Jordan Peterson: Where Carl Jung was Wrong!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Jordan Peterson frequently draws on the insights of psychologist Carl Jung be it on psychology and on mythology. But on which views of Jung does Peterson disagree? This was part of his Q&A 05-01-2021.
#Peterson
You can support Jordan Peterson here:
Donations: www.jordanbpet...
Check out the full video here: • Q&A 05-01-2021 | Jorda...
-
If you like the content, subscribe!
Every time Jordan Peterson quotes Jung, in the back of my mind I hear Jung muttering, " God defend me from my friends - my enemies I can deal with myself " !
@@denniswinters3096 Dito
,😂
Well said. Peterson is good but barely skims the understanding of Jung. Much more surface with his evaluation. The lack of creativity in Peterson, in comparison to Jung, is the exact reason why Jung's understandings are much further reaching.
Who knows, Peterson may one day write something as profound as 'The little red book'.
Reading the red book currently and it’s been a trip. His thoughts are so complex that I often have to take breaks, go back to the book and reread an entire chapter. And I find that there are layers of meaning one can derive from his work.
“You must know one thing above all: a succession of words does not have only one meaning. But men strive to assign only a single meaning to a sequence of words, in order to have an unambiguous language. [..] Mankind is a slave to his own words. Words should not become Gods.”
- Carl Jung, The Red Book - Chapter IV: the Anchorite (day 1)
That's because his red book was made for him, not you. You have to make your own "red book", have you tried applying the technique that Jung said?
The mark of intelligence is the ability to communicate complex ideas in a simple framework. Safe to say, Jordan is simply "above average", respectfully. "Maps of Meaning" isn't a tome...it's an anthology lol.
The levels of conciousness or unconscious to be able to think thoughts like Jung’s is hair raising
@@analisandohistorias not all of us want to take several years out of our lives directly experiencing the unconscious self. for a lot of people who repeat that experiment in some capacity it tends to end in disaster and bitterness.
never read the red book. i drew this conclusion years ago in principle, but it came into sharper focus in listening to some stuff by an avid appreciator of jung. makes me wonder how much this is intuitive to certain kinds of people, and how much certain big universities had access to this long before it was published. speech is layered, often manifesting several meanings within it, with the author frequently unconscious (sometimes wilfully) of the extent to which he is expressing inner matters.
To those questions at the end, 10 years ago, the answers would have been "no, no, no, no" I'm genuinely surprised by how many of those questions I can answer "yes" to, today. This man saved my life, and, for that, I'm eternally grateful.
You saved your life too. The power of the individual.
I say the same thing about Jung. I gained so much perspective on the nature of my inner experience, and what it all represents, that it put me in the driver's for the first time. I do recognize the importance of the questions you referenced, but those questions just didn't mean anything to my personal experience, so it's like the psychology that speaks to us the most will reflect our personal dispositions, and without a doubt for me that's Jung. For some, Adler will be preferred, and so on. So really, the title is misleading. It should be something like, "where Jung was biased", or, "Jung's blind spot". Point being, it's much more nuanced the binary thinking of right and wrong.
Me too
I've seen several Jung videos and there is a common ground for lot of us. Jung saved my life. Amazing how the conscience relate his teaching as useful and how we relate so deep with his work that we feel his words from past to future.
Cannot imagine my life without Jung's exploration and explication of the interior world, and subsequent impact on so many disciplines and people! 🙏😎
I think Jung was, as mentioned, an archaeologist of the psyche (very intelligent remark). If you do his work in a sacred context, it will reveal treasures to you and heal you.
And no coincidence, Jung had wanted to go into archeology as a profession, but family finances forced him into medicine.
💚🧚♀️
You are indeed a VERY sopisticated girl !
@@Notflix_TV_ ---> ABRAXAS ! ! ! (Gnostic GOD)
The title is misleading. J.P. talk about the limitations of Jung Psychology, and not anything wrong at all!
Right. There's a reason psychology has so many fields. Analytic, neuro, developmental, cognitive/behavioral. The human psyche is multi-layered and there's no one size fits all. If you're open minded, creative and whimsical then just cleaning your room and getting a girlfriend isn't gonna cut it for long. Equally, telling an obsessive and ambitious workaholic to write down their dreams and feelings probably won't resonate that much.
If I had the choice of Peterson or Jung for a councillor I would take Jung. Jordan has done a great deal to bring Jung back in to the wider world and that's marvellous, but Jung has a capacity to engage the patient student with a road map to living that is vital because it is subtle.
In the case of Jordan Peterson, prepare to spend around 100 000 dollars... In the case of Jung, he usually managed to have "contributions" from his clients which hormally became his acolytes, int the million dollar range
@@r.e.campos8857
I never had a personal session with Jung or any Jungian counsellor but his books are a cheap gold mine of priceless practical grounded wisdom.
I owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
You couldn't have had a session with Jung, he died in 1961. His Red Book is not that cheap and when issued cost almost 150 US dollars.
Having been helped by reading him and recognizing it is more an indication of what a good person you are than Jung's person.
When reading the Red Book, beware because Jung actually deep down presents himself as a prophet revealing a new, unusual and revolutionary face to God, which is the contents of the red book and the black book quite contrary to the established idea of God.
@@r.e.campos8857
Dude, you are just talking shit.
I would choose both
peeling The Onion ..
