Jungian Archetypes

“	They are the archetypes, which direct all fantasy activity into its appointed paths and in this way produce, in the fantasy-images of children’s dreams as well as in the delusions of schizophrenia, astonishing mythological parallels such as can also be found, though in lesser degree, in the dreams of normal persons and neurotics. It is not, therefore, a question of inherited ideas but of inherited possibilities of ideas.	„
	~ Carl Jung; The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Introduction

Jungian Archetypes, otherwise known simply as Archetypes are universal patterns, motifs and images that inherited from the collective unconscious of all human beings. These universal ideas are said to be the foundation behind many common themes and symbols that appear in stories, myths, and dreams across different vastly different and largely unconnected cultures. According to Carl Jung, his proposition was that archetypes are innate patterns of thought and behavior that causes humans to strive to realize their individual environment, with this process influencing the degree of individuation (the development of one's individual and unique identity)

Some Clarifications In Regards To Jungian Archetypes

Jungian Archetypes Are Platonic Forms

When doing a deep dive of Carl Jung and his general philosophy of life, you come to realize that his idea of "archetypes" are essentially just platonic forms but within a psycho-analytical context. Before we get into that, it's worth establishing that it's a well-known fact that Carl Jung was heavily inspired by Plato and his many ideas, many of which straight up were re-contextualized by Carl Jung from their original context, such as Eros Theory being touched on in Carl Jung's "Two Essays on Analytical Psychology". With that link established, it becomes more easier to believe that Carl Jung's idea of "archetypes" are just essentially platonic forms

That being said, I'm not going to have my entire argument be "Carl Jung explicitly followed Plato and thus Jungian Archetypes are Platonic Forms" because there's actually quite a bit of evidence that Carl Jung straight up just pulled from Plato's idea of "forms" when formulating his idea of "archetypes". For starters, the term "Archetype" derives from Philo Judaeus, a follower of Plato used the term "archetype" (specifically "archetypal ideas") to essentially refer to Platonic Forms

“	This doctrine, as worked out by Philo, was composed of very different elements, including Greek philosophy, Biblical conceptions, pagan and late Jewish views. The Greek elements were borrowed partly from Platonic philosophy, in so far as the divine powers were conceived as types or patterns of actual things ("archetypal ideas"), and partly from Stoic philosophy, in so far as those powers were regarded as the efficient causes that not only represent the types of things, but also produce and maintain them.	„
	~ Jewish Encyclopedia - PHILO JUDÆUS

So right off the bat, the term in itself has origins in Plato's Theory of Forms but Carl Jung has made the connection between his conception of "Archetypes" and Plato's idea of a "form" indisputable by just straight up admitting that they are essentially just Platonic Forms but in the domain of psychology. It's been put on record that Carl Jung essentially used "archetypes" as a way to put Platonic Forms (or as Jung called them, "Platonic Ideas") in the realm of empirical reality

“	In any case, after carefully differentiating his own "empirical and scientific" investigative approach from procedures followed by the philosophers, Jung is led only a few pages later to identify Plato's Ideas with his own psychological archetypes (Archetypes, p. 79). This comment is one of many scattered throughout Jung's works that have encouraged readers to look for continuities between the Platonic eidos or idea and the archetypes that Jung hypothesized as the constitutive forms of the unconscious dimension of the human psyche. Among these passages are his elliptical remarks that the [Jungian] archetypes "put the Platonic ideas on an empirical basis" and that the Platonic forms "are a philosophical version" of the archetypes.	„
	~ PLATO'S "EIDOS" AND THE ARCHETYPES OF JUNG AND FRYE

If that wasn't enough for you, there are various letters in which he's basically mentioned "Platonic Ideas" and essentially explained the influence they had on his idea for "Archetypes". The first linked I posted has a ton of them but there's even a huge letter where Carl Jung goes in depth with his ideas and their relation to Plato's Theory of Forms. Suffice to say, there's an undeniable connection between Plato's Theory of Forms and Carl Jung's conception of "Archetypes", with the connection being there is none because they are exactly the same thing by Carl Jung's own admission and based on the evidence

Carl Jung Didn't Believe Archetypes Were Influenced By Human Cognition

Another common misconception worth tackling is how Carl Jung did not believe that "Archetypes" were necessarily influenced by human cognition. What he believed that "Archetypes" were the shapers of thought, experiences and reason, being the underlying things behind our actions. Carl Jung has clarified on how they pertain to human cognition and general way of living, which I'm going to pull from the link above:

“	So far as we have any information about man, we know that he has always and everywhere been under the influence of dominating ideas. Any one who alleges that he is not can immediately be suspected of having exchanged a known form of belief for a variant which is less known both to himself and to others.	„
	~ C.G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

“	The things that come to light brutally in insanity remain hidden in the background in neurosis, but they continue to influence consciousness nonetheless. When, therefore, the analysis penetrates the background of conscious phenomena, it discovers the same archetypal figures that activate the deliriums of psychotics. Finally, there is any amount of literary and historical evidence to prove that in the case of these archetypes we are dealing with normal types of fantasy that occur practically everywhere and not with the monstrous products of insanity. The pathological element does not lie in the existence of these ideas, but in the dissociation of consciousness that can no longer control the unconscious. In all cases of dissociation it is therefore necessary to integrate the unconscious into consciousness. This is a synthetic process which I have termed the “individuation process.	„
	~ C.G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

There's more quotes I could pull but the bottom line is that "Archetypes" were not really influenced by human cognition but quite the reverse. Carl Jung was a firm believer of the idea that "Archetypes" essentially are the underlying constants in which influences us in some type of way, with Jung using mythology and fairy tails and their similarities as a means to convey this influence.

How It's Treated On Site

When it comes to attempting to tier Jungian Archetypes, it depends on how it's treated within the context of the fictional universe. Seeing how as Jungian Archetypes are the same as Platonic Forms, the standards that are applicable to them would also carry over to how this site treats the tiering of Jungian Archetypes within a cosmology. So this means that a creator must have sufficient knowledge of Jungian Psychology, touching on the idea beyond the basic essentials and the accurate implementation of them within a setting, being devoid of contradictions to this

As for what those contradictions are, this would include:

• An archetype being physical objects with mass, volume and dimension
  • Bare in mind, for this to be a contradiction, it has to be specifically mentioned in the series that these archetypes has mass and any other measurements of space.
    • A character who is an archetype just existing and being portrayed similarly to a human is basic storytelling and merely the means in which the creator can portray them, as opposed to it being just an inherent contradiction
• An archetype being bound by the physical world
  • If it's mentioned that an archetypes is bound by the physical world or a lower-ordered world, then this serves as a contradiction as Carl Jung establishes archetypes as being ontologically above "space" and thus not particularly bound to it in any meaningful way
• An archetype being effected by time
  • Similarly with the above, it has to be mentioned or suggested that these archetypes are effected by the passing of conventional time or proven they are, such as these archetypes being effected by time-related abilities

If none of these disqualifiers are fulfilled, then an argument for 1-A via the inclusion of Jungian Archetypes is viable to argue, otherwise it doesn't scale to this level under any circumstance