I have never commented on a video before now, but I feel passionately compelled to in regards of a few comments you made in this video, Cliff. This topic hit so close to home. Your detestation of SSRI's used for curing deep existential problems is apparent. You're totally correct in saying they don't cure your problems- but for me, anti-depressants made the difference between life and death. I was in the existential vacuum a few years ago. I became misanthropic, isolated, nihilistic... hopeless. My anxiety attacks were debilitating. I dropped out of college because I couldn't face a godless world. In one fit of mania I tried to end my life. I was taken to a hospital and immediately prescribed drugs. This angered me. I remember insisting to the psychologists and psychiatrists to just help me find a way to fill my void instead of giving me drugs. Yet I took them, and even months after the first attempt, I tried again to end my suffering, several times. After many months they began to work. I would no longer fall into fits of mania and anxiety. My thinking was clearer, I didn't have a fish-eye view of the world and the people in it. And no, I am not a self- actualized person, and I'm not enlightened, or spiritual, or fulfilled. But now I am able to work towards those things. I can function in society because I was prescribed those drugs. I don't need to rely on anyone like I did before. I am slowly clawing my way out of the void now. I would have died and would have never been able to have the chance to create my meaning if I didn't get on SSRI's. SSRI's are in no way addicting. They aren't like opioids. I did have a chemical imbalance that they steadily alleviated. It was difficult to get off them too, but it's possible. The side affects of not taking them were unpleasant, but in no way were they compared to the trauma I was physically put through before I was on them. I'm in a better mental place because of those drugs. lIt's dangerous, when you have such a large following to dismiss them completely because pharmaceutical companies do take advantage of our illnesses. It's not a sham. I wanted to clarify to anyone who has depression to not rule out the possibility of taking medication. You're not less of a person because you do. You won't be a drug addict if you take them. I wish I didn't have your mindset about anti-depressants before I was at my lowest, Cliff. I could have avoided a lot of suffering. But I wanted tell anyone who'd listen, and especially you Cliff, if you're reading this, that no, they will not cure your existential dilemmas, but they will help you reach a state of mind to get there, and for me that was life- changing.
Drugs like SSRIs are tricky--they are not without their problems and are likely over-prescribed. However, they are relied upon so heavily because, in a crisis situation such as you described, they're the best option we have at this time. Therapy can work given enough time. There are other long term things that need to be worked on by almost everyone, but if someone has gone deep enough into depression they're not even going to try to get better. You have to get yourself level-headed enough to see some point in trying. Many drugs can be addictive, etc., but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't a necessary option in certain situations, worth the risk of side effects, etc.
Hey that's a great point, I have friends who function better on them as well. Yes I wouldn't want to discourage someone from using them should it truly improve their quality of life and ease suffering. Comment Pinned!
"But I wanted tell anyone who'd listen, and especially you Cliff, if you're reading this, that no, they will not cure your existential dilemmas, but they will help you reach a state of mind to get there, and for me that was life- changing." Except when they don't, like for me and the majority of individuals who take these medications. I've been on and off the drugs for years, they made me feel like shit in various physical and mental ways, and never alleviated my issues. If you look at the actual research, you'll see that the thesis of "chemical imbalance" has been completely debunked for years. You will also see that in long term studies on these drugs, outcomes are more likely to be negative for patients who take them versus those who don't. I would recommend reading Magic Bullets for more information.
I know you've probably read this a lot, but I really wanted to thank you for this amazing channel. You really made me fall in love with reading. Thanks again.
I’ve been reading one of his books on synchronicity for a year. I’m glad I’m not the only one who felt while his work is extremely accessible and inviting- it is slowly digested. I love his ideas and like to incorporate them in my practice when I can. “Drugs” are often extremely helpful and used together with therapies and self exploration, they don’t take problems away but they give people a little help to live long enough to be able to do the “work.” Imagine you’re stuck in a hole you’re starving to death, drugs are not the rope to pull yourself out, but they’re the care package food water etc so that you can have the energy to begin your journey up the rope and out of hole.
@Jack Clare Lol, you should research more into Jung. While his studies may not be empirical, they still hold some value and meaning in todays world. Also in the link you put, not everything Richard Noll states is true. Dr. Noll dislikes Jung very much and it shows in his book. The "Jung Cult" is filled with a lot of bias, specifically hatred towards the works of Jung.
I definitely recommend Freud’s CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS. It’s short, and far less bogged down/dogmatic than his other books, and it explores much broader stuff than typical Freudianist territory. - as someone who doesn’t really dig Freud anymore, I gotta say CIVILIZATION is his most enduring book.
Agreed. A lot of people love "Interpretation of Dreams," but it's much longer and a narrower topic. Freud is a great writer, but he also has a lot of theories you may not share if you aren't a Freudian, though I think he was on the right track with some of his ideas. "Civilization" is a bit more philosophical, or social-psychological. Great place to start with Freud.
Freud's "The Future of an Illusion" is an excellent critique of religion and really enjoyable to read, as it is engages into a Socratic Dialogue. Also, I wouldn't say he is limited in his thinking per say, more like self-assured and reluctant to certain subjects(like mysticism).
Jung is a fascinating read. He sheds light on a bafflingly large portion of lived life that goes ignored in modern western society. I don't think you have to make any leaps of faith when interpreting his work, I think he just saw the world differently, perhaps more accurately. If you think of the soul as the difference (psychologically speaking) between a person alive and then dead. It's not a material difference (i.e. just the ceasing of neuronal activity) but there is certainly a difference when viewed through the subjective experience of another person. Jung did an incredible job of mapping this out and it leads to some amazing insights. For example, Jung viewed the world as though all that exists is that which is experienced subjectively. Completely counter to modern rational empiricism, it's a different lens with which to view the world that can be extremely useful. When you think every scrap of knowledge it is possible to come in contact with (e.g. any scientifically accessable information), had to be experienced by a human being in order to be shared in the first place. Lots to think about and it's all fascinating.
