Talk:Jungian archetypes

life inspite of death
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) Moreover, we have the power to help direct others and therefore our own destiny. Jung equated his archetypes with instinct. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this qualifies as an example: the Tower of Babel is a well known biblical story, I was aware that the Mexicans also had a similar myth: "And as men were thereafter multiplying they constructed a very high and strong Zacualli, which means "a very high tower" in order to protect themselves when again the second world should be destroyed. At the crucial moment their languages were changed, and as they did not understand one another, they went into different parts of the world. (Reference: Don Fernando de Alvara Ixtlilxochitl, Obras Historicas Mexico, 1891, Vol. I, p. 12.)" The Tower of Babel and the Uniqueness of Man by Dr. Robin Bernhoft M.D. (http://www.kolbecenter.org/bernhoft_iccc3.htm as at 12-04-08); but this site has others as well.

Jung's own example in his essay was of a paranoid schizophrenic who said he could see a penis in the sun, from which the wind blew; and Jung later finding out this was very similar to Mithraic myth.

In both examples it is very unlikely the stories are derived from each other, unless the missionary influenced the Mexican culture. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, unless this is a forgery, or some other reason, the Mexicans had a 'tree of life': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izapa_Stela_5 Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pagan myths tell how the deceased person prays as he sinks in the waters and is rescued, other Egyptian gods rise in three days ('The Pagan Christ...', Tom Harpur, Allen & Unwin, 2004). A Google search under Jungian archetypes and crisis brings forth at least a page of results.

"According to Jung, mental crisis has "a long unconscious history," and one's inability to resolve the conflict between the ego-centered world of the self and the personal and collective unconscious (manifested by archetypal symbols) evokes the crisis." The Southern Literary Journal 33.1 (2000) 111-121. "Archetypal Symbolism in Alice Walker's Possessing the Secret of Joy" by Geneva Cobb Moore Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"The term in the psychology of Jung for the inherited deposit of the past experience of the human species, preserved in the unconscious of each of us in the form of archetypes or symbolic figures and myths. These determine the shape of our imaginings and dreams, and in periods of crisis may recur with great emotional intensity to point out our destinies." Philosophical Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/topic/collective-unconscious?cat=health as at 26-04-08) Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) In death we loose consiousness and are in a crisis and enter the universal unconscious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"The world-renowned psychiatrist, Carl G. Jung, had a near-death experience in which he saw the earth from a vantage point of a thousand miles into space. The sight of the earth from this height was the most glorious thing he had ever seen. His vivid encounter with the light, plus the intensely meaningful insights led Jung to conclude that his experience came from something real and eternal. Jung saw the earth as representing the "mother" archetype. Carl Jung, who founded analytical psychology, centered on the archetypes of the collective unconscious." (http://www.near-death.com/archetypal.html as at 27-04-08) Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual experience: http://www.near-death.com/jung.html as at 27-04-08. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I realise we may all have the archetypes like 'self' and 'shadow' and 'persona'. But surely one person might have 'trickster' and one person might have 'wise-man'. So what is the delineation between the archetypes we all have and the archetypes that must be specific to some individuals and not to others? (Presumably, not everyone is a trickster or hero or mother etc). If anyone has any ideas, please share. (80.168.175.190 (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.175.190 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

More examples needed
I would like to suggest that the page include more examples of archetypes. There is a lot of conceptual work here but it lacks the clarity that specific examples would provide. Long-winded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.21.95 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that, and a full list of Jung's archetypes would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.200.195 (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) No it wouldn't be helpful. People are misinformed as it is with the overly simplistic en-numeration of archetypes of 'king, child, trickster .....etc ' that are in vogue in popular culture and the new age movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, if people are misinformed about Jung's work then we should inform them about how Jung specifically understood each archetype.--2A02:C7D:1FC5:8300:7C55:4BA0:F8FF:159B (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no 'each' archetype. Archetypes are not a predefined set that can be counted, listed, or explained. Archetypes are a fluid and deliberately vague concept that exist in a primordial form in the psyche and are then manifested through an individual's cultural lens.

Absence of critique
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)

Let's face it. This started out as a pretentious term paper, and has never been properly rewritten in standard format. (Why else would this article invent it's own citation notation system instead of using the standard one built into Wikipedia?) A major rewrite would include certainly mention the large body of post-Jung scientific research which refutes or disproves his theories. Tom NM (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Persona discrepancy
Over at the article#section Archetype, it says "Jung outlined five main archetypes", and lists: Self, Shadow, Anima and Aminus, and Persona.

But at this article (at Jungian_archetypes) 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)

Is the Persona an archetype? I don't think Jung thought so. A "sub-personality" yes, an archetype no. Further clarification neededJacobisq (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Persona was clearly part of Jung's conceptual apparatus, part of his picture of the mind. Sometimes he described it as a "functional complex" (Psychological Types Lon1971 p.465), sometimes as one of the "autonomous complexes" (Two Essays on Analytical Psychology London 1953 p. 195). However he did not consider it an archetype, which were 'manifestations of a deeper layer of the unconscious...I have called these images or motifs "archetypes", also "dominants" of the unconscious'(Two Essays p. 64-5)Jacobisq (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed article accordingly. Be bold! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Do tricksters deserve more prominence?
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)

origin of archetypes
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)

Vanpsyc (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor English
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)

Zero Experimental Evidence
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)

Your statement shows a great deal of ignorance. Not everything in an encyclopaedia worthy of an entry need be subjected to rigorous experimental evidence. If you have collated the understandably scant empirical evidence that can be levied against psychology and psychoanalysis in general and also Jungian archetypes in particular, feel free to add it to the article.

This page is an unbiased description of Jung's work, whether or not what Jung believed is true is besides the point of the page. --2A02:C7D:1FC5:8300:7C55:4BA0:F8FF:159B (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Supernauts New Edits
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)

Archetypes in Popular Culture
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)

Changing name of Jungian Archetypes to Archetypes
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)

Disagreed that they are synonymous, Jung put prominence on specific archetypes and defined them in a specific way, but in wider culture archetypes practically infinate and defined differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1FC5:8300:7C55:4BA0:F8FF:159B (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The word predates Jung, has a meaning in its own right and is commonly used in other contexts. E x nihil (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Carl Jung or Carl Gustav Jung
The discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unable to find that discussion I assume that it was declined and archived. Anyway, in case of revival, I would strongly disagree with a move from Carl Jung unless it can be shown that the name Carl Jung needs disambiguate. If moved, most searches will end up redirecting. E x nihil (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard Noll's criticisms must be included.
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)

Limitless number of archetypes?
“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)

Citations Needed
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)

Someone commented about the reference to "Stein" who is a very well-known Jungian analyst and prolific scholar of Jung's work. (Murray Stein, Ph.D. is a Training and Supervising Analyst at the International School of Analytical Psychology Zurich (ISAP-ZURICH). He is a founding member of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts (1977) and of the Chicago Society of Jungian Analysts (1980)). Unfortunately, I don't know which of his many books contains the quote included in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.250.99.242 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)

References 4 and 44 are the same work
but combining them is beyond me 194.193.174.81 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

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