/lit/ - Literature

>He was literally right about everything

>>20084973
Pretty much. Even when his theories aren’t literally right, they’re metaphorically right. For example, I don’t think all men want to fuck their mother, but they are attracted to the mother archetype and their relationship with their mother shapes what women they’re attracted to and how they interact with those women.

>>20084973
>tfw want to fugg mommie
>i'm le weird
>to to use jewish kabbalah black magic and make everybody beliebe the want to fugg their mommies
>????????
>PROFIT!!!

>>20085016
see >>20084981

>>20084981
>>20085019
>i'm biased of course but nobody i know has a girlfriend that is even remotely close in behaviour or looks to their respective mother.
psychology as a whole is a big pile of horse shit where the authors have a certain opinion and then go out of their ways to try to make them seem like scientifically proven and universally appliable

>ayo hold up... so what u be saying is that neurosis can just be whatever the hell I want?

>>20084973

Development is mostly genetic and random. Theories of psychological development are mostly bullshit

>>20084973
Before reading his works I had never encountered someone that could hit the mark so well on one level, and miss the point entirely on another.

>>20084973
wrong

If i was raped as a child i would have his exact same thoughts as well.

>>20084981
>what is the anima?

>>20086271
no, not everything. but i can't think of a more influential figure apropos to literature in that century

>>20084981
If men are attracted to the mother archetype (which I very much am), why are women so bad at embodying it?

>>20086340
>Implying you weren’t

>>20087849
because they are also attracted to the male archetype. are you good at embodying the father archetype? the fact you're posting on 4chan suggests you're not.

>>20084981
Freud never even said all men literally want to fuck their mothers. A lot of this bullshit stems from a huge misunderstanding of his definition of what makes something 'sexual'.

>>20084973
I don't want to fuck my mom. I do want to kill my dad but that has nothing to do with wanting to fuck my mom.

>>20087869
this misunderstanding is where critical theory come in with Lacan, Derrida and later other languages. it's the problem with the anglophone that anglo-centric readers can't wrap their head around freud

>>20084973
Socrates?

>>20087867
No need to be snippy, I freely admit I'm not good at embodying the father archetype. But lots of men are good at it, seemingly far more than the number of women embodying the mother type. There are cultural movements specifically about staying the influence of patriarchal behavior, for example, which suggests it's a noted and widespread phenomenon.

>>20087889
i mean i'm posting on 4chan too--i'm not implying i'm good at the father archetype either lmao. thats what makes freudian thought so nice.
the gender thing is just another binary approach to viewing the world, male OR female. now i don't know how i FEEL about transgenders but they are an extremely interesting (and relevant) topic that challenges freuds views in a way that only his disciples can address.

>>20087912
How does it challenge his views? From what I know, they still fit into the gender binary, but the barrier between man and woman just becomes permeable.

>>20087918
i dont have a concrete answer but i guess the whole gender thing requires an intersectional, critical approach that demands other disciplines: history, art, math, science--most my knowledge is drawn from natural history so--we know already, prokaryotic eukaryotic, sexual or asexual thing, but certain species like frogs, fish, eels (a lot of aquatic animals now that i think of it) can just change genders and are hermaphroditic in nature. humans appear as binary in a materialistic way. we are symmetrical creatures, two eyes, two ears, nose has two sides, even our fuckin brain. but the rejection of this binary thing is what fascinates me. same thing with race, if you go back far enough you realize 99.99% of everyone's genetic information originates from africa and yet somehow people still hate africans. america was populated with nothing but poor europeans who ended up making something that is unanimously rejected by europeans... there's some other third thing that isn't be spoken here and i think a freudian approach to sex through a logical, pathological and ethical approach, a secret triumvirate of ideas in plain sight is the answer. i need to read more.

>>20087985
When you talk about the rejection of binaries, do you mean reconsidering a binary system as a spectrum or something more radical entirely? Because as far as I know, discrete or continuous binary systems are sort of fundamental aspects of logic. Something is either true or false, say. And even with things like fuzzy logic, all you really get is partially true, partially false, but not some third category. I'm going to make a statement I'm completely incapable of defending and say that our automatic tendency toward binary classification probably comes from this fundamental logic in some way.
>but certain species like frogs, fish, eels (a lot of aquatic animals now that i think of it) can just change genders
I think, as far as humans go, trans people differentiate between sex and gender. There are definitely people who argue that sex is a kind of spectrum and even non-binary, but I think that's a harder and much more radical stance than for gender. I'd be curious to see your Freudian approach though!

