/lit/ - Literature

>>17150723
Tell us about these genitals. Did your mother tan?

>immortal being as drive
>said immortal being (libido) inside a mortal being (ego)
>"no, you can't see immortal being, you can only feel it and its effects"
>disobey authority (superego), get pathologic (diverse neurosis, hysteric and paranoid behiavor, diverse somatic effects)
>ulterior motives (drives [pulsion], unconscious motions) act in mysterious ways
>dream interpretation
Not saying Freud good or Freud bad, even less psychoanalysis good or psychoanalysis bad; but did no one notice how everything he writes is already written in the Bible? Bion, Lacan, Winnicott, Reich damn even Adler looks fresh when compared to Freud, and his main thesis is just cringe about compensation and community.
Its just me seeing this or was he really unoriginal?

>>14196361

Where to start with Freud (as well as modern psychology and psychoanalysis in general (at least up to Lacan))?

Is psychoanalysis still relevant as a form of literary theory and literary criticism? Will it eventually fade out?

perhaps the main problem with the way knowledge is taught

is that it focuses on ego. we in the west just love to suck dick. we love it. we love to worship some guy. put a guy up on a pedestal, and suck his dick. our study of knowledge is focused around people.

that is stupid and limiting. ideas should not even be associated with people. ideas should be ideas. ideas should be dissociated from people and seen for their inherent value in the marketplace of other ideas.

then we wont get this idea that we have to be loyal to some guy's dick we sucked and respect all of his ideas. he may have had one good idea, sure. but in the end, we don't need the rest of his bullshit. we can simplify stuff down to take the real meat out of it, and we should.

so that we aren't just spending our whole lives sucking dick.

>>11033767
No.

maybe.

>>10483071
>I watched her get married, and I felt like I was dying because I knew she was to be torn from the home we've grown in, and I would never really see the same person I've always known ever again once we start to grow apart.

>>7795429
>Your picture pretty much echoes the misconceptions that most people have about psychology
>his ideas are today considered outdated, and psychoanalysis is, at best, seen as questionable compared to other forms of therapy
>I think I had literally one one-hour lecture on him and Jung, and that was it.
>I still know very very little about him

You pretty much encapsulate everything that is wrong with the public perception of Freud. You know fuck all about his theories other than what skewed opinions you heard from your intro level TAs and sociology professors, like >>7795460 says (to an extent).

I know you're basing your uninformed opinion off of one one-hour wank session. But if you truly intend to practice psychology, then you would be wise to actually educate yourself on one of it's most profoundly influential people.

Try reading "Freud Scientifically Appraised: Testing the Theories in Therapy" by Fischer and Greenburg, or Psych Bulletin's 1998, “The Scientific Legacy of Sigmund Freud,” by Drew Westen.

It's so annoying when intro level psych morons and sociology fags say, "hurrr durrr hur, Freud is all fake and unfalsifiable." As you even identified in yourself, it stems from not actually knowing anything about him other than the popular edgelord narrative that he is all bogus.

In fact, so much of what Freud theorized has been proven, by scientific measures, to be correct. Sure he got a lot of things wrong, but he go SO many big things right. If you have ever actually even taken a psych history course then you would be aware that this is on par for all of psychology's most influential people.

So take off your presentism glasses and stop drinking the Kool-Aide of the ignorant and uninformed masses.