/lit/ - Literature

>>16331369
Why don’t you tell us

>>16331369
Lol. He said more than that. His work on dream interpretation, while biased towards assuming the worst in people, is solid.

Freud was an anti-coomer and nowhere near as degenerate as you think.

>>16331369
>man whose entire thought relies on pilpuling human behavior to find thought terminating cliches is popular among midwits

God knows why, anon.

>>16331369
you got it wrong, its normies who are repulsed by Freud
>sexual attraction to your parents? big yikes! I totally do not fantasize about big strong daddy figure who will dom me
>little children have sexual knowledge? ummm sweatie, thats problematic!
>we are driven by unconscious and have no free will? but, I'm a whamen who is choosing her own destiny!

>>16331369
I'm getting a migraine and feeling sexually repulsed and contaminated even though I haven't done anything.

I am dying. That is my reality today.

itt: people who literally never read anything he wrote

>>16331474
>no free will
I barely know anyone in my zoomzoom generation who actually believes in free will

>>16331384
>Lol.

>Lol. He said more than that.

>>16331715
>>16331817
t. literally cannot recall their dreams, nor capable of finding sense in them

>>16331825
>he lets a deranged jew interpret his dreams for him

>>16331369
normies are obsessed with malcolm gladwell-tier pop psychology and think freud is a hack

>>16331851
>already forgot the original post that clearly mentioned a fallacious bias
Maybe that has is linked to your dreamless sleep anon

>>16331369
>I think he was trying to solve all the problems of psychology once and for all, and got a bit too carried away.

>A lot of his writing is quite sane.

-Kevin Solway

itt: anon criticizes Freud without having read Freud

literally everyone i talk to irl hates freud and thinks everything he said has been disproved. if you like him people call you a freak

>>16331876
why waste time reading something I know is jew garbage

I do think Freud is currently undervalued. When the popular perception of his ideas went out of fashion over the last couple of decades a lot of people rejected Freud outright as a lunatic.

But I do find the whole "penis envy" language very weird.

Why does Freud think the penis symbolizes something that satisfies a lack? I have no idea.

We could equally say that a tit symbolizes something that satisfies a lack, or a nose, etc. It all seems like an unnecessary abstraction.

Weininger used to argue that the dog symbolizes the criminal, and some people think that was a bit too much of a stretch. But I Weininger's symbolizing is extremely mild compared to the whole "penis envy" thing.

I can relate to the idea of the dog "being" the criminal, since I have experienced this feeling, and the idea, very strongly myself many times throughout my life. But I have never had even the slightest inclination of envy for the penis - no more than envy for, say, the nose.

Regarding dogs, when I was about twenty I was walking home late one night (just after 12) when I saw a very large black dog walking steadily towards me along the same footpath - like he owned the whole place. He wasn't threatening, but was treating me like I wasn't even there. As he got closer, I saw that he had an entire loaf of fresh bread, unwrapped, clamped in his jaws. And there was a cloud of white light hovering above him. He walked straight past me without even looking at me, and continued into the distance for as far as I could see. Freaky.

Another time, I once woke from a nightmare growling like a dog, unable to speak or even form words.

During sex, some people start growling and barking uncontrollably.

So I can understand, "The dog symbolizes the criminal". I just can't relate to the penis thing to anywhere near the same degree.

In many regards, the penis appears to me to be a weakness and a liability, since it is largely exposed and unprotected, is susceptible to all kinds of diseases and infections, and is one of the most vulnerable points of the body in a fight. It can be perceived as a lack of security - a lack of control.

--

I wonder whether he actually asked women whether they desired a penis, or whether he just made it up off the top of his head. I imagine the latter.

I think it's fine to make things up, since you can't trust people to tell you the truth if you ask them. But if you're going to make things up, then you'd better be *right*. And I doubt that Freud was right about this.

--

I think the core symbol of masculinity is *abstraction* (reason, science, invention, planning, etc). The penis doesn't even make it on the radar - not even to a woman, I suspect.

- Kevin Solway

>Lol at the chuds who cannot even recall their dreams

>>16332030
did u write this? I really enjoyed it for some reason

>>16333395
Work on your reading comprehension, friend.

>>16333395
No, they are some of Kevin Solway's posts from the (now-discontinued) Genius Forum.

http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=13900#p13900

Man had good prose though. Currently reading his work on dreams. What next?

>>16333563
Totem and Taboo

>>16331369
Freud being a white patriarchal sex fiend is the normie take. Normies don’t like Freud, normies don’t like anyone who implies they are intrinsically repressed and evil for obvious reasons. People they can categorize into outgroups abstractly? Yes, but not them

>>16331384
>dream interpretation
>solid
hmm

>>16331369
>tricked the world into adopting a new 'science' premised on calling people "motherfuckers"
Is it even possible to be more based?

>>16331369
>Why are normies obsessed with this degenerate
Are you serious? Everyone thinks he's a coke-addled hack. Even you. YOU have the mainstream opinion here. Every thread and post about Freud here is just like yours, picking out his particularly uncomfortable theories and attacking them. Every fucking normie doesn't realize the how insanely novel and genius it was to realize that you can treat illnesses with fucking words; that not eveything is conscious: that you are not in total control.

You are an idiot committing the same fallacy that everyone does, pretending their normie opinions are fringe and attacking a strawman

>>16334978
Simmer down, anon. Have a cigar.

Did Freud forward the concept of psychological determinism? If so, what was the commonly accepted view before?

Freud, Sigmund. A figure of fun. Loathe him. Vile deceit. Freudian interpretation of dreams is charlatanic, and satanic, nonsense.

>>16334846
Definitely more solid than
>ivory or horn gates
Probably more solid than Jung's
>oh you dreamt of sex with your crush? That means you need to connect with your feminine side.

>>16331369
Normies are obsessed with him because it is easy. He came up with a tool that promised to give full insight into peoples behavior. Any behavior could be explained by psychoanalysis in an easy way. You didn't need any epistemology of mind, searching for psychological regularities, comparative psychology or psychophysics. You just needed to be creative and twist words. Imagine the frustrated brainlet psychiatrists and psychologists of the time that were craving for something like that. They loved it, just like they loved the simplistic Bleuler (aided by Jung) concept of schizophrenia that ruined psychiatry afterwards. Smart people didn't (and don't) fucking care about this hack. Freud didn't invent "the inconscious", neither psychotherapy. He didn't cure patients with words (name one)
T. Psychiatrist

>>16336276
Yeah Freud was like the poster child for what would become the postmodern obscurantism plague which provides the social sciences' counterpart to the replicability crisis in the STEM world.

>>16331851
>hasn't read a single page of him otherwise would know that you are the one that is supposed to be interpreting the dreams

>>16331885
Why try to argue against something you admittedly know nothing about

>>16331876
Dont need to know him to realize his hypothesises were bullcrap