If you like the dream's subject, tries Sandman (Neil Gaiman), I know... it is a comic book, but a great one. And for more collective subconscious , try "A Hero of a thousand faces" Joseph Campbell. Btw, excellent video!
Hi, I wanted to weigh in on all of this. My degree is in philosophy so I want to recommend some reading. Reading recs: First, when it comes to supplemental reading, Freud is all well and fine, but I think you would be better served reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. Make sure to get the Walter Kaufman translations. Those books well get into a lot of the ideas that Jung is throwing around in regard to the death of God and religion, the idea of tribal morality and religion, as well as the moral implication of these things. Next, in regard to the religious aspects, I have two suggestions. I would warrant a guess that many people will tell you to read Kierkegaard for a take on religion in modernity. Kierkegaard is certainly the best, especially the way he discusses the importance of internal faith vs external religion. I would also recommend you forray into William James, who was working much of the same ground as Freud and Jung except over in America. Specifically, you should google The Will to Believe. You should find a PDF easily. This is the best introduction to James's pragmatic philosophy, and his interesting spiritualism. It's also the only thing I've ever read as someone who doesn't believe in God and is unscertain of divinity that actually made me consider the idea of belief and faith. Highly worth a read. After that, a forray into any of James's writing will yield very interesting supplements to other discussions around these topics.
I'm not going to lie, I wrote out a five-paragraph explanation of the major philosophical underpinnings to this book, as well as to Freud's thoughts, but it got deleted by the UA-cam word limit. If that's something you're interested in, look up Linguistic Turn. The important point I was making is that Freud and Jung are pre-linguistic turn (basically postmodernism in its theoretical infancy), so they're still hungup on the Plato/Cartesian rationalism, specifically Descartes' mind/body split, a philosophical idea that is scrapped right after them. Of note is that while Freud is totally stuck with that old way of thinking, Jung isn't, and he actually shows signs of that switch in philosophical and psychological thinking decades before it happens. Other important shift following the linguistic turn for psychology: Theories of Mind (Mind Body, Behaviorism, Identity Theory) become Theories of Consciousness (functionalism, computational, etc.)
I can expand on this if you're interested in more, plus I can recommend more reading. Like others have said, Wittgenstein is basically the father of all current philosophical thinking. That said, Wittgenstein is fundamentally untranslatable much like Heidegger, plus understanding his stuff requires such an intimate knowledge of philosophy and its history, not to mention his own work, and even then we STILL aren't in agreement on exactly what he was saying. If you're interested in this as well, I can give some good summaries as well as recommendations for further reading.
Great comments, sucks you lost most of it. I've been known to write a novel in the comments section a time or two as well. I'm a bit of an amateur philosophy junkie, and I agree Nietzsche is critical to appreciating the psychoanalysts. James serves as an interesting point of comparison, and is a wonderful writer. Many of these theories became a bit passé during the heyday of behaviorism, and Heidegger and Wittgenstein called a lot of that way of thinking into question. Now it's starting to come full circle and you've got all the embodied cognition stuff, evolutionary psychology, conceptual metaphor, etc. You're starting to see people like Dewey and Murleau-Ponty getting more attention. A lot of this way of thinking was presaged by people like Nietzsche, James, Jung, etc.
wcropp1 agreed. Glad to hear someone talk about Dewey. He and Peirce are far too underrated. Wittgenstein is the real kick in the teeth for pretty much everything before him, but he’s such a daunting writer to jump into if you don’t have someone to explain the things you don’t even realize need to be explained. Then there’s the whole translation issue.
Indeed. "Philosophical Investigations" largely put an end to the Logical Positivist era of analytic philosophy. I think Heidegger was doing something similar with his existenialist modifications to phenomenology. His brand of phenomenology, along with the various permutations of pragmatism, survived the linguistic turn better than people like Ayer or Husserl did. There is less of a search for ultimate foundations to knowledge, and more talk of culture and "communities of inquirers," etc. Now you're seeing people like...ahem...Jordan Peterson invoking pragmatism and phenomenology--in many ways he's like a sort of Heidegerrian using Jungian terminology. There seems to be a general uneasiness in academia, and perhaps culture generally, with the ideas of people like Foucault and Derrida. The philosophies of people like Dewey and Peirce present a kind of middle ground where we can still take things like progress and scientific objectivity seriously, if only in a way that is limited to specific communities and their "language games." Wittgenstein is a bit much to jump straight into, philosophy requires some knowledge of historical context, etc., but he's definitely at the top of the list of 20th century thinkers for people to work up to. Translation is always a difficulty, and especially bad with people like Wittgenstein and Heidegger, but we do the best we can to muddle through, right?
I have to agree with the below comment, I've never commented on a book review and I was very beautiful review of this book, which I'm about to buy. Thank you !
I suggest you start to read Freud by The Future of an Illusion & Civilization and Its Discontents. In these essays, Freud talks about society, being a theme much more close to everyone's life than the things of the clinic process. And is a late Frued, much more mature and in a moment when all the pilars of psychoanalytic theory were already built. Another good place to start are the Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, as the name says.
I highly recommend stopping by the DIA in midtown Detroit! It's home to Fuseli's The Nightmare, which seems like a work that is pretty ripe for Jungian analysis. Also, the DIA screened Lynch's entire filmography last summer, which reaffirms my opinion that it's a dope place
Very catchy review!! Have you also read "Psychological Types" from Jung? I also have a booktube channel and I don't know if I should talk about Carl Jung because I usually talk about fiction literature...
