Replies

I’m not a scholar and not much more than a ‘rube’ myself. I’ve read Jung more through more modern interpretations than his work directly, which can be very dense; and I know little of Freud. What seemed to be a reduction to mere sexual drive on the part of the latter seemed perverse to me, lacking awareness that sexuality is an aspect of a general force much greater. I was turned off to him early on.

One thing I personally prefer is that Jung was not an atheist, as Freud was. He recognized the importance and role of religion and the meanings religion conveys in the human psyche. He was not a materialist in the sense of believing that consciousness arose from and is confined to matter. And he recognized that the thrust of world history and events only changes as men individually change themselves. He gave great warnings about ‘mass-mindedness’ and collectivism in thought.

I’ve also appreciated his recognition that men contain feminine aspects that need to be developed to make them whole, and vice versa with the female (Anima and Animus, individuation). A lot of his inheritors have done good work with this in terms of helping men, particularly.

A couple of old interviews with Jung, second one is quite long (he was a very engaging and thoughtful person to listen to):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AMu-G51yTY

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zGqwOB7pSx8h/

This is long, but a good biography containing memories of Jung through people who knew and worked with him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed3vPb9bmcw

James Hollis is a Jungian psychologist who has talked on the isolation and estrangement (’Wounding’) of men, which I think Jordan Peterson has also addressed (this is a voice only podcast):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w679hb5SFjQ

Differences between Freud and Jung:

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/psychology/differences-between-jung-and-freud/

I guess this is a lot more than you wanted...