>>20088020
the problem with the spectrum approach--in all of it's infinite ways to engage the subject--is that it still comes back to an individual. the spectrum/individual or infinite/finite idea might still be a binary concept--which is the problem with contemporary stuff like critical theory. but gender is just a means of understanding this concept like race or two-party politics, or economics... i'll get back to you

>>20084981
using Jungian nomenclature in a thread about Freud just goes to show that Freudians will always live in the shadow of a far more profound and interesting psychoanalyst.

>>20084980
Based
Especially women

>>20084973
>identifies over 140 pathologies
>but zero structures
nah

>>20085062
There are such things as studies, anon, some lasting decades dealing with thousands of people and open to peer review.
Some are straight shit though. Like the Norwegian idiots who observed a link between right-wing politics and chest muscle. The correlation/causation puzzle really beats some people badly.
Yet again, psychology is one of the ugliest words in English. Psyche, first and brightest daughter of Minerva, -ology, to cut apart and describe the parts according to their relationship to each other and the whole.

>>20088020
Either/or thinking is as dated as systems thinking, but really useful for machines.
In your life as a human, you will use the both/and thinking more and need to tolerate doubt. Machines suck at intuition, decision making without data.

>>20084981
>>20084973
fecal obsessed jews. youre just making excuses

>>20088199
>Like the Norwegian idiots who observed a link between right-wing politics and chest muscle.
So it's correlation when you disagree with it and causation when you agree with it?

>>20084973
Yeah? How do you know?

>>20084980
This. Everytime Schop and Freud commented on the same subjects, Freud spewed neurotic schizo shit and Schop at his worst had his opinions limited by the sciences of his time.

>>20087885
>critical theory
>Lacan, Derrida
You're embarassing yourself

>>20088211
>So it's correlation when you disagree with it and causation when you agree with it?
Only when you're right wing

>>20086503
anima mundi?

>>20088240
Does theory have to bear the seal of Marcuse or Adorno in order to be considered "critical"? Please provide us with your infallible definition of CT.

>>20088302
Critical theory as developed by Frankfurt school and the only line of thought that should be named critical, considers the postmodernism of the French a bourgeoisie degenration of social radicalism, unconcerned with efforts to actually fight the capitalist system. Critical theory was developed on marxist foundations and the pomo reject the whole dialectic.

meme guy
sex is overrate

>>20088236
>Everytime Schop and Freud commented on the same subjects, Freud spewed neurotic schizo shit
t. never read a single word of Freud in your teenage life
it's just so obvious

Jesus, has no one here any idea what they are even talking about at all? Have you even tried reading any primary, secondary or hell, even tertiary sources about Freud?
>>20084981
Only problem is Freud made it very explicit that he is not at all speaking in metaphors and means it very literally. His whole theory also hinges on your attraction being specifically towards your parents and doesn't even make sense with "mother-like" women who appear later. If you wanna take that approach look at Jung and even other later Psychoanalysts who utterly rejected Freuds bullshit and are far more sophisticated.
>>20087869
Utter horseshit. He literally said they literally want to. For example, he 'treated' Emma Eckstein who had problems with constant nosebleeds after a botched surgery and complained about it to Freud. His response to this was her symptoms and suffering are caused by her repressed desire to have an incestuous relationship with (i.e. fuck, for all you retards) her dad. Fließ (the doctor who botched the surgery and cooperated with Freud) agreed with Freud that the nosebleeds definitely didn't have anything to do with his failed surgery and used Freuds diagnosis of hysteria as a gigantic cope. He fucked the surgery up badly enough that the girl almost bled to death later, btw.
He even told a girl that was sexually assaulted that she's insane for not liking it (refer to pic related).
Freud was just an incel who wanted to fuck his mother and instead of accepting that he's a sick fuck he coped by saying it was a universal phenomenon.
His claims to fame are the wolf-man and rat-man he treated, both of which he provably wasn't even remotely able to help and a shitton of the case reports he has written were faked. He's just a twisted and perverted fraud but his foundation helped people like Jung, so there's still value to him.

>>20088352
Interesting. Where does Marcuse fit into all of this? I get that Adorno was pretty fed up with the retarded bourgeois hippie shit he saw in his final years, but Marcuse seemed rather sympathetic to it all. To me, the distance between, say, Marcuse and Derrida isn't as great as you would make it seem. At least in terms of liberation as a central motivator. The same goes for Horkheimer. I purposefully avoid that egoist charlatan Lacan but I'd wager that he wasn't too far from all of this, either.

