[ 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: 80 KB, 1200x600, lacan-freud-e-jung-download-farofa-filosofica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17086809 No.17086809 [Reply] [Original]

Which one should I read? Which one got it the most right? They all have extensive bibliographies and I don't want to waste my time.

>> No.17086853

in retrospect freud is completely wrong so he's right. jung is ya fiction

>> No.17086881

>>17086809
>The "I am a serious scientist, oh, I've been debunked... just kidding: I was actually a philosopher the entire time >:) " trio
>Which one should I read?
lol

>> No.17086913

>>17086809
Read Freud but realise that their conceptions of Religion are totally fucking stupid. Read Jung as a philosopher, not as a psychoanalyst. Read Lacan as a sociologist, not as a philosopher.

>> No.17086929

>>17086809
freud and jung are based and worth reading. ive never read lacan so I cant comment on him.

>> No.17086950

>>17086929
Lacan is based

>> No.17087026

Lacan is the most right, but also has the worst writing style. Barton Fink’s The Lacanian Subject is probably better than actually reading Lacan as an approach. Lacan sees himself as just teasing out what’s already in Freud, so you need to have read Freud first to understand why he’s talking about things in the way he does. You also need to read Freud to understand why Jung’s notion of the unconscious is a total corruption.

>> No.17087203

>>17086809
Don't waste your time with modernity. We haven't advanced since the greeks. Start with them.

>> No.17087263

>>17086950
whats a good place to start with him? I'm pretty familiar with freud already

>> No.17087326

>>17086913
Freud's conception of religion is completely accurate. People hate the truth because it threatens their useful illusions, but if you were to honestly pursue the truth, you would come to realize this.

>> No.17087385

>>17086809
Jung's easier works can be read mostly without prior knowledge of other psychologists
To understand Lacan you'll need to read some Freud first.

>> No.17087396

>>17087203
Pseud-tier argument. The Greeks weren't bombarded by advertisement 24/7, didn't live under an oppressive economic system, weren't raised under modern technology and the internet, their culture wasn't commodified and had it's meaning surgically removed, didn't live in a hyper-individualistic yet at times artificially hyper-collectivist society and didn't live surrounded by rampant mental-illness and alienation. The Greeks lived in a radically different environment and their knowledge, while historically important obviously, simply isn't relevant anymore. The world has only gotten more alien, complex and surreal and we don't even have any say on it nor can we control it nor vote our way out of it nor escape from it, outside of suicide.

>> No.17087448

>>17086881
kek

>> No.17088918

>>17087396
I really identify with this. Thank you for posting, anon.

>> No.17089000

Psychoanalysis is largely bunk, but it does provide some useful metaphors for describing human behavior. You’d be better off just looking up the major concepts rather than digging through old tomes of mostly nonsense.

>> No.17089037

>>17086809
I think comparing Jung to Freud and Lacan is an offense to Jung. They are on whole different levels.
>>17089000
Not really. It has been scientifically shown to be effective and is practiced in European countries.

>> No.17089073

Christopher from the Sopranos
Jew
Tolkien Wizard

>> No.17089087

>>17086809
Honestly Jung is the most interesting and still very relevant today, but Freud is one of the most influential figures in 20th century culture and might give you a better understanding of many philosophers, writers, critics, etc, so read him if you are into that.
Lacan, well you need to read other authors before him and is the most obtuse out of all threee of them, read him if you are interested in post-modern philosophy but in that case you will need to read Freud first.

>> No.17089125
File: 33 KB, 500x500, 1548422720800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17089125

If Jung is bullshit how do I cope with the fact that most great intellectuals of the last century accepted his ideas in some way?

>> No.17089182
File: 51 KB, 605x818, flowers-look-like-animals-people-monkeys-orchids-pareidolia-9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17089182

In my psychology graduate program, we got a good dose of both Freud and Jung. Lacan was never once mentioned, not even a footnote. Make of that what you will.

Freud understood that we are animals, a part of nature, not some divine special beings.

Jung understood that we have a soul and are spiritual beings after all.

A midwit will find that contradictory, but they are both right.

>> No.17089214

>>17089125
>caring what """intellectuals""" think
ngmi

>> No.17089228

>>17089125
such as?

>> No.17089328

>>17089228
everyone talks about jung

>> No.17089336

>>17089125
by most you mean none

>> No.17089588

>>17086809
Didnt read Jung or Lacan yet but Freuds prose, at least in german, is very clear and easily readable. You can probably manage to read through his collected works in a month or so if you read two hours a day.

>> No.17089649

>>17086809
Patrician:
Freud

Midwit:
Lacan

Reddit:
Jung