HE CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

[Anonymous No.19923669]

What do you make of Freud and his theories?
From what I understand, Freud is completely correct about human psychology, and the only reason he is ridiculed for his theory on child sexuality towards their opposite sex parent, is because people are too cowardly to actually dive into their own psychology. Nobody wants to see themselves for what they are, which is an animal, and therefore they try to cope and pretend that Freud was wrong, and that they are these perfect beings who are exactly what they think of themselves.

You see, the you unclench your body and ease up on yourself, and dont shame yourself for whatever you might feel, it becomes apparent that what Freud is describing is the psychology of the fully conscious human. The white man is the most unconscious human of all, so it is incredibly hard for him to ever reach this true state of himself, because he does not want to feel these deeply repressed feelings.

Basically, Freud did it first, and Freud did it best.

[Anonymous No.19923677]

>>19923669
His child sexuality theory was a cover he was forced to make after he started repeoting that like 50% of jews sexually abuse their kids and got in trouble for it

[Anonymous No.19923706]

i dont understand why the oedipal complex was even such a big deal. even if it was true, even if young boys were attracted to their mothers - does it really matter? i dont understand how that is somehow responsible for all of his psychological growth and problems.

[Anonymous No.19923719]

>>19923677
Sexuality towards family does not mean that you necessarily want to fuck a family member. It means that the family shapes your developing sexuality as a child, and that sex is an integral part of your development.
Freud gets misunderstood because we are interpretting him form a perverted and rotten American society.
Freud was not a pervert, which is why he is able to talk so logically and freely about this subject of sexuality, because sexuality is not perverted at its core. In fact sexuality is actually very wholesome.

[Anonymous No.19923734]

>>19923669
Very interesting but blatantly unscientific. I love reading about him, and I like to do essays on him for my coursework because he's batshit insane.

[Anonymous No.19923748]

>>19923719
A huge number of Freud's (largely Jewish) patients reported being sexually abused as children. He invented his child sexuality theory to account for this; he said they were making it up as a fantasy.

[Anonymous No.19923752]

>>19923706
Because it undermines many assumptions about human nature, and who many of us are at our core.
The sexuality is very important because it shows us that human beings are not what the British enlightenment thinkers thought we were, and that the whole bulk of humanity truly does not understand itself.
Understanding humanity is the key to everything. It is truly the only worthwhile pursuit we should be working towards.

[Anonymous No.19923787]

>>19923734
Thats the thing tho, is that Freud is not insane at all. The only vibes that Freud gives off is clarity and truth, since he is coming from a very vulnerable place and putting his own person on the line to say his theories.
Freud is as real as it gets. Its the rest of humanity that is batshit fucking insane.

[Anonymous No.19923792]

>>19923706
Because no one actually understands it. It doesn’t literally mean the son consciously wants to sleep with his mother. It’s just about a unconscious development regarding the child realizing the parents have a relationship he will never be a part of.

[Anonymous No.19923807]

>>19923677
>>19923748
meds chud

[Anonymous No.19923811]

>>19923807
You're actively promoting a man who voluntarily covered up the rape of children and invented a perverted inversion of truth to hide it.

[Anonymous No.19923825]

>>19923792
Well put.
It becomes very hard to talk Freud with westerners from the US or Britain. because they want to scientifically pick apart every little detail of his theories without actually getting to the heart/ reality of what he is saying.
Talking Freud requires a huge amount of vulnerability on the part of us, because it requires admitting some things that are too easy to ridicule and laugh off in a smug way like Americans always do when confronted with information that does not fit with their self image.

[Anonymous No.19923831]

>>19923825
>westerners
Well that explains your obvious low iq

[Anonymous No.19923837]

>>19923734
basically this

[Anonymous No.19923839]

>>19923831
And your "high iq" is why you are still a virgin.