Cliff. Appreciate your great work. Mainstream psychiatry is often focused on meds. Psychiatrists however wd claim they practice therapy as well, and the best ones do as it’s the only way to enter into the meaning of a persons narrative. Jung is not considered mainstream (at least in Australia where I am) but I consider him central. As he broke away from Freud, he produced so many brilliant, relevant ideas that explain or illuminate human behaviour. The main ones I and my patients are immersed in are : the Shadow, the Collective Unconscious, archetypes, a modern “soul”, to name a few. I wd recommend reading his autobiography Memories Dreams and Reflections. Everything else is trying to be academic which is a bit of a straitjacket for such a wide ranging mind. He is the true psychiatrist which to me stands on the line between the sciences and the humanities.
Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams" (1899) is a masterpiece, but Freud's take on Humor ("Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious", 1905) is much shorter and a good intro into the creative, discerning, literary mind of that Austrian Genius. I'm glad, I can read him in German. Jung's Swiss German is much more bumpy, but his thought world expanded more into global mythologies.
Freud is said to be atheist. He is also very rigid. I would recommend you start your lecture of Freud by Outline of psychoanalysis, from the original (translated) publisher. It contains an introduction of his life and the basic component of the mind and general concepts of urges. It also explains you how to read his volumes.In general, he contradicts himself trough time (from one book to the other, but also within his book) and also changes his mind throughout his book. Mostly in the book Inhibition, Symptoms and Anxiety... You may read only the last chapter altogether. I haven't read the book you plan on reading. You might want to see the date of publishing, since the books reflects the growth of his theory at that moment.
check out the "Septem Sermones ad Mortuos" of Carl Jung. Pretty deep and short read about Gods (Abraxas, which was also relevant for Hesse). Wow, im over 35 and i feel exactly like you stated in the video here :) maybe i should take a look at this book you review here :)
Honestly the best place to start with freud is the book Freud and Beyond by margaret black and stephen a mitchell (not to be confused with the stephen mitchell that translates the tao te ching, gilgamesh, etc.)
The great decisions of human life have as a rule far more to do with the instincts and other mysterious unconscious factors than with conscious will and well-meaning reasonableness.
"You can't kick consciousness. It exists. We're experiencing it right now" Read Dan Dennett's essay "Quining Qualia". I do not agree with its conclusions but it definitely made me think more deeply on what consciousness is. I think you will like it.
19:05 This is one of the major problems we face today, and the type of health care system employed doesn't change it much. We only have so many doctors, and they only have so much time, so that time gets rationed amongst many patients. But this is not a problem for medicine, why are doctors picking up this burden? Why are they being elevated to the state of priests? Finding meaning in your life is not going to come from medicine, it's unique to you and you must either find it, or create it.
I just finished this book and enjoyed your review. One point that jumps out: I don't think Jung believed in God and the soul as 'facts' in the literal sense. I understood his use of God and the Soul to be synonymous with the unconscious self - or whatever structures give rise to consciousness (not excluding a literal deity, but not prescribing it either) They are part of 'psychic reality' to use his term - which is the only reality we will ever know. I'm not sure it mattered to him if 'god' underwrites the cold hard material world or not. Cheers!
Putting my intelligence on blast here, but I need some help. Not sure what Jung means when he says the following... "Perhaps we may call the dream a facade, but we must remember that the fronts of most houses by no means trick or deceive us, but, on the contrary, follow the plan of the building and often betray its inner arrangements." - pg 12, last paragraph. I thought I understood it until I read "betray its inner arrangements".
You should do a review of some of Wittgensteins works (Tractatus is a hard one but when you get to its conclussion its worth it the experience. Culture & Value has on the other hand interesting points on Wittgensteins thoughts of society, art, culture, philosophy etc)
+waterglass21 The fact that you phrase the subject of your question as "some Wittgenstein book" makes me suspect you haven't read a page of Wittgenstein in your life, nor understood what his particular oeuvre deals with in relation to the history of philosophical thought. Seriously, how fucking lazy are people these days... You can't even bother to Google the bibliography of a chosen writer/philosopher, and find out yourself - hell, even get the book and actually - wait for it, wait for it - *read it yourself* - I know, right, earth shattering isn't it? Millennials... Jesus christ.
This is pretty rude to someone who was just suggesting something. "Book" is pretty innocuous as a term. Furthermore, your assertion that you understand Wittgenstein's thought when his concepts and ideas are still under heavy contention throughout all levels of academic philosophical discourse today makes me assume you're far less experienced in this field than you claim to be. Lastly, there is perhaps nothing quite as eye-rolling at this point as saying "millennials."
I believe that it was Oliver Sacks' recommendation to Freud innocents to begin with The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, most would I think recommend The Interpretation of Dreams as Freud's chef d'oeuvre
Jung's knowledge of God ("i don't believe in God, i know" i think he says in one interview)is controversial issue, with which even Jungians are kinda prelexed with. James Hillman, quite philosohically inclined Jungian, says that Jung's claim isn't as harsh or absolute than it sounds. Belief, according to Husserl, is far more tyranical in nature. So in that sense to claim that 'i believe in God', imposes lots of stuff on God, it burdens God with wishes and absolutes. 'I know God' is less severe, it kinda just opens what i have experienced of God. Metaphysics vs phenomenlogy. I think i have moved past the border when i dare to claim that 'i believe', because i have experience of God. I don't claim to know God absolutely, but partially. Statement of belief in God moves past experience into absolute. Few years back it was another way around, i did think i could know nothing of God so all i could do was to believe. Since then i've started to work towards God actively thru arts, mediation, philosophy and dreams and that attitude has changed totally. But that is just one take on it. Whole 'knowledge vs belief'-thing.
