/lit/ - Literature

>>17685900
Interpretation of dreams thesis is wrong. Dreams aren't wish fulfilment they're just random brain activity.

>>17685902
Oh my god you are a total fucking retard. Please neck yourself for the sake of humanity. Look I get not buying interpretation of dreams but to say dreams are just random brain activity is the dumbest shit I think I’ve ever heard. If that were the case dreams would be nothing more than pure static. I genuinely am shocked that there are fucking subhuman faggots like you that think it’s just random oh my god HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>17685902
Kill yourself you dumb fucking nigger

>>17685900
men and women are obsessed with sex.

>>17685902
Fuck you pussy

>>17685996
>>17685902
Maybe my wording was wrong but I was mainly asking for theorists, scientists or really anyone within the field that allegedly proved him wrong. I want to know in what sense the development in this field overcame/debunked his theories. No offense but I do not give a shit about what you anons personally think is wrong about his theories.

Fuck this peado and all pedo apologists

>>17686077
Why is the dinosaur attacking the radar station?

>>17685902
read Mark Solms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/a-brain-researcher-on-what-freud-got-right/2021/02/25/42ed23a6-7544-11eb-948d-19472e683521_story.html

>>17685900
>I never really get any examples
It's not about examples. Psychoanalysis in general is unfalsifiable.
There is no way to empirically chech whether his staging or his dream interpretation is correct.
Id-edo-superego system makes sense but still is unfalsifiable.

You should look more into how modern pyschotherapists work. They don't care what "truth about human psyche" is. If a certain theory is useful to help a certain pacient, they use it.

>>17686117
The premise itself is wrong. There is now way Freud was "right". He was just lucky that his theories are simillar to modern morphological brain findings. (Just like Galileo didn't prove the the earth was round - he was just lucky).

>>17685902
fpwp

>>17686149
I totally get that and I agree to thomas nagel's thesis that mental phenomena cannot be understood by physical reductionism. Hhowever there seems to be a consensus within the field that most of his theories (especially his phallus envy hypothesis, which basically says that in the earliest childhood period girls are envious of boys' penis, which has an effect on their later development as adults) are plain wrong, or let's say did not age well as the field progressed.
I'm just interested to know where exactly this consensus comes from - what studies, what theories etc. debunked his work? And yes I am aware that his psychoanalysis can still be useful in treating patients, I did not claim otherwise.

>>17685900
The over focus on oedipus shows how rather than engaging with patients, Freud and institutional psychoanalysis seeks to strip down the being of people into being nothing more than complexes; they create the issues they treat.
Not to mention there is no real end to analysis
The idea of the unconscious as a staging of the drama of the psyche, and the overall despotism of the signifier is a big part of the critique of Freud and Lacan as wrll

>>17686239
Oh. In that case I can't help you because I don't know myself. Good luck!

>>17685900
They learn about the whole “wanting to fuck your parents thing” in high school and it skeeves them out so they disregard everything else he’s ever done.

fpnp

>>17685900
Freud is conservative in thought. He makes an essence out of every response of consciousness to an attitude it needs to hide to itself in order to funciton. Aka Freud makes of morality mecanisms (and not its external form) a constant instead of a cultural changing structure (logic is social). This can be seen on Lacan’s mathemas. I guess this is a nietzschean critique to Freud. As far as I’ve understood Freud I think he is quite right usually in an ‘objective’ manner, from time to time has an obvious blunder, but the main wrong Freud falls into is not being able to see the derivations of his own objectively correct analysis. The thing about the study of consciousness is that it is not an x, there is always more to say and to doubt about the same thing; Freud fails at that (he is a good middle class investigator but a bad poet or philosopher), he fails at doubting power. At the end of the day one can make a whole ontology and epistemological system out of Freud, but precisely because of that it is easily seen that Freud is almost a metaphysician (a structuralist). Anyways at least he doesnt develop his ‘system’.

>>17685902
Basado.
>>17685965
>>17685989
>>17686015
>>17686229
You need to be 18 to post here.

