For undiscerningly adopting the slanderous preconceived notion of academia about him without digging deep into his edifice of ideas first. He's not even hard to read, wtf.

Could his and Jung's ideas be synthesized into something greater than two, or are they fundamentally contradictory to one another? As far as I know, where him and Jung were opposed was on Freud's method of free association, where the latter believed that it took for granted that specific objects and sensations presented in the dream and ultimately led patients astray from the root of their problems.

>>24553741
They can be synthesized in the same bonfire they both belong in.

>>24553743
I haven't read Freud, so I won't say anything about him. But what do you have against Jung?

>>24553741
Freud, Jung, and Adler are like the trinity of psychology. Many people use their ideas together, they all cover different areas. They really covered a lot of ground. If psychology is valid or useful is another question altogether.

>>24553746
His defilement of Euripides. I have written so much at length, repetition bores me.

>>24553672 (OP)
Freud will always be popular here.
Coomer website.

>>24553741
I've actually done that

>>24553751
I've combined the idea of sublimation (Freud) with Jungian integration (with some Adlerian nods to birth order applied to large scale civilizations) in my writings. So it's possible.