/lit/ - Literature

>liberals hate Freud because muh psoodoscience
>conservatives hate Freud because they are secret utilitarians & have a naively optimistic view of human nature
>leftists hate Freud because Oedipus bad, father bad, me no like, away, away

>>10107413
>the world is split into two type of people
Grow up and turn off the TV.

>>10107419
refute what I said, plebian

>>10107419
That was three

>>10107117
Freud>Lowen>Reich

>tfw you realize he was right about everything

>>10107423
Provide data showing evincing your points and I will begin researching a rebuttal.

>>10107432
read my book when it drops in 8 years, it btfos you pretty conclusively

>>10107432
It's not how it works.

>>10107117
Yes anon, psychosis is caused by daddy not beating you enough for wanting to have sex with mommy.

>>10107117
>Freudian spooks
And people wonder why the field of psychology is treated as a joke nowadays.

>>10107861
Kek, not by the rising trend of literally millions of people it serves, anon. Stay isolated in your contrarian websites and you start seeing the world through chan-tinted glasses, anon. In case you haven't noticed, everything on the internet is a joke.

>>10107117
Take the Lacan pill anon

>>10107887
>not taking every pill
The interaction effect is where it's at, pleb.

Shouldn't you naturally be somewhat skeptical about anything derived by such a interpretive "method" of analysis. Maybe the methods are on to something, but it seems to be, by its nature, so open to different readings that it must be reasonable to be uncertain!

>>10108901
You offer an interpretation of someone's dream. Does that seem right to you?
>nah, that doesn't seem right to me.
Falsified!

>>10108987
If only. The most annoying thing about the concept of the unconscious, no matter whether it's Freudian or something else (Schopenhauerian, Hegelian, Nietzschean, MGTOW who analyze women in Youtube videos, etc.) is that it can be considered hidden from consciousness, either through censorship or just by its nature. Basically it can even be intensively inverted, aa Freud does using denial (or denegation, a more proper translation). The more the analyzand denies that the mother was thr woman (or animal or anything else) in the dream, the more it clearly is her because of the intensity of the denial. The dream doesn't seem right to you? Well cleary that's because of unconscious censorship.

>Childhood is being Jungian
>Adulthood is realizing the Neo-Freudians made more sense

>>10109008
> old age and wisdom are refusing both and becoming animal

Take the Deleuze pill.

>>10107430
This

>>10109012
no thanks, I am already on medication

>>10109012
I'm way ahead of you

>>10109012
>>10109024

but Deleuze is the best medicine

>interrupts your session

>>10107117
>>10107413

lol read Irigaray "The Sex Which Is Not One"

>>10108997
But in practice, that's really not how you work with clients using these methods. That's like equating shitposting to proper debate. They're both technically arguing, but they're not the same.

>>10109058
You mean Luce "E=MC^2 is sexist" Irigaray?

>>10109114
I don't see what you're getting at. Of course you won't tell the client that he's wrong, I just mean that in terms of theory there's no guarantee that what the client is saying is correct so how is that to help with falsifying something? I'm not denying that there's an art to picking what matters and what doesn't in spite of this, just that it needs a better theory to account for such details.

It seems my superiority has led to some controversy.

>>10109692
Jung is an idiot. If you've actually read any of his stuff, you realize he doesn't know anything at all. He talks out of his ass more than Lacan does.

>>10109704
You take that back.

>>10109704
I have actually read quite a bit of his stuff anon. If you've actually read any of his stuff, you realize that unlike Freud he doesn't try to pass off his theories as falsifiable scientific fact. The real difference between how Jung and Freud present their work is that Freud seems to be more concerned with passing his stuff off as undeniable science, whereas Jung is more concerned with finding methods that solve the problem, acknowledging very openly that his theories are not falsifiable.

>>10109723
I've read most of Jung's collected works and Freud's big three as someone who's interested in psychiatry or neurology as a profession.

Both are complete wastes of time. They don't know anything. If you want to learn real spiritual truths, then get that from religion and myths, not from his incoherent ramblings

>>10109704
>speaks in like 10 different languages
>has pretty much read every piece of mythology known to man
>doesn't know anything
ok anon

is there a reading chart for jung, freud, lacan & deleuze etc
like a psychoanalysis reading chart

>>10109735
Stop being pedantic. He doesn't know anything about the human mind and the deep cosmic truths that he attempts to explore. If you're interested in that stuff, he's just going to make your journey more confused and take longer.

>>10109740
Learn what a bibliography is already

>>10107117
>tfw i turned gay because i never got the chance to fuck my mom
freud figured me out, goddamn

>>10109732
>>10109744
>Jung is incoherent
Brainlet detected. Jung is not a hard read at all.

