[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 336 KB, 960x1280, thread attention catcher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13276015 No.13276015 [Reply] [Original]

>>/lit/thread/S13273917
Cont.

>> No.13276034
File: 874 KB, 900x1273, 711902.1480221555.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13276034

>>13276015
>Quick question unrelated to the thread.
I was born in a low income home without a father and have been to bl*ck inner city schools all my life. Although my gpa is pretty good(3.5) I doubt it'll get me into any good schools because I flunked sophmore and junior year and only put on the big boy pants in Senior year. I graduated two weeks ago and want to get into a top 100 world school. Is it possible to abuse the fact that i've been to inner city bl*ck schools all my life without a dad? Plus I've been to three different highschools my whole 4 years because of this. Is it possible /lit/?

>> No.13276118

>>13276015
>>13276015
bump

>> No.13277344

>>13276015
i think the psychology/psychiatry defenders see themselves in a superior state to philosophy. so they can talk about it but only like it was a boring homework with no results in the end. they are this disingenious. they think their clasifications of emotions like bad or good are not a philosophy proposition but a total reality or the product of unquestionable progression of science. also, the psychology/psychiatry guy just go mad and blatantly lie with his bullshit of psychiatry cant retain anymore to anybody. and he normalize and dont see nothing wrong with justice and psychiatry go hand in hand. after reading and participating in that thread i began to question myself the psychology of psychologist like something interesting and terrifying at the same time... when the grey areas come, they acted more like a slippy politician than anything.

>> No.13277496

The inherent problem with psych: a set of symptoms is assigned to a psychoanalysis narrative. We all know that psychoanalysis is bullshit.

The brain stuff is strictly neuroscience. Prescription of brain medicine is medicine. Psych is pseudoscience.

>> No.13277498

>>13277496
>let's just throw every iteration of drug cocktails until one works
>that's medicine

>> No.13277546

>>13277496
Neuroscience is boring. It never actually gets at anything more substantial or interesting than trivial factoids like "neurons in the corpus callosum usually carry X mitochondria." The clinically applied neuroscience research, while actually useful, typically operates on woefully incomplete understandings; we're really just doing what seems to work, and most medications operate by this principle, crude bricks that we smash atypical brains with to make them behave and maybe be happy. Neuroscience isn't the Holy Grail you think it is and if you had ever read the slightest smattering about the subject you would be aware of this. It is necessary for there to be a synthesis of raw biological data and conscious experience, or the domain of philosophy, and psychology is that synthesis, and it has its failings, but so does everything else. Nobody ever complains about economics being witchdoctory even though by comparison to economics, psychology is as obvious and straightforward and rigorous and "scientific" as chemistry. The hate on psychology is largely a meme, articulations of which rarely come paired with either a critical understanding of the field, a critical understanding of related fields, a critical understanding of basic epistemological obstacles, or a critical understanding of how science is done. The funniest thing is that loathing of contemporary psychology is almost always almost immediately followed up by thoughtlessly and hypocritically unscientific opinion-shilling, that A, B, and C are obvious truths about the human condition, when the entire problem with psychology is that it addresses some of the most complex and difficult questions there are, and just defaulting to old opinions without more seriously evaluating them is disingenuous and stupid.

>> No.13277961

>>13277546
i think nobody take seriously economy like a science. the complain about psychiatry/psychology is because they have the right to say who you are mentally.
imagine a buddhist state where buddhists have the social legitimization to say what is conscience. there is always gonna be contempt about psychiatry because they are talking about conscience. something intangible and personal. i dont know what is be a human. but if you identify as a scientist or you think science is the way to know the conscience, everybody else who dont think that way is gonna be really fucked. we should be free to say who we are.
in fact, science embracing psychiatry probably will be a big factor of the decline of science as a truth giver. people gonna prefer inner freedom to a systematic truth about themselves. but psychiatrists dont know a shit what im talking about. they are enjoying his moment of glory.

>> No.13278897

>>13277961
*consciousness

>> No.13278907

>>13277546
i heard a neuro professor describe all brain-related sciences as "pointology" because we can "point on a screen or graph or piece of paper to what is lighting up or doing something when the patient reports something subjectively," but we are no closer to actually understanding what anything is

>> No.13279466

It's a shame that effortposting reliably kills /lit/ threads

>> No.13279880

>>13276015
bumper

>> No.13280485

>>13278907
Maybe that's it? Why invent new problems? Do you have any further empirical evidence as a basis for further findings?

>> No.13280496

psychologia rationalis is the only real psychology

>> No.13280497

>>13277546
Look, I don't have any problem with psychology as a field. However, it oversteps its boundaries when it claims to be science. There is simply no way to reconcile with the fact that inventing narratives to describe something that is inherently private is impossible to be empirical.

Keep doing practicing psych, but it is astrology tier. Sorry.

>> No.13280526
File: 71 KB, 550x664, de.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13280526

>>13280485
>Do you have any further empirical evidence
>DO YOU HAVE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTS??

IT BEGIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS

>> No.13280585

>>13280526
No, that's not what I'm saying. Consciousness obviously exist, however it is inherently private unless you're a solipsist. People stating their feelings about their conscious state is inherently social.

>> No.13280637

>>13280585
>falling for descartes this bad
lmao

>> No.13280642

>>13280637
are you having an experience of reading this? then let me know if you're a zombie or not.

>> No.13280659

>>13280585
Oh I thought you were saying that "maybe if the brain lighting up is all we can see, that's all there is, until we have evidence otherwise." I thought you were one of the epiphenomenalist fags.

Apologies, anon.

>> No.13280660

>>13280642
>misreading the post that bad
lmao
He was obviously critiquing your assumption that consciousness is private.

>> No.13280664

>>13280659
i *am* saying that in regards to psych. we've reached the limitation of science.

>> No.13280691

>>13280664
Why should the limitations of science mean the limitation of what actually, really exists though?

>> No.13280699

>>13280691
ok, but then accept that psych is not science.

>> No.13280707

>>13280660
how do i make my consciousness public then?

>> No.13280715

>>13280699
Of course. Like I was saying, I think we're on the same side here.

>> No.13280742

>>13280715
I don't really want to respond to this line of thought because it is irrelevant to phil of psych.

>> No.13280951

>>13276015
who is this cute cum dumpster

>> No.13281473

>>13280707
It already is

>> No.13281556

Thoughts on schizoanalysis and Guattari's institutional psychiatry?