I actually think that exactly that’s the reason why Jung was right. People living „external lives“ like Peterson calls it never get to the point of self Individuation in Jungs sense. That’s actually funny since it is related to today’s climate: In COVID-19 Lockdowns most people were somehow suffering. But the people most suffering on an interpersonal way were the external „carrier“ type guys who never thought of themselves in a sense a highly „creative“ self critical person would do about the often arbitrary structure of the own ego, morals and values.
They work since being pragmatic is the best thing they can do and it’s a comfortable ground state for them. But that’s as far from self Individuation as you can be.
Exactly. What I've observed, after watching a bunch of Peterson videos, is that he is extremely "outward" oriented which is just insane considering the fact that he is not a motivation guru or influencer, but a psychologist. His job isn't to tell a person to fix themselves from the outside-in, but to help fix themselves from the inside out. Until and unless you're sorted out on the inside, you can't be a properly sorted out person.
Even with the nihilistic tendencies question, his answer, while obviously was helpful, seemed too simple to me...imagine you start chasing relationships and job and all to deal with nihilistic patterns, and say you even start feeling better...but what if your friend betrays you, or your partner cheats on you, or you are fired...you'd crash face first into the darkness again. Because you didn't try to locate or fix the root cause, you just fixed up the branches.
Exactly.
@@Sunshine-yk2eg Inside - out and outside - in are two sides of the same coin. Building habits has an arguably bigger impact on your psyche consciously and subconsciously than thinking through the hypothetical trauma. If a person is so terrified by his own psyche often the only thing one can do to stabilize their life is start with building healthy ways of behaviour that shortly after lead to a new way of thinking since often people become so stuck, that they can't even imagine ever doing something productive.
What I want to say is: You can't have one without the other and that goes both ways
Persona or Ego indeed is a product of mind (as play of memory and imagination which is commonly called as thought process). Therefore sanity can not be evaluated by comparing personal with social which proves Jung is right and Peterson is stuck in his insane imagination...
@@Sunshine-yk2eg He makes the point that Jung viewed things from the perspective of an open introvert. Do you think Peterson is an introvert? I don't. I believe he is limited in the same way that Jung was. As an extrovert, his answer to the the question of fending off nihilism was spot on. These things are likely more important in developing personal satisfaction and meaning than focusing solely on self reflection.
I would say that in „Psychological Types” Jung recognises this, comparing his psychology to that of Adler’s and Freud’s, saying the differences in theories come from personal psychology.
Not just that.
All respect to Dr. Peterson, but what I've read of Jung and seen materials of his, he is definitely NOT wrong. There might be some types of personalities or techniques that he has not pinpointed, but that is absolutely normal and expected, because as he said "We need more psychology and it should evolve", it's impossible one person to discover and document everything in a discipline. As he has quoted Bismarck in his famous interview - "God protect me from my friends, and my enemies I can deal myself alone".
As for the types of personalities, he has written that there are many ways of doing things and seeing the world around us, it all depends on the individual.
Carl Jung is the pinnacle of wisdom and intellect, not only in psychology but in understating of human being in general. As I'm going through his work, more and more I discovery how unappreciated and underrated he is. Such a treasure, glorious shining light, forever.
Because something has limitations does not mean it is wrong. The title to this video is disongenuous and does a great diservice to Dr Jung's work.
The paradox of life which to date, only Jung seems to have understood, is that our biology forces our nervous system to seek external validation in order to be healthy, but that in doing so, a veil of self deceit is formed as a protection mechanism against the true horror of the individual pointlessness of our existence.
Jung had the ability to create observations that seem to come from an awareness which lacked this dependancy, a true rare gem in the field of psichiatry and psychology
I'd read Jung over Peterson any day.
Jung is lightyears ahead of Peterson
Jung was a mastermind and people can't wrap their heads over his intellect. The insight he had was enormous. Far beyond capabilities of ordinary mortal man.
Jung's contra-sexual psyche is also remarkable, and seems true to me. Men have female emotional bodies and women have male emotional bodies.
As a professor emerita, I respect JP’s logic and discipline. As a psychotherapist, parent, and an INFJ, Carl Jung’s work has enlightened me the most.
And JPs made you want to die more than ever lmao
Hmm a professor and psychotherapist using Myers Briggs categorisation? Interesting.
@@dragster9070 I rly had the same thought lmao
Jung enlighten you? He thought personality was part of the collective unconscious. When a patient is having some neurosis, do you get a ouji board out like he did? Or do you prefer tarot reading his other tool. You believers in Jung are a bunch of fruit cakes. Psychotherapist are into Jung and psychiatrist are into drugs. No wonder the mental health field needs an overhaul. Forty percent of teens are on some kind of pill, therapy, or considered to have some mental health issue by you folks. That's outrageous. You folks are the ones with the problem.
INFJ is what?
I am so happy to have listened to Peterson and his lectures because now I have learned about Nietzche and Jung and it has been life changing
I cant agree with Peterson in this.
More than extroverts and introverts, every human being is creative, and Jung´s approach to individuation is pure creative force applied in one´s expansion of the Psyche.
Both introversts and extroverts can be creative, each one in different ways through the path of meaning.
