/lit/ - Literature

>>22065411
right about what? name one thing

You cannot understand contemporary western society without freud. He's wrong about everything but his thinking is so fucking persistent and influential that ignoring him is counterproductive. Read his shit.

>>22065436
picrel. part of the reason modern life feels so alienating is that civilization suppresses your urges to kill, fuck, eat anything in your path just because it feels good. suppressing those urges is necessary to have a society at all the suppression gives rise to neuroses. I recommend starting here with Freud, it's a great, short work of applied psychoanalysis that's been massively influential

>>22065448
>wrong about everything
my kookiest belief is that freud was right about far, far more than we expect
ofc psychoanalysis has progressed beyond freud (lacan, klein, winnicott, etc) but psychology as we know it begins with him. so I agree with this take. he is omnipresent; like it or not, we're all living in a world shaped by his ideas

>>22065461
I read that and Beyond The Pleasure Principle. I prefered the former

>>22065411
Yes and yes

>>22065411
Cuddihy is right about Marx and Freud engaging in apologia for their backwards eastern Jew relatives who they were intensely embarrassed of while trying to assimilate into Anglo upper circles.
"Ordeal of Civility"
Jung was the real Chad.

>>22065468
great! I've been meaning to put together a freud guide for /lit/ for some time now. the meme advice is to read the Interpretation and nothing else, but that's an awful starting place. picrel is the best place to start. it's a series of lectures freud gave to laymen in the middle of his career right as psychoanalysis really started to take off. he introduces and explains most of his important concepts. later, he supplemented this with the New Introductory Lectures. he revises some of the ideas set out in the first book. the prose isn't as fluid and I wouldn't read it until you've read the first volume of lectures.

>>22065448
>He's wrong about everything
The model of Id, Ego, and Super Ego is broadly accurate to the human psyche. Also, his work on the subconscious and dreaming was revolutionary and correct.

>>22065478
Jung was a hack mystic schizo

>>22065487
and that's a good thing

>Verification not required.

>>22065461
>part of the reason modern life feels so alienating is that civilization suppresses your urges to kill, fuck, eat anything in your path just because it feels good
Well, clearly there is no disputing that he was, uhh, "Viennese".

>>22065485
>The model of Id, Ego, and Super Ego is broadly accurate to the human psyche.
That's meaningless. The same exact thing could be said about Plato's tripartite theory of the soul

>>22065411
Out of all the writers I’ve read, I credit Freud for bettering me the most

>>22065501
what a disturbing thing to say about oneself.

>>22065480
I'd say Freud, Kant, Schopenhauer, and List influenced my worldview the most.

>>22065411
Why is he credited for Oedipus complex and not Sophocles?

>>22065501
based

>>22065545
lmao this almost got me

>>22065461
No. But, because it is amoral to take someone else’s life, force another person into sexual relations (hetero- / homosexual), and turn another person into one’s meal; other animals too, but our society as a whole has too little consciousness to understand that, and too many primitive habits and rituals.

>>22065448
Something along the lines, often those that refute him the most are those that embody his thought.
>>22065461
>civilization suppresses
He said something along the lines of "civilisation is a series of prohibitions".
I don't think that this suppression is needed to have a society at all. To have neurotic society like we have? Sure. But otherwise it's not needed to live like this. Freud essentially said that a healthy person is one that lives without guilt (more precisely guilt related to fulfilment of his needs).
I don't the problem with suppression is that it leads to misdirection of emotions/energy into all sorts of bullshit. That's the problem - maybe need cannot really be supressed? It can only be prohibited for long enough from expression until it turns into something else, but it is always present.

>>22065411
>Freud
more like fraud.

>>22065485
That's not something that he invented or discovered.

>>22065545
Because he took Sophocles' noble tragedy and twisted it with his own degenerate perversions, and then had the gall to say everyone else shares those perversions.

>>22065411
No, I hate smokers and drunks.

>>22065411
Psychoanalysis is pretty much the softest scientific field. Freud cannot really be considered right since the entire subject is based on such wobbly foundations

Of course he's right, but his insights so upset the puritanical Anglos that they have spent a century trying to debunk and discredit this dirty old Jew, but have only embarrassed themselves in the process.

>>22065680
*blocks your path*

>>22065679
It's not a scientific field. Not that it takes much away from it in terms of exploring ideas and speculating.
>Freud cannot really be considered right since the entire subject is based on such wobbly foundations
That's bs. Something can be right even if it doesn't fit our idea of "having strong foundation". I'm speaking in general, I don't think Freud was right about most things.

>>22065411
Jung was better, his affair in marriage in cocaine addiction clouded his judgment but he had some good ideas

>>22065695
Patients consulted Freud the same way they consulted spirit mediums and gypsy fortune tellers and astrologists. Only difference is Freud was less mysterious about his methods and more unconventional with his interpretations, which were fueled by his creative fantasies involving sex.

>>22065411
>restless sleep? You wanna fuck your mother.
>unproductive at work? You wanna fuck your mother.
>throat pain? You wanna suck on your dad's penis.
>there are base desires, and societal demands, and sometimes...they conflict.
How did this retard get memed into being force-taught to every undergraduate for the next hundred years for this shit?

>>22065701
Sorry, I should replace the word "patients" with "clients"

>>22065701
>>22065707
Freud called them "patients", AFAIK.
And no, they didn't consult him the same way they consulted mediums and fortune tellers. I don't see where that comes from.

>>22065720
>dude all women secretly want to be futas.
Freud is basically Aleister Crowley without the occultism.

>>22065725
>>22065703
That's like reading a wine aunt review of moby dick on Goodreads and forming your opinion on this.

>>22065720
Freud was not treating mentally ill schizophrenics or autists. His patients were young healthy individuals who were neurotic or socially maladjusted. The closest he came to treatment was female hysteria, and his approach for that was pretty much "it's all deep seated trauma actually" and "just talk about it"

>>22065734
His idea of "mentally ill" person was rather different.
>His patients were young healthy individuals who were neurotic or socially maladjusted.
Neurotic or socially maladjusted person isn't healthy. That's actually a nice example of oxymoron.
>his approach for that was pretty much "it's all deep seated trauma actually" and "just talk about it"
Yeah, I'm not a fan of this approach either. In the previous post I said it's not fortune telling, so there's that.

>>22065734
freud thought everyone is mentally ill to some degree

>>22065737
self esteem issues and social anxiety are not diseases, they are a natural part of the human experience.

>>22065744
>self esteem issues
Not healthy
>social anxiety
Also not healthy
And I don't think they are "natural part of human experience" either. I don't think that if we lived naturally, we'd have prolonged self-esteem issues and social anxiety. Could we have brief experience of those (I'm talking seconds to minutes)? Sure, but not more than that.
Anyway, on the topic of stage fright and turning paper people (people with neuroses) into real people:
https://youtu.be/2hhtNjjBAhA

>>22065765
It's completely healthy to feel anxious among your peers or doubt yourself, since society expects you to get over it and succeed. Similar to how (excuse my food analogy) you burn your tongue over a cup of hot chocolate and then learn to blow and sip. The reason an individual would continue to mope over these adolescent feelings is if society itself plays a role in infantilizing the people. But that's just my opinion, you might be right.

>>22065784
>It's completely healthy to feel anxious among your peers or doubt yourself
If we're talking about brief moments that are a couple of seconds, or minutes, then fine, I'm willing to agree, though in general I don't.
>since society expects you to get over it and succeed
Sure, ill society facilitates production of ill states of mind such as anxiety or self-doubt. Generally speaking, I don't think it's natural to feel self-doubt at all.
>Similar to how (excuse my food analogy) you burn your tongue over a cup of hot chocolate and then learn to blow and sip
Yeah, pretty much bad conditioning that we get into through families and society.
>The reason an individual would continue to mope over these adolescent feelings is if society itself plays a role in infantilizing the people.
Yeah, I also think the society is infantilising people, though I would get on a long tangent that's not as related to the topic at hand.