So, you think that it is a book that anyone can read or do you need some sort of background in psychology? Were there any specially challenging passages or chapters?
"Have you read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind?" *Response with a total disregard to the stated question simply because of the questioner's icon picture*
I don't know, I certainly have no use for spirituality, religion, gods or meaning and I'm doing fine. I mean I still have ideas, dreams or goals I follow or strive for, but they have no meaning, function yes, but no meaning. even if there were gods, I always had to question their authority on meaning in/of life. what do they know?
"I still do not know all of the differences between those terms" Freud and Beyond by Mitchell and Black The Discovery of the Unconscious by Ellenberger these books will help
Being harmless because of impotency is not the same as being virtuous. A savage dog on a firm leash is not an improved dog for being unable to harm others being restrained. If you really want to test the character of a man, give him power and observe what happens. The same I think is collectively true of a civilisation and no civilisation has had more power at its disposal then ours. The 6th great extinction event humans have started is not a favourable observation.
To anyone here doing research after Map of the Soul : PERSONA was announced... I say Hi, greetings fellow Army, I wish u good luck on ur quest, purple u 💜💜
Just finished this today. It was very well written and even got me to get a handle on a complex I had developed. I love his style of writing - he also got me interested in Adler
A ENP for the future or quantum computer/bio computer for the future :) but still will change with next year and man just learn the basics of science from physics and biology and chemical start at I think for your self Ap for them.
Hey Cliff. Frued was actually Jewish, and had great hope in Jung because he was his only non Jewish student. It was the early twentieth century, and anti semitism was on the rise. So a lot of people didn’t listen to Frued for his religion and controversial thinking (ie, Oedipus complex) Love you’re stuff man, keep it up! Hey, have you ever read the short stories of Breece DJ Pancake? He’s from my home state of West Virginia, and he’s right up your alley!
Wow. Did you just say Jung was a Christian? May I help you? First, his father was very religious because he was a pastor of a church. Jung was a deeply serious intellectual who was not going to be told what the "Truth" is. This is why he DISMISSED his own religion and set out to prove spirituality was real and try to record it scientifically. He was far more interested in gathering knowledge through "Gnosis". This is why he was so well read. He spent his entire life studying spiritualty from sources all over the world. METAPHYSICS was his stock and trade! Religion be damned. A practicing Christian? Uhm,......I think not.
Also, Freud was very atheistic. He wasn't as rigid as you make him sound though, except in cases where he could see jung was being a total fuckwad. Adler, whom he had many disagreements with, always kept himself off freud's shitlist because freud actually thought there was promise behind Adler's theories, just that the conclusions he came to were off. (And they were, as we have discovered[see: adler's theory of birth order]) Freud altered his views drastically over time. This is why despite all being branches of freudian psychoanalysis, Lacanian, Kleinian, Object Relations, etc. are so different in many ways. If anyone was stubborn (and I say this at risk of sounding like a contentious child on the playground proclaiming that his dad can kick your dad's ass) it was Jung. Most of his stubborn rigidity was surrounding spiritualism that had been so clearly dismissed by science. About archetypes that hardly had any place being talked about within the realm of psychoanalysis. But, imo, the biggest (or most significant) difference (besides the whole nazi thing) is that Lung thought repressions were neatly packaged into a shadowsona, which is daft as fuck. Freud could see that they're asymmetrically mapped around the psyche like a hard drive that needs defrauding. Lung's mysticism is the downfall of his work and also the exact reason he was so susceptible to being a Nazi sympathizer. The results of his work really go to show that while notions of God and archetypes and the occult might have a valuable place in art, they are completely useless and even poisonous when applied to the sciences.
I have never commented on a video before now, but I feel passionately compelled to in regards of a few comments you made in this video, Cliff. This topic hit so close to home.
Your detestation of SSRI's used for curing deep existential problems is apparent. You're totally correct in saying they don't cure your problems- but for me, anti-depressants made the difference between life and death. I was in the existential vacuum a few years ago. I became misanthropic, isolated, nihilistic... hopeless. My anxiety attacks were debilitating. I dropped out of college because I couldn't face a godless world. In one fit of mania I tried to end my life. I was taken to a hospital and immediately prescribed drugs. This angered me. I remember insisting to the psychologists and psychiatrists to just help me find a way to fill my void instead of giving me drugs. Yet I took them, and even months after the first attempt, I tried again to end my suffering, several times. After many months they began to work. I would no longer fall into fits of mania and anxiety. My thinking was clearer, I didn't have a fish-eye view of the world and the people in it. And no, I am not a self- actualized person, and I'm not enlightened, or spiritual, or fulfilled. But now I am able to work towards those things. I can function in society because I was prescribed those drugs. I don't need to rely on anyone like I did before. I am slowly clawing my way out of the void now. I would have died and would have never been able to have the chance to create my meaning if I didn't get on SSRI's.
SSRI's are in no way addicting. They aren't like opioids. I did have a chemical imbalance that they steadily alleviated. It was difficult to get off them too, but it's possible. The side affects of not taking them were unpleasant, but in no way were they compared to the trauma I was physically put through before I was on them. I'm in a better mental place because of those drugs.
lIt's dangerous, when you have such a large following to dismiss them completely because pharmaceutical companies do take advantage of our illnesses. It's not a sham. I wanted to clarify to anyone who has depression to not rule out the possibility of taking medication. You're not less of a person because you do. You won't be a drug addict if you take them. I wish I didn't have your mindset about anti-depressants before I was at my lowest, Cliff. I could have avoided a lot of suffering. But I wanted tell anyone who'd listen, and especially you Cliff, if you're reading this, that no, they will not cure your existential dilemmas, but they will help you reach a state of mind to get there, and for me that was life- changing.