The wisdom of C.G.Jung! Where Higher Self and Lower self meet in the heart and become whole. He referred to life as an alchemical process and once individuation is achieved it imparts true knowing (Gnosis). He was blessed with 14 erudite ministers in his family! He is a messenger of love and light, when one has eyes to see.🕉💟📿
Jordan is totally wrong in this video. Jung explicitly states that the process of individuation (maturity of the personality) is based on our collision with other people. In order to assimililate projections one has to analyze the images projected on to OTHER PEOPLE. He says that an individual is like a link in an infinite chain of personalities. He also constantly states that too much attention to the inner world is unhealthy and the patient has to entangle itself with earthly matters, and vice versa.
Jung would say that the person who only identifies with his goals and earthy matters will never fully mature his personality if he doesn't pay attention to the inner world, he will not become unique, which is what nature wants, according to Jung. He may live a normal life, but an unconscious one, similar to an eternal child, the child will never know what he's missing.
Also, he is wrong about neuroticism. Jung didn't miss that, JP simply rejects his view of thr psyche.
According to Jung, sensibilty to negative emotion is product of immaturity on the 'eros' function in men (in part, how one relates emotionally to perceptions). This immaturity is in part the product of negligence and over-razionalization of the ego personality, thus discarding unreasonable facts of the personality.
Neuroticism can also be overcome in it entirety through rigorous vipassana meditation, hence not a personality trait.
Jung was a fruit cake. I find it laughable how you conflate mysticism with what should be modern medicine and psychological.
@@joeboxter3635 Laugh then.
Jung was rushing. He rushed because he was the only one doing all the heavy lifting within his psychology. And he needed to prove something.
If you had to create a new psychology, do you move down a path that shows evidence at a faster pace???
Or
Do you go down a path that may show evidence but you need more time?
Jung needed more time and more modern science. But I will say this, Jung, over time, will prove himself.
You are quite correct sir, it's interesting that you thought of that.
Working hard does not mean rush. Nobody can chase Jung but that does not mean he was rushing ahead of somebody. Investigation is not a sportlike.
@@5xing8gua I think OP meant rushing to make evidence in his own mortal lifetime
i dont think he rushed at all
@@funkyboodah i think what he means is that one lifetime is not enough time for one man to create a complete psychological model from scratch. his theories were muddled and vague, but it was the best he could do at the time. jung was a pioneer of the field. lobotomy and shock therapy were common practice back then and thought to be the best legitimate treatments for mental disorders we didn't fully understand. and we barely understand them even nowadays. prescription medication is basically a form of chemical lobotomy, and the only alternatives we have are wishy washy "new age" stuff like somatic therapy or holistic medicine. psychology is still a very new science. Jung was eons ahead of his time. in a similar way as Nikola Tesla. but very few were willing to back either of them. for that reason their work never came to full fruition, and now all we have is bits and pieces of an unfinished puzzle we can take from and try to work with. Jung may not have been able to make any sort of real-world impact with his work but at least he offered a way for some people to get a grasp on reality without having to go through such invasive medical procedures, or getting roped into some cult.
Jung was more an archaeologist of the psyche. He wanted to know how and why our common impulses came to be found within the vast array of human cultures and experiences.
“Something“ was there. And he chipped away at it, not through his own preconceived notion‘s, but with the very stories we continuously recycle amongst ourselves. What a fascinating approach it was.
I can’t imagine a world today not defined by his discovery of archetypes.
In this regard, Jung discovered more gears of the human experience than any other.
Between, the heroes journey, the shadow and archetypes, the breadth of vision tying it all together is astonishing.
He was a cultural relativist anti-realist . A "noble savage" follower of Rousseau. A "past worshipper."
Jung predicted the advent of totalitarianism when the conscious mind moves away from the self. Seems like thats whats happening right now.
@@alanvinayak9685 I would agree. Look at the surge of christian nationalism we are now witnessing in the U.S. We see countless conversations of these people expressing contradictions as though rational. It's clear they are out of touch with 'the self'. But we've seen this before. Fascism and nationalism, will always be with us. The author Norman Mailer once declared that totalitarian governments were more in alignment with the human condition because of its simplistic appeal- namely a parent or authority figure making things easier. "Yes... no... do this... don't do that!" Democracy really does take more effort and maturity of emotion as it requires concessions. And thus... knowing 'the self'.
Always enlightening listening to Jordan. I wish he would dedicate a session on how to get the most out of the Big Five Aspects Scale - which he frequently alludes to in his talks - for those of us who have taken the ‘assessment’ and want to get more utility from the data it provides.
Search for jobs and people that suit your temperament, at the same time work on your weaknesses. So if you are disagreeable, try and focus more on doing things for others. That's a good start, JP has a few videos on it.
@@Zoney06 Great! Thx.
He's not as emotionally stable to handle his own damn gift Carl Jung knew how to channel his gifts ito a positive light or experience. "Genius syndrome ".
Peace Pilgrim said that one can have a very common job or profession as one of their life's calling. I think that she felt that using the calling to be of service would make a big difference in finding inner peace. She also said that relationships such as in a family would be a great way to learn and grow together, learning about sharing, working to be of service with each other etc...
It seems to me that Jordan Peterson is overlooking the evidence presented in the book he recommended to understand Jung which is The Origins and History of Consciousness. Neumann describes the hero on pg 137 as "...someone who feels themselves inspired..." and earlier as "...a doer, seer and creator..." which are words that Peterson uses to describe the Open personality. Neumann describes the task of the hero as two fold; first venturing into the unconscious with the aid of the soul (the anima as part of the unconscious that is pledged to the ego) to slay the dragon of the unconscious (mother) and retrieve the treasure, second to bring that treasure back to revivify the culture (slaying of the father). Peterson has said many times that it is the role of the Open personality types, the creators and visionaries to revivify the culture. What he is describing is the Hero that Jung and Neumann depict in the book. So Jung's propensity to focus on Open personalities was because he saw them as the extraordinary individuals throughout history who helped human consciousness to advance and gain new ground.
Basically Jordan Peterson here is describing Jung's take on typology.
What he fails to say is that Jung doesn't really spoke that much about the hero's journey, though he infers it in his writings.
However Jung does say that different typologies have different roads. My take is that, seen or unsees, regardless of typologies, we all take the heroe's journey. If we see it we are fortunate, of we don's see it then we are doomed and life will do it for us. Then we call it fate.
As for Jung not talking about neuroticism as a personality trait I disagree as well because neuroticism is an aspect of both the extraverted and introverted with all their respective aspects (thinking, feeling, sensation, intuitive). An extraverted thinker can be just as neurotic as a introverted intuitive.
He wrote much about the nigredo state of alchemy from a psychological point of view and as being indespensable to change.
Jung was a psychiatrist himself and he noticed how people getting stuck in the nigredo phase can suffer devastating effects.
He also spoke of the dangers of allowing too much of the unconsious in when one is not ready.
That can destroy and shatter the ego to the point of schizophrenia.
Jung also said the following: "Thank God people have neurosis". That is the beginning of change, if done consciously.
Not very accurate but I see the point you’re trying to make, Good try!
If you go by Jung, it doesn’t mean we all are “creative religious mystics”, but we all have the ABILITY TO BE. And you can either be your Devine self or you can be silenced and suffocated by the collective unconscious/ the dark collective- the majority- the “elite”. And in order to become your Devine self, you must first be aware of your unconscious. You must realize that what you put out is what you get back. You must control your unconscious and be aware enough to keep your vibrations high and positive to affect those around you as well. “A smile is contagious”, “treat others how you want to be treated”, “one good deed can lead to others’ good deeds to others”. It’s not a coincidence that all of our “lessons” growing up are to put out positivity and you will receive the same in return.
Jung new exactly that if he didn’t socialize enough he would lose his mind, that’s why he would purposefully go out with people and spend time with his family event if it wasn’t what he would rather do, he still did it. It was probably in the book called dreams memories and reflections where he said this.
Correct. He mentioned in M,D,T that it was both his work with his patients and the time he dedicated to his family that kept him grounded in reality as he explored the unconscious
Psychologists and similar types always tend to drastically overcomplicate their concepts to the point they remain esoterically limited to consideration by scholastic minds only. (When in most cases the only thing they're doing is stating what should be obvious to most who posses even a shred of reflective ability.)
Regardless of how assumably Forward Thinking Jung was, in many respects he was still limited by the experiences, Events, and customs of his Time. ( All of which contributed to the shaping of his Personal World View.)
It's ok to be inspired by, and learn from nearly anyone..and some contribute more than others in that respect. But, nobody is right about everything, and Education doesn't end in the classroom for those genuinely trying to "individuate" as Jung termed it. (Though I prefer a more de-mystified version of that concept.)
I think where many err in that respect is when they Deify Their Idols and attempt to make nea
r Gods of Men.
yep, i can sum up jung w/out a phd or masters. go into plato's cave, your wildnerness, get feral with your grief, rescue your inner child, and gtfo and keep that child protected and raise her up to be the amazing person she is using mindfulness to invoke archetypes we all know and understand to some extent. that's all it is in a nutshell. now there are better and worse ways, but that's the gist of it.
@@opheliawild well stated ma'am. I think your inner child is quite safe and had grown into Her Greatness.
Good evening.
Desk
@@jeremyhennessee6604 You guys are both fools if you believe you can 'sum up' Jung. You can't compress Jung because given the way he writes, most of what he says is already in a compressed form. You unpack Jung, you don't summarize him. You're doing the opposite of reading him if you imagine that he can be compressed into some brief apothegm, let alone what ophelia wrote. Instead of reading him, you're reducing him, and I imagine you do that with most everything you read, judging by your attitude and your own statement to the effect that most psych. texts are "overcomplicated" and can be puked back out into a Twitter post. I don't think you could even explain what 'active imagination' or 'individuation' mean if I asked you to do so without GPT or google or something, that goes to both of you. Do you even know what an 'archetype' is? You think that's just about positive visualization and we all have automatic access to this world of archetypes?
An archetype is a vital form whereby the inner acts upon the outer and the outer acts upon the inner, a liminal reality between spirit and matter that normally unconsciously conditions the dialectical movement between the one and the other, between inner and outer, spirit and matter, self and other, (Hence it was through study of the alchemists and their symbolism of transformative processes that Jung really began to understand it) but can actually be made conscious through prolonged active imagination; (the fulfillment of alchemical gold, the 'philosopher's stone') where that dialectic normally works through simple enantiodromia, with mental states simply emerging from highly energized excitations and falling back into depleted moments of recovery, (this potential intensification or tension between excitation and depletion is what others like Klages call man's 'daemonic' potency) when it is made conscious one gains new agency over their own pathos: the archetypes fertilize and activate this patterning between the inner and outer worlds, which is what 'individuation' is. They exist both inside and out of man's head, which is why they are called collective by Jung; he doesn't mean they are a genetically ancestral reservoir we can plug back into like a hivemind. He calls them collective because they are objective realities that we discover, not invent, much like mathematics; they existed before humanity and will exist after humanity, and any alien conscious being that might exist out in the universe will 'discover' the same archetypal forms because they are simply the abstract forms whereby any dialectical mediation between the inner and outer can be maintained. The human being, without this process of individuation, is by default in a kind of self-servitude, a purely 'daemonic' being at the mercy of their own unconscious.
I'm really sorry to have to be blunt but it's just such arrogance, the worst kind of arrogance because it isn't even amusing, to sit there with the gall of saying you have the great genius to sum up someone like Jung in a paragraph- because his own writing? Nah he was just making it complicated to look smarter or something, and you know better than he did what he wanted to say, so you're going to say it for us. Bullshit. By the way, has the thought occurred to you that these theorists are not overcomplicating things for the fun of it, but that the subject in question really is itself that complicated? Because the subject is the latent and obscured machinery of the human mind actively working against the very analyst trying to decipher it. There's not any other more complicated subject.
Jung also wrote about geo politics, religions and quantum science. Great fun of what little I have read
The statement that the tendency to highly experience negative emotions seems lie at the heart of psychopathology I found interesting. I think of it more in terms of whole object relations. Perhaps he understands the former impacts the latter.
its curious how after this amount of time, still a fair amount of people have taken on and still cite Jung's work in psychology and psychiatry. His organic first hand meeting of the mind is a contrast to many clinical psychology approaches which try to use theoretical logic and half-scientific or mathematical notions to describe and pin down the essence of the mind. The issue is that the mind of a person or creature is a living thing of nature, and not a simple machine (or wholly some analogy of a computer).
Never explained where Jung was wrong though hahah
Tum
is clickbait.
Not everyone relates to Jung. He doesn't need the average simpletons approval.
Dr. Peterson, on your saying ([04:54]) Jung didn't notice the /Neuroticism/ dimension [of the Five-Traits personality model (FTPM)], please note that FTPM has been nowadays somehow superseded by the NERIS model, where there's no such /Neuroticism/ dimension. Seen from a math modelling perspective: one can use different base vectors such that the older base (FTPM) can be expressed as a linear combination of the new one. Such, I believe, was the case from going from Jung's original model, perhaps relayed by Myers-Briggs, to FTPM: a base change. As well as FTPM could be expressed in terms of NERIS as a base change. Ie. Jung did not align an entire dimension along /Neuroticism/ in his 4D model, but /N./ would have been a linear combination of Jung's dimensions. (Why linear? Let's start modelling from the simple.)
Plus, following your mentioning /N./ (see above), you mention /Neuroticism/ is the core feature at the base of all psychopathologies. Are you implying psychotic disorders (compulsion, schizophrenia, etc) have a core in /N./? I believe that's a wrong statement.
I don't think Peterson knows Jung well enough. Even highly social people will come to the limits of their conscious personality and then through crisis they might be able to get in touch with a higher authority that will take them further. Peterson even mentions this at 4:22 but then he leaves it at that. Another thing is that he doesn't seem to know much about psychological types instead he follows main stream Big 5.
While I appreciate Peterson I prefer and identify better and understand further with carl jungs work. 😊
I'll never understand why Peterson never includes any more categories than those of the OCEAN test (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) to frame and describe patients and people. There are so many other factors one can take into consideration. The fact that psychology researchers decided that the one and unique way to measure people's psychological traits was with this 5 traits test is beyond me. It is merely an academic consensus. It is just so incredibly reductive.
So, is there any posibility that a person realises that is damaged from some experineces and that it will leave concquences how ever you deal with that situations or relations where you or someone else did the wrong thing. Is it possible that something that was negative leads you to some phases in your life and situations where you should be at that time to maybe help to someone and yourself to overcome similar situations in a better way. Should you judge yourself and try to be rational all the time? Who has the wright to claim that there's not something significant in every experience that happen in life. Even if it seems nihilistic sometimes we all have to except the fact that in some parts of our lives we did the best we could even if it wasn't enough to satisfy our moral norms from the past or other people expectations and needs. Is it possible that sometimes life puts us where we need to be beacuase we overseen our mistakes. Maybe there is something that is out of our knowledge. A force that will show us that we are not the only ones that will decide is the logical thing the best thing that we could learn or do in some situations. Maybe there are some people that are not psychopats but they only think and feel different because they didn't have the chance to develop "normal" relations and mindset that would give them a possibility to be perfectly engaged in their enviroment but they have a healthy mind and they are trying to find their role or pourpose in a field they can give their best what ever that is. Maybe.....there is God, i don't know.
It pains me to see how this encyclopedia of a man, so knowledgeable was so ill at this point in his life. I am so glad he recuperated well and got to see even more of him this past few years
Marcus Aurelius, the greatest emperor of all time and the founding pillar of Stoic philosophy, was an unrepentant life-long dopehead: opium, all day, every day. (His philosophy of non-reactivity, emotional distance, resignation, and letting things go makes a lot of sense when you know that about him, if you know anything about opioids. They are my own weakness.) Heroin before there was heroin. Everybody has a weakness, I was not surprised by JP's.
You serious? You think he’s behind Jung?
Bruv if you study psychology in university you’re 1000% going to study Jungian psychology, Mr Peters Son won’t be there.
I think we give people to much credit sometimes instead of ourselves and we make people famous for no apparent reason whilst we stay poor!
Jung is highly visual, he is a design thinker. While other types of personality test can only see the surface, he went deeper thru his works. Super intelligent.
In between Carl Jung and Jordan Peterson, who do I choose ? Carl Jung. In 30 years we will have forgotten Jordan Peterson for his arrogance, definitely not Carl Jung for his intelligence.
He did it with flow is why he did know about thos few ..
I think that JP, read into Jung too literally. Also the OCEAN model is useful for psychologist, but extremely static in nature and basically completely miss the temporal dimension. Jung was all about balance and finding the proper boundaries and increasing consciousness. I am not really fun of JPs static worldview. Even if you use the OCEAN model, you should strive to decrease your traits if they are too high and vice versa (the extremes are always bad). Other issues with JP is that he just talks about models and people - he is critiquing model and not the "vision" (I guess that JP does not really believe in the collective unconscious).
To add on i think even if you read Jung literally, you would be able to get a gist of what he is saying, i think jordan just skimmed through the books or relied too much on the modern academia knowlegde to interpret the books by Jung.
Additionally he has not read any of Jung's students works. Marie louise von franz is the greatest student of Jung and frankly give a much more simplified explanation of his work.
What JBP is referring to at the end is the theory of human needs; that we can fall into disrepair when at least one of our basic humans needs isn't meant, whether it be financial, physical, social, emotional, or mental.
Q: How does one deal with Nihilism?
Jordan Peterson: Meet your needs and find fulfillment down other roads first, you may no longer feel the need to ask those questions
It's okay for the world to feel senseless and without meaning. Nihilism does not have to be something inherently negative for the individual. Berserk, a Japanese manga, offers a very Nihilistic, and also very hopeful perspective on finding purpose in a grim, senseless world.
I am no pro, but have loads of experience being neurotic. ;) I went to the grief instead of running from it. I find most are white-knuckling every way they can to avoid facing their jabberwocky of rage and grief. once we do, we learn to ride that mf'er. or at least, it begins to take some naps. you see grief leads to purging, feral like tragic grief processing, then comforting rains of acceptance, then we integrate the lesson and the soil is turned for rebirth and new growth.
Seriously, JP criticizing Jung??? Jung was a non-dualistic thinker and genius who was way ahead of his time, JP is a narcissistic dualistic divider who loves to berate people and comment on every damn thing on the planet. He always has to be right and doesn't truly understand most of Jung's work, he has a very superficial take on Jung.
Yes. Totally enamoured with his own intellect and seems to feel a need to contradict in order to make an impact regardless of its validity.
@@sharongrenier1667 yep, you got that right, unlike Jordy boy
please master Jung,perdona tanta ignorancia.....
There is tragedy, happiness, opportunity, injustice, deprivation, ignorance, wisdom, social bonding, violence at many levels, despair and bliss in life…can anybody tell me (outside of fundamental survival and understanding) is life something that is ultimately…..Serious?
“Man cannot live a meaningless life.” C.G. Jung Most of how you define life is based on the soil you were born on. It's that simple. Jung stressed to ask oneself if who I believe I am is how I am? Speak to the soul, know yourself, and recognize the ego, self, anima, and animus. Alchemy, from the spiritual point of view, plays a significant role. To study Jung, one must be drawn to it and find it on their own. Even Jung stressed it wasn't for everyone. No one person will ever have the power to please or interest everyone, and if that day ever comes, we're in for a considerable shite show..
I've noticed people who have experienced trauma, if guided, get better if they decide to study Jung. Not only his concepts but The Black Books and Alchemy.
Please don't take seriously the narrow interpretation of Peterson about the hero archetype
It is just better to read Jung than to listen to Peterson talk about him. Jordan has a kind of
narrow personal contemporary type of interpretation about Jung, it can be very misleading frequently
Jung wrote more the depth realities of the psyche than about specific more superficial artifacts of modern societies, after reading Jung directly you will see this are manifestation of the deep archetypes and have a better grasp of what he really meant
Nonsense.... Jung was a master
Jung was NEVER wrong!
Jung would disagree.
Jung would certainly admit hes not without flaw, but Jordan Peterson has no footing to speak on the subject.
@@Alice-im2ek True
@@MikkoAPenttila hahahahaha
I wonder how spiritual you are? Because without that it's just all theories and ideas Carl Jung was a very spiritual man A true blue infj will not disagree with any of his ideas infact I have experienced so much of his phycology and knowledge I had an outer body experience. In a sense
I disagree. I am high in all the traits that make you good roadkill, including agreeableness and openness, have been an artist in the creative arts all my life, a cradle Orthodox Christian, and I am highly conservative.
No mention of the Unconscious !
I cannot stand to hear Jordan Peterson critique Jung. He has essentially become a mouthpiece for the state. Status quo...
Jordan talks about Carl's intellectual limitations!!!!
Jung's is way above Jordan's head,
it is not wise to try assess the limits of great minds if you are not the top of them. Jordan is reaally good and fantastic, but not even close to Carl's brilliance.
what a supercilious narcissistic move
Imo intimate relationships are extremely difficult to get if you are in a nihilistic state
I wonder what Jordan thinks are the negatives of the enlightenment.