>>17685900

His major ideas about unconsciousness are being proven correct. The specific connections and how they manifest consciously are generally incorrect, but how could they be LITERALLY correct if they didn't have neuroscience back then? Its like saying GR is wrong because it's not right in every context. You have to think marginally on the issue. Blow me faggots

>>17685902
retard

>>17685902
Holy shit this board really has gone down hill if midwits like this are posting

>>17685902
I can’t believe someone would type this out unironically and then hit post

>>17685902
your IQ is room temp

>>17685902
that makes zero sense dude

>>17685902
>makes pseuds seethe
Based tbqh.

>>17685900
His whole thing about Jews being incapable of rape and molestation is just flat out absurd. His sister wasn't telling everyone that their father raped her because she secretly wanted to have a penis, it was because their father raped her.

>>17685902
I didn’t realize people out there actually believed this

>>17685902
Holy shit I've made like seven posts in response to this and I'm going to keep doing so until you remove this fucking FILTH from this board. FUCK YOU!

>>17685902
This is so totally wrong

>>17685902
Test

>>17687678
How is it based? It’s autistic and makes no sense

>>17687691
cringe that you’re pretending everyone that thinks your post is stupid is one person. If that makes you feel better keep it up dude

>>17685902
Gay faggot

>>17687781
shit I’ve been found out BAIL BAIL

>>17687767
-icle

>>17685902
Fpbp

>WE NEED TO START GATEKEEPING
WE NEED TO START GATEKEEPING
>WE NEED TO START GATEKEEPING
WE NEED TO START GATEKEEPING
>WE NEED TO START GATEKEEPING
WE NEED TO START GATEKEEPING

>>17685965
>>17685989
>>17686015
>>17686067
>>17686117
>>17686229
>>17686546
>>17687626
>>17687646
>>17687668
>>17687677
>>17687687
>>17687761
>>17687691
>>17687801
Seethe harder

>>17687904
cope. nigger faggot

wtf happened to this thread. why is nobody answering my question

>>17685900
Jung politely destroys him in the introduction to Man and his Symbols

1. Why do you have to be asleep if free association also accesses unconscious
2. Symbols hold unique meanings to each person, it is not possible to create a ‘cheat sheet’ for imagery and its meanings, so an understanding of the individual on the level that only the individual they themself have (and even then, maybe not consciously) has the capacity to provide actual explanations for the symbols in their psyche (as represented by their dreams)

>>17685902
can someone give an actual response to this instead of just shitting on it, I don't know much about this stuff and would like to know what the actual position people have on it is

>>17685900
jung said this guy was a hack in an interview

>>17685902
Based beyond belief

>>17686067
>do coke and write down the yadda yaddas
>PROVE ME WRONG LOL
Why don't you prove him right you gigantic retard

>>17688086
Jung politely shows himself to be a retard, I think you mean.
1. No shit, how do you think psychoanalytic treatment works.
2. No shit, Freud himself says so in Interpretation of Dreams, Introductory Lectures, and just about every other place he's begrudgingly forced to say what certain symbols happen to generally mean.

>>17685902
thats like saying that fantasies of a daydreaming man have no meaning because when you check them trough sceintific tools they are just meaningless connections of neurons. Everything is meaningless for science, so its not a surprise that they cant find any hidden wishes or symbolic meanings in dreams.

>>17685902
I'm dubious about the wish fulfillment angle, but there's got to be some sort of evolutionary reason for dreams.

>>17688402
filtered

>>17685900
My taste in women is nothing like my mom.

>>17685965
static is random activity of digital things not brains, faggot

>>17688951
She was a lesbian?

>>17688769
>he still thinks we are on nature’s path of evolution
oh my, read a wee bit of philosophy or do some thinking

>>17688389
Well just think about your dreams. They usually (if you’re like most people) have some content revolving about the things you think about, things that have happened in your past, things you desire, things you fear, etc. Not to say some of the content isn’t random but a lot of it is based on your thoughts and experiences. If you are really curious about this just start recording your dreams and see if they relate to your life at all.

>>17689262
I bet you think the appendix is vestigial

>>17685900
How about it's totally normal to have some form of dysfunction, be it social or otherwise, or have some weird dream, without you wanting to fuck your own goddamn fucking mother

inb4 trolls start screeching about wanting to fucker their own mom

>>17685902
is it just me or does anyone else also feels like almost all of the replies is just samefaggotry, not particularly by the first poster, but someone else.