[Anonymous No.19923848]

>>19923811
>You're actively promoting a man who voluntarily covered up the rape of children and invented a perverted inversion of truth to hide it.
i loled so hard i spit out my adrenochrome

[Anonymous No.19923855]

>>19923839
I lost my virginity when I was 15. I'm guessing you're a short ugly dumb indian or something similar

[Anonymous No.19923884]

>>19923855
Look dude, this isnt a competition. Were trying to have an intellectual discussion on Freud, and your penis insecurity is making you sound like a hateful little troll.
Please go to /pol/, and bring your little dick and little brain with you.

[Anonymous No.19923891]

>>19923884
You are an indian arent you lmao. My dick is probably literally twice the length of your

[Anonymous No.19923942]

>>19923669
Freud's studies lack objectivity and falsifiability. They are not scientific. That is the primary reason why many, in my opinion correctly, discard Freud's theories. That's not to say that they're not fascinating to read into, nor is it to say that they don't raise questions about oneself. However, if one believes that Psychology is a science, as I do, then one must take Freud's studies with an immense grain of salt as they simply do not follow the scientific method in any way. Also, there is evidence to suggest, as other anons have stated, that Freud did cover up the sexual abuse of his female patients as it made him uneasy; that being said, I believe that this has been highly distorted by feminist scholars of Freud.

[Anonymous No.19923950]

>>19923807
>>19923848
Wdym "chud"? The 'Freudian Coverup' is a theory that has been pushed primarily by feminists. Fucking retard

[Anonymous No.19923960]

>>19923950
feminists are seething chudettes in my book of chuds

[Anonymous No.19923978]

>>19923942
You cannot prove the mind with science. You prove the mind by analyzing what the mind thinks and does, and then you try to tie it all together with a theory, as Freud has done.
Freud represents a failing of Science as a whole, showing that you cannot explain the mystical mind of a human being with science.
We are not machines, we are human beings, and therefore you cannot prove anything real with science.
In fact, the more you try to cling to science, the more and more miserable you will be when you find that science cannot answer any of the most important questions regarding our human species.
Secondly, I dont give a shit what gripes you have with Freud. Is he right or is he wrong. Dont start brining up all this personal life shit as if that is an argument.

[Anonymous No.19923990]

>>19923978
chud

[Anonymous No.19924020]

>>19923825
ok. what is the heart/reality of what he is saying? i have no shame. i will entertain anything you say.

[Anonymous No.19924041]

>>19923978
I'm not bringing up his personal life as an argument you fucking mong brain. I'm using it to demonstrate that his Oedipus theory could potentially have just been a reaction to and a way of justifying the widescale child sexual abuse of his patients you cum guzzling tramp. Furthermore, you wrinkled prolapse, the mind is inexorably and completely linked to the brain, which is an organ. Since the brain is an organ it is linked to and explained by biology, which is a science, you bathwater slurping bog monster. Now fuck off, sewer urchin

[Anonymous No.19924045]

>>19924020
There is no one answer fits all. It depends on the person and what their life situation is.
However, I would be able to read you like a book if I talked to you for a couple minutes person to person.

But generally, it is that you are deeply unconscious and neurotic due to a shitty life upbringing, and that you likely have a lot of mental trauma you are carrying, and that you are not a fully incorporated human being, as you have repressed many crucial and fundamental parts of being a human being.

[Anonymous No.19924069]

>>19924020
The heart of Freud, is that we are all miserable and neurotic due to a fundamental misunderstanding of our human nature, and what it is that we are.
Freud was never able to tie together all of his theory into a thesis, but I would say that the conclusion of Freud is that we should all feel good all the time, and feeling bad all the time is a unique feature of modern society and civilization.
Freud would probably say that we can also fix all the issues in the world through an understanding of ourselves, since having that empathetic understanding of ourselves would be an end to all conflict and unhappiness.

[Anonymous No.19924090]

>>19924041
You will never get anywhere with that scientific approach. You have to understand that the body is a wholistic thing. Everything in the body is one thing, and there is no way to understand the body by thinking that you can understand the mind without also understanding the body.
Mind and body are one. The mind is not somethnig floating out there in the air, it is a tangible, physical thing that is tied to the body.