>>10109759
did I say he's a hard read?

>>10107117
Iktf OP, had that epiphany a while ago. Well everything except cocaine.

>>10107413
Yes, the conspiracy against Freud is real. Leftists historically have embraced him, but Freudo-Marxism seems to have fallen out of fashion. That fat balkanian with tourette's is keeping it alive though.

>>10107413
The monotheism around sexuality is reaching its peak, Freud is going out. Jung is bringing the heroes back.

>>10109759
When people say somebody is incoherent, they are often stating their confusion, rather than something about the other person.
There are multiple ways to be confused. One, as you've identified, is scope. Complexity, for example, can override our capacity. However, in Jung's case, I would say it is a confusion of language. Jung speaks of a different world than the bubble of "contemporary society", for a lack of a less confusing word.

It is often not a lack of brains, but lack of experience. Hence smart people are often depressed but still won't lift.

Freud needed to be exorcised

>>10109008
>>10109012
>deathlessness is realizing the psyche is a spook and Cartesianism doesn't lead anywhere

>>10110433
>Hence smart people are often depressed but still won't lift.
Care to elaborate?

>>10110433
well stated

>>10107117
>((( it's actually profound when delimited to dick cutting monotheist interlopers being ousted from Egypt and the tripartite unconscious a kabbalistic reactionformation against the polytheist pantheon's afterlife journey and embalming process. )))

>>10109676
But the option is not to have a theory of dream interpretation OR a rock solid account of dream analysis and its mechanisms. The subjective nature of dreams, by their very definition, could not be manualised because the symbology represents the personal schemas developed across each individuals lifespans. Having a method that is based in gentle discourse and suggestion is literally all we have. And the falsifiability lies on the client and the pragmatism of results.

>>10111511
>I can't affect anything important, I'm powerless, weak... Depressed thoughts, whatever they may be.
>t. mind
>Won't use (ergo. affect) the body, proving the mind wrong

>>10111966
Oh, gtfo with your shit

Well I certainly do love Mommy incest porn

>>10111966
>t. mind
Yes bucko. It has nothing to do with our material culture. Transform into a living statue and you will be free. All your problems are in your head.

>>10107413
>conservatives
>optimistic view of human nature

>>10107413
>people who have actually studied psychology hate Freud because he assumed everything without any empirical evidence

frigg off pretentious NEET

>>10112429
superficial optimism for the sake of appearance and to hide more sinister motives ("people are inherently good, that is why private charity is more efficient than tax funded social security!") is still technically optimism.

I feel like people that think Freud and Jung were just making shit up are the same people that believe enclothed cognition is just a placebo effect. You can cry not a science all you want but how do you discard decades of actual results when the best pharma has been able to do is dope up kids and cause an opioid epidemic while solving none of the problems of people with psychological problems?

A person that is normally shy is told to wear a bold outfit outside and when they do it changes their personality and they become more social.

You can argue it was within them all along to be outgoing and social. However, you would be a fool to think this only coincidence when you look at the data and find it's true for the vast majority of people and is an effective solution for anti social tendencies.

Just as you would be a fool to think that all the people helped by Jungian and Freudian psychology were mere coincidences.

>>10107419
he literally gave three, you illiterate PoS get the fuck off this board

>>10110758
>truth is realizing that whether you agree with cartesianism or not doesnt matter because its an adequate description of the contradictory human condition which it is the historical mission of psychoanalysis to mediate

>>10107457
>psychosis is "caused"
hahaha being a positivist must suck

>>10107861
>psychoanalysis
>>psychology

>>10108997
>i read about freud on wikipedia

How. I REALLY enjoy cock, but hate cigars, hotdogs, and guns.

>>10112682
Probably a Youtube video, there are a lot of people that think psychology is a Jewish trick.

I don't think Freud was right about everything. However the reactions to him are interesting. Instead of

>hmm, these are some interesting and provocative ideas.

its

>OH MY GOD THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE! THIS IS RIDICULOUS! THERE IS *NO WAY* IT CAN BE TRUE AT ALL, NO SIR!

The absolutely astonishing, strong, flagrant denials are interesting. It's like people are incapable of just considering his ideas for what they are.

>>10112710
It's not even about interesting ideas or not, they are also just ignoring years of positive results. If psychoanalysis didn't work psychiatrist would have disappeared long ago.

>>10112670
Bitches don't know shit about my fRMI.

>>10112733
> If psychoanalysis didn't work psychiatrist would have disappeared long ago.
Is that so?Shit like horoscopes are also still around.

>>10112733
>If psychoanalysis didn't work psychiatrist would have disappeared long ago.
Big Pharma is helluvadrug.

