/lit/ - Literature

>psychoanalysis
>valid school of thought
Same thing I wrote last time this thread was made

I'd say it's a general introduction to psycho-analysis. It's basicly the entire subject to psychoanalysis in simple, popular language, by its most famous exponent. In my opinion, you should read this book first if you want to understand and enjoy other books by Freud on psychoanalysis.

if you guys don't know shit about freud just say so

>implying Psychology: The Briefer Course by William James isn't the primer for the into-ism of psychoanalysis.

>nb4 Principles of Psychology.
tl:dr

>>3654341
i don't care about psychology, what i'm interested in is freud's intellect and imagination.

>>3654341
btw why do you think that one is better than the one i posted?

>>3654343
>implying you'd understand Freud without any base

freud is ma nigga, even though he's been basically completely disproven i still love him

>>3654354

>>3654348

>>3654362
why do you love him if he's been completely disproven?

also if he's been completely disproven why does zizek likes him so much?

>>3654391
because zizek is a shitty performance artist and continental philosophy is almost always worthless

>>3654428
epic win

>>3654428
Only those who have read not a single page from him says such foolishness.

>>3654308
OP, use these:
http://simongros.com/text/books/slavoj-zizek/english/looking-awry/
http://simongros.com/text/books/slavoj-zizek/english/how-to-read-lacan/
http://www.terrapsych.com/freud.html

>>3654308
If it is the book that consists of Freud's lecture then yes, it's the best introduction to Freud and it is written in quite easy language. Although freudism is pretty much antiquated now it's still an entertaining book.

>>3654354
He will understand without any base.

>>3654391
>the Žiž likes him
>therefore, Freud is valid

Oh, boy.

>>3654450
shouldn't i read lacan /after/ i read freud?

>>3654383
>completely disproven
You can not disprove psychoanalysis by (let's say) psychology or neurology, just like how you can't disprove aesthetics with mathematics, or philosophy with biology. These are different disciplines, for fuck's sake.

>>3654474
I don't think it's that necessary. He reflects back a lot giving different interpretations. I always thought that jumping into deep water is more joyful, erupts knowledge.

But you know how you like to study.

>>3654481
Psychoanalysis in Freud's understanding is not even a science.

>>3654515
getting_there.jpg

>>3654523
B-but N-neil Deweed T-tyson and Downkins s-says t-that we are s-starstuff, s-so science is the only s-source of n-knowledge! ;__;

>>3654531
>B-but N-neil Deweed T-tyson and Downkins s-says t-that we are s-starstuff, s-so science is the only s-source of n-knowledge!

>>3654566
its not so much wrong as naive

>>3654566
>bayesian probabilty models
>psychology

>>3654582
wut

>>3654566
I fucking love that picture. Not only is it absolutely true, that look on his face just completes the trolling and maximises continental butthurt.

>>3654311
you must be so proud

>>3654603
If you want to stick to purely scientifical methods in psychology you're basically left with behaviorism and neurobiology. Most of psychological methods are not objective but they work (from time to time).

>>3654675
wut

>>3654693
If you want to stick to purely scientifical methods in psychology you're basically left with behaviorism and neurobiology. Most of psychological methods are not objective but they work (from time to time).

>>3654696
wut you writ?

>wasting your time with freud

>>3654722
>wasting your time with 4chan

>>3654722

>>3654722
what do you know about freud, kid

>>3655051
Not this: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/slavoj-zizek/freud-lives

>>3655119
zizek gets very poetic in that one

>>3654453
>implying reading Freud with a modern and ignorant understanding of psychology won't induce an attitude of blanket dismissiveness and erroneous annotating

>>3655126
Unusual, yes. They must have had an intimate relationship.

>>3654308
Good intro:
http://www.lacan.com/forced.htm