[Anonymous No.19924161]

>>19923719
Frued was actually quite conservative. He did not believe sexuality should be liberated but that repressing it was healthy and good for the individual. He would probably say that a preoccupation of sexuality is itself unhealthy

The true radical was Reich who believed in completely freeing our sexuality and desires and that this was the only way we could obtain happiness. Reich believed that preventing the complete pleasure, release and surrender of sex was what caused neurosis.

[Anonymous No.19924185]

>>19923669
> Since the brain is an organ it is linked to and explained by biology, which is a science

Neurobiology hasn't achieved anything notable in explaining how the human mind works since it came into existence, and it probably never will. Reductionism is a hoax and you're a retard for buying into it.

> Freud's studies lack objectivity and falsifiability. They are not scientific.

Doesn't matter since psychoanalysis is scientifically proven to work and is consiedered just as effective as CBT in treatment of mental disorders. Do your research retard.

[Anonymous No.19924189]

>>19923669
Plato BTFO'd him in Phaedo

[Anonymous No.19924195]

>>19924185
sorry, meant >>19924041

[Anonymous No.19924199]

He's basically the progenitor of a decent theory of the subconscious, but modern psychology doesn't like him now even though it owes him a huge debt.

[Anonymous No.19924230]

>>19924161
I think that they both have found the issue, which is that something is wrong with the modern human, however to fix that, is not something that can be written about in a dusty book nobody will ever read.
I think that we should all become who we are, with as little repressions as possible.
Therefore, we can see what people are fit to reproduce a lot, and which people are toxic and are degenerating us as a species.
We should take Freud, and use his work to become a much fuller human being, and to try and make something more of ourselves.

[Anonymous No.19924254]

>>19923669
Nonsense and drivel.

[Anonymous No.19924281]

>>19924185
Your mother doesn't want to fuck you.

[Anonymous No.19924287]

>>19923734
You are either not very intelligent or you haven't really engaged with his work if you think that he is "batshit insane".
Also, please explain how concepts such as the unconscious can be made scientific in the modern sense of the term, unless you outright deny it.

[Anonymous No.19924311]

>>19924189
Plato and Freud would be absolute bros if they were alive in the same time.

[Anonymous No.19924317]

>>19923734
The reason you love reading about him is because a deeper part of you finds truth in what he is saying.

[Anonymous No.19924444]

>A similar view of a homosexually inclined but chaste Leonardo appears in a famous 1910 paper by Sigmund Freud, Leonardo da Vinci, A Memory of His Childhood, which analysed a memory Leonardo described of having been attacked as a baby by a bird of prey that opened his mouth and "stuck me with the tail inside my lips again and again.”

>According to Freud, this was a childhood fantasy based on the memory of sucking his mother's nipple. He backed up his claim with the fact that Egyptian hieroglyphs represent the mother as a vulture, because the Egyptians believed that there are no male vultures and that the females of the species are impregnated by the wind.

>However, Freud's premise was based on an erroneous translation of the bird as a vulture, leading him in the direction of Egyptian mythology, when it was actually a kite in Leonardo's story. This disappointed Freud because, as he confessed to Lou Andreas-Salomé in a letter of 9 February 1919, he regarded the Leonardo essay as "the only beautiful thing I have ever written".

Stupid fucking charlatan hack Jew

[Anonymous No.19924454]

>>19924444
nice digits but what lol

[Anonymous No.19924468]

>>19924189
Freud literally followed Plato on the question of Eros though, he acknowledges this in Unbehagen in der Kultur

[Anonymous No.19924591]

Absolutely based person.
The fact that the entire field of psychology is running in terror from his shadow for 100 years now while trying to brand all his theories as unscientific or whatever speaks to his absolute domination of the field.

[Anonymous No.19924607]

The stuff about renouncing the desire of/for the mother, accepting castration, and gaining entrance into the symbolic/society by assuming a gendered role/loss is extremely accurate.
You can see the result of incompetent fathers or mothers that undermined the father in this very website.

