/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11911098]

How come psychoanalysis and esoteric conceptions about the unconscious have managed to survive all this time?

Especially with people like Zizek and Peterson basing their projects on Lacan and Jung -- Freud's legacy is still alive and well. But whats the point? Whats the methodological approach here, exactly?

A generous assumption would be that these people only use psychoanalytic models as metaphors or as tools to understand psychology and society, similar to how people attribute human-like minds to living beings with vastly different brains. It's easier to say "The fly is looking for a way out" and pretending that it has a concept of inside/outside, that it might even be able to form propositional sentences about it's goal; instead of tediously explaining that it really is just aimlessly flying towards brighter areas because that's where the food tends to be and can be more easily recognized, and that this behaviour is a result of natural selection, meaning beings who did not follow beneficial behavior died. Pretending animals/insects/plants/fungi have minds makes communicating easier, so i guess we can extrapolate from this that we ought to use familiar models to explain other things.

But this argument doesnt hold with psychoanalysis, because it's unfalsifiable, artificial and an unintuitive model. It slows communication down, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do if you're using it to explain something completely different. If Zizek tells me to look at toilets, is he honestly suggesting that the ideology of that toilets country magically puppeteered the architects, foremen and plumbers of that country to all join a conspiracy to make sure that the country's toilets should all look a certain way? If Peterson tells me to be aware of certain archetypes, is he honestly saying that an ephemeral maelstrom, the "collective unconscious", is forcing it's cosmic cookie-cutter into the souls of our species?

They obviously don't really believe this. But if so, then why bother with Freud/Lacan/Jung at all? Why not come out and say "Economic processes have this *specific* effect on the individuals brain and this *exact* consequence for large-scale social change" and come up with a predictive model? Why not simply say "People tend to form certain kinds of personalities if they experience certain things and you can do X, Y and Z to change this development" and sit down with actual scientists to come up with a more effective kind of therapy than asking people to clean their rooms?

Whats the deal, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.11911116]

I love to eat your poop.

[Anonymous No.11911146]

>>11911116
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11911170]

René Guénon, among other traditionalist authors, pointed out the errors and folly of psychoanalytical terminology and theory itself.

Guénon especially disliked the word "unconscious", which forms one of the basis of Freud´s theory and (unconscious) desires and fears.
>>There are also some who adopt the term 'unconscious' as a synonym or equivalent of 'subconscious', and this term, taken literally, would seem to refer to an even lower level, but as a matter of fact it only corresponds less closely to reality; if the object of study were really unconscious it is difficult to see how it could be spoken of at all, especially in psychological terms; and besides, what good reason is there, other than mere materialistic and mechanistic prejudice, for assuming that anything unconscious really exists? However that may be, there is another thing worthy of note, and that is the strange illusion which leads psychologists to regard states as being more 'profound' when they are quite simply more inferior; is not this already an indication of the tendency to run counter to spirituality, which alone can be truly profound since it alone touches the principle and the very center of the being? Correspondingly, since the domain of psychology is not extended upward, the 'superconscious' naturally remains as strange to it and as cut off from it as ever.
-Reign of Quantity by René Guénon

Psychoanalytic school does not believe in supercosnsciousness.

That is, something, which transcends both conscious and subconscious states.

Psychoanalyst school is essentially a perversion and inversion. They tend to put the unconscious or subconscious state as the essence, or foundation, it is a denial of Spirit [spiritus] to replace it with Psyche [psychē]

Even the very term: "unconscious" should be paradoxical enough when contrasted to that of superconscious, meaning that which transcends both subconscious and normal conscious.

Does not probably come as a surprise to anyone that psychoanalyst school arose from the same fertile ground as did Marxism, Communism and other Jewish symptoms of thought.

Psychoanalytical school being the most dangerous of these jewish agitative revolutionary theories, for it denies the both reality and transcendence of spirit and achieves the final satanic perversion of all religion and hierarchy: that man is nothing more but an mere animal driven by his animal unconscious sexual desires and needs.

