• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Carl Jung and Modern Psychology

Debater Slayer

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Tagging @RestlessSoul (after informing him I would, in order to get permission) and continuing a tangent from another thread:

Jung really isn’t useless, and it’s hardly his fault if modern psychiatry can’t find a use for his ideas. If it can’t, that may be as much a failure of the one as the other.

I think "useless" would be an oversimplified way of discussing his work, since it was a stage in the evolution of psychology as a field. "Outdated" and "[largely] discredited," which are the terms I used in my first post in this thread, seem to me more accurate. It's a fact that evidence-based psychology incorporates approaches and concepts that significantly differ from Jung's work, in much the same way that our understanding of biology has expanded and improved since Darwin's time. It doesn't make Darwin's work "useless"; just outdated and, in many ways, no longer up to par.

As for modern psychiatry, I don't see why one should assume that there's any fault with it for not finding much use for Jung's ideas. I think what matters is whether the current status of psychology, in which Jung's work is barely authoritative, is where the evidence has led modern psychologists. If yes, I think it is responsible on their part to not force his ideas into their work despite evidence that other frameworks and approaches better serve clinical and scientific needs.

Perhaps we could talk about this further in another thread, though, since this one is in General Discussion and therefore can't become a debate.

So, in a nutshell, my view is that Jung's work definitely isn't "useless," but much of it is outdated and not up to current standards of evidence, which is highlighted in the fact that current psychology courses and peer-reviewed work don't tend to regard his work as authoritative in the field of psychology. I also don't think modern psychiatry is to blame for not finding sufficient evidence to regard his work as such; experts don't have to force his work into their research if they don't find a solid medical or scientific reason to do so.

What are your thoughts, whether on the currently prevalent position in modern psychology regarding most of Carl Jung's work or on his work itself?
 

1137

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jung is outdated only in the sense that our cultural religion of materialism, reductionism, etc doesn't allow room for the realities he discussed. Empirical psychology isn't exactly in a great place these days, and ironically jungs acceptance of more than a deterministic, physical reality helps account for that.
 

Debater Slayer

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Jung is outdated only in the sense that our cultural religion of materialism, reductionism, etc doesn't allow room for the realities he discussed.

What do you think researchers in psychology should do? Do you think their general movement away from his ideas is unjustified even if they have found no evidence that could support most of his ideas and withstand peer review?

Empirical psychology isn't exactly in a great place these days, and ironically jungs acceptance of more than a deterministic, physical reality helps account for that.

What metrics are you using to conclude that empirical psychology isn't in a great place these days? And what evidence-based grounds should psychologists use to claim, in their capacity as scientific experts, that there's "more than a deterministic, physical reality"?
 

1137

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What do you think researchers in psychology should do? Do you think their general movement away from his ideas is unjustified even if they have found no evidence that could support most of his ideas and withstand peer review?
I'm not sure this is really true. For instance take Jung's concept of synchronicity. This is something very real that happens and can be used beneficially in something like therapy, even if there isn't anything "spiritual" behind it. Archetypes are another reality Jung discussed, or the power of symbols. I'm not sure he's as "debunked" as you make it seem.
What metrics are you using to conclude that empirical psychology isn't in a great place these days?
The replication crisis.
And what evidence-based grounds should psychologists use to claim, in their capacity as scientific experts, that there's "more than a deterministic, physical reality"?
What do you mean?
 

Debater Slayer

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not sure this is really true. For instance take Jung's concept of synchronicity. This is something very real that happens and can be used beneficially in something like therapy, even if there isn't anything "spiritual" behind it. Archetypes are another reality Jung discussed, or the power of symbols. I'm not sure he's as "debunked" as you make it seem.

I didn't say that he was "debunked" wholesale or that his entire work is irrelevant; I said that much of his work is outdated and not up to current standards of evidence. You don't have to believe me; you can look up the currently prevalent evidence-based therapeutic approaches and theories in the field of psychology. Why do you think he's not taught more widely as a central figure in modern psychology?

The replication crisis.

How does belief in a reality beyond the material and physical help with that? And even if it did, would it be scientifically sound practice for researchers to assert in their capacity as scientists that such a reality existed despite the lack of scientific evidence for it?

Personally, I think the question of whether such a reality exists is separate from science, but if someone claims that the two are related, they need to show evidence for that claim.

What do you mean?

