Talk:Anima and animus

message: this is a load of bullshit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.142.7 (talk • contribs).
:Glad someone finally saw the need of being specific in their criticism. --DanielCD 03:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I added the primary defintion in Jungian psychology.
:Trowa 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: The anima is not an "aggregate of a person's mother, sister, aunts, teachers".  Clearly Jung considers it  an archaic, archetypal concept that predates any specific consciously known people.  In fact Jung writes of "the" anima as opposed to "my" anima, meaning that at least in its unconscious elements it is part of the universal.  So this needs significant rewriting by someone actually versed in Jung, not pop-Jung.
: Also, the Mary Archetype has nothing to do with the Virgin Mary, but is about Mary Magdeline, the whore.   I don't really know enough to feel comfortable editing this, but really should be fact checked. Bojac6 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG 

message: The Aeon Anima in the game is portrayed as a montrosity that is bound in chains. The attacks that it hurls at the player's chararcter-which are quite significant-are the results of its screams of agony! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GnoSaba (talk • contribs) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with this?--SUIT양복 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the video game reference as they have NOTHING to do with the Anima/Animus in the context of this article.--Lepeu1999 18:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Im not saying you were wrong to remove it, but the character in the game was in fact a FEMALE monster summoned by a MALE character, and it was named after this concept. So there is a connection
This should be included in a "Trivia" or "Cultural References" section. It's not relevant to the theory, so it wouldn't go there. It does serve to illustrate that the concept is not limited to the Psychology disciplines, and has some cultural impact in wider society. 60.231.46.242 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Anima in Final Fantasy X

message: I think it's definitely needed - we have this video game stuff, apparently... but, more importantly, "Anima" can also refer more specifically to the Latin word and the concept in ancient Roman & Greek philosophy.  It was an important concept to Aristotle.  Unfortunately, this is about the extent of my knowledge, but hopefully a disambiguation page would encourage this article to get written.  Does anyone else agree?  Eeblet 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: Why doesn't the concept of animus have its own article? This page should either be renamed to "Anima and anmius" or the section on animus moved to its own article. Samuel Grant 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that animus having its own article would encourage expansion, especially since I could not even find any discussion on the topic at first. Animus (concept) seemed like the right place to go, but I then discovered that article is not about Jung's concept. Then on the disambiguation page I found that both anima and animus are lumped together on the same page with no mention of animus in the actual title of the page. Let us please consider my suggestions; there is no reason anima should take precedence over its opposite concept. Samuel Grant 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and move this page to "Anima and animus". If anyone has any objections please say so. Samuel Grant 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animus 

message: Guillaume Postel discussed anima and animus as the masculine and feminine aspect of the soul some 350 years before CG Jung. See Talk:Guillaume Postel. Did Jung base his ideas on Postel without crediting him?
Kildwyke (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Usage 

message: So, as a woman, what I took away from this was: Men dealing with their anima are more important than women dealing with their animus and therefore need ten times as much information with organized lists and definitions and stages while women just need a couple sentences like "oh you know, muscle men, professors"; that the anima is about a man understanding that women are people too and capable of both good and ill and that the animus is about women understanding that men are the holders of all power and wisdom and that they need to find an inner man to access those things? 'Cause if that's not a proper impression I feel that this page is sorely lacking in both quality and quantity of information on the animus. Dec 13, 2010
That is just ignorant, It clearly states that Jung himself was the one that did not elaborate and go as in depth with the animus as he did the anima. not to mention the first lines of the animus category states that women already had a developed animus in their psyche so he focused on the males. if anything as a woman you should be proud that he thought you needed less help. dont bash on the writers of this fine passage without carefully reading it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.215.77 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexist perspective 

message: "as opposed to both the theriomorphic and inferior-function of the shadow archetypes, as well as the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self." I have a doctorate in clinical psychology and I don't know what this means. Please consider rewriting to be more accessible to the lay reader. First paragraph should be easily readable with following sections getting into more detail and more nuance.
124.122.193.29 (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly abstruse language from the very first sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anima and animus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616233747/http://search.aras.org:80/record.aspx?ARASNUM=1Cb.501 to http://search.aras.org/record.aspx?ARASNUM=1Cb.501
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Many of the sources seem to come from primary sources, not relying on a whole lot on secondary sources. Some sources may also seem to be a little outdated, as well as considering the complexities of Jung's ideas and content, there seem to be only a few amounts of resources that try to help expand and simplify Jung's ideas for an average reader. The language used in the article is decently complex and easy to misunderstand in that adding more sources as an attempt to clean up the article will assist with clarity. Westonfr (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I have tagged the lead as needing a rewrite as it's too technical, convoluted and obscure to adequately introduce the lay reader to the topic. I don't expect everyone to be able to dive straight into the anima/animus with no background, but per MOS:INTRO accessibility should be a priority.
Compare Color confinement and Azimuthal quantum number, they're complex ideas within complex fields, but their leads are simple enough to allow the reader to know where to start.
I'd suggest the following as a starting point:
The article syzygy refers back to this article and is not useful. Cosmological dualism, that there are "only two fundamental concepts", seems to conflict with the "array of other parts" already mentioned in the lead. Therefore I've just used the overly simplistic word "pair". Lastly the transpersonal psychology article is tagged with fringe views, so safer to leave out of the lead, perhaps.
I'd like some feedback, or for someone with greater subject knowledge to edit, before I decide to be WP:BOLD
31.187.2.204 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Rewrite