Drugs like SSRIs are tricky--they are not without their problems and are likely over-prescribed. However, they are relied upon so heavily because, in a crisis situation such as you described, they're the best option we have at this time. Therapy can work given enough time. There are other long term things that need to be worked on by almost everyone, but if someone has gone deep enough into depression they're not even going to try to get better. You have to get yourself level-headed enough to see some point in trying. Many drugs can be addictive, etc., but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't a necessary option in certain situations, worth the risk of side effects, etc.
Hey that's a great point, I have friends who function better on them as well.
Yes I wouldn't want to discourage someone from using them should it truly improve their quality of life and ease suffering.
Comment Pinned!
"But I wanted tell anyone who'd listen, and especially you Cliff, if you're reading this, that no, they will not cure your existential dilemmas, but they will help you reach a state of mind to get there, and for me that was life- changing." Except when they don't, like for me and the majority of individuals who take these medications. I've been on and off the drugs for years, they made me feel like shit in various physical and mental ways, and never alleviated my issues. If you look at the actual research, you'll see that the thesis of "chemical imbalance" has been completely debunked for years. You will also see that in long term studies on these drugs, outcomes are more likely to be negative for patients who take them versus those who don't. I would recommend reading Magic Bullets for more information.
I should add that it is great that you've had some success with medications. Unfortunately you are in the minority.
Psychedelics will be the next generation of wonder pills, that open your 3rd 👁
I know you've probably read this a lot, but I really wanted to thank you for this amazing channel. You really made me fall in love with reading. Thanks again.
Thanks for watching, you're very welcome, happy to hear it.
@@BetterThanFoodBookReviews Great channel man ... got me back into reading novels again . Slainte
The difference between Jung and Fraud, is that Fraud talks down to you, and Jung talks too you.
Also Freud thought everything had to do with sex.
Just found your channel. Bummed you're not uploading anymore.
I'll be back to it later this month, just finishing up some stuff. Thank you for watching.
I’ve been reading one of his books on synchronicity for a year. I’m glad I’m not the only one who felt while his work is extremely accessible and inviting- it is slowly digested. I love his ideas and like to incorporate them in my practice when I can.
“Drugs” are often extremely helpful and used together with therapies and self exploration, they don’t take problems away but they give people a little help to live long enough to be able to do the “work.” Imagine you’re stuck in a hole you’re starving to death, drugs are not the rope to pull yourself out, but they’re the care package food water etc so that you can have the energy to begin your journey up the rope and out of hole.
omg im shocked, shaken and ....first time i seed u with a beard....taking it all in..... without /within.
This review was very honest and genuine. Fascinating..
You should read Jungs The Red Book. I'd like to see that review. Have you gotten a copy of the 40 page, hand assembled book, The Egg by Michael Gira?
@Jack Clare Lol, you should research more into Jung. While his studies may not be empirical, they still hold some value and meaning in todays world. Also in the link you put, not everything Richard Noll states is true. Dr. Noll dislikes Jung very much and it shows in his book. The "Jung Cult" is filled with a lot of bias, specifically hatred towards the works of Jung.
I definitely recommend Freud’s CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS. It’s short, and far less bogged down/dogmatic than his other books, and it explores much broader stuff than typical Freudianist territory. - as someone who doesn’t really dig Freud anymore, I gotta say CIVILIZATION is his most enduring book.
Agreed. A lot of people love "Interpretation of Dreams," but it's much longer and a narrower topic. Freud is a great writer, but he also has a lot of theories you may not share if you aren't a Freudian, though I think he was on the right track with some of his ideas. "Civilization" is a bit more philosophical, or social-psychological. Great place to start with Freud.
He said freud was a bum lol
He's back!!
Freud's "The Future of an Illusion" is an excellent critique of religion and really enjoyable to read, as it is engages into a Socratic Dialogue.
Also, I wouldn't say he is limited in his thinking per say, more like self-assured and reluctant to certain subjects(like mysticism).
Read Heidegger's Black notebooks and Jung's Red Book
Jung is a fascinating read. He sheds light on a bafflingly large portion of lived life that goes ignored in modern western society.
I don't think you have to make any leaps of faith when interpreting his work, I think he just saw the world differently, perhaps more accurately. If you think of the soul as the difference (psychologically speaking) between a person alive and then dead. It's not a material difference (i.e. just the ceasing of neuronal activity) but there is certainly a difference when viewed through the subjective experience of another person.
Jung did an incredible job of mapping this out and it leads to some amazing insights.
For example, Jung viewed the world as though all that exists is that which is experienced subjectively. Completely counter to modern rational empiricism, it's a different lens with which to view the world that can be extremely useful.
When you think every scrap of knowledge it is possible to come in contact with (e.g. any scientifically accessable information), had to be experienced by a human being in order to be shared in the first place. Lots to think about and it's all fascinating.
Better than food... better than most UA-cam channels.
Carl Jung was gift to humanity were sadly only know beginning to cherish
If you like the dream's subject, tries Sandman (Neil Gaiman), I know... it is a comic book, but a great one. And for more collective subconscious , try "A Hero of a thousand faces" Joseph Campbell.
Btw, excellent video!
Hi, I wanted to weigh in on all of this. My degree is in philosophy so I want to recommend some reading.
Reading recs:
First, when it comes to supplemental reading, Freud is all well and fine, but I think you would be better served reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. Make sure to get the Walter Kaufman translations. Those books well get into a lot of the ideas that Jung is throwing around in regard to the death of God and religion, the idea of tribal morality and religion, as well as the moral implication of these things.
