/lit/ - Literature

>merit
>Lacan

>>7180524

Hello I'm studying for an Access to Social sciences qualification and one of my subjects is Psychology, what recommended reading out there can I get?

I already have a bunch of textbooks. I also have Freud's 'The interpretation of Dreams', 'Introducing Psychology' by Benson and Szasz's 'The Myth of Mental illness'. What more can I get to further my knowledge?

>>7180532
When does he lose his credibility, O one whose reaction images bring mighty keks?

>am i allowed to not read this guy mommy??!!

that's what this thread boils down to

>>7180546
Reading Lacan is far from a requirement. It's almost the opposite *sniff*

>>7180544
Thus the genital phase is only thinkable, Lacan emphasizes, insofar as it is marked by the sign of castration; "genital realization" can only be achieved on condition that the subject first assumes his own castration.[5]
Furthermore, Lacan insists that even when the polymorphous perverse sexuality of the pregential phases comes under the domination of the genital organization, this does not mean that pregenital sexuality is abolished.
"The most archaic aspirations of the child are... a nucleus that is never completely resolved under some primacy of genitality."

>>7180553
Then why is the OP looking for external justification to dismiss him instead of just reading him and coming to his own decision?

>>7180546
Nigga I'm just asking if he parrots Freud. I'm reading it regardless.

>>7180557
That's a lot of words to say nothing.

>For Lacan focus on the function of the phallus as a signifier of lack and sexual difference. The phallus in Lacanian theory should not be confused with the male genital organ, although it clearly carries those connotations. The phallus is first and foremost a signifier and in Lacan's system a particularly privileged signifier. The phallus operates in all three of Lacan's registers - the imaginary, the symbolic and the real - and as his system develops it becomes the one single indivisible signifier that anchors the chain of signification. Indeed, it is a particularly privileged signifier because it inaugurates the process of signification itself.

>mfw Lacan is echoing the male/female principle in mysticism

>>7180559

He's asking if Lacan's theories have merit, not if he should read them. In fact, he explicitly states that he *is* reading Lacan. Did you even read the OP?
>>7180557
That's relatively clear, actually; he's just saying that there's a continuous stream of desire from the pregenital phase onward.

>>7180561
He doesn't parrot Freud, no. He's kind of like Freud meets Saussure meets Hegel. Everything becomes a lot less literal and a lot more symbolic in Lacan. It is almost necessary to be familiar with your Freud, though.

>>7180572
Thank you for the clear response

>>7180572
Aren't Freud and Sassure more important?
And why does the Lacan Internet Defense Force come out in every Lacan thread, while no one ever discusses Jung here?

>>7180569
The fact remains that he's looking for external justification to dismiss. And he said that he's "reading his theories", which isn't "explicit" in terms of reading Lacan, you pompous faggot.

>>7180569
i get that he's saying sexual differentiation doesn't get rid of desires created in the pregenital... but look at all that retarded obscurantism

>While the imaginary phallus and the symbolic phallus are discussed more extensively by Lacan than the real phallus, he does not entirely ignore the latter. On the contrary, the real penis has an important role to play in the Oedipus complex of the little boy, for it is precisely via this organ that his sexuality makes itself felt in infantile masturbation; this intrusion of the real in the imaginary preoedipal triangle is what transforms the triangle from something pleasurable to something which provokes anxiety.[6] The question posed in the Oedipus complex is that of where the real phallus is located; the answer required for the resolution of this complex is that it is located in the real father.[7] The real phallus is written Π in Lacanian algebra.

>>7180585
You're the pompous faggot, if anyone is. Just admit that you misunderstood the OP, as he's telling you you did.
>>7180586
I completely agree.

>>7180577
"More important" in terms of what?

And the LDF formed as a direct result of years of replies like >>7180532 and constant mention of "Fashionable Nonsense" type horseshit.

>>7180595
>Just admit

Would that make you feel like a big, strong man?

>>7180607
In terms of both influence and general acceptance by non-Lacanians. And I meant Hegel, not Saussure.

Why don't people discuss Jung, though?

>>7180610
Would it make you feel like you're contributing to this thread?

>>7180610
Does pretending you understood the OP make you feel like a smart one?

>>7180568
>mfw Lacan is echoing the male/female principle in mysticism
No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpZXRaZtL-g

>>7180620
Why does he have to choose between them?

And people discuss Jung all the time.

>>7180669
He doesn't, it's just that this board talks about Lacan and Le Sniffing Slovenian Man disproportionately in relation to other psychologists.
Link me to a few archived Jung discussions.

>>7180537

Read "The Insanity Offense" after you read Szasz, who had some good ideas but was really off the fucking mark with his anti-psychiatry business. Also be sure to read Foucault ("The Birth of the Clinic" and "Madness and Civilization") before Torrey's book

>>7180655
oh boy a 2 hour video let me get right on it

>>7180683
You can search the archive yourself. I'd be surprised if there were none. Jung isn't exactly a rare name in terms of psychology. People rarely discuss Kohut, Kernberg, Greene, or Bollas here either.

If you're really bummed by the lack of Jung talk, though, make a fuckin' Jung thread.

>>7180688
He covers it in the first 10 minutes

i'll be honest i hated lacan but that zizek video about him is p interesting. he takes the phallic associations to retardedly far levels but the core ideas are thought-provoking. so i hear foucault is one of the better pomo guys ya? i might give him a shot

>>7180703
all he does in the first ten minutes is emphasize lacan returning sexualization to the strictly human/biological sphere. i still don't see how that disproves any of the attendant mystical connotations

can you summarize pls

>>7180699
But you've made an empirically testable claim. Could you please back it up?

>>7180748
>empirically testable claim
>jung

kill yourself

>>7180764
An empirically testable thread about the quantity of Jung threads, you illiterate moron. Get over your fear of providing evidence to back up your claims.

>>7180784
"all the time" isn't an "empirically testable" term, you statistically illiterate dipshit. Search "Jung" in the archive and you'll see plenty of people talking about him. That's "all the time", you utter waste of life.

>>7180790
Could you just provide me with a link or two, dipshit? I used the word 'disproportionately,' in case you didn't notice. There are, at any given time, more posts about Lacan than post about Jung.

I don't know much about psychosexual development in specific, but I have the feeling Lacan is very different from Freud. I think, however, that this impression of mine is due to my lack of knowledge on Freud himself. We must remember Freud is extremely known and thus there are a lot of misinformed opinions on him.

Lacan describes himself as a freudian and always stress the importance of returning to Freud, over and over again. But in spite of what he says, I feel that Lacan reinvented psychanalysis to a point that you can say there are core differences between them.

This is a good interview with Lacan
http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1668-there-can-be-no-crisis-of-psychoanalysis-jacques-lacan-interviewed-in-1974

>>7180805
>>7180790

We can all call names all day but let's not forget that psychology is philosophers playing scientist and there's nothing defined or more than statistically valid about it. It's a pretty useless thing to be an expert in.

>>7180828
I agree but I find it interesting. I have no intention of becoming an expert in the field.