I dont think he was ever proven right in the first place?

>>17686149
>(Just like Galileo didn't prove the the earth was round - he was just lucky).
Fucking hell, if you're not sure about something you can check Wikipedia before you post. He proved Heliocentricism, the Earth being round was known since classical antiquity.

>>17689469
He wasn't arguing about sexuality, that's just a form that drive takes.

>>17685902
what is with these replies god this board is so fucking trash now

>>17686381
>Freud is conservative in thought.
Instantly wrong.
>Lacan
That explains it.
>>17689204
This kind of random shit is why nobody takes Freud seriously. I hold that he was right about the unconscious and literally nothing fucking else, because all these weird associations based on the mental constellations of one Austrian crackhead immediately fall flat when they try to make predictions that are falsifiable.
>>17688044
Look up the Neo-Freudians, as well as Jung's criticisms of Freud. They tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and even they had to admit that a lot of it was completely unusable. It baffles me that there are Freud purists today when not even his daughter believed all of his bullshit.

>>17689374
I don’t think humans are to decide what is or isn’t vestigial in nature

>>17689819
Ok, lemme go ask a chipmunk.

>>17689728
I admit that I don't actually read what he actually has to say about this. It's from things tha I heard others say, and it's with a high frequence that whenever someone brings up freud in conversations they always talk about how he says that because you do this certain thing then that means you have sexual desires to your parents. Even, a lot of times, I heard these types of comments as jokes among friends.

This is actually inspiring me to read him so I myself can actually see what he has to say. I'll definitely reserve some time to give old freud a read.

>>17688402
this anon gets it
what that junkie jew did was make up new words and terms for nonexistant things and made rules for them
truly the greatest pseud of all times

>>17690046
Check back in with your conclusions, I've been one of the anti-Freud posters and I wonder if he has more merit than his more dogmatic fans make it look.

>>17690046
I admire your honesty. Anons itt argue half truths they've found in a book about Jung that talks about Freud or in a 10min Youtube video they watched years ago.

Also, I understand that he shaped his ideas through the years and some terms changed a bit. If you manage to not rage about some far fetched explanations, the basic gist is very interesting. It's basically a theory of mind

>>17689374
It isn't?

>>17685900
his ideas are not falsifiable, so they are "proven wrong" only in the area of psychology that pretends to be science, but in philosophy he seems to be still valid

>>17689819
fuckin moron

>>17689286
Dreams are so abstract and random that you could conjure any meaning about them based on your emotions, right?

>>17691664
not all dreams, some dreams are very obviously about things that are worrying you at the moment for example. A very common dream that people have after the death of a loved one is that the dead person somehow appears and gives them some sort of closure

>>17692013
My mother dreams exclusively about ongoing, real-world, personal problems in painfully realistic detail. My worst dream recently was a nightmare about perfectly good CRTs being wasted because a room full of people I know wouldn't properly listen to and obey my autistic ramblings. I bought a CRT PC monitor the very next day as soon as I woke up.

>>17685902
This doesn't make sense, my dreams often have a similar theme about something I almost never think about during the day, so it doesn't make sense for it to be completely random.

>>17685902
Islamically wrong.

>>17685902
???? Are you retarded? What the fuck lmao

>>17685902
First Post Best post

>>17686149
>He was just lucky that his theories are simillar to modern morphological brain findings.

that is like calling michelangelo lucky that his sculptures are similar to the human body. u are a total moron and should go post on /b/ instead of polluting this board with your 'thoughts'

Freud, thru his brilliant if speculative theories so violently fractured the comatose victorian anglo psyche because he dared to name sex and name it for what it was: central to our selves. To this day the delicate anglos haven't recovered and still can't forgive that dirty 200 year old hebrew doctor.

Nobody bats 100, but Freud was more right than wrong, which is better than most modern philosophers could claim.

SEX

Which parts of the interpretation of dreams are worth reading?

>>17692258
to prove Freud's point, i posted a girl in bikini and not a topless girl, because the victorian anglo jannies would have banned me, they are so psychotically afraid of the female nipple.