Essentially the same thing I said above: I'm asking how researchers could go about asserting that there's "more than a deterministic, physical reality" in their capacity as scientific experts without running afoul of scientific rigor and standards of evidence.
 

1137

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I didn't say that he was "debunked" wholesale or that his entire work is irrelevant; I said that much of his work is outdated and not up to current standards of evidence. You don't have to believe me; you can look up the currently prevalent evidence-based therapeutic approaches and theories in the field of psychology. Why do you think he's not taught more widely as a central figure in modern psychology?
I think the simplest answer to this is Jung is at odds with this new religion of physicalism we have, and therefore heretical.
How does belief in a reality beyond the material and physical help with that?
Consciousness is not deterministic in the way matter is.
And even if it did, would it be scientifically sound practice for researchers to assert in their capacity as scientists that such a reality existed despite the lack of scientific evidence for it?
If they could/were allowed to put their religion aside they'd see the evidence is already there.
Personally, I think the question of whether such a reality exists is separate from science, but if someone claims that the two are related, they need to show evidence for that claim.
See above.
Essentially the same thing I said above: I'm asking how researchers could go about asserting that there's "more than a deterministic, physical reality" in their capacity as scientific experts without running afoul of scientific rigor and standards of evevidence.
See above. Engaging in authentic scientific rigor free of religious bias would solve the issue.
 

Secret Chief

Chief, not Chef
I think the simplest answer to this is Jung is at odds with this new religion of physicalism we have, and therefore heretical.

Consciousness is not deterministic in the way matter is.

If they could/were allowed to put their religion aside they'd see the evidence is already there.

See above.

See above. Engaging in authentic scientific rigor free of religious bias would solve the issue.
What religion?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Jungian Psychology has to be approached from the inside; first person, instead of the outside or third person way of science. As an analogy, doctors cannot look at a patient and know their level of pain. This can be repressed or faked. They have to ask the patient, since the experience of pain is only objective from the inside of a person. From the outside it becomes subjective. This is why the doctors have to ask; avoid his own outside subjective judgement and depend on the internal objectivity of the pain sufferer.

To approach Jungian Psychology you need to become both the scientist and the experiment, so you can become objective to the inner workings of the psyche, but from the inside. Consciousness has the ability to migrate around the brain, trigger things and observe internal output. To the outside; third person, this is not obvious.

As an analogy, say you never had a toothache. You can still do a science thesis on the nature of toothaches. You can collect external data. Would having a toothache added anything to this thesis? It adds the hidden things. Say you allow a dentist to drill a tooth, so you can have an internal experience. Experiencing a toothache will come from the inside; throbbing pain and mental confusion. This experience will add new things to the discussion, you will not get from just the outside, in the third person. One may even lose their objectivity, with the pain, allowing you to witness internal changes in the brain function that may be hard to write about, immediately.

Jung used a lot of collective human symbolism, from world religions, since all religions meditate and pray in their own ways. These actions are connected to the objective activities of first person introspection. If you get a nice feeling, it comes from within, and may be triggered by the prayer. The ancient way was more from the inside; neural tweaks and feedback. They mapped out the operating system some wrote it down as the symbolism of mythology.

Many Atheists in Science, hate religion, and they decided to throw out the Jungian baby with the bath water, since Jung's use of religious symbolism, alone, was a taboo, among Atheists. They could not give religion any credit for anything, so Jung was shunned. It is like trying to get published with a thesis, that does not support the man made climate change. Good luck.

If you look how messed up people have become; social anxiety and division, this shows me psychology is failing or being used more for negative things. It did not upgrade when it had a chance. Jungian Psychology is about higher human potential and not just about the needs of the increasing bizarre ego.

In terms of Jungian Thinking, the layers of the human psyche, starting at the surface begin with the persona or mask of the ego. This is the learned and rehearse part of you, that you present to strangers; style, attitude, make up, etc. The ego proper is below this and contain more personal information that is often shared and known only by family and friends; below the mask.

As we go deeper, we have the personal unconscious. This contains our personal memories which may also contain secrets and repressed things that may not be shared. Below the personal unconscious is the shadow. The shadow is the interface between the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. Like our shadow on a sunny day, the inner shadow follows us around and is sort of the unconscious extension. This and is called the ID by Freud. Most Psychology stops there, but Jung explored even the deeper layers.

