Talk:Jungian archetypes

message: I hope this is in the confines of a talk page, but if it is true that our unconsious mind contains the same myths and
archetypes as each other and that we are motivated to live them out by pleasure and pain we are all essentially identical
brothers and sisters and the experience of one is the experience of all and vica versa.
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  life inspite of death 

message: I find this article pro-jungian for the very simple reason that the page contains no criticism of the concept and existence of archetypes, which I'm sure must have been made at some point by someone. Jungian archetypes are a dubious idea in the light of scientific genetics, for example, because it presupposes through stating that these archetypes are "innate" and universal that they are inherited, which, as genetics and embryology (concerning brain development, for example) show, cannot be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.3.244 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're talking about. Wikipedia citations systems have grown and changed as Wikipedia has. When older articles were written, there was no built-in citation system yet. In any case, there isn't a "standard" citation system, see WP:CITE, which allows for several different styles and systems and further states that the original editors of the articles get to choose the system and that it should not be changed without consensus. Thus the original citation style and system used when an article was written generally doesn't get changed. Yworo (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of critique 

message: Over at the article#section Archetype#Jungian_archetypes, it says "Jung outlined five main archetypes", and lists: Self, Shadow, Anima and Aminus, and Persona.
But at this article (at Jungian_archetypes#Examples_and_conceptual_difficulties) it only lists 4, leaving out Persona (at which there is only a brief mention of Jung near the bottom), but persona isn't mentioned at this article. Please, someone clarify this in whichever article needs it. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed article accordingly. Be bold! — goethean ॐ 12:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persona discrepancy 

message: Given that the Trickster is a widely studied archetype, I wonder whether this archetype deserves more prominence under "Examples". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Do tricksters deserve more prominence?

message: carl jung coined the word archetype and named them such after st,augustine and i think how this come about should be included in the origin section he also called the archetypes or certain universal ideas for the dominants of the unconscious but he never claimed invention of such ideas it should also be noted that the individulas experience is crucial to the concept of archetypes --85.228.179.171 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of archetypes 

message: Vanpsyc (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Educational Assignment}}

message: This page has been viewed many times but no-one appears to notice its dreadful command of English. It badly needs to be re-written in its entirety to give any understanding of Jung's psychology. Norwikian (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor English 

message: There's no science here, just a bunch of speculations. Where is the scientific opinion and critique?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.115.62 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Experimental Evidence 

message: It's nice to see how this article has developed and evolved since I first wrote it. There have been many improvements and additions to the original document. however as an inevitable Wikipedia process there have been some wild new-agey assertions and overly technical and top-heavy cut paste insertions which have served to obfuscate an already hard to grasp concept. I've had to hack away and prune some of these, whilst moving others around to make the entry read easier, look more streamlined and be better referenced. I've broken up sections and added some new material. Still a work in progress and far from perfect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supernauts New Edits 

message: I think that needs section needs work. I've done a pretty shoddy job here I know. It would be better to have a cross-cultural exposition of archetypes in films, books, novels and folklore in modern times that is a wee bit referenced. Hope someone can contribute to this section. [Comment neither signed nor dated.]
I've moved the paragraph alleging a connection between consumer-product branding and "marketing archetypes" versus Jungian archetypes to the Popular Culture section - there's hardly a more popular-culture topic than advertising. To leave it where it was would be to impart a rigor and gravitas to a "marketing archetypes" concept that is non-existent; the notion certainly hasn't been explored to the degree as have genuine Jungian archetypes - the subject of the article at hand. Otherwise I've left that text unchanged.
An even better idea might be to move discussion of any marketing archetypes to a new "Archetype Exploitation" section since advertising/marketing seeks to exploit archetypes purely for private material gain rather than putting them to use for higher purposes. BLZebubba (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archetypes in Popular Culture 

message: Given that the word 'archetype' is virtually synonymous with Jungs use of it, or at the very least dominates our conception of the word, I think that the title of this article is a bit redundant and suggest that the current article on 'archetypes' and 'Jungian archetypes' be merged. Any comments re: this and suggestions as to how to get it done?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing name of Jungian Archetypes to Archetypes 

message: The discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Carl Jung]] or [[Carl Gustav Jung]]

message: Hi all. I'm lazy, but if someone has more of a drive maybe they can flesh this out. Richard Noll's books The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung and The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement both elucidate the entirely shaky (or even entirely construed) foundation of Jung's concept of the archetype. Jung based his theory on one patient's analysis and then extrapolated the system from there. It turns out that the patient provided Jung with information related to what Jung assumed was a myth the patient could not possibly have been exposed to. Later, it turns out that this proof-of-concept patient had actually been exposed to a book with passages describing the exact myth that Jung strung out. I believe it was library records that made this clear.
Anyway, anyone with extra time on their hands should parse this and present it. Otherwise, if you have a passing interest in this topic I highly recommend both books.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.55.132.154 (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Noll's criticisms must be included. 

message: “Although the number of archetypes is limitless”. What does that mean? Are there more archetypes than atoms in the universe? Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitless number of archetypes? 

message: This article is full of claims and paragraphs that have little to no citations or have the citation needed template. Is this because people are making claims that they generally have an idea of, but can't find a source to back it up? Or is it because the citations that have been used don't follow Wikipedia guidelines? Either way, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. Niloiva (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! This at least provides some context that editors and readers without prior knowledge can look into. It's a lot more helpful than just "Stein", a very common surname. – Scyrme (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: but combining them is beyond me 194.193.174.81 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say we can leave them as they are. They refer to different pages, and even to different editions of the text. Šedý (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 4 and 44 are the same work 

message: — Assignment last updated by Amandaebullard (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023