>>10112760
>implying horoscopes don't work
brainlet

>>10112733
psychoanalysis =/= psychiatry

>>10112661
>enlightenment is realizing History is over and mediation is an illusion

God-tier: Kevin B. MacDonald

Shit-tier: Sigmund Freud

>>10112345
>Train your body
>Get self-respect
>Change anything

>>10112438
>psychoanalysis = clinical psychology

>>10113091
That was not at all implied by that anons post. You're not very good at this are you?

>>10107430
This man actually was right about everything. Forget Freud. Forget jung. Forget Plato, Socrates, Parmenides too.

>>10112682
>>10112692
Nice arguments you have there.

>>10111938
Even false interpretations have results. If a patient believes everything he is told about his unconscious, he is changed as a result.

>>10112641
Placebo effects have real consequences. Fake it until you make it and all that.

> Just as you would be a fool to think that all the people helped by Jungian and Freudian psychology were mere coincidences.

Talking to someone helps, especially if that someone has no other task in the relationship than to help you. Everything else is a bonus or can get in the way.

>>10109732
t. Pseud

>>10112710
Most criticize stuff like the Oedipus complex and his constant appeals to the sexual unconscious. His contributions in terms of concepts such as drive are much more accepted. What's thr point of just sitting around and saying that his ideas are interesting? Alchemy can be interesting and even productive in terms of inspiration for other things, but I would not claim that it actually works in practice. Unless of course creating illusions and their very real and perhaps lasting effects is what is meant by "works".

Here's a point you will never see in general discourse over Freud: the majority of his patients were subhumans, therefore his conclusions are perfectly inline with reality

>>10113423
How could an interpretation be false then? And do you have a problem with the situation you described?

>>10113524
> How could an interpretation be false then?
You judge the interpretation based on results rather than what it is describing. It's a matter of suggestion under these circumstances, something which Freud rejected. Even if we reject a realist approach to truth, some interpretations are better than others just based on their effects.

> And do you have a problem with the situation you described?
Only when there are claims of truth rather than construction (which has its own truth in itself of course, but psychoanalysis typically does not claim to construct the unconscious but rather to uncover it). Psychoanalysis' conclusions lead to certain solutions which work for some, but that does not mean that there aren't better solutions out there even for those very people.

>>10109053
i, too prefer jung
because i'm a wannabe taoist at heart

>>10110433
yeah

>>10110412
Jung has been dead for decades Anon, literally and dialectically

>>10107117
makes u want to grow the fuck up hey
too bad abt bourgeoise social structures
>>10107413
bro

>>10113670
fag

>>10113658
>suggestion
You (as in thou in particular) cannot define when a subject is or isn't under suggestion, nor what exactly a suggestion even is.

Next.

>>10113800
Here's a standard dictionary definition.

> the process by which a physical or mental state is influenced by a thought or idea

Where is the difficulty exactly?

>>10113829
>Where is the difficulty exactly?
That according to it, you're constantly under suggestion, or an uninterrupted sequence of suggestions more precisely, whenever you aren't in deep sleep. I'm starting to think you (as in thou in particular) are, that you find this dictionary useful.

>>10113848
Maybe, but it isn't a single process because there is more than one idea. Or, even if it is just one continuous process, the ideas still differ from one another. Again, I don't see how this is relevant.

>>10113948
Of course you don't, you're under the spell of a psychoanalyst, unable to tell when you aren't nor what the spell would consist of, thou and thy dictionary.

>>10113976
>spell
Hahaha! Yeah, ok anon. Careful of all those conversations out there! They're s p o o o o o o o o o k y!

Jung is way more interesting.

Freud is a boorish Marxist.

>>10114029
You'd have to, going by this retarded definition: >>10113829

>>10114035
I prefer the writing style of Jung and his ideas were certainly particularly interesting however I think Freud was the better thinker and psychologist overall. Jung was too abstract

>>10113976
So you're saying psychoanalysts do use suggestion? Because that's what I was saying...

>>10109732
>get facts from fairy tales and unfiltered horseshit because that is way more cohetent even thou goes against everything that is sane or logical

>>10114111
No, I am saying they use thoughts, like all schools of psychology, and that the definition given calls each and every instance of thought processing a suggestion.

Retard.

>>10112651
Liberals and leftists are the same you salty dog

>>10114130
Liberals are lite conservatives, you pleb. Leftists are actual communists and anarchists.

>>10114049
Jung's concept of individuation is better than anything Freud ever wrote imo.

>>10114141
Same thing

>>10109143
You mean An "purposely misunderstanding things" On?

>>10112444
Are you retarded?