/lit/ - Literature

from Freuds Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy ['Little Hans']
>The first information about Hans dates back to a time when he was not quite three years old. At that time he expressed in various remarks and questions a particularly lively interest in that part of his anatomy which he called his widdler'. Thus he once asked his mother: Hans: “Mummy, have you got a widdler too?' Mummy: 'Of course I have. Why?' Hans: 'I just wondered.' At the same age he once went into a cowshed and saw a cow being milked. ‘Look, milk comes out of the cow's widdler.' These very first observations arouse the expectation that a great deal, if not most, of what little Hans shows us will prove typical of the sexual development of children. I have argued elsewhere that we should not be too horrified if we encounter in a female the fantasy of sucking on the male organ.

>>14550127
That can't be what he actually writes. Any psychology that is based off this kind of "analysis" cannot have any legitimacy.

>>14550127
>mom tells son she has a dick
>kid thinks udders are dicks
>this means little girls want to suck dick
I don't understand

>>14550127
>childs are sexual beings

amerif*ts:
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>14550156
This is straight from Freud. I literally laughed out loud

>>14550230
How does anyone take this seriously?

>>14550244
>takes a citation out of context
>wow this is so dumb!
this is the state of /lit/. it is like that quote from judith butler, which won the award for something like worst academic writing, stupid retards take words out of context and the seethe.

>>14550010

>scientific ideas make countless modern technologies possible and massvely expand our understanding of physical reality

Damn what a dirty kike bastard Einstein was

>>14550258
You want me to green text the whole case? LMAO
you have to be a complete dilettante not to see how much he’s projecting

>>14550283
Name one

>>14550258
That's quite the context that would create a valid logical connection between a boy seeing cow's udders and fantasies of fellatio. Let's not forget that Frued offers no experimentation, no data, nor any logical methodology. The entire nature of his science is "interpretation." If this is what he leads with, where does it end?

>>14550244
I can imagine it’s the kind of person who is academic purely for percentages and letter grades, lacking in a funny bone, ogling at the teet of “professionals” not out of any genuine conviction but pure and utter obedience

>>14550290
General relativity led to working GPS systems. Understanding the discrete nature (quantum mechanics) of reality led to transistors which led to computers.

>>14550290
Your mom's fat vagina

>>14550303
he didn't even imply that fellatio fantasies follow from what he just wrote. You have no reading comprehension

>>14550342
Oh really? And how did it do that?

>>14550346
>if we encounter in a female the fantasy of sucking on the male organ
He even admits that he’s talking about fantasies

>>14550348
By interpeting mathematical model and verify these with experiments. And then we start to get creatieve, have new ideas and create devices based on steps.

>>14550344
That would be the standard model*

>>14550290
The photoelectric effect (explained by Einstein) is essential to a large number of techniques in analytical chemistry and to a large number of imaging technologies.

Without general and special relativity (also theorized by Einstein) it would be impossible to make GPS technology.

You could look up mire, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately.

>>14550363
theory=/=engineering
They call it theoretical physics for a reason

>>14550348
Which one

>>14550373
Dumbest answer in this thread.

>>14550370
Einstein didn’t do shit stop posturing

>>14550379
don’t get mad, this may be hard to swallow

>>14550346
Yeah, that's pretty clear. That's not the issue. But how does a boy seeing a cow's udders and thinking it's similar to his penis even relate psychologically to female fantasies about fellatio? What justifies these two concepts even appearing on the same page? He says, based on the brief and without-context story of the boy, that we should be unsurprised if women have fantasies about fellatio. How do those two things logically relate?

>>14550198
Welcome to jewish psychology.

>>14550385
>Einstein didn't do shit

Hey I feel like I'm back on /sci/

>>14550391
here is the full context. I think his argument is that both sucking on mommies titties and sucking on penis derives the same kind of pleasure (oral fixation).

>>14550391
They don’t. Just like assuming bad working conditions is a reflection of some sinister oligarchy, or that the concepts of physics are impervious to epistemological deconstruction
Freud Marx and Einstein are HACKS

>>14550389
Experiments are based on theory. You don't know shit.