>>20088463
Carl Jung is good. Freud was a fuckin whack job pretty sure he wanted to fuck his dad not his mom tho

>>20088463
Btw. I'm a native German speaker, so I could read all about him in his own language. Don't even try to justify anything as mistranslations or misunderstandings of terminology, ihr nicht germanischen Hundesöhne.
If you want to actually read something for a change I could help with translating text snippets if I'm still around.

>>20088473
Those people are all tyrants in their own right who want to enslave the entire world. Trust no one who says they'll save you by destroying the system, they will merely place it under new management.

>>20088486
I agree, but we have to know our enemies in order to combat them. All reactionaries should be made familiar with Marxism, Critical Theory and its various hippie bastards such as pomo deconstruction, queer theory, intersectionality etc.

The common denominator here is liberation, but as you point out this liberation is negativistic in nature and doesn't really know what to do with itself once it has destroyed structure. No new Order arises, we simply end up with new management and chaotic degeneration.

>>20088473
I'm the anon you were responding to. Haven't read Marcuse, honestly, but as far as I know about him, he was at the intersection of many thought currents. Marxist analysis seem to me to be his greatest influence, but I might be wrong.

>>20088358
Freud is an embarassing buffon and baby's first "edgy philosopher". You will outgrow him one day.

>>20088483
dann zitier eine textstelle, in der freud schreibt, dass alle männer wortwörtlich ihre mutter ficken wollen. der poster, auf den du antwortest, hat recht, freuds begriff von sexualität war deutlich weiter als heute üblich

>>20088689
Let's discuss this in english so others can learn and participate in the discussion.
First off, I never doubted that Freud's definition of sexuality is broader than it is used today but there is no doubt about it that in his mind, pathology arose from unresolved incestuous thoughts.
Here a snippet from a letter between him and Fließ from october 3rd, 1897:
"(zw 2 u 2 1/2 J) meine Libido
gegen matrem erwacht ist und zwar
aus Anlaß der Reise mit ihr von
Leipzig nach Wien, auf welcher ein gemein-
sames Übernachten u Gelegenheit sie
nudam zu sehen"
( https://www.freud-edition.net/briefe/freud-sigmund/fliess-wilhelm/1897/10/03 )
His Libido *TOWARDS* matrem (mother) awakened when he was 2 1/2 years old and saw his mother naked.
Here a snippet from a letter between him and Fließ from october 15th 1897:
"Ich habe die Verliebtheit in die Mutter und die Eifersucht gegen den Vater auch bei mir gefunden und halte sie jetzt für ein allgemeines Ereigniss früher Kindheit[...]"
( https://www.freud-edition.net/briefe/freud-sigmund/fliess-wilhelm/1897/10/15 )
So "Being *in love* with my mother and jealous of my father, and I now consider it a universal event in early childhood.
So, while it is true that Freud's use of the term sexuality is broarder, it is unmistakable that he had explicit incestuous thoughts and believed these to be universal. Further evidence of the explicity of incestuous thoughts is, again, that he blamed Emma Eckstein's problems from a surgery on her not resolving sexual lust for her father.
You will continue to find evidence for that when you look at what other former patients (especially female ones) had to say about him. The whole invokation of the Oedipus myth only makes sense with explicit incestuous thoughts. He fell in love with his his mother, grew envious of his father and killed him to take his mother as his wife (with whom Oedipus had 4 children afterwards). There Freud draws a parallel of him falling in love with (and awakening libido towards) his mother and being evious of his own father.
If you are still not convinced, could you provide evidence that he refers to sexuality in a broader sense in these examples or as a root for pathology?

no no Becker corrected Freud and was right

>>20087985
>there's some other third thing that isn't be spoken here
Why not? I'm interested

>>20084973
I've never wanted to fuck my mom in my life. Not even a little bit. Not even as a "heehee this is so wrong I'm being naughty" dirty thought passing through my mind as I'm about to cum.

Sister, sure. Mom? That's gross

>>20088598
You might be wrong and you might be right, who is truly to say, but I see great continuity between Marcuse and Derrida. They exist in different contexts, but like two climbers on either side of a mountain they are headed towards the same peak; liberation at the radical level. Their means may differ, but the ends remain the same.

Derrida rejected dialectic and differentiated deconstruction from critique, but he still saw injustice in inequality (frequently criticizing "arbitrary" hierarchies). This is the common denominator. Marx wanted liberation from the arbitrary stratification of class. Freud wanted liberation of the true self from arbitrary repression. Marcuse wanted liberation from arbitrary hierarchies (such as male>female, christian>jewish, western>non-western etc.) and the same can be said of Derrida, who took it a step further by attempting to liberate truth from structure and in doing so liberating humans from humanity itself, in a sense.

