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.

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.

The difference between Jung and Fraud, is that Fraud talks down to you, and Jung talks too you.

He's back!!

This review was very honest and genuine. Fascinating..

Also keep up the good work it is great seeing you videos and will look out for it.

As always, an amazing review. I am definitely going to read it.

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.

This is a fascinating review..

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

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).

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

i dont wanna swear but holy.. this was very, very on point, thanks for the review

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 !

omg im shocked, shaken and ....first time i seed u with a beard....taking it all in..... without /within.

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...

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!

Just found your channel. Bummed you're not uploading anymore.

Tu me motives bien à lire, Cliff. Donc merci! Btw how is your French coming along?

Excellent thoughts Very well spoken

Carl Jung was gift to humanity were sadly only know beginning to cherish

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.

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?

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.

"Admirably researched and enviably communicated" nice.

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.

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.

It would be great if you read and reviewed Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities.

You should read Havelock Ellis. A big inspiration for Freud, and a fascinating guy!

Read Heidegger's Black notebooks and Jung's Red Book

Great book. That whole era in Austria, Germany and Hungary of the late 1800s was an intense time

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.)

Better than food... better than most KZfaq channels.

"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.

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

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 :)

Fantastic .

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.

Response to 15:35: "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future" :)

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 just read this few months ago. It's pretty great. Great introduction to Jung for sure. I also just read Foucault's Discipline and Punish, which I'd highly recommend. That was a mind blowing book too. Also I'd suggest reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. That was probably the greatest non-fiction book I've ever read. That's enough for the recommendations :D Fantastic video as always Cliff!

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?

Isaiah Berlin, "The Roots of Romanticism." You'd like it...I think.

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 check out William Gay, he is similar to Cormac McCarthy.

Love the Repo-Man reference.

Hello guys, im looking for this book in french, anyone knows the title in french pls ?

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.

"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

Repo Men is a fantastic film Cool review

this is a great review, so was de sade - fuckin subscribed

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.

Have you read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind?

STYLES OF PSYCHOLOGY - BIOLOGICAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL, SELF CREATION, COGNITIVE, GESTALT. AND Dysfunctional.

Very good

You can work up to some Lacan

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)

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 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 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!

2:18 Freud is the one who said that religion is wish fulfillment

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.

Imagine if psychologist wrote down checks with plenty of zeroes.

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?

To return

My grandpa is from Detroit and my dad was born there. They have very negative opinions of it.

Please please please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LET ME WIN! 🤞🏻🤞🏼🤞🏽🤞🏾🤞🏿

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 💜💜

Civilization and Its Discontents by Freud is probably a good intro.

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.

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.

THE GREEKS CREATED STOICISM , LAO TZU CREATED THE TAO

GOD IS A CONCEPT BY WHICH WE MEASURE OUR LIVES. GOD CAN BE USED AS AN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE IN OUR LIVES.

you can believe in Jung.

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!

After you read Freud, you’ll change your introduction to ...”better than sex, man!”

HERMES IS GOD

>A very kind fan of the show >t. Jordan B Peterson

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.

Does this guy ever go outside ?

Man I really hated this book. I'd already been familiar with Jung's ideas beforehand and found it extremely dull