>>14550413
That is what he’s saying, and it’s retarded
Calling out absolute conjecture is now sacrosanct I guess

>>14550417
Experiments are based on experiments
Get your categories in their categories

>>14550427
<80 iq

>>14550432
zyklon b

>>14550391
> But how does a boy seeing a cow's udders and thinking it's similar to his penis even relate psychologically to female fantasies about fellatio?
the boy associates cows breasts with penises just like the girl associates the pleasure derived from sucking on penis to the pleasure from sucking on titties. Freud tries to explain how children associate, it is not his argumentation, I think most people reading Freud think it is he who argues those things, and the find them dumb

>>14550454
You should read Three Essays of Sexuality (pub. 1905), he made a career of armchair pedophilia

>>14550413
That's not an argument. That's an assumption. He observes that a boy is aware of his own penis, that the boy's mother said (to avoid the discussion) that she had one two, and finally that the boy thinks that a cow's udders are like his penis; given that boy has not derived (in fact biologically cannot yet have derived) any sexual pleasure from his penis, and is demonstrably ignorant of the sexual process, it's quite clear by this account that he places no sexual import onto the udders of the cow. In a different, hypothetical scenario, Freud mentions a woman sucking a penis. There is no correspondence between these narratives. There is no justification present that could tie whatever pleasure either party hypothetically receives in the latter vignette to the neutral observations present in the first vignette. He suggests that the girl develops a desire to fellate from the suckling of a babe. How does he suppose this? The very process which is in most need of explaining is most absent from the theory. There is only a superficial resemblance in biological mechanics between these events and zero discussion of actual psychology. This is an ideological magic trick. He has taken an ordinary and innocent image, and caused you to relate it in your mind with a sexually potent image when they have no actual relationship to each other. It is nothing more than a manufactured association of ideas. In other words, Freud is only a pervert who, by rhetoric, fashions you after himself.

>>14550454
Except there is no demonstration that any of the individuals involved make these associations, nor is there any demonstration of the mechanism of association. It is not the boy who has associated cow's udders with sexual activity, but Frued who as associated children with sexuality in your mind.

>>14550467
i've read it, he shits on pedophiles, quote:
>Only exceptionally are children the exclusive
sexual objects. They are mostly drawn into this rôle by a faint-hearted and impotent individual who makes use of such substitutes, or when an impulsive urgent desire cannot at the time secure the proper object. p18

You just pulled out "b-b-but pedophilia!" card and thought it will work? you're really a low iq subhuman rat

>>14550489
>no evidence
>‘Look, milk comes out of the cow's widdler.
did you even read original text u dumbfuck?

>>14550491
He’s speaking from experience

>>14550496
>a pervert's joke should be taken seriously because he's really pretentious about it.

>>14550496
>NO HOW DARE YOU CRITISUZE FRYOYD

>>14550507
>>14550514
>>14550519
hit the wall of argumentation?

>>14550491
Exclusive- as in only. He may not be exclusively into children, just preferentially, like when he’s analyzing a fathers projections about his child’s words , projections he himself taught the father and tries to teach his children, the future analcysts

>>14550491
>dude people who only like children are weak sick people who don’t have anyone to pork
>now, let us continue about how infants want to get fucked

>>14550521
You did your own reading, but did you do your own thinking anon? Honestly

>>14550491
Anon, this isn't attacking pedophiles, but defending it.
>mostly drawn
>(as in, not exclusively)
>or when an impulsive urgent desire cannot at the time secure the proper object
How can the "proper object" be "fulfilled" by a child? To even allow that notion is the essence of pedophilia.

>>14550528
oh yes, the classic "ill use his own concepts to argue against him, that will show how his theory is bullshit!"

>>14550563
yes I did, did you do yours?

>>14550480
>given that boy has not derived (in fact biologically cannot yet have derived) any sexual pleasure from his penis
this is not true, i have had (and enjoyed) sexual experiences long before i reached puberty or even learned how to masturbate

>>14550566
What positive thing has Frued given society in this thinking? How does this help us?

>>14550566
>>14550579
Infantile sexuality? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME DUDE?

