards to "Misplaced Pages etiquette". JHofma (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: