Jung - Recommendations

Post Reply New Topic

I haven't read Jung for many years, but I feel the interest resurfacing.

I think my daughter would be interested too.

I'm looking for recommendations of what to read.

Which books should I start with, or avoid? Which would be best for a novice like my daughter?

If you soon find his psychology boring and overrated, at least read "Answer to Job" before closing the door on the guy.

Craziest thing I ever read.

I may have to give him another try soon, my failed attempts were all a long time ago.

ha, I just ran into this broad in a dudes body and realised I forgot to give Junk credit for synchronicity.

This is timely, such thinking is being criminalised through outlets like Dr Phil.

Happy 42 000 posts btw!

sometimes cannabis seems to trigger it, but idk...

Jung and Freud were friends and colleagues for a long time, and did analyze each other's dreams, but they eventually fell out over differences in theory, mostly over their theories on the consciousness.  Freud thought Jung's ideas on the "collective unconscious" were unscientific nonsense, and Jung thought Freud's ideas on how everything boiled down to sex was perverted nonsense.

“The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious” might be a good place to start.

Or: “The Collected Works of C. G. Jung,” from when he was still with Freud.

Hi Isabella

I think his memoir, Memories, Dreams, Reflections is a good starting point. It gets into his ideas, but isn't as dry as some of the papers. (I always preferred Jung's ideas, but felt Freud was the better writer.)

As you probably know, Princeton University publishes all his papers, and also has cheaper one-off titles for people who don't want everything. Those editions of The Undiscovered Self, Answer to Job, and Synchronicity are nicely accessible.

please, Jung is discredited by nearly a hundred years of psychology- I get that there can be a historic interest in his life and theories, but make sure to get this into historical context for your daughter. Nothing of his work is scientifically tenable, and it is not taught as anything but a historic oddity - it should be treated as such by laypeople, too.

Hi, High!

Thanks for the info! I'll check it out.

shlaifu - I'm interested in his theories whether they're discredited or not. I can appreciate both psychology and philosophy for their historical significance and their place in social culture.

I read a very interesting biography of Jung about twenty years ago, but can't remember the title or the author. Sorry, that's not very helpful, is it?

I've got a book called 'Gravity & Levity' by one Alan McGlashan. It's not about Jung at all, but seems to deal with some of the themes he is associated with.

Jung is, or has been, a pretty controversial character. I remember the poet Tom Paulin, in an interview on the BBC 2 Newsnight programme, starkly declaring that 'Jung was a Nazi'.

LOL.

That was actually Heidigger. As far as i can tell, and from what i know about him, Jung was just a regular 'ol humanist.

Yes Jung is not scientific, in the modern sense. He has a mystical slant to his work. If you want Science go read Neurology books. Jung deals with the archaic, the mythological, the subjective human experience, which again was historically the domain of religion. So it's not to everybody's taste.

I cant really remember if i read every last word, cause it was some years ago, but this is what i've read, but (published dates might be somewhat off)


Modern Man in Search of a Soul 1931
Man and His Symbols 1964
Memories, Dreams, Reflections 1956
Psychology of the Unconscious 1917

His own books are quite readable. I started a second hand paperback copy of "Man and His Symbols" before I mislaid it. It started off quite interesting.

https://www.npr.org/2009/11/11/12012967 ... ngs-dreams

For what I've read I'm not 100% sure I can say much for his accessibility. I did enjoy what I've read so far but I also realize that I'm someone whose brain already works a bit this way and it's like a lot of Victorian literature.

One thing that came to mind for a moment was Rebecca Tarnas's comparison of Tolkien and Jung's red books, just that I realized she has a series of lectures, nothing published, and obviously it's a bit of a side-tangent.

Maybe you disagree, but I think some of his papers are not so easy to read. At least, the style is stiff, Greek words are typically not translated, and he often delves into archaic symbols known more to specialists. Man and His Symbols is good, and readable, but Jung was the editor. He only wrote the opening section. Still, I would agree it makes a great introduction to his thinking. It was the first Jung-related book I read.