The kicker here is of course that there is another common denominator worth mentioning in the sense that it has affected the drive to liberate in all of these gentlemen. I won't get into it, but skim through Culture of Critique for an idea of what I'm alluding to.

>>20084973
>>13025470

>>20088463
>Jesus, has no one here any idea what they are even talking about at all? Have you even tried reading any primary, secondary or hell, even tertiary sources about Freud?
That would imply people on /lit/ reads, anon. And you and I both know /lit/ doesn't read.

>>20085062
That's just the average retards interpretation of psychology, every now and again somebody who understands what psychology is comes along and does something groundbreaking. Much like in everything to ever exist. Most people experiences of it are just imitations and they don't understand it.

>>20088463
No, You are wrong. His theory wasn't fixed and perfected from the start like you want to believe to make it easier for you to understand and ridicule. Its essence and ideas were ingenuous.

>>20090246
what about everyone wants to fuck their mother is ingenuous

>>20090246
Wow, some really profound evidence you presented there, I guess I'm forced to change my mind after that ironclad argument.
In all seriousness though, you don't seem to have any idea what your are talking about and it looks you can't assess information that conflicts with your believes.
Look, the ideas he helped popularize led to incredible progress, there's no denying that. There even is some truth to them at their core. For example, the overall point he made that the experience made in early childhood is essential for how a person develops is true. Even going further and saying that their sexual development is greatly affected by their parental relationship is true. However, that isn't where he left things off. From beginning to end in his career as a psychoanalyst he was fully convinced that very early on, children lust for their parent of the opposite sex and envy their the same-sex parent who is seen as a rival. This lust is explicitely sexual (even as we use the word today) and fully incestuous in intent. Until the end, he believed that ALL pathology stems from a person not overcoming this Oedipus/Electra complex. This model is utterly and entirely bullshit and when he didn't find any evidence for it, he resorted to faking case reports, falsely caliming that he cured people and refusing to believe what his patients are telling them to instead falsely suggest that all their problems arise from either a wish for, or the occurence of, a sexual incidence in their early childhood they cannot remember anymore.
Just a fun-fact you might not know, the idea of a sub- and unconscious mind was something that floated around before Freud and he plagiarized it. He did immensely help in popularizing it, though.
My point is in his ideas, Freud was entirely off-base and utterly, provably false on almost anything he said. However, extracting the principles, while ditching each and every specific of what he said, and building on that foundation led to great progress in Psychology. That is exactly what later Psychoanalysts like Jung did and that's where correct new points start emerging. A person can be utterly false and still have contributed something incredibly important to a field. In the case of Freud, he was a plagiarizing, lying and utterly unscientific fraud who never managed to find a shred of supporting evidence for anything he said and thus resoreted to lying. However, he also ushered in a new era of discovery in the field of psychology and is a very important figure in it. Both of these things can be true at the same time and I hope you will be able to see value in nuanced viewpoints someday.

>>20090448
You wrote much but didn't say anything true. I'm unsure if you've understood that the basic premise of analysis is a praxis based on language and ideas transmitted through it. But keep on zooming in the "lmao you want to fuck your mother" taken literally if that's your fancy.
As I understand it, it's a nebulous proto-drive/sensory arousal towards (and from) a caregiver expressed though various behaviors that then ,as language and sexual difference and roles come along ,gets shaped into sexuality. The rival is the one that wants to mediate and cut you off from this source of masturbatory/undifferentiated pleasure, force you to abandon it, assume a social role, become a singular subject, replace this pleasure with social achievements etc etc.
>suggest that all their problems arise from either a wish for, or the occurence of, a sexual incidence
Very early on, he caught on that the sexual incidence could be imaginary (not less true, subjectively). The sexual incidence is the child understanding there is sexual difference and a force that curbs his enjoyment.

>>20090649
At this point I don't know what to tell you but sorry, man. You are simply wrong about this. I am not saying that your thoughts there are dumb or incorrect but they are not what Freud believed. I also presented explicit evidence, out of Freud's own letters, that he meant his fully incestuous desires very literally and believes this to be universal. That isn't even anything largely contested in circles that grapple with Freud.
How about presenting some counter-evidence if I am in the wrong here? So far there has been exactly zero evidence presented from your side while I've given plenty.

>>20090737
>explicit evidence, out of Freud's own letters
That's by definition wrong. It's like singling out a passage from a massive corpus and having an "aha! gotcha" moment. You need to follow the whole train of thought to realize the spirit, not two lines from a letter at the beginning of his career.
His theory shifted as he revisited old ideas and introduced new ones. You can even find contradictions and faults that he, first, admitted.