>>14550581
I’m guessing you “discovered” this after reading Freud? It’s called introjection
BS goes both ways

>>14550582
Why should thinkers give positive things to society? Are you a woman or an anglo?

>>14550581
That is a post-hoc interpretation you have cast over your childhood experiences. The sexual organs have not developed before puberty, they do not have the same physical sensitivity, they do not lead to any biological culmination. There is no biological basis for sexual awareness. There is no behavioral basis for suggesting there is sexual awareness. Prepubescent experiences are inherently non-sexual, and it is only by the mental association of childhood acts with acts later known to be sexual that the earlier experiences can be sexually colored.

>>14550615
Why should someone harm society?

>>14550615
Here we go

>>14550617
Exactly. This is what Nabokov tried to portray in Lolita. Humbert literally can’t see the difference between his childhood love and his rape of a child

>>14550624
try thinking beyond harm/provide dichotomy

>>14550651
Why?

>>14550606
>>14550617
no i discovered this when i was in the fourth grade and realized thinking certain things (which, incidentally, were completely divorced from typical human sexuality, although i'm not sure that's related to this) made my dick feel good
maybe it was early puberty but i'm pretty sure it didn't even work yet, i don't recall it becoming erect

>>14550652
dont if you want to be an edgy teenager or a bootlicker

>>14550658
Your whole argument rest on this mysterious “thinking certain things”? What were those things anon, and I’ll tell you whether you were germinated early or not

>>14550670
Is this the edgy adult whose done licking boots response?

>>14550658
You demonstrate very clearly what I am saying. When you first did it, you knew it made your penis feel good. But it never became erect. You never ejaculated. You never had any sexual intent. You never had any sexual fantasy. You felt no sexual attraction to anything. As you say, these physical sensations were entirely divorced from any understanding of sexuality. The entire sexual nature of these experiences exists only in your backwards projection. You cannot unknow what you know now, so when you replay this memories in your head, you include the associations that you make today, but which you never made then. What you discovered in the 4th grade was that your penis could feel good. A little early, but in-line with ordinary development. It is not a coincidence that 11-14 has been the age of initiation for men across civilizations for millennia.

>>14550697
If you want a proper response,I dont like this filter-question "did this thinkers theory did any good to society?" because if you filter every theory with this question, you will come up with the most boring, status quo preserving bullshit world-view that will keep you from thinking anything authentic (as banal as this word is). This question can be asked by someone, who subscribes to good-boy ethics (probably anglo).

>>14550718
You are as ridiculous as you are repressed, seriously

>>14550731
why?

>>14550718
But if the status-quo is good, why should it be done away with? If the status-quo is good, how can a rejection of it be authentic? If the status-quo is bad, then wouldn't a question of what is good challenge the status quo? How does one measure authenticity anyways? In the absence of good and evil, what does authenticity even mean? Further, how can authentic evil be praised for its authenticity? Would not the authenticity of evil magnify the evil?

It seems like you're stuck in the Holden Caulifield stage of loss of innocence.

>>14550694
>>14550714
>What were those things anon, and I’ll tell you whether you were germinated early or not
they later became an extremely major fetish for me and so it is too embarrassing for me to specify in detail. i'll only say that it is a rare although not unheard of fetish, pretty far out of the mainstream. i knew that it was pleasurable, and that the way in which it was pleasurable was different from other pleasurable things, but i didn't know specifically that the way it felt good was in a sexual way, even though it obviously was
but given that something that later became a very strong fetish for me started with sexually pleasurable thoughts that began when i was in the fourth grade, it seems fair to say that i had a pre-puberty sexual experience (many, since i did it a number of times)

>>14550752
im not even moralizing status quo, im not saying its good or bad, and when I refer to "status quo" I mean mainly generally accepted ideas (doxa), morality, that may or may not be ideological. Rejection of status quo is authentic because it lets you think of something new and (in terms of morality, taste, ideas) not banal. It is a judgement of the taste and not morals. Im not advocating evil, as I've said, I dont want to larp as an edgy teenager.

>>14550775
What was the fetish?

