/lit/ - Literature

>>15808830
You don't.

Straight up just pick up Freud, Jung, and Reich readers and go from there.

>>15808830

KILL ALL NIGGERS
Now how did that make you feel, OP?

>>15808830
Bunch of conjectural unfalsifiable bullshit. Stay far away.

>>15809699
>unfalsifiable
Nothings unfalsifiable anon you just don't have the tools to refute him

>>15808830
everything is a penis

>>15809719
I'm sorry you fell for their sophistry.

>>15809842
>freud is false
>how?
>I can't tell you, he's unfalsifiable
Listen I think psychology is better served analytically instead of empirically

>>15808830
You don't. The referentiality behind actions that it assumes is unfalsifiable.

>>15809887
You can't examine the system at all or the references in the system? Can you give a particular example?

>>15809871
>>freud is false
Nope, it's more like
>freud is right
>how?
>because he says he is

There is nothing to refute.

>>15809899
It assumes an unconscious. You cannot falsify the unconscious. And how could you make a theory of the unconscious consciously? How could you bring the unconscious into consciousness to examine it? If you did that, it would no longer be unconscious.

>>15809905
>there's nothing to refute
Then stfu

>>15809917
That's what I meant by unfalsifiable.

>>15809916
Yes we assume shit all the time, still falsifiable.
A subconscious* is verifiable in many fields including psychoanalysis.
Unconscious is about as dead obvious as well

>>15809922
Your statement is tautological but I can still falsify it using tools fundamental to that statement like ontology logic etc.
You however have read none of these and freud doesn't declare himself correct like that. I asked for an example

>>15809916
>the mind cant analyze itself because it is contained within the analysis
yeah, we've known this for over 200 years now. Doesn't mean there can be no such thing as a science of the mind, your definition of science as falsifiability is simply too narrow. How can I prove that a science of the mind is possible or effective? Pretty easily; just as aerodynamics is true because planes fly, psychoanalysis or simply philosophy mind is scientifically valid because it is capable of affecting the quality, direction, and content of thought. When the real work of philosophy and psychology is done, people think differently, which causes them to act differently. What more could you ask for from a science than results?

>m-muh analytic philosophy said you can't get knowledge without this one specific and unverifiable epistemological maxim!
Can you falsify the belief that only real knowledge lies in falsifiable theories?

Thinking is a REAL process within the world. It's something that is done by matter (whatever that is) in the world. It can be scientifically analyzed, even if finding knowledge of it is very difficult, clumsy, and different from other science. Guys like Freud and Jung were simply pioneers of a very difficult field. Physicists used to think that the sun revolved around the earth and that everything was earth, wind, fire, or air.

>>15808830
Civilization and its discontents

>>15808830
>how do I get into 'x', which is well-documented and a cursory Googling would reveal its origins and present an Amazon link to purchase said information on 'x'
>lol j/k I just wanna pseud-out on empiricists on the internet
>I actually already know A LOT about 'x', kiddo

>>15810052
>Lacan
>Well documented

>>15808838
Correct

>>15809699
Dumb

>>15809719
You mean the opposite of that

>>15808830
Freud - sex and spooky hidden urges
Jung - universal traits and also whoa dude
Lacan - academia and the internet only, also Freud but communist
Reich - harness orgasm energy to transcend fascism
Adler - most real world of them all