<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Well, so what?
Review: Frankly, this was a disappointment. I went back from it with far more sympathy for Jung - and far less for Noll - than I had believed possible; and that in spite of the fact that - after a juvenile pash for Jung more than twenty years ago - I have long since given up on psychoanalysis (and in particular on the doctrine of Archetypes) as a system of knowledge and explanation; and that I was and am not impressed with Jung's private life and his abuse of patient/doctor relationships. The basic problem with this book is the juvenile, unmeditated, unintelligent pseudo-rationalism at its heart. Noll is apparently under the impression that there is something called "the historical Christ" which contradicts the teachings of historical Christianity; and therefore he approves of Freud, in spite of the howlingly obvious elements of pseudo-science, self-justification and superstition, because Freud takes religion to be a disease in need of curing rather than a legitimate way to view the world. Conversely, he opposes Jung because Jung, however distant his view from any orthodox religion, justifies religion as a state of mind. This, of course, is the reason why Jung's success continues in spite of his more than dubious scientific standing; because, however you look at them, in terms of the most basic issues of human thought Freud is a jailer, chaining us to the lowest processes of our bodies and offering us nothing more liberating than sex, and Jung is the man who turns the key and sets us free. I regard neither of them as in any way scientific, reliable or intellectually sound, but I also regard the influence of Jung as infinitely less pestiferous than that of Freud - and I owe this view to Noll's book, because it placed starkly in my face the sheer ugliness of the motives of those who attack Jung and defend Freud.
Rating:
Summary: Well, so what?
Review: Frankly, this was a disappointment. I went back from it with far more sympathy for Jung - and far less for Noll - than I had believed possible; and that in spite of the fact that - after a juvenile pash for Jung more than twenty years ago - I have long since given up on psychoanalysis (and in particular on the doctrine of Archetypes) as a system of knowledge and explanation; and that I was and am not impressed with Jung's private life and his abuse of patient/doctor relationships. The basic problem with this book is the juvenile, unmeditated, unintelligent pseudo-rationalism at its heart. Noll is apparently under the impression that there is something called "the historical Christ" which contradicts the teachings of historical Christianity; and therefore he approves of Freud, in spite of the howlingly obvious elements of pseudo-science, self-justification and superstition, because Freud takes religion to be a disease in need of curing rather than a legitimate way to view the world. Conversely, he opposes Jung because Jung, however distant his view from any orthodox religion, justifies religion as a state of mind. This, of course, is the reason why Jung's success continues in spite of his more than dubious scientific standing; because, however you look at them, in terms of the most basic issues of human thought Freud is a jailer, chaining us to the lowest processes of our bodies and offering us nothing more liberating than sex, and Jung is the man who turns the key and sets us free. I regard neither of them as in any way scientific, reliable or intellectually sound, but I also regard the influence of Jung as infinitely less pestiferous than that of Freud - and I owe this view to Noll's book, because it placed starkly in my face the sheer ugliness of the motives of those who attack Jung and defend Freud.
Rating: 
Summary: Highly recommended
Review: I find this book boring and confusing.It presents too much details,and they are predetermined.The author igored some important aspects:the works and articles by Jung himself,the statues of other important psychoanalysts,etc.The author claimed to present us the "historical Jung",but I got little idea from it.I wish I hadn't read it.