>>14550777
Suspending belief to verify ideas is valuable because it eliminates ignorance which is helpful and contributes to society, and there is nothing more based than being Good. You seem to be stuck in the grey area, but veering in the wrong direction by calling into question contribution, positivity and goodness. What is this “calling into question”, if not not for good or bad, other than mental masturbation?

>>14550803
When painters produce new works of art, they don't do it out of "contributing to society". They do it because old styles bore them to death. The same is with philosophy, even if ideas are very good (e.g. notion of human rights) they can be banal, thought denying. As I've said, it is a judgement of taste and not of morals, im going to sleep, ciao

>>14550718
>GAWD would you just let me fantasize about fucking kids instead of always asking why I would want to do it??? UGH just WHAT is your problem????

>>14550803
to add, I really suggest you read "beyond good and evil" by nietzsche, if you want to hear more about this type of philosophizing (which influenced practically all of post XIX philosophy (yes yes he is co-opted by edgy teenagers, but it is an interesting alternative to moralizing philosophy). ((im implying you havent read him by your amazement that there is no point in philosophy apart serving the idea of Good))

>>14550863
I dont want to fantasize, I want to fuck them
>you're pedo
yes

>>14550775
No, it is not fair to say. The starting position was a lack of association. Then, in the 4th grade, you began to associate certain thoughts with pleasure in penis; but this pleasure is self-described by you as not yet sexual, and the thoughts were also not sexual in nature, both in the conventional understanding and as-experienced. This step in the process represents the first emergence of anything remotely sexual, and that is the pleasure of your penis, which was arbitrary. The very first sensation lacked any meaningful association. It was only by repeatedly going over the same associative pathway that there became any sense of connection. Over time, as your sexual physiology developed, you continued to re-engage this mental association; however, as you admit and have always known, the initial sensation is clearly distinct in your mind from your later, overtly sexual thoughts. Finally, as you sexual physiology finishes development, you have maintained a mental association which now relates sexual gratification to the now changed mental images. Though there may have been a consistency of object, you have already acknowledged that there was not a consistency of subject.

So, in other words, when you were 10 you first began to develop sexual sensitivity, which is ordinary. Then, by happenstance, you began to associate a particular thought or set of thoughts with the physical sensation only. By natural development, the physical sensation became part of a broader set of experiences--that is sexual desire. By relationship of those continued physical pleasures, the original object of thought which was neutral became the subject of your sexual desire. Had you been properly, but not oppressively, stopped from pursuing sexual pleasure at that age, no fetish would have developed. In fact, the only way in which this "fetish" existed at all was in your belief that it was involuntary, when in fact it had been consciously followed at every step, even if only out of curiosity.

Sexual gratification is the strongest sensation in the body, and is intimately tied with the most potent emotions. But reason and intuition both have superiority over bodily and emotional activity. The idea that we cannot control our sexual activity and desires is one of the most dangerous ideas to ever be introduced to society.

>>14550830
They contribute to the culture that makes up the history of art, that they find valuable and hence have given themselves over to it. You have yet to integrate your categories, and most likely aspects of your own personhood, and it is in your best interest to do so anon, that’s what being a whole person means

>>14550865
Please read some Philosophy that will do you good anon like Kant or Plato anon
There is nothing good or smart about being pithy and petulant

>>14550373
>>14550389
>>14550427
god youre retarded.
As if, for example, the ultraviolet catastrophe, you know something that experiments failed to explain, wasnt solved by the mathematics of Planck, later worked by Einstein (theoretical physics) that found out about the photon (not experimentally). So you see mongoloid, experimental physics aint shit without any the mathematical framework of theoretical physics, and most of the time fails to describe most experimental data without having theory working on those observations. But yeah sure keep nailing wood plancks together, creating the illusion that youre somehow unfolding the secrets of the universe

>>14550777
Could anything be less authentic or sincere than novelty for novelty's sake? The very essence of dogma and morality is conviction. It is the strength of belief in the good of something that makes it a cultural more. Ideological thinking is not passive, but active. In other words, the only thing more sincere than adhering to the status quo is to reject it on moral grounds. To reject it not even out of curiosity, but rather out of vanity or whim is the least sincere or authentic action possible. As you point out, adhering to the status quo means rejecting novelty; how can a repeated action remain compelling without sincere belief? Your attitude is like a toddler who is bored with a toy, except instead of throwing a toy on the ground and pouting, you are attempting to dismantle the foundational traditions of society. It is the least authentic activity imaginable.