>>22065792
>I don't think it's natural to feel self-doubt at all.
Of course it is natural. Do you think a puppy does not feel insecure when it encounters a large dog? See how it grovels and whines and wags its tail submissively. But that's how it is with nature, the only creature completely devoid of anxiety or self-doubt is the infant who has its every need fulfilled by a loving attentive mother

>>22065804
>Do you think a puppy does not feel insecure when it encounters a large dog?
I do. Also, the puppy may feel threatened. There is real danger of a larger dog harming the puppy. Also note that there are puppies that will jump around and play with a large dog, so it's not clear that a puppy goes immediately into self-doubt mode once it encounters a large dog. Granted, conditioning and past experience can play a role. If the puppy was abused, it will get reactions that are unhealthy, ie. self doubt and fear in situations which do not warrant it.
It's pretty hard for me to imagine self-doubt with a puppy in a scenario other than the puppy having been abused.
>the only creature completely devoid of anxiety or self-doubt is the infant who has its every need fulfilled by a loving attentive mother
That's where our views differ. To me, a healthy person (or other creature for that matter) is the one without anxiety or self-doubt. I may expand on this a bit.

Neurotic (in this case anxious and self-doubting person) is someone who doesn't see the obvious, the apparent. They aren't present enough to live their life in a fulfilling manner, and so are prone to anxiety and self-doubt even though there is nothing to provoke such reaction. It's a form of ill conditioning that produces these unhealthy states of mind.

>>22065411
Isnt it proven that most of his shit is false.
Jung is wayy better

>>22065820
Cool stuff. I'm gonna save this thread for later.

>>22065679
>Freud bad… because… le heckin SCIENCE!

He is literally not right and nothing he has ever said is scientifically valid nor is any of his reasoning sound.
And yes I have read some of his work. Even hypnotism is more valid and valuable then his ramblings.

>>22065411
Maybe I want to have sex with HIS mother huh bet he never thought of that

>>22065411
Freud: shills are faggots.
Damn he is right!

>>22066679
>nothing he has ever said is scientifically valid
early papers on neural structure. retard
>nor is any of his reasoning sound
lol
>and yes I’ve read some of his work
guaranteed you have read twenty pages, fifty max, and skimmed Wikipedia for the rest

>>22065679
>Psychoanalysis is pretty much the softest scientific field.
t.Engineer

>>22065461
He's wrong though. Society has been getting more mentally ill as we shed self-restraint and morals by which we "supress" ourselves. If anything the current suppression of dissention from these 'liberating' behaviours is cannibalizing society and psyches. Things only feel suppressed when we are urged to act them out and that is only either when it's a justified cause or when you're already animalistic from prior affliction like addiction or an ego complex.
For example, wanting to kill evil thrown in your face is a sensible reaction to it, it is the social schizophrenia that shames these sentiments in the rational to be suppressed. Many who are impressionable enough become indoctrinated by this schizophrenia and then start repressing any dissention towards morals themself because they have been taught this way from a young age with the libcuckery infecting all institutions that educate people. This is by direct design and not some byproduct of a functioning soviety. So while supression can cause psychoses, the motivation is different to
>suppresses your urges to kill, fuck, eat anything in your path just because it feels good.
Modern society doesn't hate feeling good, it hates being good. It wants you to degrade yourself to a baser level and trap yourself in hedonism.

Freud is so obviously a hack seeing how most psychology is just a psy-op trying to grift whichever flavour of globohomo. Whichever guy is backed the most by the modern system is likely the least correct. I'd rather take Jung or even Adler as primary authority over the guy who wants to fuck his mother telling us what mental health is.
>religion is mental illness!
>it's natural to have dysfunctional familial relations!
>sexuality is le science!
Fuck that. No one can even agree if he's misinterpreted whenever he says something regardless of whether it's right or wrong. This is because he is wrong and it's just mind games by the demiurge trying to convince you into thinking "whenever he's wrong (often) it's because he's not actually wrong." Now that's psychosis.

>>22065691
not even close

>>22067110
every single sentence u wrote is dead wrong. quite impressive actually.

>>22065485
He was wrong about dreams.

>>22065411
I read two of his books, yes.
Civilization and its Discontents, which is a shitty plagiarization of Nietzsche. This is also one people often refer to when they want to argue that Freud had a great impact on 20th century thought. However, you are much better off just reading Nietzsche who is both more incisive and brilliant, and enjoyable to read.

And then I read his case study of Schreber, where he makes the daring hypothesis that actually, schizophrenia (at least all cases that involve delusions of reference, which is the vast majority) is just repressed homosexuality, because via a convoluted path of reasoning that takes metonyms, equivocations and superficial metaphors to be essential identifications and causal relationships (ironically, the reasoning is precisely the same as schizophrenics use), he arrives at the fact that delusions of reference imply narcissism (you think everything is about you), narcissism means you like stuff that is like you, and hence, if you have a cock and are a narcissist, you like cocks, and are hence gay, and therefore, schizophrenia is just being a literal faggot.

This Schreber case study is outstanding - it is so deranged and so in line with the most vicious and mocking parodies of Freud that it is beyond satire: you cannot make fun of it, because it has reached maximal ridiculousness in its earnestness. For that reason alone, I am very happy that I read it - it is highly remarkable that a man so clearly and vastly out-retards even the most polemical of his caricatures - perhaps a solitary achievement in the entire history of western thought.

>>22065411
>find a gf that has similarities to your mother
>Freud was right, you want to fuck your mother
>find a gf that has no similarities to your mother
>defense mechanism because Freud was right that you actually do want to fuck your mother
Thanks Freud, very cool.

>>22065411
He reduces everything to sex. This says more about him than about humanity.

>>22067341
How so? He said dreams contain content from your subconscious and interpreting your dreams can give you insight into your own subconscious, which is true. You probably take this idea for granted to the degree you don't even realize it was a big step forward when Freud put it forth.

>>22067464
>mfw every human is hardwired with an urge to procreate
>mfw religion, culture, and civilization suppresses this urge
>mfw this has no effects on the psyche

>>22065448
I dont think hes wrong tho. If you catch pieces of your subconcious mind via dreams and self analysis, you come to see that Freud is pretty much on the money with just about every damn thing hes written.
I definitely believe that Odeipus Complex is true, penis envy is true, the unconcious desires are true, and everything always goes back to sex.

I think he nailed everything he wrote about, and the more bravely we wander into our own subconscious, the more you will see how correct Freud really is.

I think mid IQ people will have the most issue coming to terms with this, but with good effort they should be able to get on Freuds mental level.

>>22068137
Also, read Freud from a right wing perspective. He will make a lot more sense.

>>22067464
Sex is the one thing that carries our species from this generation to the next one. We have an evolutionary reason for everything to go back to sex, since if this was not the case, we would have died out as a species if sex was not the prime motivator.
Freud was honest with himself, whereas most normies exalt themselves and hate the idea that they are an animal too, with a hardwiring that they cannot ignore.
Freud is humbling to read for me, because it shows that no matter how fancy we like to dress and act, we are still a part of nature, and that will always be true.

>>22065545
First of all, Sophocles did not invent the myth, he only adapted it. Second of all, he didn’t create a theory about the brain and sexual development which Freud did. He was a poet not a natural scientist. He didn’t universalize the myth to all men essentially.

>>22068146
So you want to fuck your mother? Because many of his ideas have been refuted (to death, at this point). Yet normies seem to gravitate to this outdated Jew's ideas just because he's famous.

>>22067503
Interpreting dreams has been a thing for centuries. It's a myth that they mean anything.

>>22068184
>It's a myth that they mean anything.
Imagine getting filtered by your own dreams

>>22065411
Jung was righter

>>22068322
Jung was just more Schizo.
Juden Peterstein loves Jung and considers him one of the smartest men, so that should tell you all you need to know .
Hes good, but Freud is gooder.

