/lit/ - Literature

>>15215685
>Why is he considered such a joke in academia?
Unfortunately, that's not true for all of academia

>>15215685
Maybe it’s because he believes in the patriarchy and the penis as the source of all psychological development and based all his child sexual development research on his experience developing an incest fetish?

>>15215727
It’s funny because it seems like 4chan ruined him and his use of language more than his mom making him develop an incest fetish

>>15215685

I took a psychology class recently and Freud was given respect. The professor went lightly on some of his ideas (probably to avoid getting bad reviews from overly sensitive whores).

>Always people bring up the Oedipus complex as if that's the only thing he did.

People do this with any famous contributor. They boil down their thoughts and career to a single thing. When you notice someone doing this it should signal to you that they're merely regurgitating something they've heard from a source that they mood affiliate with. Since they clearly haven't read the material (or even a detailed summary of the materiel) you shouldn't be bothered. I'd give examples of this phenomena but if you're familiar with any subject or work and have heard others discuss it, you know what I'm talking about.

>>15215685
What was Freud's sample size for his theories? 6. It's not 6 because he cherrypicked successful patients either, it's 6 because 6 patients is all he had in his lifetime. He didn't help single one of them with any of their problems. Now, you don't have to understand the technical failings of Freud to comprehend that there may be something flawed with his method. Now I want you to understand one thing, there's still a lot of psychoanalytics around and you can recognise them very easily, because if someone says he's "therapist" and drives really obscenely expensive car then that's psychoanalytic. The reason why his theories managed to withstand being basically proven false, is because he made a lot of money on his quackery, and there's bunch of other quacks with institutional power that make lots of money on his quackery. His method seems to be in fact geared to develop dependant relationship between therapist and the patient rather than help.

Now the big deal is that people in psychology outside of psychoanalytics who have skin in the game here, generally don't care about this old fart anymore. For more or less comprehensive source on that you can read "Decline and Fall of Freudian Empire" by Hans Eysenck, which was sort of controversial when released(as Freudians wielded more institutional power back then), but isn't anymore.

With literally criticism, philosophy etc. etc. the problem his hermeneutic method brings is that you're seeking messages where there are none, which is great fit for modern world of literally criticism and academia because there the volume of published work matters more than quality, which sometimes leads to situations like with Watership Down being a novel about anthropomorphic rabbits for kids, plot of which borrowed some elements from classical literature, which led to people psychologising some hidden messages and themes into the author's mind, too bad the author was still alive(is still alive?) when they were doing that and he said they're making shit up.
So yeah, putting words into hopefully dead(then they can't contradict you) people's mouths, I can't imagine what can go wrong with that one.

>>15215727
Kek

so does the unconscious exist or not?

Reminder that the siblings that Anna Freud used as model examples of the success of her father's theories killed themselves, one in Freuds house. LOL

"Freud has no rivals among his successors because they think he wrote science, when in fact he wrote art." - Camille Paglia