Carl Jung managed to link psychology and philosophy, making attainable to many their common boundary, where lies sanity.
No small feat. And what genius REALLY looks like
I want the same carpet in my room 😊
Dr. Peterson, may I ask about your saying (timestamp [03:15]) that the social & internal organizations mirror one another: how does it relate with the /compensating role of the unconscious/? I.e. what do you mean by "internal", conscious (ego-level) or unconscious (superego, persona, anim-a/us, ..., Self)? If the unconscious has a compensating function, does it correlate positively with the social compensation one seeks? Thanks.
Very closed minded definition of creativity
agreed, the very best scientists are actually artists. michio kaku, carl sagan, einstein (he used active imagination to find e=mc2), copernicus...newton, list goes on and on. intuition --> discovery of things we cannot see physically, so we must feel them. just as anyone compensates for a loss of their senses by overcompensating in another. it's a gift. we all have it and can all get in touch with and develop it. including jordan here.
I agree
He just loves putting things according to his own intellect consciously, that's why he got the creativity wrong.
and a condescending assessment of Jungs relationship with them vs. non-creative types based on supposition
3:07 This definitely strikes me as an intriguing assumption Jordan is making here. I think of that famous quote "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society". Why should we be integrated with this fallen system? Why should we play by these rules? I don't believe behaving like a robot "integrated" into the system is mentally healthy, unless you think automation is mental wellness. Some people likely do, to be honest.
Jung included a lot of untested ideas with his more certain knowledge. Thus, studying Jung is a minefield, because he often doesn't filter out that which might be false.
Tow
oh well i consider he did a great work whit it, of course there could be some fails, but let me tell you about his perspective on the theosophical society and how he made our way pretty clean in a lot of esoteric superstitious stuff there, even exposing the danger of the theosophical society trying to CREATE a "new religion" and the danger that it coul bring (all in a letter to SMITH, that you can read for example in chatgpt where i did at first. just ask about jung knowing the danger of the theosophical society trying to create a new religion, its pretty cool data.)
The man is a really non stoping rabbit hole when you discover his letters data.
Peterson is like a clever beast hiding in a knoted branch of twisted timber. He thinks Jung as a bourgeois simpelton in undangerous comfort.
5:40 or try to question wether there could actually be meaning in your 'collective unconscious'.
Jung stayed religious because of that.
Jung is completing Nietzsche where Nietzsche was blind.
Nietzsche belonged in a mental institution along with Jung.
@@stephenwipf5224 Seems like you beat them to it tho 😂
@@aconfusedshoe6240 What do you know? your a confused shoe..........
@@stephenwipf5224 "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
@@Eminovici Where Nietzsche,is concerned it's also no measure of health to manipulate half of history to his lunatic idiosyncratic rantings either.
Funny to see this guy pointing to c j flaws with such confidence… he thinks that by analysing c j he will look close to his level
hahahaha
Wtf Uberboyo has an ad now haha
My main issue with his red book is that people don’t know what is in the head of Swiss look into craniotomy and how their skulls are different from ours
Shows a poor understanding at Jung’s typology theory.
First time I’ve heard Jung discussed in a somewhat informed and sociological/ behavioural way that adds more questions re Jung . He shows respect for Jung. As a psychiatrist who has benefitted profoundly from reading Jung over a few decades, I hear only helpful comments here, not reasons he was wrong. Just other perspectives that come from 60 to 100 years since Jung formed and modified his perspective. I find jp’s quite valid even from a jungian perspective. I’m sure Jung wd expect nothing less than more intelligent engagement w his ideas.
Is JP saying some people don't need the transcendental function? Is JP turning into a Self-Help guru extraordinaire?
4:55 Neuroticism seems a bit redundant.
_”The capacity to experience negative emotion [...] seems to be the core feature of everything we regard as [...] psychological illness.”_
That seems pretty self-evident.
I do not know what you mean by redundant. Also, Where is your 'self-evident' line?
@@GRichter1996 _”the capacity to experience negative emotion seems to be the core feature of everything we regard as psychological illness”_
@@-John-Doe- Well It seems to me. It depends upon how an individual defines psychological illness. Please try to refrain from just ctrl c + v your responses it is very upsetting. I was asking a genuine question which at least deserves a genuine response don't you think?
Jordan Peterson is not competent to say Jung is wrong, he is nothing compared to Jung
Thanks as always ❤
3+3=6
3+3=6
3+3=6
but so does:
0+6=6
1+5=6
2+4=6
4+2=6
5+1=6
6+0=6
and:
12-6=6
and
100-94=6
and
square root of 36 = 6
and
ad infinitum
#Circumpunct
Perception, reflection, awareness.
You can't possibly focus on everything in one life.
I like this brand of looksmaxxing
Nah. I don't buy that Jordan Peterson had creative types. He's the archetypical Conservative. Therefore he is the one that is flawd in the gaze of Jung
Jordan hasnt been on the journey. Trauma is not a pleasant crash course into the nature of consciousness. Rumi is right. Trauma is the wound where the light comes in. Jordan hasnt experienced what is essential to comment on Jung.
What are you talking About? The only people who can really ever comment on Jung are people extremely high in openess. Only people high in openess can have the sort of experiences Jung had also as clear as he did. And can understand him. Why talk about trauma?
@@adiongano8416 if what you say is true, she can rest her case!
