I find Jug’s ideas about human behavior quite interesting, particularly his theory of archetypes. Supposedly (correct me if I’m wrong) an archetype is a symbol of great imortance, which is passed down the generations. One example would be the mandal (circle) which is a symbol of healing and love. Is there any proof that these things exist?
Ho would such a symbol’s meanng be transmitted?
Going from the Wikipedia page, I’d say that he’s largely just talking about what, today, we would call “instinct.” The commonalities of literature through the ages is merely something of a proof that humanity does have some sort of passed on and foundational instinct, but I don’t think it would be wise to classify those literary elements as part of the idea, but rather–like I said–as a proof.
I prefer Playgirl’s philosophy myself, but I’m not the target audience, so…
That’s the funniest Freudian slip I’ve seen in a while.
On a more serious note, it’s not really feasible to come up with good operational definitions of Jungian archetypes, so the question of their existence isn’t really testable. Archetypes are certainly an interesting way of framing one’s interpretations of stuff, but I wouldn’t necessarily go much further than that.
In short, they’re just as nonscientific as the rest of that Freudian nonsense. There is nothing to exist as far as the real world is concerned: Untestable ideas are null because there is no way they can have an effect on the real world. Belief in untestable ideas, however, is testable, and the results of testing talk therapy are abysmal.