>>22068179
As a child your unconcious does want to, which is what shapes your personality. The unconcious is much more powerful that the small part of the mind that is concious.
And secondly, his ideas have not been refuted, they are just not falsifiable, and they don't fit cleanly into the scientific way of proving things, and so many midwits just write him off as being a pseud without any idea of the deeper implications of his work.

>>22067464
Everything is sex.
It says more about you that you deny this than it does about Freud.

>>22065411
Refuted by neuroscience

>>22068184
>he hasn't read picrel
freud doesn't say WAAAA WHAT IF TEETH FALLING OUT MEAN NERVOUS !!! he argues that all dreams are wish-fulfillments; your psyche desires something it knows it cannot have, and this pressure is relieved through the escape valve of dreaming. dream interpretation is useful because it allows the psychoanalyst to see what desires you're repressing, and through the process of psychoanalysis you hopefully figure out why you're repressing them

>>22065679
Just because an idea doesnt fit neatly into your little box of science does not mean its wrong.
Science may be limiting you from seeing things that are greater than our feeble human minds can comprehend.

>>22067319
How?

>>22068507
he started his career as a neuroscientist you absolute fucking retard. christ, does anyone at least read the wikipedia page before they start lobbing half-baked gotchas back and forth?

>>22068310
Of course I do, they are a work of such an unfathomably profound genius that anyone would.

>>22068520
Back then, neurosciene was about prescribing cocaine and morphine for non-specific symptoms, and calling these symptoms neurasthenia.
While that is unquestionably based, Freud having expertise in the earliest history of the field means fuck-all for what the current state of the field a hundred years hence has of implications of his thought.

>>22068442
JP means nothing. Bring up what Jung said about theJews and he shuts down.

>>22068526
His method works for some people. No more no less. If it's science neuroscience or whatever doesn't make a difference.

>>22068517
>constant dreams of dying
Oh geeze

>>22068520
All people who hate on Freud are usually 1) A redditor with a midwit in IQ (110-130), and 2) are narcissistic, and unable to see things objectively without having to somehow relate it all back to "you just want to fuck your mom" hehehe.
I swear Freud threads bring out the dumbest most narcissistic motherfuckers on /lit/. I love it though, because you just give even greater insight into the human condition through your retarded half baked anti-Freud bitching.

>>22068536
Refute this >>22067430

Any Freudofag ITT.

>>22068520
>>22068536
anon... im defending freud, anon...

Freud is right about most of what he wrote. He WAS wrong about a lot when he wrote a lot of what he wrote. But he is no longer wrong. He has been retroactively made, not proven, right. I'd put money down that he's the first psychoanalyst anyone here ever heard the name of.

Everyone knows Freud's theories became the bedrock of his nephew Bernays' development of the modern advertisement, which mutated into contemporary markets of attention-capital. His philosophy and theories of the mind became an egregore. Collective belief in them made them real.

Freudian slip, daddy issues, mommy issues, oedipal complex, his conception of the unconscious. All of these things are common parlance. Regardless of whether someone claiming a stripper has "daddy issues" has even a loose grasp of what the fuck they're saying, they're pointing at Freud. His theories frame almost every average westerner's conception of social reality.

>>22068322
Can you say the same of my man Carl? When's the last time you heard anyone refer to something as "Jungian"?

Though, funnily enough Freuds theories have become a part of load-bearing architecture of the collective unconscious. Not the primal one Jung's term refers to, but what we could call a socially constructed o artificial collective unconscious.

>>22068532
>No more no less.
>If it's science neuroscience or whatever doesn't make a difference.
That refutes it as science and any claim to authority. Science is meant to be a series of axioms as to why certain things happen, the mechanics always involved and how to use them to our benefit. When it can just not work for some, that BTFOs any claim to authority in the field. In medicine it's "certain drug has this effect on this and only does something else when this or this unless of course this is also involved... And here's why btw". Medicince is observable and falsifiabile physiology (and I mean proper science, not cle scuence'btgat is held to the proper standard of falsifiability) of which neuroscience can contribute to the category but psychology cannot as it is almost entirely subjective with variations to the prinviplrs for no soevified reason so it cannot be packed down to an observable science. Free will puts a real wrench in deterministic things, inagine the state of physics if natter had a will of it's own and decided to ignore certain principles.

>>22068575
I haven't read enough of each to weigh the merit of their ideas against each other but I think Jung's conception of the purpose of dreams holds more water than Freud's. While Freud chalks it all up to wish-fulfillment, Jung asserts dreams have a compensatory nature and draw attention to a consciously avoided value. He gives an example of one of his patients who Jung insisted was not neurotic and who simply had an interest in therapy; the man disagreed and wanted to continue seeing him and before an appointment the man had a dream that a nurse told him Jung has no time to see him and urged him to drink fermented milk. This dream can be interpreted as his mind illustrating the consciously avoided "bitter truth" that the he was not neurotic and had no business seeing Jung.

I think this compensatory function of the unconscious is especially evident in the behavior of neurotic people and makes more sense than reducing all neuroses to repressed sexual desires - interpreting everything as a repressed sexual desire seems like an unnecessary and dogmatic extra step when it comes to interpreting unconscious symbols and neurotic behavior.

>>22068137
>If you catch pieces of your subconcious mind via dreams and self analysis,
There is no subconscious.
Freud spoke of an unconscious, which is literally the opposite of what you are referring to.
But he was still wrong, there is no "unconscious" as he understand it either.

>>22065411
Spooky.

>>22065478
Keyed Cuddihy poster.

>>22065411
" But what can be the value of an unrepresented representation?"
> All these IQ griefers not realizing Freud got btfo in a single sentence while he was still in university and never once managed to provide an answer.
Damn it feels great not to be as stupid as you people.

>>22065411
If psychoanalysis was so great, then why did he never submit himself to it?

>>22067110
You are an unintelligent and neurotic person. Congrats

>>22069188
Cope

>>22069190
Sleep with one eye open, globohomo out to get you anon.

>>22069188
He's entirely right.

>>22065784
Yeah but what is meant here is that "society" as it is is not natural. The human brain evolved to live in nomadic groups of hunter-gatherers who had very basic social structures. Basically like chimps or gorillas. Then out of nowhere, after hundreds of thousands of years spent like this, humans just settle down and start building cities and immense societies composed of incomprehensible amounts of people. It happened too fast for the brain to evolve to deal with it, which is why the majority of mental and emotional issues humans have are only because their brains can't cope with modern society.

>>22065804
>the only creature completely devoid of anxiety or self-doubt is the infant who has its every need fulfilled by a loving attentive mother
having my every need fulfilled by a singular motherly being would fill me up with self-doubt, shame, loathing, etc
It would utterly destroy me as a person. I don't think its a very healthy state.

>>22069246
If you believe his argument to be true, then don’t jack off tonight.

>>22069318
> Freud invented masturbation
Huh? Wanna invest more than 5 IQ to an answer and come back?

>>22067110
>>22069370

Let’s observe the metaphorical case of fictional subject, John.

John is married to Jane. John loves Jane, and Jane loves John. But John often finds himself sexually dissatisfied in his marriage. John also has a female friend, Lily. Due to his sexual dissatisfaction in his marriage, John often fantasizes (consciously or unconsciously) about fucking Lily. John knows that this is wrong, and actively supresses this desire. However, John’s carnal desire towards Lily doesn’t simply “disappear”.

Now, if John is smart enough, he’ll properly address this sexual desire and prevent it from transposing into dysfunctional behavior (cheating). If he succeeds in addressing this repressed desire, John will have successfully upheld and protected his esteemed-moral value of marriage.

Case ended. There’s only one thing to realize in this story: desire is amoral. Freud doesn’t advocate in succumbing to one’s dysfunctional and anarchistic desires, instead, he believes that we should address them and “fish” them out of the dark (unconscious), and subsequently solve them.

