/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16961979]

>don't read Freud bro he was already debunked and made irrelevant years ago
By whom exactly?

[Anonymous No.16961987]

by domesticated assets. reminder that the civilized state is a neurosis

[Anonymous No.16962010]

>>16961979
Popper

[Anonymous No.16962012]

>>16961979
90% of psychology and 100% of psychiatry are societal control instruments, Laing and Deleuze were very right

[Anonymous No.16962018]

>>16961987
Based as fuck

[Anonymous No.16962036]

>>16962012
>90% of psychology and 100% of psychiatry
I'm planning on studying psychology, maybe become a psychologist, I'm not a fan of pills unless they're an absolute must.
Why those numbers exactly?

[Anonymous No.16962049]

>>16961979
I'm a jungian chad so I don't care and continue to jack off to my schizo babble

[Anonymous No.16962066]

>>16962036
>I'm planning on studying psychology, maybe become a psychologis
In the next 25 years this profession will become absolutely useless

[Anonymous No.16962077]

>>16962036
the numbers are a rhetorical device and not intended as actual statistics

[Anonymous No.16962081]

>bro all dreams are just repressed sexuality
Yes, this has been refuted for like half a century now.

[Anonymous No.16962107]

>>16961979
All modern science? Psychological and psychiatric organizations? Common sense?

[Anonymous No.16962120]

>>16962012
What's your brillant solution to help schizophrenics or bipolar patients, then? If you want to do away with thymoregulators and neuroleptics, that is. Shoot them? Psychiatry is certainly not in a perfect state, but I don't know of any better solution for the case of these two illnesses.

Now, if we're talking about depression, it's another story. Antidepressants are a disgrace. Actual personality disorders like sociopathy are also untreatable at the moment.

[Anonymous No.16962121]

>>16962081
>>16962107
>still zero sources
>>16962012
>some french faggots

[Anonymous No.16962149]

>>16962121

[Anonymous No.16962250]

>>16962066
I'll probably hang myself before that. I'm not interested in it for the profession, I'm fascinated by the human mind and its states. If I can help people in the process (which can only amplify the discoveries), even better. But why do you think that it will become useless?
>>16962077
I had a feeling you didn't analyze hundreds of thousands of people to see if they're legit. You can still explain your views.

[Anonymous No.16962356]

>>16962250
>But why do you think that it will become useless?

I'm guessing he guesses that neurosciences will explain everything in a near future, rendering psychology, a softer science, useless.

[Anonymous No.16962389]

>>16962049
based. Jung is for based Pneumatic chads. Freud is for neurotic jews and their goblin minions.

[Anonymous No.16962419]

>>16961979
Daily reminder Freud was right about gays and that's why they canceled him.

[Anonymous No.16962431]

>>16962250
>I'll probably hang myself before that.

This is exactly why psychology is seen as such a joke of a profession. It attracts the exact same sort of nutjobs who should be sitting on the other side of the room, and usually have.

[Anonymous No.16962433]

>>16961987
tfw you can never escape normopathy

[Anonymous No.16962442]

>>16962389
>Jung is for low IQ
>Freud is for high IQ
true

[Anonymous No.16962456]

>>16962389
I like Ernst Becker take on the distinction. Jung's appeal to some dark shared psychic underbelly was ultimately a device for regression into an illusion of vicarious omnipotence, while Freud despite the coarseness of his take on religion displayed true stoicism by refusing to seek comfort in traditional system as he was dying from cancer.

You can larp about your pneumatic powers as much as you want, like any other larp this won't change the fact that death is coming for you. Why not have the basic courtesy of looking it in the face when it arrives?

[Anonymous No.16962474]

>>16962431
It's perhaps a symptom of the lineage between psychology and exorcistic practice. It's a common requirement for exorcists to have been exorcised themselves (in some tribes it's even a necessary and sufficient condition: all the exorcised, and only the exorcised, become exorcists).