This of course, puts the Talmudists and Jewish rabbinical in special relation to the Cattle [or Goyim] for it is the very essence of Jewish teaching that only the Jews are truly Human: the rest of the mankind is on par with animals, as Talmud teaches us.

[Anonymous No.11911182]

>>11911170
Hows transcendence lately? How does having a superconscious feel like buddy?

[Anonymous No.11911190]

>>11911170
In an early letter to his future wife, Freud states the following:
>“In the future, for the remainder of my apprenticeship in the hospital, I think I shall try to live more like the gentiles—modestly,
learning and practicing the usual things and not striving after discoveries or delving too deep” (in Yerushalmi 1991, 39). Freud uses the word goyim (meaning cattle) to refer to gentiles in this passage.

Even though psychoanalytical theory was most likely meant only for the bourgeois of white europeans wasps, it does not concern Talmudists.

In terms of Kabbalah, that which can be said of animals (realm of נֶ֫פֶשׁ nép̄eši) does not concern those who are truly Human in Spirit (realm of רוּחַ ruach).

[Anonymous No.11911326]

>>11911098
I think psychoanalysis is a fruitful ground for concepts which is why it has had such an influence despite all of its problems (whether Freudian or Lacanian). At least Zizek's use of psychoanalysis and of ideology seems to me rather pragmatic, like a matter of tendency more than anything. It only makes sense if ideology has a certain fluidity rather than being a clear set of norms that can be pinned down. Not sure why you're willing to reduce it to economic processes or brains though, it could for example just as well be about geopolitics.

[Anonymous No.11911457]

>>11911098
Not just survive, but remain a billion dollar industry.
-because [we] have become irreparably egotistic and remain therefore in the backwashes of Romanticism

[Anonymous No.11911496]

>>11911098
>Why not come out and say "Economic processes have this *specific* effect on the individuals brain and this *exact* consequence for large-scale social change" and come up with a predictive model?
First of all "neuroeconomics" is a pseudoscience, we wouldn't say economic processes we would talk about it in terms of physics and biology, there's no reason to care about economic mystification of physical systems. The only things that exist are "dead matter" and living matter so we ought to frame every single analysis in those terms. Next, you don't need to be a pseud, your entire third body paragraph is retarded and you invite other pseuds to critique you this way.

Finally, therapy doesn't work, if you honestly believed what you're saying about everything being explainable by science (and it is) then you should be able to admit that the brain is determined largely by random environmental events and genetic influence. So, we cannot change gene expression by telling people to (incorrectly) describe their inner lives. If someone comes up with something as convoluted and insidious as psychoanalysis and is significantly smarter than the average patient, imagine what most retards will say about what's happening within them? Humans can't be trust to describe their "minds" so its irrelevant what you ask them to tell you about them. Just accept this and you'll have closed the door on idealism.
>>11911170
Kill yourself retard
>>11911190
goyim means nations, it does not mean cattle.
>>11911457
romanticism isn't clearly defined as "egoistic" the only people who say this are Leftist insects who are all tacitly utilitarian sadists.

[Anonymous No.11911533]

>>11911098
Jews are running western academic institutions and setting the agenda. They have thus propelled their kinsmen, perverts and sociopaths who were wrong about nearly everything like Freud and Marx, to undeserved positions of high status.

It won't make sense if you take it at face value and don't understand the ethnic angle/component.

You have to understand the key tenets of the jewish problem and the nature of jews to understand why these figures and ideas are presented as relevant.

[Anonymous No.11911565]

>>11911496
Goyim = non-jew cattle. This poster is a jew who shouldn't be posting on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11911581]

>>11911496
R
>isn't clearly defined
at all. Kindly toss Nietzsche aside and just read Faust. Otherwise..
youre stangely correct. Like (you) I'm also tacitly Spinozist as well. It can't be helped.

[Anonymous No.11911591]

>>11911581
Faust is trash, Goethe is a fat fucking pseud
>>11911565
No it means Nations, as in peoples and tribes. It refers to the Nations outside of Israel

[Anonymous No.11911607]

>>11911591
>Faust is trash
Well? So is television, porn, internet in general, one's mother..
Saying so does very little. The damage has been done.

