Psychology

Paper instructions:
Quite a few people find that Jung has a great deal to say to them. They
include writers, artists, musicians, film makers, theologians, clergy of
all denominations, students of mythology, and, of course, some
psychologists. Examples that come to mind are the mythologist Joseph
Campbell, the film maker George Lucas, and the science fiction author
Ursula K. Le Guin. Anyone interested in creativity, spirituality,
psychic phenomena, the universal, and so on will find in Jung a kindred
spirit.

But scientists, including most psychologists, have a lot of trouble with
Jung. Not only does he fully support the teleological view (as do most
personality theorists), but he goes a step further and talks about the
mystical interconnectedness of synchronicity. Not only does he postulate
an unconscious, where things are not easily available to the empirical
eye, but he postulates a collective unconscious that never has been and
never will be conscious.

In fact, Jung takes an approach that is essentially the reverse of the
mainstream’s reductionism: Jung begins with the highest levels — even
spiritualism — and derives the lower levels of psychology and
physiology from them.

Even psychologists who applaud his teleology and antireductionist
position may not be comfortable with him. Like Freud, Jung tries to
bring everything into his system. He has little room for chance,
accident, or circumstances. Personality — and life in general — seems
“over-explained” in Jung’s theory.
These criticisms do not cut the foundation out from under Jung’s theory.
But they do suggest that some careful consideration is in order.

The archetypes, at first glance, might seem to be Jung’s strangest idea.
And yet they have proven to be very useful in the analysis of myths,
fairy tales, literature in general, artistic symbolism, and religious
exposition. They apparently capture some of the basic “units” of our
self-expression. Many people have suggested that there are only so many
stories and characters in the world, and we just keep on rearranging the
details.

This suggests that the archetypes may refer to some deep structures of
the human mind. What are your thoughts? Do you think that archetypes
are “real” component of our minds or just a product of Jung’s own
interests?

CLICK HERE TO GET MORE ON THIS PAPER.....