[Anonymous No.16962481]

>>16961979
By anyone with 2 brain cells

[Anonymous No.16962495]

>>16962456
No one is afraid of death, retard-kun, people are afraid of the unknown, and supposing that there is simply nothing is just another cope

[Anonymous No.16962540]

>>16962442
go away, Schlomo
>>16962456
>'pneumatic powers'
>vicarious omnipotence
the fuck are you on about? your strawmen mean nothing to me. no one claims analytic psychology endows one with powers or makes you omnipotent. Jung writes constantly about confronting the dark truths of reality; he in no way advises people to take solace in comforting illusions. you're just a buttmad materialist who is too proud to admit that religious thinking may have even a shred of validity.

[Anonymous No.16962561]

>>16962495
pseud + retard

[Anonymous No.16962631]

>>16962495
Same thing, the existential fear is there no matter how you call it.
I also never said there is nothing beyond death, that is your own assumption. I said Jung was just dabbling in pseudo-occultism, with no serious claim to knowing what really lies beyond the pale.

>cope
Avoiding thinking about death is what copes are for anon, you get your definition backwards.

>>16962540
>no one claims analytic psychology endows one with powers
Anon larpers certainly do. But remove the allusion to pneumatic powers and my argument remain unchanged.

>makes you omnipotent
I didn't say Jung claims that it makes you omnipotent, that's why the word "vicarious" is there. But it's definitely a way to circumvent a conscience of existential limitations by imagin

>Jung writes constantly about confronting the dark truths of reality; he in no way advises people to take solace in comforting illusions
Yet he resorted to them in the end. Can't really blame him, the snake is pernicious.
>you're just a buttmad materialist
I'm not, you're just misreading my argument. Try again.
>too proud to admit that religious thinking may have even a shred of validity
The thinking I describe is straight out of Kierkegaard.
Religious thinking is a behemoth by the way (actually an entire species of them), it contains almost every strand of thinking ever conceived. So of course it would have a shred of validity (and much more than that), but that's a pretty vacuous statement.

[Anonymous No.16962654]

>>16962631
*by way of speculative constructions

[Anonymous No.16962676]

>>16962120
>What's your brillant solution to help schizophrenics or bipolar patients, then? If you want to do away with thymoregulators and neuroleptics, that is. Shoot them?
Do you think framing the question like this will peer-pressure me into answering "no?"

[Anonymous No.16962801]

>>16962676
>peer-pressure me into

Look at you using psychology notions, how sweet. Anyway, thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.16962873]

>>16961979
by his damn self though it's a fun tale if it were worldbuilding a mythos

>>16962356
i doubt
>explain everything
but it will easy exceed the validity and predictability of those haphazard meme piles that pretend to address the mind or brain but are more about asserting a dogma to hold sway over it

[Anonymous No.16963867]

>>16962389
>I don't like having my illusions challenged so I'll pretend they are deep and mysterious by linking them to a shadowy hinterland of unconscious darkness
Sad. Cope more.

[Anonymous No.16963892]

>>16962540
Jung repeatedly cloaks his theories in a basis that is "unknowable" and essentially makes them unfalsifiable. This creates a shelter from criticism where your illusions will never meet the challenge of reality. Any self respecting human adult should dismiss this childish cowardice.

[Anonymous No.16963911]

>You don't need Freud bro he has already been debunked

>Did you know all of Freud's ideas actually came from his daughter. Just another instance of why HIStory is wrong

[Anonymous No.16963936]

>>16962456
>Jung's appeal to some dark shared psychic underbelly was ultimately a device for regression into an illusion of vicarious omnipotence, while Freud despite the coarseness of his take on religion displayed true stoicism by refusing to seek comfort in traditional system as he was dying from cancer.

You could have just said that you never read Jung.

[Anonymous No.16963948]

>>16963892
If you're a Freud fan I don't think it's the smartest choice for you to attack others for being unfalsifiable when you're hardly exempt from being unfalsifiable yourself, too.