Again, desire only takes the place of a void. So, back to your original neurotic post about moralism being the true subject of our repression, is simply wrong. You only make this assumption because you presumed that Freud advocated for hedonism. Which, as I already explained to extent, is not the wisdom behind Freud’s repression theory.

>but what about our degenerate globohomo media and culture!!!!
Yes, that is a direct consequence of repressed desire. The groups of hedonistic people in our society who choose to unabashedly indulge in all of their desires showcases a failure within their own psyche. The hedonists failed to healthily address their repressed desires, and the result is a complete disintegration of morality.

Moral of the story: you are wrong. It is not our values that we are repressing, it is our desire. If desire unaddressed, leads to a spectrum & plethora of dysnfunctionality.

>>22065411
He's just another Jew with graphomania. None of them have anything profound to say, it's more like they wrote so much that people had to acknowledge them like "wow this nigga 15 books for rill my nigga??"
You could throw it all in the fire, wouldn't matter.

>>22069381
Tl;dr

>>22069407
>tl;dr
did you seriously just ask for a summary of a ~1000 word post on a board dedicated to literary discussion?

>>22067464
this post says more about u than about freud's theories

>>22065569
This

Do these 'morality isn't real'-tards forget that empathy and gift-giving and wanting to be liked are natural?

>>22069414
Any defense or attack of Freud longer than 3 sentences wastes your time.

>>22065448
>>22065411
The problem is that when you read like Dostoyevsky or something you start seeing a lot of the ideas and currents of thought that made Freud famous and that he's known for. I literally don't know how much he got from novels, it seems to me like all psychology comes from novel reading, there's just too much in what psychologists said that came before them in the form of a writer trying to be expressive about people. I don't think most people have a good idea of history and what people were actually like and then Freud gets thought of as this new thing for a new type of people and it just feels very wrong and superficial. I think the problem with Freud and Jung is that they take all peoples behavior as something legitimate, in the form of some kind of psychic or spiritual cope, and so everyone is equal in a negative way, so they make outside realities realer than an individual person or unit. With someone like Weininger you the idea that only the individual has reality, and the only reason people are different is because each fail in their own way to be the perfect individual, and the individual is like the form of some type of writer. It's more comprehensive, organic and realer to think of things in this way, only the individual has reality

>>22069381
Cool story, but otherwise it's a completely made up drivel.
Psychoanalysts can write endlessly because stuff like this can be just made a novel or something. It has little to do with reality since it is just the analyst fantasising what the cause of this or that may be and adopting a particular framework through which everything is viewed. Cool, but only as a writing exercise or reading experience. Every interpretation is bs.

>>22068322
Based jung

>>22065725
He sort of predicts the futa trope as well in his analysis of fetishism. But Lacan is the one who sort of “cleans up” and formalizes the rather lurid and anatomical truths and uncovers their underlying structural basis. It’s not that women want male genitals, but all that male genitals represent in the psychic economy. That is, phallic aggrandizement is a universal danger among human beings which women only generally look on from a position of envy (rather than vainglory) because they themselves are structurally deprived of it.

Jung and Freud were both right about almost everything, both geniuses the likes of we haven’t seen in a long time, and both largely ignored by academia/society or weren’t assimilated properly in the case of Freud.

>>22067110
If we read Freud charitably we should say that certain episodes of mental anguish are caused by living among other people accomplishing things none of us could do on our own. But this does not imply that it is better to live on one’s own, doing whatever one wishes. It is an analysis of our current situation (in an attempt to improve it somewhat), not the fantasy situation of unbridled license.

Lacan later actually digs deeper into the burnout of hedonism which capitalism inevitably produces. His counsel to follow one’s desires, like the approbation Freud gave to sublimation (using base desires to power higher callings) is actually a deeper moralism than the traditional “cause I said so” (which admittedly had its time, imo)

>>22068322
Jung is a dead end. Kooky new age mysticism is the least viable part of Freud’s insight

>>22068575
God the Bernays meme has to die. You dumbass midwits see ONE documentary

>>22068603
Science is not a series of axioms you dope

>>22068633
Sexual desire is the most psychologically salient desire and sexuality is the remainder of the raw matter of pure life force that we’re all born with. It’s not that everything is about “sex” in the visual, objective, external sense, but in the sense that what we feel, psychologically, in sexual experience is normal experience at its most intense

>>22069715
Elaborate please. Because I'm pretty sure I watched 2-3 but am willing to learn more.

>>22069381
Thank you for actually elaborating. I do want to faithfully engage with the counter opinion but it needs to be given to do so.
I will now go back over what I was arguing for clarification on my end
>>22065461
>part of the reason modern life feels so alienating is that civilization suppresses your urges to kill, fuck, eat anything in your path just because it feels good.
It doesn't feel alienating for that reason, in fact, the modern world now promotes and tries to 'normalize' these urges, circumventing the need to suppress. Nowadays, we are supressing these urges less and actually suppressing resolving these urges. In many countries, infidelity is just a fact of life for example. There's the French stereotype but it's more common in scandinavian countries (the token leftist utopias). It is alienating because we are no longer healthily restraining ourselves (not always suppression) and resolving appropriately with proper morals in mind. And doing so is discouraged.
>suppressing those urges is necessary to have a society at all
In the sense of suppressing and resolving urges is beneficial to society yes, but it isn't the necessity of societal function at all. Again, we don't always suppress, sometimes we exhaust (by acting on) or immediatly address these issues. Or we are in scenarios in which most don't arise due to limitations in circumstance. For some people, sin doesn't come to mind so easily after years of being raught how to naintain a proper mindset. We can achieve a mixture of these without the example as necessity and still have enough cohesion for a proper society.
>the suppression gives rise to neuroses.
Generally agreed, I'd like a clarification on whether repression is this context means something different to suppression.

>>22069938
Cont.
>>22069381
>There’s only one thing to realize in this story: desire is amoral
A hypothetical fiction isn't really proof of this statement.
What do you say to the notion there are amoral and moral but not immoral urges? There's this pull everyone feels of what 'ought' to be. People call this natutal law and such. It can be fellt in a form of instinct and urge to 'do right' even if it cones at a cost to yourself. If urges are only amoral then wouldn't they not appear for self-sacrificing morals? And I don't just mean sacrificing for the benefit of your family or direct community, it could be for a foreign stranger you never meet again yet you still get an urge just on what 'feels' right and the subsequent regret or suppression you get from ignoring that urge is real.
>Moral of the story: you are wrong. It is not our values that we are repressing, it is our desire. If desire unaddressed, leads to a spectrum & plethora of dysnfunctionality.
This relies on your claim urges are amoral and for which I also dispute. Moral urges are extensions of values and we can supress values even as not urges. Nationalism (love for your country, people and culture) isn't always an urge but we can suppress that in ourselves when we're brainwashed into thinking it's 'bad' or that holding divisive values is inherently bad so you shouldn't express them beyond your person. Values can just be at the level of sentiments or axioms in our mindset, we aren't always 'urging' them.
>>22069678
This guy isn't that dumb but I agree on your sentiments of the psychoanalytical field. There aren't any real axioms in psychology and cases and resolutions can vary widely depending on the subject, while stories ate useful, they're really 'right'. I think I made a valid case disputing what the other anon thinks bit I also don't believe and I can use that to create a universal treatment for a specific scenario because the mechanics at play in the psyche are too complex and changing for a typical medical prescription if a certain psychological treatment. At the end of the day what usually helps is ignoring these psychobabblings and just confronting an issue head-on regardless of circumstance. The whys and hows of a mental condition are not set in stone in psychology which us why there are many disagreements and differing treatments.

>>22069939
>while stories ate useful, they're really 'right'.
*are
*not really

>>22069939
>There aren't any real axioms in psychology and cases and resolutions can vary widely depending on the subject
Sure. I generally doubt the idea of axioms, but I don't think it's important in this case as much.
> At the end of the day what usually helps is ignoring these psychobabblings and just confronting an issue head-on regardless of circumstance.
Well, I call psychobabblings any attempts to interpret/explain the 'why' of certain behaviours or mental processes. They can be entertaining but that's it.
>The whys and hows of a mental condition are not set in stone in psychology which us why there are many disagreements and differing treatments.
Okay, well that's what brings us to phenomenological approach. Once you do away with interpretations and psychobabblings, you get to just seeing with your eyes and hearing with your ears. That's pretty much all there is to it then.

>>22065411
>He's right, anon. You have studied his work, right?
>8 words
>2 of them are right
t. father was cruel and left-handed, now pay me

>>22068957
I guess it is supposed to mean what's the value of an unrepresented (in the conscience) representation. The answer is that it allows the subject to enjoy without the restraint of assuming a gendered role.
Try to be less boastful when your only reading is Wikipedia snippets

>>22065411
>He's right, anon.

I should learn to live, thanks to a work of a stranger.

This is why racism exists, the sense of superiority is a friend of arrogance.

Freud said this anything about the origin of racism?

>>22070173
Yes he has a text about group psychology or something. It's a paranoid type of thinking that reinforces group cohesion

>>22070173
>origin of racism
It's literally just the natural result of humans dividing stuff into "us" and "them"
Back when we were still apes we'd group up into wandering tribes of a 100+ people, care about the people inside the group, and be apathetic to people outside the group (from other tribes)
This naturally leads to thinking that people not from your group are inferior, which helps with killing or abusing them once your morals develop too much.

>>22070202
>It's a paranoid type of thinking

Garbage then.

>>22070781

This seems the plot of some fan fiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM6OIlreneA

>>22070173
Probably fits his work on mass hysteria

>>22069979
>Well, I call psychobabblings any attempts to interpret/explain the 'why' of certain behaviours or mental processes. They can be entertaining but that's it.
I agree with your definition. The whys and hows don't matter if we can't formulate axioms out of them for treatments that would be different and more effective than something prescribed by a nonpsychologist. A veteran stonemason that is outdone by a average blacksmith is either a shit stonemason or masonry is a fake job. Any mentally related condition that can be determined upon axioms is usually a physiological case like nutrient deficiency and not a place for psychotherapy or psychoanalytics. There are heaps of reasons to be depressed but chances are they just need sleep, proper diet and vitamin D to be able to handle it. We were built to struggle and overcome, not try and maintain some perfect ideal of contenent. Diet and Nutrients are almost never brought up before being prescriped any kind of meds or we're encouraged to babble on instead of lay it out to the point and get ourselves sorted. Any psychological problem greater usually stems from a hole something like family, God and/or a job should fill. And anything beyond that from physiological trauma like brain damage and developmental intrusions.

>>22070781
Darwinistic fiction. You don't need evolution to explain, it just is how it's so. And how it's so is that unified homogenous cultures prosper due to greater social cohesion. Race exists and differences in races from behaviour and heterogeneous cultures of those races spells disaster for civilisations almost every time when tehy are forced to mix. Ethonocentric states with civil cooperation like trade between each nation is the most peaceful option because no one has to compromise their way of life for someone who doesn't look like them, act like them or think like them.

>>22071168
>he believes the world prior to 1900 was a series of ethnically homogeneous places
>he knows nothing of history

>>22069939
>Urges aren't amoral
Like another anon mentioned in this thread, it is our natural and automatic desire to fuck, kill, and eat. This is a mammalian truth, and you can observe this in other species of mammals. But what makes us separate from animals is our ability to choose and not be subjugated to our perennial desires.
Don't get me wrong, your adherence to morals and values is imperative to a healthy functioning person, but to deny the existence of desire is a mistake, imo.
>What do you say to the notion there are amoral and moral but not immoral urges?
There are no moral or immoral urges, there are just urges. It is up to us to uphold our respective morality and herd our amoral desires into place. Because we do have them.
And like >>22069979 other anons itt mentioned, psychology is not a science.
>The whys and hows of a mental condition are not set in stone in psychology which us why there are many disagreements and differing treatments.
The human psyche is a large, complex and ever-changing and the field of psychoanalysis is the closest thing in human history that has managed to lasso it. Also, while Freud will always be an ever-important figure in psychology, I personally lean towards Lacanian-theory when it comes to analysis.

>>22071324
If Freud makes anons seethe imagine what effect Lacan would have

>>22071324
>There are no moral or immoral urges, there are just urges
Jesus Christ you fucking degenerate.

>>22071324
Imagine saying
>your adherence to morals and values is imperative to a healthy functioning person
And
>There are no moral or immoral urges
In the very same breath.
Absolutely demonic.

>>22071324
Have you ever felt the urge for charity? The idea of amoral urges comes from the notion we are merely animals who eventually attained will over being man from the beginning. You have no evidence besides an evolutionary theory to claim amorality with our urges. We have urges that are not just animalistic but uniquely human and cannot be exoressed by lesser creatures.

>>22071593
And we have values and morals not Always in the mode of urges we can still suppress to our detriment. Freud is only so right to the extent urges along with supression and its consequences exist. All other conclusions he draws are wrong.

>>22065411
>>22065448
>>22065461
Freud wrote from a circumcised perspective

>>22071453
Lacan was much more intelligent and advanced than Freud, so I would think that the anons who disagree and seethe over Freud would enjoy Lacan.
>>22071546
Again, you have fallen into the same line of presumption as the other anons. The existence of an urge does not justify it's execution, it simply exists, is all I'm saying.
>>22071573
I'll ctrl+f:

Again, you have fallen into the same line of presumption as the other anons. The existence of an urge does not justify it's execution, it simply exists, is all I'm saying.

Also, amorality does not equal immorality. If you cannot understand that, I do not have any more to explain to you.

>>22071593
>>22071601
>We have urges that are not just animalistic but uniquely human and cannot be exoressed by lesser creatures.
I do very well agree with this. Love, is another natural and automatic desire that instinctually arises in humans. When I describe desire/urges as amoral, this is exactly what I mean. It is instinctual desire for a man to protect the woman he loves, instinctual desire for a woman to protect her child at all costs, etc, etc. So yes, you can define certain desires as "morally good", of course. But the essence of desire is unconcerned with morality or immorality in general; thus it is amoral. It exists for the sake of existing, it is automatic and instinctual.

On your argument of values & morals being repressed/suppressed due to external factors (society, community, etc.), I simply don't agree works the same way as natural urges. I do agree that certain societies and cultures force one to muzzle their personal values. However, the nature of values and morals are distinctly different than natural desire. Values and morals are nurtured, shaped, and grown by external forces; and additionally are fluid based on time and place. An explicit and categorical example of the difference between values vs. desire is literally the Id (desire) and the Superego (values). I've slobbered on Freud's cock enough for one day but he literally answered and laid out all of your questions a century ago.

>>22071149
>The whys and hows don't matter if we can't formulate axioms out of them for treatments that would be different and more effective than something prescribed by a nonpsychologist.
I don't agree with that. My point isn't to dispute psychology as a field or science. Neither do I think that formulation of axioms is necessary to have a field like that. Granted when I talk psychology, I often have gestalt therapy and behaviourism in mind.
>We were built to struggle and overcome, not try and maintain some perfect ideal of contenent.
After the struggle and overcoming, you need to get back into some sort of equilibrium. Maintaining that sort of equilibrium is a pretty good thing. The problem is mainly what type of challenges you face and which need overcoming and struggling against. So much in our life is artificial, and we end up making wrong sorts of struggles up and creating all sorts of imbalances. Schools and corporate environments are some good examples there.
Anyway, I don't know much about diet and nutrition beyond supplementing protein powder, so I'm not gonna comment on that.