If you can get past the shadow you enter the collective unconscious, which is connected to the natural genetic based operating system of the brain. Getting past the shadow was the scariest part since there was nothing to prepare me but I had to step with faith. It can trigger the fear of going insane. This animate strong irrational fear.

Below the shadow, is the natural firmware of the brain, and appears to have three layers; Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. The lowest layer is connected to our instinct nature; genetic male or female. The middle level is more connected to our emotional nature in male and intellect in females, while the highest layer is intellect in males; wise old man, and emotional nature in females; mother nature. The male and female firmware are staggered to mesh like gears, for cross programming leverage. Below that, running the show, is the inner self.

In my experience, trying to isolate and differentiate the archetypes, caused my mind to become very dissociated, where the line between inside and outside began to blur. I would be conscious in dreams and dreams would occur while conscious. Even synchronicity would occur. But there was tons of data. This culminated in a nightmare, where I met my shadow; sinister presence, and got past with a religious shield; defense. The sword of logic was not enough to quench the fear induced. That needed prayer to shield me as I got past, safely.

This getting past initiated a natural healing process that reintegrate my mind; 1000 fold distillation process. This new wiring, allowed my ego to have an interactive rapport with the inner self and the archetypes. I used to for my early creative writing projects. The some of my bible theories animated the inner self and things get intense; secondary uninstall and update was triggered.
 
Last edited:

Orbit

I'm a planet
Academic psychology has always been a mystery to me. At work, the psych faculty are on my hallway. They seem to thrive on doing experiments on undergraduates and then (in my view, wrongfully) generalizing the results to all of humanity. I have no problem with social psychology, which is a slightly different animal.

In terms of looking at symbols and human cognition, I personally get more value out of reading in anthropology (Claude Levi-Strauss, Clifford Geertz etc) and philosophy of religion (William James, Aldous Huxley).
 

Secret Chief

Chief, not Chef
1. Wikipedia isn't a great source

2. Ruling religious traditions generally don't produce accurate data about themselves or alternatives

3. How do you define religion then?
1. So pick one that is a great source and defines physicalism as a religion.

2. Irrelevant, even if true.

3. As something that doesn't include physicalism.

Globally, how many people identify as belonging to a religion called physicalism? A ball park figure will do.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Tagging @RestlessSoul (after informing him I would, in order to get permission) and continuing a tangent from another thread:





So, in a nutshell, my view is that Jung's work definitely isn't "useless," but much of it is outdated and not up to current standards of evidence, which is highlighted in the fact that current psychology courses and peer-reviewed work don't tend to regard his work as authoritative in the field of psychology. I also don't think modern psychiatry is to blame for not finding sufficient evidence to regard his work as such; experts don't have to force his work into their research if they don't find a solid medical or scientific reason to do so.

What are your thoughts, whether on the currently prevalent position in modern psychology regarding most of Carl Jung's work or on his work itself?
Laymen are the ones who promote Frued and Jung as thiugh the fields of psychology and psychiatry actually still take to them today. They've basically been relegated to pseudo intellectuals who think it's hip to go against mainstream science, but can't actually give reasons from within a scientific framework.
Just take a look around.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
At work, the psych faculty are on my hallway. They seem to thrive on doing experiments on undergraduates and then (in my view, wrongfully) generalizing the results to all of humanity.
My psych profs were very open thaylt students are among the most easily reqruitable amd readily available for research amd thats an issue because it means a lot of research has only captured specific demographs and not a wider public.
 

1137

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. So pick one that is a great source and defines physicalism as a religion.
A good starting place might be "Why Materialism is Baloney" by Bernardo Kastrup
2. Irrelevant, even if true.
Completely relevant, physicalism as a ruling tradition is hard to find criticism for.
3. As something that doesn't include physicalism.
Ah so begging the question right?
Globally, how many people identify as belonging to a religion called physicalism? A ball park figure will do.
I have no idea, but the last number I saw was over 50% of academia.
 

1137

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Laymen are the ones who promote Frued and Jung as thiugh the fields of psychology and psychiatry actually still take to them today. They've basically been relegated to pseudo intellectuals who think it's hip to go against mainstream science, but can't actually give reasons from within a scientific framework.
Just take a look around.
This simply isn't true. My background is psych science and several years in social work, and ideas rooted in both men are still discussed. This can include everything from synchronicity to dream interpretation to subconscious trauma to straight up spirituality.
 
Top