[Anonymous No.16964002]

>>16963948
Name a theory of Freud that is unfalsifiable. I'll try a few off the bat. Is the human mind composed of different systems such that you could draw lines between the "Id" and the "Ego" system in meaningful ways? This is a question which is entirely open to exploration and, with the correct tools, could be falsified or proven to be an insufficient theory. How about another one. Is there a form of "proto-sexuality" in children which eventually blossoms into mature sexuality but which carries modifications it acquired in childhood? Again, absolutely open to exploration whereby you could gather data which would either support or contradict this hypothesis. At best you can say his work has a great deal of his own personal musings which he may have put more stock into than the evidence would support

[Anonymous No.16964003]

>>16961979
By being a jew rat

[Anonymous No.16964097]

>>16964002
You're so far up Freud's asshole that you can't even see how his arbitrary positivist presuppositions make for a system that might as well amount to secular mysticism. Were it not for the zeitgeist wishing to replace religious hermeneutics with secular ones (in case of Freud), the political apparatus demanding their hermeneutics of suspicion (in case of the Frankfurt School), or structuralist/poststructuralist thinking needing some form of philosophical sorcery to make sense of their mishmash of reheated German philosophy in the 50s and 60s nobody would give a shit about Freudian psychoanalysis.

By the way - what I think makes people so dismissive towards Freud the most is how freudian ideas about sexual repression are so thoroughly woven into the modern discourse that they have become a kind of folk wisdom. Freudian and Lacanian ideas about mass media and advertising have survived from the 70s just fine, psychoanalysis is still portrayed in pop culture as a proven and powerful tool and Freud, to the extent that he is mentioned, is always portrayed as a far-seeing visionary and not a coke-addled dumpster fire of a human being.

[Anonymous No.16964159]

>>16964097
Stay mad. The talking cure actually works.

[Anonymous No.16964223]

>>16962442
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.16964248]

>>16961979
>By whom exactly?
But you already know that.

[Anonymous No.16964277]

>>16962676
>peer pressure
wat

[Anonymous No.16964303]

>>16961979
nah he is based
>>16962066
imagine thinking the demand for therapists won't keep rocketing up along with the growing isolation and inequality

[Anonymous No.16964329]

>>16961987
Please recc psychology books looking at the human mind not purely taking for granted civilization.

[Anonymous No.16964347]

>>16963867
I have never heard of a lifelong christian who has ever given Jung a second thought when it comes to religion.

[Anonymous No.16964359]

>>16963892
>We should never look beyond the concrete facts that industry owned nerds can prove

[Anonymous No.16964465]

>>16961979
By Adolf Grünbaum

>>16962010
Retard

[Anonymous No.16964549]

>>16962036
Anon, both one of my best friends and one of my siblings are intelligent people who decided to study psychology in university. Both quit after about 2 years because they realised that modern psychology is filled with pseudoscience.
>oh this baby had a weird look on his face when we put him in a completely unfamiliar environment? must necessarily mean that it's thinking exactly "XYZ" and that all babies do that all the time

[Anonymous No.16964925]

>>16964359
>We should believe in made up shit that hasn't and in fact, can't be proven

[Anonymous No.16965143]

>>16964097
This is a 1000 iq post, but go easy on the postmodernists. Not all of them relied on Freud.
Also this post reminds me about watching Alfred Hitchcock movies with my dad and listening to him ramble about Lacan shit.

[Anonymous No.16965398]

>>16965143
Tell us more about how that post reminded you of your earlier years and of your father. Is your over praise of such a mediocre post indicative of some unresolved emotions towards your father? Did you perhaps never win his admiration to the degree that you wanted?

[Anonymous No.16965433]

>>16961979
Himself. The will to death was a lazy notion created for it's paradoxical nature, since that is what put food on the table in 20th century philosophy, which had absolutely no evidence supporting it, even though Freud spent such a large amount of time trying to find evidence for it. Usually, a prosteriori philosophy is performed in the opposite way, where evidence is collected and a conclusion is drawn from that mass.