>>22071324
>other anons itt mentioned, psychology is not a science
I didn't mention that. Not that I care whether it's perceived to be a science or not. I was talking about psychoanalysis specifically and how interpretations and analysis are closer to story-telling and other art making.
>field of psychoanalysis is the closest thing in human history that has managed to lasso it
Nope. Mainly because of what I mentioned before. It's about adopting a certain framework and then viewing life through it. You can view life and human psyche in terms of id, ego, superego, or you may not. Freud made some interesting points and discoveries, though the idea that psychoanalysis is "closest thing in human history that has managed to lasso the human psyche" is just made-up nonsense again. Psychobabbling.

>>22071797
>When I describe desire/urges as amoral, this is exactly what I mean.
Different anon.
The main confusion is between desires and psychopathology. There is no such thing as desire to get another drink when you're an alcoholic, that is just a psychopathological (in this case addictive) behaviour.
My definition of desire would be something that is in line with our nature and since it is in line with nature, it enriches us. Desire to feel safe and be loved is something that benefits you as a human person. Desire to vengefully go after someone who doesn't love me back isn't therefore a desire, but just a vengeful impulse, pathological depending on the scenario.
So, I want to draw the main line to simplify the discussion - if it harms someone and harms oneself, it is not a desire. If it is a desire, it is something that does not harm the other or myself, but to the contrary, enriches myself and possibly others.
You may argue that a desire to piss in a public square doesn't necessarily harm anyone. Just like with everything else, there is responsibility that goes with it. So if you're ready to face consequences of it, then it is all good.

>>22071797
>The existence of an urge does not justify it's execution, it simply exists, is all I'm saying.
And if acting on an urge because the action would be immoral, than by transference we say the urge is immoral, just like we say that the person who habitually let himself led by immoral urges into acting immorally is an immoral person.
> BUT URGES ARE NEITHER MORAL OR IMMORAL
Retard.

>>22071797
Love is moral, lust is amoral. You say because we naturally (instinctually) feel these along with the amoral that make them amoral, but I don't see how that makes it so. We are creatures of morals, why can we not be instinctually moral and amoral?
>So yes, you can define certain desires as "morally good", of course.
Defining means understanding what it is intrinsically, not just giving it a category. Therefore you agree. Morally good = morals ≠ amorality
>But the essence of desire is unconcerned with morality or immorality in general; thus it is amoral.
Proof it is unconcerned?
If we have morals and can attribute something to being or not being moral as morals, we can have moral urges. Since we can define an urge as moral, it is moral. I do not see how love can be amoral like lust when love is deeply encoded in our morals. If you know what morals are, you know that there can be not just be urges defined as moral but moral urges by nature. We have desires that are amoral and are animal but we also have desires that are human and moral.
>It is instinctual desire for a man to protect the woman he loves, instinctual desire for a woman to protect her child at all costs, etc, etc.
It is instinctual for a person to treat another helpless child as if it were his own if he can and even ofyen when he can't. We have an intuition for justice. We reach beyond our person to pull people into our moral framework when we interact with them, the motivation to do so goes beyond amorality even if the morals that are used to act upon a person considered one of your own could be amoral. It is a genuine feeling, not a survival tactic where you can use others for an advantage. The motivation is an instinctual good.
>I do agree that certain societies and cultures force one to muzzle their personal values. However, the nature of values and morals are distinctly different than natural desire.
>Values and morals are nurtured, shaped, and grown by external forces; and additionally are fluid based on time and place.
Morals are natural and not nurtured if we do not consciously manufacture them every time. Babies have been shown to understand rudimentary 'right' and 'wrong' and not just a reaction to emotional stimuli. Instinct is not always taught.
I believe in the soul and a revealed moral sense people have. I had it growing up in areas without much exposure to it and I've heard other people from even more amoral places develop it to. Rich kids of CEOs are deliberately groomed to foster psychopathy and even then some still break free and gain morality. Morals come from within. There is an innate human spirit which contains them and is the same spirit whievh drives conciousness. The proof of this is hard to verify as I am living it and that's subjective. We can't empirically prove a lot of our claims so we go by experience and intuition which can be diverted by nurture but our primary motivation stems from a moral sense.

>>22071991
>>22071915
>I don't agree with that. My point isn't to dispute psychology as a field or science. Neither do I think that formulation of axioms is necessary to have a field like that. Granted when I talk psychology, I often have gestalt therapy and behaviourism in mind.
So you're of the 'psychology is philosophy' crowd? I'm sort of that but mainly a physiologist when it comes to treatment of afflictions. I believe most psychological problems in the modern age are caused by material balances more than spiritual ones (although we have been getting worse on that front too). We used to not have any thing to keep us up at night or indoors during day. The nutritional density of food was higher even if scarcity was higher too. We didn't have such large populations to offset this and the body is able to adapt to such environments for prolonged periods. Now we are obese, insomniac, malnourished sloths who are dying of a starvation of things within grasp and we are not being told so by the supposed medical authorities.
>After the struggle and overcoming, you need to get back into some sort of equilibrium.
What i mean by perfect ideal of contentment is an inupsettable utopia. I agree with you mainly on what you say here. We actually need sonething in order to move towards it but human life waxes, wanes and storms and we have capacity to navigate that in our design because otherwise we would've all died before reaching the modern age.

>>22071996
>So you're of the 'psychology is philosophy' crowd?
I like the question. Not sure I know the answer now. I don't know much about psychology as far as research and medicine may go, so yeah, probably closer to philosophy.
> I believe most psychological problems in the modern age are caused by material balances more than spiritual ones
I imagine the opposite is true. Or put it this way, I believe that spiritual component is higher, mainly also because if we had our spiritual part in order, material one wouldn't be a problem. I don't think it works the other way around.
>inupsettable utopia
Yeah, neurotic fantasy. Just like someone that is poor dreams of living in a golden palace and someone who feel they have no control dreams of being in total control all the time.
Healthy psyche deals with things as they come and when they come.
>human life waxes, wanes and storms
Yeah, and modern life is largely designed without respecting these cycles.
Imagine saying you're not going to work on particular days because the moon is currently waxing crescent and new moon is approaching soon, so you are up to start working only after the new moon. It's just a matter of personal preference, and some cultures organised their life, ceremonies, and festivities around various natural cycles. Yet if you worked in a corporation today and decided you're not gonna work during a particular part of the cycle, you may as well look for another job or ways to make money.

>>22071652
Well now his repressed and sexual theories make sense as they come from a mutilated man venting his frustrations at something he had no control over. I would have a repressive mindset as well

>>22071652
Unironically circumcision is an extremely traumatizing thing for babies, and its even worse when you realise that circumcision is one of your first and most important memories, and its of being held down in straps and having your penis mutliated by some fat yid doctor.
No wonder amerimutts are mentally deranged, anyone would if they had to go through that barbaric ritual.

>>22071932
>if it harms someone and harms oneself, it is not a desire.
Wanting to rape is a desire. Wanting to make love to your wife is also a desire. Both of these desires are... literally just desires. But the two are very obviously different when we apply axioms from our Ego and Superego. Raping is bad, making love to your wife is good. The Id has no concern for bad or good, it just generates desire.
>>22071947
>the person who habitually let himself led by immoral urges into acting immorally is an immoral person.
........................Yes.
>>> BUT URGES ARE NEITHER MORAL OR IMMORAL
I'll repeat it for the third time:

The existence of an urge does not justify it's execution, it simply exists, is all I'm saying.

>>22071991
>Proof it is unconcerned?
You just explained it yourself:
>"We have desires that are amoral and are animal but we also have desires that are human and moral."
And we see this in the animal world as well, except animals are much more controlled by their instinctual desires. Which why they rape, kill, and... act like animals.

>>22072048
Circumcision is unironically one of the most traumatizing things that we do in the US.
I wonder why ((())) is so insistant on doing it. Is it like a humiliation ritual? Or some weird sacrifice?

