/lit/ - Literature

>>17546500

> bro cool it with bashing Nietzsche he's POWER and you can't understand it bro

>>16704319

I agree to some extent. There is an obvious "huh?" aspect to the question, and someone with ordinary "mental visioning" abilities might think they are being asked if they can summon a cgi apple in front of themselves. But there do seem to be some edge cases where people claim to have absolutely zero "mental visioning," and if it wasn't for a particularly careful and thoughtful philosophy professor of mine who vehemently claimed to lack all "mental visioning," I wouldn't take it seriously.

>>16485749
>What is /lit/'s opinion on psychiatry?

OP or whoever, what do you take psychiatry to be, exactly? I understand it to be a collection of things, but the premise that I take to be central to Freud (and others) is that there exist unconscious mental states that are (or can be) the causes of conscious pathological mental states. The second premise, regarding the various practices of psychiatry, seems to be that there are methodologies to uncover these unconscious mental states. The third, that through the "uncovering" of these unconscious states (do they ever actually become conscious? or are we, the patient, just now theoretically aware of them?) we can somehow subvert their causal efficacy to bring about other (pathological) mental states.
If that's even remotely correct, I don't get it. Why would becoming aware (/conscious) of a mental state have any impact on the things it can cause? This requires a theoretical view of mental states that distinguishes conscious and unconscious states, not only in terms of their being conscious (or not) but in terms of the things that they can cause. But then the entire view of "unconscious mental states" becomes suspect, since our understanding of them cannot be pinned purely on the conscious quality of the mental state. So what in the fuck is the actual theoretical basis of the "therapy"?