[Anonymous No.16965487]

>>16964925
We should act as if things are true if they help us achieve what we want. This is most useful, especially, in those very regions of experience where something can never be proven (the prime example being causality, for perceiving changes externally leaves the internal necessity of their connection unknown). The most that can be hoped for in regards to these areas is the useful projection of an imagination with external coherence with what we know and internal coherence with itself between it's parts (all this in regards to the basic laws of logic, the principle on noncontradiction). To negate any part of what I just said would be folly.

[Anonymous No.16965514]

>>16962120
i was dignoswed with bipolar and my doctor told me i dont even need medication lol, haven't taken any for 3 years and have literally not had a single problem

mental health isn't real and psychiatry is a scam, nobody killed themselves before 1880 (not counting people who were going to be raped and tortured and stuff)

[Anonymous No.16965576]

>>16965514
If that doctor tells you tomorrow that you have terminal lung cancer, but you happen to breath your way to a 100 years without ever feeling any struggle, will you also conclude that lung cancer is a scam, or will you maybe consider your diagnosis was wrong?

[Anonymous No.16965592]

>>16961987
Could you retype this in English ?

[Anonymous No.16965703]

>>16964925
Every great scientist knew that rationality should be treated as a slave to intuition. That isn’t to say that you should believe stuff just because someone says it, but coming from a place of pure skepticism isn’t productive or interesting. Flat earthers are a pretty good example of how far you can take skepticism, and they make a good point. If everything you “know” comes from some official whom you are told you’re supposed to trust, how much do you really even know? Real knowledge can only come from experience, not an autistic list of facts that you have been told.

[Anonymous No.16966017]

>>16964303
i'm pretty sure he means useless in that it will go under a renaissance period or people will finally realize current """understanding""" of the mind is just a bunch of bullshit, like it was when freud and jung made it up

[Anonymous No.16966029]

>>16961979
>freud's theories have been disproven
is there a bigger plebflag? everything is about sex to them, yet they say that freud's theories have been somehow disproven. peak hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.16966055]

>>16965514
Which type of bipolar do you have. Schizos and bipolar1 are usually not very functional

[Anonymous No.16966102]

>>16965703
When it comes to scientific hypotheses about which we have very little ability to conduct controlled experiments that can measure and account for all variables we should follow neither intuition nor reason nor evidence, we should admit we don't know, and list possibilities without fully believing any of them.

Freud said some interesting things but people who full on believe him don't really have any reason to do so.

[Anonymous No.16966111]

>>16966055
can't remember but I had unipolar, manic episodes but no depressive ones

[Anonymous No.16966155]

>>16966111
Full on manic episodes, like 1-2 month long, ridiculous amounts of energy, barely sleeping, delusions, etc.? And have they stopped?

[Anonymous No.16966233]

>>16964549
Sure your friends aren't from early 1900's America?

[Anonymous No.16966444]

>>16961979
by common sense

[Anonymous No.16966451]

>>16961979
By the Early Life section.

[Anonymous No.16966500]

By Jung, primarily. Freud's theories exist outside of real replicability or empirical research, which is what Jung struggled to do throughout his career. There's a reason Jung's typology and language/symbology association concepts are still being explored in modern academic psychology and *smokes crack and rambles* isn't.

[Anonymous No.16966546]

>>16961979
>By whom exactly?
By himself when he refused to allow himself to be scrutinized through his own methods.

[Anonymous No.16966585]

>>16965703
>If everything you “know” comes from some official whom you are told you’re supposed to trust, how much do you really even know?
This isn't a sound criticism of established scientific facts when the crux of the scientific process is decentralization of testing and validative authority. A few hours on Google and a few dozen bucks at a hardware store and you can easily reproduce experiments approximating the curvature of the Earth accurately in various conditions, as well as test and demonstrate incorrections in the models used by Flat Earthers.
That the scientific community is facing a crisis of reproducibility at the moment due to lax standards and cronyism is immaterial to the validity of the process itself.

