Who are you more likely to agree with: Freud or Jung?

Question

Sigmund Freud contended that humans were driven by unconscious sexual and aggressive drives and that religion was merely one of society's tools for controlling these drives. Freud also noted parallels between religious ritual and OCD and neurotic behaviors. He predicted that religion would eventually die out.

However, Carl Jung (one of Freud's early colleagues) believed that religion, along with art and literature, was one of the fundamental ways that people used archetypal symbols to contact the potential of the unconscious. While Freud had said that science would replace religion, Jung thought that the only reason why modern people need psychotherapy and other forms of science was because they had turned away from their religious roots.

What do you think?

Answer 1

I think I always had a hard time following both of them. My mind doesn't seem to work how most people in that field think.

I am more inclined to agree with Jung, based on your interpreation. The part about what you said about Freud seems likely to be based in his Marxist roots. I think what Marx missed was that people needed that drug. And even if that drug is taken away...they ned spiritual methadone.

It seems like Jung is almost comparing Psychotherapy to that spiritual methadone.

I probably misunderstood the arguments....but there ya' go.

Answer 2

This is a very good question.

Neither

Sigmund Frued divised theories to excuse his personal disbelief. I believe he lived a fantansy that all should have no God so they ended their lives as miserable as he did. To-date this "man" has many followers that grasp onto this theory to validate their behavior or behavior of another.

Carl Jung believed in both...is there such a thing? Clearly he acknowledged documented behavior but in grasping Frued's theory proved himself to be playing with fire. "the only reason why modern people need psychotherapy and other forms of science was because they had turned away from their religious roots" Could it be that there was no understanding of spoiling? Some run to the drink or drugs to sooth their wounds others look for others ways to get them out of growing forward.

Churches to-date have verbally rejected the theories of Sigmund Freud by publically adopting that of Jung's but have turned a blind eye to the fact this mirrors Frued's theories when choosing to allow secularism in the church. Some churches have their own form of secular practice which is the practice of dogma ...the same as Carl Jung and Sigmund Frued. Pretty nasty triangle isn't it when any human being decides he or she knows whether he or she knows not what they do? That would include feeling they can make a call as to behavior that can or cannot be turned from. It's gotton so bad some feel they have esp as to what is truly going on with a person. Clearly there are those who have true disabilities and those who those who can, if not condoned and fed into, pull out of their trials. But then there is always the issue of greed coupled with failure to love thy neighbor.

Answer 3

I think Freud was closer to what will happen. The truth is one day science will give us a much more in depth understanding of the spiritual world then any religion can even attempt. Psychotherapy comes around because people had NO understanding of mental problems before it came about. Religions would makes these people to be under the influence of demons.(not a very scientific view)

PS: I don't agree with Freud on everything he came up with.

Answer 4

I agree with Jung. He had a better understanding of human nature. Freud had some serious personality disorders of his own. Freud's idea that religion would die off sounds like he was saying logic would one day prevail over tradition and emotional ties. This sounds too extreme to me. Emotion is the natural state of man and detatched logic is the exception, not the other way that Freud felt the world worked.

Answer 5

I'm a little more on the Jung side, but I tend to go with the Biopsychosocial model of human behavior.

Answer 6

I just don't like Freud. He used a lot of dubious science and unbasesd theory.

I like Jung.

Answer 7

Carl Jung as you have presented him, seems like an interesting person.

Answer 8

Wow it quite is a tough question babe, dont think of many available will be apt for this one. "Conversion disease" is while certian ppl have a feeling of numbness/fits, the place no neurological clarification could nicely be got here upon... seems you have picked a tough subject remember, extra tips is needed yet somewhat an thrilling question....