>>22072097
>Wanting to rape is a desire
No, I differentiate the two categories.
What you say after that resembles three distinct personalities rather than id, ego, superego. What you could talk about, if you are to use these three categories of psyche, would be their relation to the impulse to want to rape, and whether it comes from any of the three specifically. What you get is just a clash of opinions, power struggle and in my view, healthy psyche is a psyche without internal conflicts.
If you mean to say below that everyone has a desire to rape, then that's just a fantasy. Having a thought about raping someone doesn't mean there is a continuous desire (and desire always has a continuous quality) to rape.

>>22072030
>I imagine the opposite is true.
In a proper system, yes, that should be the case but shit is unbelievably that bad and retardedly simple to reboot I can't exaggerate it. We masduvely underestimate how much a simple balance of diet and access to sunshine affects our mental health. Our brains have different components in their structure which are hindered or helped with a proper nutritional balance. The parts of the brain that generate certain feelings or shift levels of perspective and emoting for example. Viscocity of cerebral fluid, elasticity of brain mass, etc all have their part to play in regulation. It isn't just the metaphysical will that does the work but the maintenance of its vessel. Most people diagnosed with 'depression' or 'anxiety' just need to take vitamins and keep a routine and they'll be strong enough to engage with any real problems (spirutual imbalances and the such) that actually plague them. It is amazing how manufactured feelings can be especially after they go away. Like getting angry at someone and then you resolve it, that passion just fades away and you almost forget anything happened at all. Malnourished emotions can feel just as real as the actual crisis but go away quicker than you'd imagibe. So much of the psychosonatic crisis narrative we are told in universities, hospitals and journals are a distraction from the actual problem which is the system poisons our food.
My general reccomendations are ensuring a potassium intake which can be done by using 'diet salts' with meals, taking magnesium before bed and in the morning (~300mg each), 5000IUs vitD minimum in the morning, more if you arenct going outside for more than an hour.

>>22072097
>Which why they rape, kill, and... act like animals.
Yes, the animal (amoral) urges and then the human (moral) desires are different. Animals are not moral because they do not have higher sentience and cannot rebel against their nature. They have no knowlege of good or evil, they simply live. Since we have that sentience and can rebel against our nature for any number of reason, even just out of spite, that gives objective and intrinsic morality to our nature. Our spirits are beyond the total amorality of animals because our urges are held to a higher consciousness. I say this and still take the stance immoral urges don't exist because what is moral can come naturally but what is immoral is given into from an amoral urge that can also usually be used morally. There are exclusively moral urges but not exclusively immoral so it is a system of moral and amoral.

>>22072097
>But the two are very obviously different when we apply axioms from our Ego and Superego.
They are obviously different much before we apply made up theories.

>>22072247
Immorality is a condition entirely manufactured by free will but we can be moral wuthout veing immoral due to the caoacity for wrong creating a distinction for right [further ramblings about Genesis]

>>22072247
>take the stance immoral urges don't exist because what is moral can come naturally but what is immoral is given into from an amoral urge that can also usually be used morally
Purely meaningless.

>>22072270
Immorality comes from acting on the urge while morality comes from the urge itself. Resisting the amoral urge's immoral motivation is moral but failing to act on the moral urges action is immoral.
Lust is amoral because it can be used for good (loving your wife) or bad (rape).
Love is not immoral or amoral because it does not come from immoral motivations and cannot be satisfied amorally.

>>22072270
>>22072400
Immorality is constructed by the amoral will when left ubrestrained while morality is constructed from the moral spirit that can use the restrained will effectively.

>Anons not being able to comprehend the concept of amorality

Reading list for Psychoanalysis?

>>22072400
>Immorality comes from acting on the urge while morality comes from the urge itself
Lol no.

>>22072400
>Immorality comes from acting on the urge while morality comes from the urge itself. Resisting the amoral urge's immoral motivation is moral but failing to act on the moral urges action is immoral.
Once again Law shows itself to be the superior, perhaps even architectonical science. A crime is the reunion of both a prohibited action (actus reus) AND a reprehensible behaviour, or intent, or mental state (mens rea). Both are relationally required to constitute an immoral situation deserving of institutionalized punishment (morality being one of the three pillars of criminal justice).
All you idiots are simply struggling to acknowledge this fact, and playing around the relationality of the phenomena to justify your own degeneracy. By pure transference alone the mental state which constitute the mental aspect of the immoral "act" (to be understood here as Karol Wojtyla did in The Acting Person) is itself immoral. The fact that it could not have been immoral if it had not led to an immoral outcome does not prevent this at all. This is a very fucking basic part of the relationality of moral questions.

>>22072549
see >>22065480

>>22073002
We make actions and motivations immoral by using amoral urges immorally. We can feel horny and an urge to fuck but we can choise what to make of it. Those specific urges are amoral because we can also use them morally. That prior urge can be taken with you to the bedroom of your wife and satisfied in a self-respecting manner or it can be taken to a degenerate act. The desire of both infidelity and loving your wife can come from the same urge but a desire to cheat on your wife is a concious manifestation of immorality upon that amiral urge. There are also specific urges that are only used morally, that is gift of our nature, those moral urges and moral use of amoral urges in exchange for willingly being able to be immoral and suffering because of it.

>>22073153
>We make actions and motivations immoral by using amoral urges immorally
absolute nonsense.

>>22073153
>That prior urge can be taken with you to the bedroom of your wife and satisfied in a self-respecting manner or it can be taken to a degenerate act.
>self-respecting manner
>degenerate act
are you one of those unironic "missionary sex for the sole purpose of procreation" brainlets

>>22072221
Psychoanalysis is not proposed as a treatment of minor depression. Have you read anything from Freud?

>>22071453
>>22071797
The thing with Lacan is he's not easy to read and you need to want to read him. But he's perfected the Freudian system for sure, I hope anons would consider getting into it.
Pic related is my recommendation.

>>22073179
Are you one of those hedonism brainlets? The degenerate act refers to infidelity and disgusting taboos.
>>22073318
Psychoanalysis is proposed as a treatment of any kind.

>>22073456
>Psychoanalysis is proposed as a treatment of any kind.
No, it's not.

>>22073485
>No, it's not.
Then psychotherapy wouldn't exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis

>>22073456
>disgusting taboos.
Elaborate.
90% certain you're the neurotic.

>>22073537
Roleplay, toys, sodomy. Spaz about missionary or not but anal is degenerate.

>>22073507
It would.

>>22065411
>>22065436
freud cheuken

>>22073586
What I meant is psychotherapy is a therapy. Psychoanalysis which backed Frued's psychotherapy was therefore used for treatment.

>>22073548
>using a vibrator on your gf is degenerate
enjoy terrible sex i guess

>>22073616
>implying sex before marriage
>implying you cannot satisfy her by yourself

>>22073616
>he needs a toy to make her cum multiple times

So this part was pure projection right?
>enjoy terrible sex i guess

>>22073618
>a literal virgin is trying to lecture me on my sexual prowess
Uh-huh.

>>22073620
See >>22073621

>>22073621
Sounding a bit insecure there, Casanova.
>sexual prowess
Lmao.

>>22073615
But not for minor depression for which you prescribed sleep and vitamin D.

>>22073625
Bro I understand, you have a sub-porn dick and have to cope with it.
for what it's worth, I did use toys with one girlfriend, pretty crazy bitch, ended up simply getting overstimulated and more often than not losing sensibility.
But you're the one sounding insecure and projecting when you presume people who don't use toys have bad sex.

>>22065411
>ctrl-f "Strachy"
>no results

It's worth noting that if you want to read Freud, the English translation is famously bad. Strachy translated both "Instinkt" and "Trieb" as "instinct" which misses much of Freud's point regarding death drive, which might be the most important discovery he made. Animals have instincts while language makes possible Trieb/drives.

Certainly read some Freud but don't take the English translation of Freud as the whole of your understanding of psychoanalysis. Either checking out the German, or reading some secondary sources (picrel is my favorite) is ideal. Coincidentally, if you want a life's work that'll see you revered in academia, work on a new translation of Freud.