[Anonymous No.16966600]

>>16961979
Retroactively refuted by Sheikh Guénon (PBUH) and Parmenides (PBUH), alhamdulillah

[Anonymous No.16966604]

>>16962010
no

[Anonymous No.16966644]

>>16963911
who are you quoting ?

[Anonymous No.16966740]

>>16966546
read any of his writings, he regularly put his own inner most thoughts, feelings, desires, and impulses into his work to exemplify certain points

[Anonymous No.16966937]

>>16966740
>he regularly put his own inner most thoughts, feelings, desires, and impulses into his work
Prove that he was sincere and not a charlatan. He gives that creepy salesman vibe that needs to be reconciled. Why did he refuse Jung's request to be allowed to psychoanalyze him if he was sincere regarding the purpose and methods of psychoanalysis?

[Anonymous No.16966957]

>>16966740
But he did not let himself be psychoanalyzed

[Anonymous No.16967092]

All of psychology is baseless pseudoscientific nonsense.

Go into neuroscience if you're actually interested in the human brain. Of course, that requires not being a STEMlet with a pathological fear of maths, which is what drives people into psychology in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16967560]

>>16965398
don't even try getting freudian on me you bastard

[SAGE No.16968090]

>>16961979

Franz Brentano (semi)notoriously debunked him in class in regards to his concept of the unconscious.
I haven't read him much, but I assume that the majority or perhaps entirety of his works also falls flat if you accept Husserl's take on psychologism.

[Anonymous No.16968414]

>>16966102
>>16966585
I believe in the validity of studies when it comes to physics and I know Freud was off the mark in many instances. The field of research I’m most familiar with is nutrition and the consensus on nutrition is changing constantly and it is due to industry influence half the time. I suspect that this is the case in many other areas of research as well. I’m not trying to question the validity of all established scientific facts, but there are probably many fewer established scientific facts than you think. So few that you could never talk about anything speculative without some nerd saying that it can’t be proven.

[Anonymous No.16968451]

>>16967092
You don't need to learn math at all to get into neuroscience. Biologists are all mathlets.

[Anonymous No.16968465]

>>16966017
Freud and Jung may have made it up, but they were also right about almost everything

[Anonymous No.16968470]

>>16968451
Nope, the math requirement is why I'm a lawyer now. Had to take matrix algebra or some shit like that and washed out of neuro. Why enter academia when you get 90k a year fresh out of law school doing in-house counsel? It's easy too.

[Anonymous No.16968472]

>>16961979
>By whom exactly?
By the advancement of common knoweldge, his core ideas are built into our society now.

[Anonymous No.16968480]

>>16961979
By any serious psychologist. Freudian psychotherapy is equally affective as NO TREATMENT AT ALL

Popular among girls as a spiritual replacement. Shameful for men to take him seriously

Freud was just a very charismatic cokehead before there was such a thing so had a big advantage in talking absolute bollocks 50 years before coke got big and everyone caught up

t. PhD in psychology

[Anonymous No.16968505]

>>16968470
Was it an undergraduate degree? As far as i know most people enter through biology backgrounds and don't really do anything related to mathematics. Of course, it's interdisciplinary work so the teams have physicists and mathematicians as well.

[Anonymous No.16968578]

>>16962631
Having any idea about what death is including nothingness IS thinking about death.

[Anonymous No.16968586]

>>16962631
>I also never said there is nothing beyond death
I never said you did

[Anonymous No.16968603]

No one in this thread mentioned Frederick Crews, debunker in chief of Freud?

And on the pages of the New York Review of Books, no less?

C'mon, guys. Pick it up a notch. You're slipping.

[Anonymous No.16968633]

His data.

His entire sample size was menopausal Jewish women with one German child.

He manipulated women to cheat on their husbands, smoke and get more fucked up for his clout.

He did pioneer the evil psychological health industry of the west after all.