[Anonymous No.19924635]

Just had a course seminar where my classmates were to analyze a homosexual man with a dominant mother and submissive father. I asked (in opposition) if that dynamic might be influencing the man in becoming homosexual, since they mentioned the Oedipal complex, yet nothing about his homosexuality. They were stunned. My teacher was very uncomfortable, saying that we as a culture had went past this. Bad atmosphere all around. It was fantastic.

[Anonymous No.19924669]

>>19924635
Haha based

[Anonymous No.19924985]

>>19924041
Prove it scientifically.

[Anonymous No.19925009]

Beyond the Pleasure Principle should be read by everyone.

[Anonymous No.19925011]

>>19924635
I swear every homosexual I've known has had this combination of parents + early sexual experiences. I would love to know if there is any literature on this topic because it's absurd how common it seems to be.

[Anonymous No.19925446]

>>19924287
I've engaged with his work, primary texts etc. The man himself was very unstable and his work is pretty kooky. Like I'm sorry but childhood shitting discipline leading to anal retentive/expulsive personalites in adults? I don't see it. The broad aspects of his personality theory are alright but his writing on psychosexual development is nuts. I think some of his writing must have been intentionally provocative.

The unconcious can't be made scientific at all because his ideas about it are unfalsifiable.

>>19924317
I love reading leftist bullshit too, does that mean it's revealing a deeper truth to me?

[Anonymous No.19925492]

>>19925446
If you love reading left wing stuff, that is because there is something deeper you are seeing when you read it.
You are ascending above politics, and starting to see that you truly wish to see a thriving, healthy, human race.
You like some left wing stuff because they have many ideas that are true, and many that are not as true.
Even as a right winger you can admit that.
That used to be me too. I worried so much about politics, and the political quadrant, until I realized that I agree with pretty much all politics, as long as they serve to make the human race happy and healthy.

[Anonymous No.19926367]

>>19925492
This revolutionary take applies to anyone with any sort of political beliefs.

If you Freud shills are going to claim I'm not smart enough to interpret him you should prove you're not retarded yourself by coming up with an intelligent defense of his theory. Posting bullshit like this is not proof of your superior intellect.

[Anonymous No.19926382]

>>19923669
Freud's good but Jung is better.

[Anonymous No.19926385]

>>19925446
You take things literally and zoom in some secondary aspects of an ingenious theory to make it fall. All Freud doubters do this. At least you didn't argue about the falsifiability bullshit, I can give you that

[Anonymous No.19926500]

>>19925492
And the sky is blue.

[Anonymous No.19926742]

>>19925446
>unfalsifiable
So you reject the unconscious then? Because you seem to be implying that the only things worth consideration are those which are examinable via "science".
Or will you admit that science cannot span over the world

[Anonymous No.19926754]

>>19923669
> "What can be the value of an unrepresented representation?"
Imagine getting your theory literally preemptively btfo by a single sentence of your own teacher.

[Anonymous No.19927381]

>>19923942
>Freud's studies lack objectivity and falsifiability. They are not scientific.
Remind me why this is bad.
Either Freud was so wrong that there's an entire field built around proving him wrong or he was right about a lot of things but lacked the ability to do live up to standards 100 years later

[Anonymous No.19927816]

>>19923677
this, he folded last minute because he found out everyone was sexuality abused

[Anonymous No.19928262]

>>19926742
Obviously we have unconcious processes, we study them today using cognitive psych.

If you're going to make claims like frueds, you have to be able to test them for anyone to take them seriously. You can't, so no one does. If freud was a philosopher he would be a bad one. But he's not. He tries to be a scientist and for the time he was alright I guess but we know too much now to take him seriously.

>>19927381
Obviously science cannot span over the world but that doesn't prove frued right. He was interesting but the reaction against him was more useful to the field of psychology than his work ever was. You're right anon: people got so fucking fed up with introspection and unscientific speculation about internal states they came up with the behaviorist program to make psychology an actual science.

>>19926385
You don't understand falsifiablily if you think what I said was a good thing. The theory fails on it's own, because there's no way to ever prove it wrong or right. Just "seeming correct" is not a good standard for a theory. If we took it as philosophy we still wouldn't have enough proof for any of his claims.