Next, in regard to the religious aspects, I have two suggestions. I would warrant a guess that many people will tell you to read Kierkegaard for a take on religion in modernity. Kierkegaard is certainly the best, especially the way he discusses the importance of internal faith vs external religion. I would also recommend you forray into William James, who was working much of the same ground as Freud and Jung except over in America. Specifically, you should google The Will to Believe. You should find a PDF easily. This is the best introduction to James's pragmatic philosophy, and his interesting spiritualism. It's also the only thing I've ever read as someone who doesn't believe in God and is unscertain of divinity that actually made me consider the idea of belief and faith. Highly worth a read. After that, a forray into any of James's writing will yield very interesting supplements to other discussions around these topics.
I'm not going to lie, I wrote out a five-paragraph explanation of the major philosophical underpinnings to this book, as well as to Freud's thoughts, but it got deleted by the UA-cam word limit. If that's something you're interested in, look up Linguistic Turn. The important point I was making is that Freud and Jung are pre-linguistic turn (basically postmodernism in its theoretical infancy), so they're still hungup on the Plato/Cartesian rationalism, specifically Descartes' mind/body split, a philosophical idea that is scrapped right after them. Of note is that while Freud is totally stuck with that old way of thinking, Jung isn't, and he actually shows signs of that switch in philosophical and psychological thinking decades before it happens.
Other important shift following the linguistic turn for psychology: Theories of Mind (Mind Body, Behaviorism, Identity Theory) become Theories of Consciousness (functionalism, computational, etc.)
I can expand on this if you're interested in more, plus I can recommend more reading. Like others have said, Wittgenstein is basically the father of all current philosophical thinking. That said, Wittgenstein is fundamentally untranslatable much like Heidegger, plus understanding his stuff requires such an intimate knowledge of philosophy and its history, not to mention his own work, and even then we STILL aren't in agreement on exactly what he was saying. If you're interested in this as well, I can give some good summaries as well as recommendations for further reading.
Great comments, sucks you lost most of it. I've been known to write a novel in the comments section a time or two as well. I'm a bit of an amateur philosophy junkie, and I agree Nietzsche is critical to appreciating the psychoanalysts. James serves as an interesting point of comparison, and is a wonderful writer. Many of these theories became a bit passé during the heyday of behaviorism, and Heidegger and Wittgenstein called a lot of that way of thinking into question. Now it's starting to come full circle and you've got all the embodied cognition stuff, evolutionary psychology, conceptual metaphor, etc. You're starting to see people like Dewey and Murleau-Ponty getting more attention. A lot of this way of thinking was presaged by people like Nietzsche, James, Jung, etc.
wcropp1 agreed. Glad to hear someone talk about Dewey. He and Peirce are far too underrated. Wittgenstein is the real kick in the teeth for pretty much everything before him, but he’s such a daunting writer to jump into if you don’t have someone to explain the things you don’t even realize need to be explained. Then there’s the whole translation issue.
Indeed. "Philosophical Investigations" largely put an end to the Logical Positivist era of analytic philosophy. I think Heidegger was doing something similar with his existenialist modifications to phenomenology. His brand of phenomenology, along with the various permutations of pragmatism, survived the linguistic turn better than people like Ayer or Husserl did. There is less of a search for ultimate foundations to knowledge, and more talk of culture and "communities of inquirers," etc. Now you're seeing people like...ahem...Jordan Peterson invoking pragmatism and phenomenology--in many ways he's like a sort of Heidegerrian using Jungian terminology. There seems to be a general uneasiness in academia, and perhaps culture generally, with the ideas of people like Foucault and Derrida. The philosophies of people like Dewey and Peirce present a kind of middle ground where we can still take things like progress and scientific objectivity seriously, if only in a way that is limited to specific communities and their "language games." Wittgenstein is a bit much to jump straight into, philosophy requires some knowledge of historical context, etc., but he's definitely at the top of the list of 20th century thinkers for people to work up to. Translation is always a difficulty, and especially bad with people like Wittgenstein and Heidegger, but we do the best we can to muddle through, right?
I have to agree with the below comment, I've never commented on a book review and I was very beautiful review of this book, which I'm about to buy. Thank you !
i dont wanna swear but holy.. this was very, very on point, thanks for the review
I suggest you start to read Freud by The Future of an Illusion & Civilization and Its Discontents. In these essays, Freud talks about society, being a theme much more close to everyone's life than the things of the clinic process. And is a late Frued, much more mature and in a moment when all the pilars of psychoanalytic theory were already built. Another good place to start are the Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, as the name says.
I highly recommend stopping by the DIA in midtown Detroit! It's home to Fuseli's The Nightmare, which seems like a work that is pretty ripe for Jungian analysis. Also, the DIA screened Lynch's entire filmography last summer, which reaffirms my opinion that it's a dope place
Very catchy review!! Have you also read "Psychological Types" from Jung? I also have a booktube channel and I don't know if I should talk about Carl Jung because I usually talk about fiction literature...
As always, an amazing review. I am definitely going to read it.
Also keep up the good work it is great seeing you videos and will look out for it.
STYLES OF PSYCHOLOGY - BIOLOGICAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL, SELF CREATION, COGNITIVE, GESTALT. AND Dysfunctional.
Cliff. Appreciate your great work. Mainstream psychiatry is often focused on meds. Psychiatrists however wd claim they practice therapy as well, and the best ones do as it’s the only way to enter into the meaning of a persons narrative. Jung is not considered mainstream (at least in Australia where I am) but I consider him central. As he broke away from Freud, he produced so many brilliant, relevant ideas that explain or illuminate human behaviour. The main ones I and my patients are immersed in are : the Shadow, the Collective Unconscious, archetypes, a modern “soul”, to name a few. I wd recommend reading his autobiography Memories Dreams and Reflections. Everything else is trying to be academic which is a bit of a straitjacket for such a wide ranging mind. He is the true psychiatrist which to me stands on the line between the sciences and the humanities.
Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams" (1899) is a masterpiece, but Freud's take on Humor ("Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious", 1905) is much shorter and a good intro into the creative, discerning, literary mind of that Austrian Genius. I'm glad, I can read him in German. Jung's Swiss German is much more bumpy, but his thought world expanded more into global mythologies.
FUCK YOJ
"Admirably researched and enviably communicated" nice.
This is a fascinating review..
Excellent thoughts
Very well spoken
Response to 15:35: "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future" :)
Freud is said to be atheist. He is also very rigid. I would recommend you start your lecture of Freud by Outline of psychoanalysis, from the original (translated) publisher. It contains an introduction of his life and the basic component of the mind and general concepts of urges. It also explains you how to read his volumes.In general, he contradicts himself trough time (from one book to the other, but also within his book) and also changes his mind throughout his book. Mostly in the book Inhibition, Symptoms and Anxiety... You may read only the last chapter altogether. I haven't read the book you plan on reading. You might want to see the date of publishing, since the books reflects the growth of his theory at that moment.
Love the Repo-Man reference.
didn't expect you to see here babe)
BluShades love the Blu Shades reference ;)
check out the "Septem Sermones ad Mortuos" of Carl Jung. Pretty deep and short read about Gods (Abraxas, which was also relevant for Hesse).
Wow, im over 35 and i feel exactly like you stated in the video here :) maybe i should take a look at this book you review here :)
Honestly the best place to start with freud is the book Freud and Beyond by margaret black and stephen a mitchell (not to be confused with the stephen mitchell that translates the tao te ching, gilgamesh, etc.)
The great decisions of human life have as a rule far more to do with the instincts and other mysterious unconscious factors than with conscious will and well-meaning reasonableness.
"You can't kick consciousness. It exists. We're experiencing it right now"
Read Dan Dennett's essay "Quining Qualia". I do not agree with its conclusions but it definitely made me think more deeply on what consciousness is. I think you will like it.
19:05 This is one of the major problems we face today, and the type of health care system employed doesn't change it much. We only have so many doctors, and they only have so much time, so that time gets rationed amongst many patients. But this is not a problem for medicine, why are doctors picking up this burden? Why are they being elevated to the state of priests? Finding meaning in your life is not going to come from medicine, it's unique to you and you must either find it, or create it.
It would be great if you read and reviewed Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities.
I just finished this book and enjoyed your review.
One point that jumps out: I don't think Jung believed in God and the soul as 'facts' in the literal sense.
I understood his use of God and the Soul to be synonymous with the unconscious self - or whatever structures give rise to consciousness (not excluding a literal deity, but not prescribing it either)
They are part of 'psychic reality' to use his term - which is the only reality we will ever know. I'm not sure it mattered to him if 'god' underwrites the cold hard material world or not.
Cheers!
Great book. That whole era in Austria, Germany and Hungary of the late 1800s was an intense time
Putting my intelligence on blast here, but I need some help. Not sure what Jung means when he says the following...
"Perhaps we may call the dream a facade, but we must remember that the fronts of most houses by no means trick or deceive us, but, on the contrary, follow the plan of the building and often betray its inner arrangements." - pg 12, last paragraph.
I thought I understood it until I read "betray its inner arrangements".
You should do a review of some of Wittgensteins works (Tractatus is a hard one but when you get to its conclussion its worth it the experience. Culture & Value has on the other hand interesting points on Wittgensteins thoughts of society, art, culture, philosophy etc)
lol, that would require a lot, especially if he did Philosophical Investigations.
+waterglass21
The fact that you phrase the subject of your question as "some Wittgenstein book" makes me suspect you haven't read a page of Wittgenstein in your life, nor understood what his particular oeuvre deals with in relation to the history of philosophical thought. Seriously, how fucking lazy are people these days... You can't even bother to Google the bibliography of a chosen writer/philosopher, and find out yourself - hell, even get the book and actually - wait for it, wait for it - *read it yourself* - I know, right, earth shattering isn't it? Millennials... Jesus christ.
This is pretty rude to someone who was just suggesting something. "Book" is pretty innocuous as a term. Furthermore, your assertion that you understand Wittgenstein's thought when his concepts and ideas are still under heavy contention throughout all levels of academic philosophical discourse today makes me assume you're far less experienced in this field than you claim to be. Lastly, there is perhaps nothing quite as eye-rolling at this point as saying "millennials."
+Ridiculous username
I wasn't talking to you.
Arturo Senni still rude.
Do I need permission to post some pictures or quotes from the book on social media?
Tu me motives bien à lire, Cliff. Donc merci! Btw how is your French coming along?
You should read Havelock Ellis. A big inspiration for Freud, and a fascinating guy!
You should check out William Gay, he is similar to Cormac McCarthy.
I believe that it was Oliver Sacks' recommendation to Freud innocents to begin with The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, most would I think recommend The Interpretation of Dreams as Freud's chef d'oeuvre
Jung's knowledge of God ("i don't believe in God, i know" i think he says in one interview)is controversial issue, with which even Jungians are kinda prelexed with. James Hillman, quite philosohically inclined Jungian, says that Jung's claim isn't as harsh or absolute than it sounds. Belief, according to Husserl, is far more tyranical in nature. So in that sense to claim that 'i believe in God', imposes lots of stuff on God, it burdens God with wishes and absolutes. 'I know God' is less severe, it kinda just opens what i have experienced of God. Metaphysics vs phenomenlogy.
