Talk:Anima and animus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


this is a load of bullshit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

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

I believe that this consept is more a philosophy of the male and female mind and how it is hiden in the unconscious regions of our minds. Yet I do think animus is more complex... AnimeWoolf (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)AnimeWoolf


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


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)


I added the primary defintion in Jungian psychology.

Trowa 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


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.

Also, the Mary Archetype has nothing to do with the Virgin Mary, but is about Mary Magdeline, the whore. I don't really know enough to feel comfortable editing this, but really should be fact checked. Bojac6 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Anima in Final Fantasy X[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Im not saying you were wrong to remove it, but the character in the game was in fact a FEMALE monster summoned by a MALE character, and it was named after this concept. So there is a connection

This should be included in a "Trivia" or "Cultural References" section. It's not relevant to the theory, so it wouldn't go there. It does serve to illustrate that the concept is not limited to the Psychology disciplines, and has some cultural impact in wider society. (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation page[edit]

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


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)

lyrics of a song[edit]

there is a song called spoils by a band called protest the hero and there is a line in the song that reads "abstraction is the stake between the anima and animus" but i really dont understand what the entire message of the song is. could someone more educated on this topic translate the meaning of the song for me please i can post lyrics if needed

History of Usage[edit]

Guillaume Postel discussed anima and animus as the masculine and feminine aspect of the soul some 350 years before CG Jung. See Talk:Guillaume Postel. Did Jung base his ideas on Postel without crediting him?
Kildwyke (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sexist perspective[edit]

So, as a woman, what I took away from this was: Men dealing with their anima are more important than women dealing with their animus and therefore need ten times as much information with organized lists and definitions and stages while women just need a couple sentences like "oh you know, muscle men, professors"; that the anima is about a man understanding that women are people too and capable of both good and ill and that the animus is about women understanding that men are the holders of all power and wisdom and that they need to find an inner man to access those things? 'Cause if that's not a proper impression I feel that this page is sorely lacking in both quality and quantity of information on the animus. Dec 13, 2010

That is just ignorant, It clearly states that Jung himself was the one that did not elaborate and go as in depth with the animus as he did the anima. not to mention the first lines of the animus category states that women already had a developed animus in their psyche so he focused on the males. if anything as a woman you should be proud that he thought you needed less help. dont bash on the writers of this fine passage without carefully reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fucking fail, srsly. (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Overly abstruse language from the very first sentence[edit]

"as opposed to both the theriomorphic and inferior-function of the shadow archetypes, as well as the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self." I have a doctorate in clinical psychology and I don't know what this means. Please consider rewriting to be more accessible to the lay reader. First paragraph should be easily readable with following sections getting into more detail and more nuance.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anima and animus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)