Talk:Anima and animus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is a load of bullshit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.142.7 (talk • contribs).

Glad someone finally saw the need of being specific in their criticism. --DanielCD 03:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think critising somebodies lifework as 'bullshit' is entirely unproductive, perhaps there should be a critisms section of the page. mikeoman 25/06/06 22:50

I made a minor edit on 3rd August 2006 at 19:03 replacing he with Jung as it was at first unclear whether it was refering to the Anima and Carl Jung himself. mikeoman 3rd August 2006


Contents

[edit] Dreaming

Jung believed that dreaming was essential in understanding the Anima, what examples are there of this? mikeoman


[edit] Merger?

Should Anima and Animus be on the same page? as they are very similar? mikeoman

Well, the animus is discussed on this page, and the separate page animus (concept) does not mention Jung. Personally I think there should be one page titled "Anima/Animus" or the like--they are two sides of the same idea.
Dybryd 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this, there's not enough information for them to justify two separate pages... perhaps later down the line.
Marrshu 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I added the primary defintion in Jungian psychology.

Trowa 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WRONG

The anima is not an "aggregate of a person's mother, sister, aunts, teachers". Clearly Jung considers it an archaic, archetypal concept that predates any specific consciously known people. In fact Jung writes of "the" anima as opposed to "my" anima, meaning that at least in its unconscious elements it is part of the universal. So this needs significant rewriting by someone actually versed in Jung, not pop-Jung.

[edit] Anima in Final Fantasy X

The Aeon Anima in the game is portrayed as a montrosity that is bound in chains. The attacks that it hurls at the player's chararcter-which are quite significant-are the results of its screams of agony! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GnoSaba (talk • contribs) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

What does that have to do with this?--SUIT양복 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the video game reference as they have NOTHING to do with the Anima/Animus in the context of this article.--Lepeu1999 18:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disambiguation page

I think it's definitely needed - we have this video game stuff, apparently... but, more importantly, "Anima" can also refer more specifically to the Latin word and the concept in ancient Roman & Greek philosophy. It was an important concept to Aristotle. Unfortunately, this is about the extent of my knowledge, but hopefully a disambiguation page would encourage this article to get written. Does anyone else agree? Eeblet 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree only on the basis of perspective. This was my first learning of the subject, and trying to navigate back and forth between two different pages would be distracting. I do see how these could be separate, but the audience here is people that are learning the subject, seemingly not academics that would reference Jung's works directly

[edit] Animus

Why doesn't the concept of animus have its own article? This page should either be renamed to "Anima and anmius" or the section on animus moved to its own article. Samuel Grant 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just a temporary measure until we have more of a substantial page, before there were two scatty small articles and as the two concepts were similar we merged it, I think that once we have a better article we can just copy and paste from our own article and create two better seperate ones, I think that together this article can give a reasonable academic starting point that people can get the general gist of the two concepts but it doesn't go deeply into detail and will look elsewhere in the meantime however the article shows that it's one of Jungs archetypes and it provides a starting point for the academic.--Mikeoman 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that animus having its own article would encourage expansion, especially since I could not even find any discussion on the topic at first. Animus (concept) seemed like the right place to go, but I then discovered that article is not about Jung's concept. Then on the disambiguation page I found that both anima and animus are lumped together on the same page with no mention of animus in the actual title of the page. Let us please consider my suggestions; there is no reason anima should take precedence over its opposite concept. Samuel Grant 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and move this page to "Anima and animus". If anyone has any objections please say so. Samuel Grant 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to change the name, I have also changed the name in the disambiguous page to anima and animus where it said anima to prevent any confusion. I think with this page it really is just a stub, I think there's a psychology wikiproject out there, i'm going to see if they'll help us alert more people to the expansion in this article.--Mikeoman 09:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)