I think i have moved past the border when i dare to claim that 'i believe', because i have experience of God. I don't claim to know God absolutely, but partially. Statement of belief in God moves past experience into absolute. Few years back it was another way around, i did think i could know nothing of God so all i could do was to believe. Since then i've started to work towards God actively thru arts, mediation, philosophy and dreams and that attitude has changed totally.
But that is just one take on it. Whole 'knowledge vs belief'-thing.
2:18 Freud is the one who said that religion is wish fulfillment
yeah the wish might not be a good one though
Isaiah Berlin, "The Roots of Romanticism." You'd like it...I think.
So, you think that it is a book that anyone can read or do you need some sort of background in psychology? Were there any specially challenging passages or chapters?
Have you read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind?
You have excited my disgust sensitivity.
"Have you read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind?"
*Response with a total disregard to the stated question simply because of the questioner's icon picture*
On the shelf.
I don't know, I certainly have no use for spirituality, religion, gods or meaning and I'm doing fine. I mean I still have ideas, dreams or goals I follow or strive for, but they have no meaning, function yes, but no meaning. even if there were gods, I always had to question their authority on meaning in/of life. what do they know?
"I still do not know all of the differences between those terms"
Freud and Beyond by Mitchell and Black
The Discovery of the Unconscious by Ellenberger
these books will help
Freud and Beyonce?Oops, folks! That's what happens when you look at something too fast. Damn the collective unconscious, damn it!!!!!!!
Being harmless because of impotency is not the same as being virtuous. A savage dog on a firm leash is not an improved dog for being unable to harm others being restrained. If you really want to test the character of a man, give him power and observe what happens. The same I think is collectively true of a civilisation and no civilisation has had more power at its disposal then ours. The 6th great extinction event humans have started is not a favourable observation.
To anyone here doing research after Map of the Soul : PERSONA was announced... I say Hi, greetings fellow Army, I wish u good luck on ur quest, purple u 💜💜
Fantastic .
Just finished this today. It was very well written and even got me to get a handle on a complex I had developed.
I love his style of writing - he also got me interested in Adler
Imagine if psychologist wrote down checks with plenty of zeroes.
THE GREEKS CREATED STOICISM , LAO TZU CREATED THE TAO
this is a great review, so was de sade - fuckin subscribed
My grandpa is from Detroit and my dad was born there. They have very negative opinions of it.
Do you need permission for commenting on this book? When permission is required to post content from book?
GOD IS A CONCEPT BY WHICH WE MEASURE OUR LIVES. GOD CAN BE USED AS AN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE IN OUR LIVES.
SEE PLATO'S CHARIOT
Repo Men is a fantastic film
Cool review
A ENP for the future or quantum computer/bio computer for the future :) but still will change with next year and man just learn the basics of science from physics and biology and chemical start at I think for your self Ap for them.
Hey Cliff. Frued was actually Jewish, and had great hope in Jung because he was his only non Jewish student. It was the early twentieth century, and anti semitism was on the rise. So a lot of people didn’t listen to Frued for his religion and controversial thinking (ie, Oedipus complex)
Love you’re stuff man, keep it up! Hey, have you ever read the short stories of Breece DJ Pancake? He’s from my home state of West Virginia, and he’s right up your alley!
You can work up to some Lacan
After you read Freud, you’ll change your introduction to ...”better than sex, man!”
Civilization and Its Discontents by Freud is probably a good intro.
Hello guys, im looking for this book in french, anyone knows the title in french pls ?
Hi I’m an ARMY [bts fan] and I’m really fascinated by the idea of their new album and want to read it would anyone recommend it?
you can believe in Jung.
Very good
To return
Wow. Did you just say Jung was a Christian? May I help you? First, his father was very religious because he was a pastor of a church. Jung was a deeply serious intellectual who was not going to be told what the "Truth" is. This is why he DISMISSED his own religion and set out to prove spirituality was real and try to record it scientifically. He was far more interested in gathering knowledge through "Gnosis". This is why he was so well read. He spent his entire life studying spiritualty from sources all over the world. METAPHYSICS was his stock and trade! Religion be damned. A practicing Christian? Uhm,......I think not.
Also, Freud was very atheistic. He wasn't as rigid as you make him sound though, except in cases where he could see jung was being a total fuckwad. Adler, whom he had many disagreements with, always kept himself off freud's shitlist because freud actually thought there was promise behind Adler's theories, just that the conclusions he came to were off. (And they were, as we have discovered[see: adler's theory of birth order]) Freud altered his views drastically over time. This is why despite all being branches of freudian psychoanalysis, Lacanian, Kleinian, Object Relations, etc. are so different in many ways.
If anyone was stubborn (and I say this at risk of sounding like a contentious child on the playground proclaiming that his dad can kick your dad's ass) it was Jung. Most of his stubborn rigidity was surrounding spiritualism that had been so clearly dismissed by science. About archetypes that hardly had any place being talked about within the realm of psychoanalysis. But, imo, the biggest (or most significant) difference (besides the whole nazi thing) is that Lung thought repressions were neatly packaged into a shadowsona, which is daft as fuck. Freud could see that they're asymmetrically mapped around the psyche like a hard drive that needs defrauding. Lung's mysticism is the downfall of his work and also the exact reason he was so susceptible to being a Nazi sympathizer.
The results of his work really go to show that while notions of God and archetypes and the occult might have a valuable place in art, they are completely useless and even poisonous when applied to the sciences.
>A very kind fan of the show
>t. Jordan B Peterson
HERMES IS GOD
Man I really hated this book. I'd already been familiar with Jung's ideas beforehand and found it extremely dull
Does this guy ever go outside ?