Rating: 
Summary: The Would-be Messiah of Zurich
Review: Psychoanalysis has existed as a recognized discipline (one hesitates to call it a science) for little more than a century. In this time, it has exerted great intellectual and social influence, far beyond what one might expect of a narrow medical specialty. Terms like "ego," "id," and "collective unconscious" have entered the popular vocabulary, and the analyst's consulting room and couch provide the setting for innumerable cartoons. Given the cultural significance of psychoanalysis, it is odd how little curiosity historians and social critics have shown about its origins. Most regard it simply as an invention of the late nineteenth century, like the light bulb or the automobile. In "The Jung Cult," Richard Noll has brilliantly placed Jungian analysis in its historical context. He has also, in the process, shed much light on Freud and a number of his other disciples. Psychoanalysis was to a large extent the product of German philosophical and literary thought, and had much to do with the collapse of orthodox religious belief amongst the educated classes. German romanticism, the radical nihilism of Nietzsche, Haeckel's efforts to construct a modern "scientific" structure of ethical thought along religious lines, a "völkisch" hearkening back to Nordic paganism (as in Wagner's operas), and late nineteenth-century occultism as exemplified by H.P. Blavatsky, were all ingredients of the bouillabaisse out of which analysis emerged. These elements were (and remain) obscured by the trappings of science and medicine, which serve principally to give psychoanalysis an intellectual respectability it would otherwise lack. While Freud, who described himself as a "godless Jew," believed that religion was the problem, and its elimination the solution, Jung concluded that the moral stringency of orthodox Christianity had to be replaced by another type of religious belief, ecstatic and archaic in character. In the Jungian view, the dominant philosophical background is mystical and magical, as Noll documents. He argues persuasively that Jung viewed himself as a religious figure, and that he was in some sense the founder of a kind of religion. Noll's book has been portrayed by some Jungians as a hatchet job. While it is not written from a sympathetic point of view, it is far from that. It is thoroughly documented and copiously annotated. I found it a fascinating exercise in intellectual history. Jung stands between Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard in the dubious pantheon of the founders of modern religions. For what it is worth, he accomplished what he did with far more eclat and subtlety than either of these "neighbors."
Rating:
Summary: Excellent history of the mindset of 19th century Germany
Review: Richard Noll's diatribe about Carl Jung is reminiscent of brer rabbit and the tar baby. Whether Noll really wanted to be a Jungian analyst or just wanted to infiltrate the Jungian community we will never know . Clearly the latest development in Noll's career is devaluing Jung's reputation to enhance his own. For several other far more intelligent and balanced perspectives on Jung and the Jungian community, I would recommend the following: The Jungians: A Comparative and Historical Perspective (Kirsch); Cult Fictions: C.G Jung and the Founding of Analytical Psychology (Shamdasani) ; Lingering Shadows: Jungians, Freudians and Antisemitism (Maidenbaum).
Rating: 
Summary: noll peered at his inner self and didnt like what he saw
Review: The lid has been opened in the "Zaius" interview. There stands the "scholar" in full disclosure, bitter, arrogant, dismissive, full of expletives, and uncontrolled anger at the junguians. " I get no respect!" he whines again and again. He classifies his early admiration for Junguian thought, as "I was in my twenties and fool". Well, how's that for self disclosure! On the same interview, he argues that "they shouldnt be looking at my motives!". How Noll-ian!
Rating:
Summary: Slanderous guilt by association tactics on every page
Review: This is the greatest act of scholarly libel of our age. Mark Noll's thesis seems to be that Jung himself, and his theories, are somehow racist and quasi-Nazi because Jung was an ethnic German of the upper classes who had some contact with the intellectual movements of his day. This is, of course, bunk. In no way does this prove anything about direct intellectual influences between proto-Nazism and similar currents of thought and Jung or his psychology. As such, this book is a vile slander trading on anti-German stereotypes, the same kind of garbage that was used to dismiss Nietzsche until Walter Kaufmann save dhim from oblivion some decades ago. Anyone with a sense of intellectual honesty should avoid this book like the plague.
Rating:
Summary: A salutary threat to the incomes of Jungian analysts
Review: Vicious, hysterical, attack on Jung. Clearly shows Richard Noll has a personal problem with the Jungian Movement (an expelled therapist, as the magazine Gnosis has proved). The book just put some scratches on Jung figure, as any close biography about anyone would. It paints a two-dimensional view of Jung, picking anything that fits negatively, while ignoring I would say 99% of what Jung wrote. The main point Noll misses is that Jung successfully defended the importance of religion against the materialism of Freud.To Freud religion is illness, but to Jung lack of religion is THE illness. The all important point is the linkage Jung made between the discovery of the Unconscious and the workings of ones spiritual life. Comb Nolls work and you wouldnt know it. Athough attacking Jung as the supposed creator of a wacko creed ( where are the temples?), Nolls ignores ( he doesnt actually; he wants you to ) the great dialogue between so many protestants and catholic priests with Jung at the time and now with the jungian movement. In fact Jung would frequently advise his catholic patients to seek their priest. In fact many catholic priests and protestant ministers are jungian analysts. Again not something u would find in Noll, but that works against the picture he is trying hard to sell. What is most troubling about Nolls book, is that he is clearly hoping his readers are not clever enough, or not informed enough to notice his dagger work....
<< 1 >>
|