>>20090737
Check this out
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphous_perversity

>>20090826
Then how about you point me to those points and explain to me how they falsify what I presented. Ideally, that would also address the concrete accusations Freud made towards his patients where he again, explicitely tells them they (thought they) had, or wanted to have sexual intercourse with their parent.
>>20090834
Yes, I am well aware of Polymorphous perversity and its developmental stages. These are part of the reason I agreed that Freud uses the term sexuality in a broader sense than normally used by most these days. However, these don't debunk anything I've said about foundation of Freud's beliefs.

>>20090874
He made those technical errors at the beginning when he thought that educating his patients about the unconscious would cure them. Before that he even tried suggestion under hypnosis, as you know. At the end of his career he understood that you need to listen, not educate.
(Even then, he probably succeeded in the little Hans case because the kid really needed a strong father that could explain the world and introduce sexual difference: a master)

If you read him non-literally it starts making sense

>>20090962
Could you point me to some specific texts to read? Because for me, nothing comes to mind that would show a change in mind about the root of the problem, even if he change is approach in how to deal with them. I am ready to learn and change my mind if I see compelling evidence and possibly an explanation if I misunderstand something though.

>>20090962
He ignored sexual abuse and got hooked on opium. How retarded are you?

>>20084980
I thought he was joking about his essay on women but it really is the truth.
For women everything is measured in qualities of performance and face value aesthetics without any abstract capacity,

>>20091004
I can't, that's how I understood it. Most post freudians interpret it like this too. The sexual lust is drive, a force towards, and the hostility is directed against the one that comes between and robs you of that primordial pleasure. That's the process of socialization and oedipal triangulation.

Maybe the parts where he talks about sexual trauma and repression as ideas - signifiers - signifieds is a good text to read? All pathology comes from inability to relate to others, regulate your drives, (and find a cause to move towards, assume a social and sexual role and many more) that are all established early on and have a common aetiology, a failure to handle the drive, failure to lessen it by sublimating it socially.

So, you see, you have problems because you still want to fuck your mother (ie experience excessive pleasure) and you haven't totally let go and accepted the alternative of a lesser pleasure.

>>20091070
Seething after that letter from his mom, probably

>>20084980
fpbp bless you

Why do people like Freud when not only did he derive some of his best ideas from pic related (and also Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) but then pic related turned around and BTFO of his entire movement (Freud and his disciples).

>>20084973
Jewish nepotist hire
>>20084980
The base department

>>20087849
Women only want to embody their motherly archetype when they have a partner who is attractive enough to make them enjoy taking care of them.
Women dont feel like being pretty and being all loving and caring for an unattractive and not fun person. Attractiveness is not superficial, its actually very deep and more than face value. Being an attractive human being is based upon the energy frequency you emit. Probably only 0.01% of males have the right frequency that women are looking for, which is why there is all this confusion about love, when love is not confusing at all.

>>20091572
>Being an attractive human being is based upon the energy frequency you emit.
I really need to know more about this... like a lot more.

>>20084973
>>20084980
what do i need to read to take the He was literally right about everything-pill?

>>20091646
Uncle Nick.

>>20087888
No that's mark zuckerberg, how old are you

>>20084973
I'm really confused about where the world stands on Freud. I'll always hear people talk about them and then be like "yeah he was mostly just a meme though", even in academia they'll say this but he's still mandatory learning. Now I hear he was right on the internet. What's the deal?

>>20092782
Imagine we find out Einstein was wrong about most things or even everything and we found an updated model. When studying physics you will also be taught about the developments it went through and there is simply no way to get around him.

>>20084973
He was definitely right about me and everyone else on Earth wanting to fuck his mom.

Psychology is a spook.

>>20090649
When someone says “praxis” I just assume they’re on the CIA payroll.

>>20091639
In order to emit the correct frequency, you must understand human nature, and the different strengths of each gender. The Western world failed because it misunderstood the two genders nature.
Basically its this:

1) Women are physically weaker than men, but are mentally superior to men in a number of way, but mostly they are more machiavellian and able to manipulate and dominate people with their mind in a way that men are not built to do.
2) Men are not meant to be all angry and "alpha", and playing the role of an alpha male who is serious and angry all the time only makes women laugh at you because they see through the acting.

Basically, women are not a mystery at all in what they want. Its just that hardly any men are emitting the frequency that they are programmed to go towards. Even Chad is not loved properly because he is relying too much on his looks and charisma, and not enough on his nature to get girls.