[Anonymous No.16968923]

>>16968480
What do you base on actual psychological treatment?

[Anonymous No.16968955]

>>16964329
Society against the state by clastres, zerzan

[Anonymous No.16969367]

>>16962250
neuroscience and cognitive science are what youre looking for
psychologists are the same as teachers, cops, and managers. the state's control mechanisms. fascists.

[Anonymous No.16969382]

>>16962389
i like jung, but some of his stuff is a bit of a reach even for me and i believe in literal magick. archetypes arent really a thing. the collective unconscious is maybe a thing but probably not any different from just social contagion

[Anonymous No.16969408]

>ctrl + f
>only one (1) mention of Brentano and from a person who admittedly didn't read him
it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.16969524]

>>16969408
Tell us more about him. It sounds as you like him, I'd love to hear from you.

[Anonymous No.16969553]

>>16968480

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23291905_Effectiveness_of_Long-term_Psychodynamic_Psychotherapy

[Anonymous No.16969736]

>>16967560
Overt hostility is an interesting response, anon. Is there something deeper at play here?

[Anonymous No.16970142]

>>16969736
Typical Freudposter response. You attempt to analyze eyeryone, even your fellow anonymous posters. Psychology is but an instrument of state control as >>16969367 says. Freud's invented pathologies were products of their time's societal conditions, and today's pathological behaviors differ considerably. Evidence like the disappearance of the hysteria diagnosis bears this out. When women gained more rights and therefore were subject to less medical control, hysterical women were recategorized and their discontents recognized as non-pathological. Surely you don't believe hysteria is a useful medical concept? Most of Freud's ideas are like this.

[Anonymous No.16971095]

>>16970142
Hysteria's fall from grace was entirely political, and the core idea retains merit. This is evidenced by the fact that even referring to a woman who is clearly hysterical, as hysterical, will get you universal political condemnation. There may also have been certain dietary deficiencies which made it more prevalent in Freud's time, but the core of hysteria absolutely remains with us today. Your denial, again and again, of entire categories of pathology are clearly a defense which you have adopted against the light of reality being shed on some latent (or possibly acute) pathology. I sincerely hope you find the help you need, anon. Best of luck.

[Anonymous No.16971355]

>>16961979
>dude doing literally anything means that you’re gay and want to fuck your mum lmao
Psychologists should be the first up against the wall.

[Anonymous No.16971869]

>>16961979
Neoliberalism—allegedly.

[Anonymous No.16972017]

>>16962120
Yeah schizophrenics can get eugenic’d, you will release them from their torment, and make sure their genes do not cause anyone else to suffer in the future. Schizo’s hate meds anyway, better to put a mad dog out of its misery than forcefully dope it up until it can’t even be conscious half the time.

[Anonymous No.16972110]

I tried to fuck a shampoo bottle at the age of 4-5 in the shower. I got an erection from it. My mom came in the bath and i stopped what i was doing but she asked me if i did something shameful/forbidden. I was legit confused how she knew and then learned that the erection gave it away and somebody else can tell that you are aroused/did something when your dick is hard.

What are the implications of this according to freud? (srs post)

[Anonymous No.16973654]

>Thread about psychiatry
>People that obviously have no more than a superficial, youtube knowledge of the topic voice violent and unreasonable opinions about it

Every time. Why? What is it about the words "bipolar" or "schizophrenic" that makes people willingly talk out of their arse? Educate yourself, you fucks, if you're so interested. Go be a nurse or a doctor in a psychiatry ward, read actual litterature about the topic, and come back then.

[Anonymous No.16974930]

>>16966937
>>16966957
Just reading the red book now, I believe Freud was very tied to his views on the unconscious, and wasn't open to Jung's less sex-focused approach. Jung seemed like a bro from the letters I read, like that good friend who would call you out on when you're full of shit (in this case how Freud runs away from his own unconscious).

[Anonymous No.16974950]

>>16969382
> archetypes arent really a thing
no, youre just a narcissist
but psychology is useless