>>14550925
>Einstein was unfolding the secrets of the universe

Kek

>>14550925
You are saying a whole lot of nothing anon

>>14550207
They're not really, a kid taking interest in his own body isn't being sexual, and that's a weird thing to be defensive about anyways.

>>14550385
>Einstein didn’t do shit stop posturing
I didn't even realize there were Einstein deniers until today
How the fuck does this happen? At any point you could just use the internet and look this up, instead you choose a radically presumptuous opinion based on... What, not liking Jews?

>>14551029
Einstein took other people’s ideas, and made conjectures that turned out be inconclusive
Relativity goes way beyond Einstein, and the tradition that goes with his name is what’s being pissed on, he wasn’t so bad
I especially like how he admitted to everything I just said

>>14551060
>Einstein took other people’s ideas, and made conjectures
this is called “science”
>that turned out be inconclusive
very very dumb and wrong

>>14550946
>>14550990
Yeah I'm guessing you have to background in the disciplines mentioned

>>14551068
No, he took out all his sources, and even went so far as to mock the very people whose ideas he ripped off
>wrong
I’m sorry but infinitesimals only goes so far

>>14551072
The*?*

>>14551080
please stop learning your history of science from /pol/

>>14551100
Einstein this dick

>>14550010
>The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles

Jesus this is like the dumbest sentence ever written.

>>14550370
>Without general and special relativity (also theorized by Einstein) it would be impossible to make GPS technology.

This is actually not true, it's just what everyone says.

>>14550342
Einstein didn't create quantum mechanics retard. That's Plank and Heisenberg.

>>14551283
How would you make GPS without the theory of relativity

>>14551274
Fuck off, metternich

>>14551306

Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, which, along with Planck's work, revealed the quantum nature of energy. Heisenberg and Dirac fully fleshed out quantum mechanics.

>>14550127
>a cow's udder is sexual

>>14550373
>math
>collect data and look for patterns

>>14550244
Most people don't take Freud as gospel. Freud was inappropriately confident about most of his highly speculative theories.

However, he actually produced a lot of genuinely useful theoretical constructs that do hold up to empirical validation. In particular, the idea of psychosomatic origins of certain physical symptoms, and of a kind of developmental psychology where certain psychological functions develop during critical stages of childhood, were both groundbreaking.

>>14550373
Jesus, that image is genuinely retarded and you should feel a little embarrassed.

>>14552180

>Freud was inappropriately confident about most of his highly speculative theories

Yeah cocaine'll do that

>>14552183
Your mom liked it

>>14551016
Then you're either playing semantics or genuinely retarded

>>14551882
Except Planck did his work before Einstein and the one and only originator of quantum physics.

>>14552877
Yeah that's true. So what?

>>14551283
It is though, at some point the GPS would start to show places kilometers away from where they actually are if it weren't for relativistic corrections

>>14554014
This guy obviously doesn't know anything about physics and is regurgitating something he heard somewhere else online. Just another pseud on /lit/. Ignore him.

>>14552180
But both of those concepts were already contained in folk wisdom and old wives tales? It is not as though mankind suddenly became aware of these phenomena. So it can't be that Freud truly discovered them, but only that psychologists have developed a new linguistic framework for discussing these eternal experiences based on the language of Freud. However, should that language system really be trusted, when it is also what allows for the accommodation of some of man's most perverse behavior? What good is a language system if it cannot make the most essential distinctions? It seems like efforts of psychology coming from Freud do a lot of unnecessary work to explain what was ordinarily understood in new, "scientific" terminology, and then engage in even more work to try and explain away in this new language those concepts we now disagree with that Freud had built into the system of language.

In sincere curiosity, can you given an example of something Freud put forward that was not already part of folk teaching, was not sexual, does not open itself into sexualization, and which has proven reliable in not only clinical, but experimental study?