I am trying to figure out how mister Peterson propose to compatibilize the self imposed rules with the inner peace or the subconcious. the subconsious needs to go out and play and be messy right? This is a serious question, not just a comment. I thanks before hand to those who can guide me some light about this, since I am not specially brilliant.
The title alone....Carl Jung and Jordan Peterson caught my attention. I have all books from both.
Same but I only understand 2 of them 🤣
By "have" do you mean "read", or just look good on the shelf?
@@mrchoon2010 have read. I have read these books
@@abcd-ur8fo that's awesome. There aren't many people like you in the world
Same here, (almost). I've read Maps of Meaning and 12 rules for life by JP, not sure yet whether I wanna dive into Beyond Order next.
I've read a couple of books by Jung when I was younger and recently reread them, currently finishing Man of Symbols. Still so fascinating but also overwhelming at times. 😳
I haven't dealt with the Red Book nor Aion yet,... I'm sure these two will be the most admirable ones.
Oh I'd love to meet people in real life who study such material as well!
I don’t like this dude , because he has that narcissist vibe. He is truly knowledgeable but he has something that I don’t know how to explain . It’s the same thing narcissistic leaders had . Very attractive though very self sure and it’s simply not comfortable . I know he is not an empath . But he is a self believer and the “ black sheep” following him .
He is a gifted orator who lulls you into a false sense of security so you ignore the little alarm bells going off in your brain until he makes that one truly totally bogus statement and you finally look back on what he has been actually saying realize you have been taken in all the while. Yes, he is a narcissist. Too bad he did put that intellect to better use.
Wow.
From the book … Sigmund Says: And Other Psychotherapists’ Quotes by Bernard Nisenhotz and Lyle Nisenholz.
“We can keep from a child all knowledge of earlier myths, but we cannot take from him the need for mythology.”
C. G. Jung
Maybe some people should actually watch the video.
The Monomyth, can in fact be taken internal, but once you start digging deeper you get into he mess that I got into, where you tap into God, and all reality starts to warp. God being, you, your version, and all the individual components of your body, the Old Structures, start to wrestle you for control of your consciousness.
Cartwright Motorway
No, no - CG Jung would never be in favor of, lets say agreable person being in good relationships all tha time - and that's it. If you read the CG Jung's typology, he distinguished 4 main types (feeling, intuition, sensing and thinking). His concept was that everybody has 2 strong functions at the beginning of life (predisposition) and has to develop the third and the fourth one later in life. This concept has been adapted by 2 Americans who created MBTI.
Unfortunately, MBTI lacks depth and has been commercialised to distortion. If you want to know something about typology, read CG Book about it.
The Jungian cognitive functions describe all personality types: introverts, extraverts, creatives, noncreatives, thinkers, and feelers.
Not really. Creativity, logic, IQ are all separate from jungian functions. Logical ability is just IQ, creativity isn't particular to any cognitive type.. Neuroticism has nothing to with jungian types, too.
@@Gabbargaamada personality types describes preferences. I believe that creativity (the ability to create something new and unique) is described by intuition. Give me an example of how logic can create anything new. Logic can only take observations and describe reality (either based on evidence or experience).
@@888Longball logic can break down the system into its constituent subsystems and build it ground up and changing it, if necessary, to suit the needs. Lots of inventors who are not intuitives e.g. Wright Brothers who invented the plane. Lots of people I know who are not intuitive but with high IQ solve major problems. Jeff Bezos is usually typed as ISTJ, thus he will have inferior intuition (Si>Te>Fi>Ne). Yet Bezos built one of the most creative ways to do business online and is the second richest person on earth. Sigmund Freud, a person who was factory of creative ideas was also typed as ISTJ... the point is both Bezos and Freud has 3SD (145+) IQ and hence i believe they could come up with solutions despite not being "intuitves". In my view, Jungian definition of intuition is very different from what is considered intuition in popular sense. You gain intuition for things if you are very high IQ and spend considerable time in a particular field, you will become intuitive in that field. According to Jungian theories, 34% of people have preference for intuition.. and I be like: hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahqhqhwhwhhqhqhhahahahahhhahahah
Thinking is very different from being logical. A person can be thinker yet illogical. The ability to deal with logic is dependent upon one's IQ, particularly working memory.. Creativity is basically the ability to retrieve information from ones memory and connect it with the on-going thought in a way which leads to creation of new ideas.. again, creativity will depend on particular person's unique Neurobiology..
The 5-factor OCEAN model is Freudian. Not a surprise to me they differ on neuroticism. I am a big fan.
If anyone is unfit to criticize Carl Jung, it’s Jordan Peterson. He may be a psychologist, but when you are finally able to thrash your way through his word salad, you see there’s nothing there, just a wannabe intellectual! 🤮
There you go, Joordan Peterson again criticizing everything as if he is the ultimate judge on what is corect and incorrect :D :D :D
Where's YOUR theory and how does it measure up, mr Peterson?
bro, STOP.
you're no Jung, Watts, or at any level to critique them.
go become prolific on something else.
Set aside your ego and pride and appreciate his work and gift. Can you not have professionalism? I really thought I could admire your wisdom now all I do is appreciate for the work and time to gain and produce you knowledge and.... Studies
Thank you Docs, Jung and Peterson.
Give me Jung over Peterson anyday.
Jung over who?
do you believe that God is a collective consciousness? As far I can tell that's what Jung thinks.
The heroes journey is also known as the left hand path.