>>22065461
I found great value and insight in this book. Freud haters can't accept that the man distilled with the greatest of ease the clearest causes for the suffering of the soul in society. I don't give a fuck if everything else he wrote is bulshit, this book is real and by that alone he should be highly regarded.

>>22073683
>u r angry bcuz u don't get pussy and can't kill people who u think r annoying
wow, profound

>>22073838
Literally me.

>>22073638
I don't prescribe it for just minor therapy but full blown depression and anxiety. I cannot understate how dependent we are on nutrition for proper emotional regulation.

>>22065487
you had to add "hack" to that. otherwise just saying he was a "mystic schizo" makes him sound based

>>22073618
I have never used a vibrator or a toy on one of my gfs. Most amount of time I've made a girl cum in one setting was 14 times, in a little bit less than 2 hours.
> "That never happened"
to you.
Only reason to ever need toys is if you have a micro-dick (in which case you are truly deserving of pity, not mockery), are precocious (deserving of mockery), or being Japanese (mockery is then mandatory).

>>22075058
>I have never used a vibrator or a toy on one of my gfs. Most amount of time I've made a girl cum in one setting was 14 times, in a little bit less than 2 hours.
classic defense mechanism of the narcissistic personality structure

Did he ever say anything about why jews are so prone to closed little circlejerks where they worship a guru and their works rather than actually engage in philosophy? I've recently been wondering why is it that european culture prefers open debate, reflexivity, and critical thought (idealized in institutes and places like the university or the agora of the polis) while semites prefer the starry-eyed, dogmatic worship of their wonderworking rabbi of choice (talmudic sages, sabbatai zevi, freud, marx, strauss, etc.). I can't help but feel like the precipitous decline of western higher education has a lot to do with the latter model overtaking the former, the triumph of jerusalem over athens, the triumph of semitic dogmatism and irrationality over european, critical and free thought.

wild how psychology went from Frued and Jung writing all this complex shit about how human psyche works to just basic shit like "being called mean words makes you feel bad" and "having a kitty is nice :)"
every psychoanalysis book nowadays is just shit like "the experience of peruvian transgender prostitute on twitter" or most most boring self help book (aka diet, lift, have a job) in the world

even if you disagree with Freud at least he was onto something, nowadays there's just nothing

>Everything you do is related to your sexual desires
>Except me sucking on this long brown tube all day. That doesn't mean anything.

>>22075605
>jews
Doesn’t it get lame blaming a boogeyman all the time?

>>22075058
>being this emasculated by a piece of plastic
>writes an entire essay about it
Your very mind is a chastity-cage.

>>22075639
>nowadays there's just nothing
>he is unaware of the frighteningly vast corpus of post-freudian contemporary psychoanalytic literature

>>22075775
name 5

young undermin pine cope for allmother's milkease
allscented supecimens copuflect to cunny

>>22075808
>Nancy McWilliams
>Harry Guntrip
>Jonathan Shedler
>Bruce Fink
>Otto Kernberg

>>22065436
everything is sex

>>22075639
modern psychology is far superior. it's simply less fruitful because it's easier to come up with ideas than to find out those ideas can actually work.

>>22073661
>which misses much of Freud's point regarding death drive, which might be the most important discovery he made.
Why do you think so?
All animals want to live forever. Isn't that true?

>>22076613
The death drive isn't generally a drive towards death, despite the name. What's important about it is that it's beyond the pleasure principle (hence why Freud first discusses it in Beyond the Pleasure Principle). It gets discussed in Civilization and Its Discontents too.
Death drive is a movement which frees the subject from the ego, it's a product of language whereby the logic contained within language seeks to free itself from the tyranny of fixed representations. Parallel to seeking comfort/safety/stability, it's a Dionysian sort of force. We don't just act for our own good; subjectivity is necessarily split.

>>22065411
I'm in psychoanalysis right now, actually. gotta say it's often boring but occasionally insightful. feels like I'm doing almost all the work and the analyst's just there to nod at me or point out when I'm talking around something

Psychoanalysis is marxist mysticism. No wonder the two became inseparably married after the war.

>>22076794
Real. The death drive breaks the economic machine that is implicitly embedded in Freud and Lacan. (I'd say it is the instinctual coming through them: a certain ontology of an anthropological type, which denies every uncontrollable otherness. Abrahamism.)

Economy is checks and balances: the equilibrium. The death drive defies the logic of the frame. To return it to our level: every debate is aimed at establishing a hegemony of this or that position creating a hierarchy in which representations are rendered in a particular way (based on a balance of clout). And this is exactly what hides the real.

The point of 'our own good' is to overcome the underlying lack-oriented ontology by turning the negativity/death into positivity. Mindless shitposting is one of such techniques. So, the next time you see someone doing it – salute the man, for he is doing the God's work.

>>22076481
nerd

>>22065461
>urges to kill, fuck, eat anything
With a little work you can do all of those things these days

>>22065497
Lol I remember having the same thought when I was learning about Plato

>>22065820
>doesn't see the obvious, the apparent.
How do you come to see that then?

>>22077693
Because I'm not a neurotic.

>>22077693
By having your eyes and ears open, not outsourcing your senses to the outside world

>>22073596
Actually btfo'd

>>22065436
>penis envy

>>22068184
> It's a myth that they mean anything.
He didn't just said that did he...

To go out like that... shame.

>>22065691
?W?H?O?

>>22075058
>"I.. I made a girl cum 4, no, 10, no 14 times... in one setting!"
Writing this on 4chan instantly makes you a loser

>>22076613
>>22076794
If I recall correctly, the death drive emerges out of the fact of entropy, that chemical reactions are working their way out to becoming inert, and this same phenomenon emerges in an organism writ large. This is the basis of the concept, correct?

>>22075058
Why are you replying to me, it makes it look like I'm responding to myself. Reply to the other guy.

>>22065411
Sorry, he's just a depraved fuck trying to rationalize his illness

>>22068442
I'll take the smart Swiss scholar over the depraved German dude literally called "Schlomo" any day of the week

>>22079721
This is true for Freud. Later theorists - I have Lacan in mind here - no longer tie death drive to biology. I'm not sure how the Kleinians think of death drive, and I'm under the impression that other forms of psychoanalysis have sanitized the concept of death drive away. There's a good lecture on death drive on Youtube by contemporary philosopher McGowan if you're interested.

>>22069561
Freud was heavily influenced by Dosty. he actually wrote an essay on the russian's work called "Dostoevsky and Parricide." It's an interesting perspective, even if you don't agree with what he's getting at.
>https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Freud_Dostoevsky_Parricide.pdf

>>22069561
>I literally don't know how much he got from novels, it seems to me like all psychology comes from novel reading, there's just too much in what psychologists said that came before them in the form of a writer trying to be expressive about people.
you're right on the money, anon.
>Freud: "Everywhere I go, I find a poet has been there before me."

>>22068137
Freud is right but only on a certain level. He’s missing out on a lot of reality. This is evident in his complete ignorance when it comes to religion, dismissing the ‘oceanic feeling’ that an associate experienced (but which to Freud himself was alien) to “a yearning for the father”.

>>22068442
Jung was a bad writer. Freud was a master communicator, a master charlatan. In my opinion Jung is closer to reality but Freud is a much more stimulating read, and you can read theosophical or traditionalist sources rather than Jung

>>22081110
>dismissing the oceanic feeling as a yearning for the father
yeah it's probably just a total coincidence that all major world religions worship male gods

>>22065461
>I'm a neurotic jew therefore everyone is a neurotic jew

>>22081255
Listen if Jews wanted to kill, fuck and eat everything they would be extremely based. But all they do is waste their powerful minds on getting a lot of money and steering cultural perception, instead of actually doing anything cool. Which is why they suck. Not as much as most non-Jews suck though, who want to do the same thing as the Jews do but often don't even try.

why is this retarded thread still alive?

>>22081802
Try again in a few years circumcised slave.

>>22082633
sorry pal but I am from a third-world shithole we don't have hospitals advanced enough to do circumcision.