[Anonymous No.11911613]

>>11911607
My mother is a product of the hyper modern environment and I will break you if you call her trash again boy.

[Anonymous No.11911618]

>>11911613
Learn to read, 'son'
'one's mother' isn't necessarily yours..

[Anonymous No.11911679]

>>11911098
Psychoanalysis is just the use of subjective tools to solve subjective problems. It uses the "language game" (yes, in the wittgenstein stense of the phrase) to solve its own problems. These problems occur within the individual but also occurs at the level of family and as large as the scale of nations.

The issue of falsifiability is different. It is falsifiable inasmuch as you accept emotions and other abstract properties of the mind, like "ego" or "belief" are real. I am in the former camp, it is easy for me to falsify something like "motivation," I can simply search my feelings and then say whether or not it is there. "I feel angry" and "I do not feel angry" are statements that can be used to test the falsifiability of anger as a subjective experience. If you mean you would like to measure it with a ruler, poke it with a needle,, or put it in a peti dish culture that's a different.

For the time being lets grant that things like anger and depression are real. People really do resolve some of these issues by simply interrogating like, "why did you feel angry when that happened?" Once the subject relives with a full understanding of what is going on, eg that his need for others company was not being met and this triggered a fear of abandonment, the awareness disempowers the fear and protects against future experiences that echo it. What is going on exactly, between analyst and analysand as they talk? They exchange a completely subjective, imaginary world that nonetheless has a real effect on their day to day lives. Its effectiveness compared to placebo or no treatment has been demonstrated (link below).

If you took a purely postivist material approach, you could say, "This man has irregular spikes in cortisol. He should take this sedative drug at such times." This doesn't solve the issue, and might even create a new addiction issue that compounds the problems. The original issue is existential, and calls for an existential approach. Psychoanalysis is not just old-school inkblots and dream interpretation either. There are many more "dry" and effective models like CBT, DBT and mindfulness

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236058462_Recognition_of_Psychotherapy_Effectiveness_The_APA_Resolution

[Anonymous No.11911681]

>>11911591
This kike is lying about the meaning of the word "goyim." You shouldn't be posting here, kike. GTFO.

[Anonymous No.11911721]

Psychoanalysis works in its own system. Analysing things in terms of Freud works because everyone believes it works

[Anonymous No.11911836]

First you wrote
"A generous assumption would be that these people only use psychoanalytic models as metaphors or as tools to understand psychology and society, similar to how people attribute human-like minds to living beings with vastly different brains. "

Then you wrote
"is he honestly saying that an ephemeral maelstrom, the "collective unconscious", is forcing it's cosmic cookie-cutter into the souls of our species?"

The definition of an archetype is nonsense (see uroboros) by design. Because any other definition of it would be wrong.
It seems to me that the people who like this kind of stuff are mostly interested in it as a means [method] to bridge the gap between humans and god and to do this they decided that the best tool would be an ill defined heuristic one.
So i really dont agree when you say you dont want slow communication with something completely different. You want slow communication because you dont know whats being communicated.

[Anonymous No.11912644]

>>11911496
>>11911591
>goethe is a pseud
>there's no reason to care about economic mystification of physical systems. The only things that exist are "dead matter" and living matter so we ought to frame every single analysis in those terms.
>Finally, therapy doesn't work, if you honestly believed what you're saying about everything being explainable by science (and it is)
We got ourselves an official droid brain. Are you a full on transhumanist science purist, anon?

[Anonymous No.11912680]

>>11911496
https://pcctherapy.com/studies-of-treatment-effectiveness-comparing-psychodynamic-therapies-with-cbt-and-medication/
>This review supports psychodynamic therapy as an effective form of therapy that is actually more effective over the long term than either medication or CBT. Additionally, because the gains associated with psychodynamic psychotherapy are more stable, the likelihood of relapse is diminished and therefore it has significant additional cost savings over time than CBT and medication where the likelihood of relapse remains high.