Зиґмунд Фрейд і Карл Юнґ про міфи та архетипи колективного несвідомого: неусвідомлена схожість

Наукові Записки Наукма. Філософія Та Релігієзнавство 8:25-37 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and Carl Gustav Jung’s analytical psychology are different in many ways and some of their differences are extremely crucial. It is widely believed that one of the most obvious examples of this intellectual confrontation is the difference between Freud’s and Jung’s views on mythology. Proponents of this view believe that Jung was much more interested in mythological issues and his theory of myth became much deeper and more developed than Freud’s one. In particular, it is believed that Freud focused exclusively on the individual’s psyche, while Jung allegedly reached the true origins of mythmaking in the collective unconscious, which is the sediment of the vast historical experience of mankind. The article shows that such statements do not reflect the real situation but just the point of view, which Jung began to spread after his break-up with Freud. In fact, the founder of psychoanalysis had a steady and deep interest in mythology. The manifestation of this interest was the formation of “psycho-analytics” of myth – a specific area of research, which in the early years of the psychoanalytic movement was joined by several first psychoanalysts, including Franz Riklin, Karl Abraham, Otto Rank, Ernest Jones, and Jung himself. It is essential that both Freud and Jung, before and after the break-up in 1913, have been and remain the supporters of the consideration of a man and culture through the prism of certain biological concepts of that time. Those are the principle of inheritance of acquired properties (Lamarckism) and the idea that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogeny (“biogenetic law”). Based on Lamarckian-biogenetic assumptions, both Freud and Jung saw the origins of mythology in the collective historical experience of mankind. The article demonstrates that the image of Oedipus and the associated motives of incest and parricide play almost the same role in Freud’s (and Freudian) model of mythmaking as the archetypes of the collective unconscious in Jung’s (and Jungian) concept of myth.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,891

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-23

Downloads
14 (#993,104)

6 months
6 (#701,126)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Vadym Menzhulin
National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

References found in this work

Поняття «дух», «духовність» і «особистість»: Філософський зміст та взаємозв’язок.В. О Сабадуха - 2017 - Гуманітарний Вісник Запорізької Державної Інженерної Академії 68:98-110.
Freud, the Reluctant Philosopher.Alfred I. Tauber - 2010 - Princeton University Press.
Psychologische Typen.C. G. Jung - 1926 - Annalen der Philosophie Und Philosophischen Kritik 5 (8):232-233.
Papers on Psycho-Analysis.Ernest Jones - 1919 - Mind 28 (111):340-347.
Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Denkens.Carl Gustav Jung - 1925 - Annalen der Philosophie Und Philosophischen Kritik 5 (3):96-98.

View all 6 references / Add more references