[Anonymous No.19928358]

>>19928262
>people got so fucking fed up with introspection and unscientific speculation about internal states they came up with the behaviorist program to make psychology an actual science.
They came up with behaviorism to be able to accept "scientific" gibs from state grants. Nothing after billions in funding and decades of CBT/psychopharma research results in better outcomes than psychodynamic therapy does lmao.

[Anonymous No.19928529]

>>19928358
That's pretty wild, have any sources for that claim?

[Anonymous No.19928791]

>>19928529
>Have any sources for that claim?

[Anonymous No.19928825]

>>19926382
Jung is bordering on Schizophrenia with some of his theories.
Freud is scientific, and Jung is just too smart for his own good. Jung is more of a story teller than a psychologist.

[Anonymous No.19928988]

>>19928825
>Freud is scientific

Lol what.

>Jung is more of a story teller than a psychologist.

That's the point. If you ask neuroscientists or cognitive psychologists about dreams, for example, they'll typically respond by saying that they have a role in memory, etc. The actual content of the dream, though, is completely outside the scope of scientific inquiry, because no satisfying materialist explanation exists yet for consciousness. But they certainly mean something, and so does the recurrence of the same symbols in the nightly dreams of millions of different people across thousands of years of human history. People have understood since the dawn of time that the arts, literary theory, etc. are valuable tools for understanding the human condition and, despite what scientism tells you, they still are.

[Anonymous No.19929011]

>>19923669
These threads are always cringe because people on this board can only name two psychodynamic thinkers. There's been like a century of psychoanalysis since Freud. Erikson is one of my favorites. Most of Freud's ideas are best thrown out (e.g., stages of psychosexual development) but some of his basic principles are helpful.

[Anonymous No.19929390]

>>19923669
Any of his theories make any rational sense. Simply put it's pure imagination.

[Anonymous No.19929395]

>>19923669
jewish pedophile who worked for ZOG to poison the well of the US. no explanation at all why he suddenly rose to popularity given his fringe beliefs which magically influenced all hollywood for example. hmm wonder what TRIBE was bankrolling that SIGMUND FRAUD

[Anonymous No.19929453]

>>19924607
can you though

[Anonymous No.19929600]

>>19928262
You're so outrageously off field about "science", "prove it" etc. + what his whole work was about, that it's pointless to argue.
I see it more as a praxis that helps some people and doesn't give a fuck if some anglos find it unfalsifiable, whatever that means.

[Anonymous No.19929618]

>>19923669
Freud is absolutely retarded and wrong about ev erything, just as whole psychoanalys, psychodynamics and various bulshit forks like trauma informed therapy etc.

[Anonymous No.19929651]

>>19924444
this
Freud is fucking pseud filter of people that believe they just got to the tabooized, non-aparent or unconsciously un-revealed TRUTH about consciounsess or human experience but in reality all Freud is is semi-psychotic pseudo-philosophical drivel that is at least internaly coherent but nevertheless immune to outside criticism due to very fact of it being absolutely "of its own" kind and you can literally said anything as long as it is coherent with its inner bulshit premises.
Fucking hack.

[Anonymous No.19929756]

>>19928529
If you mean the studies, they are numerous. Nothing finds that anything is more effective than what some austrian dudes thought up a century ago. There is no source for my claim that modern psychology was captured by state institutions as it is evident.

>https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12070899
>Post hoc analyses revealed no significant differences between treatment conditions in the subgroup of moderately depressed patients receiving psychotherapy only, and noninferiority of psychodynamic therapy relative to CBT was shown for all posttreatment outcome measures in this group of patients. These findings add to the evidence base of psychodynamic therapy for depression.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23680854/
>The response rate of 52% achieved by psychodynamic therapy is comparable to rates reported for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (55%) (40), for pharmacotherapy in general (55%) (26, 40, 41), and for cognitive behavioral group therapy (52.9%, 51.7%) (26, 41). The
remission rate of 27% was also comparable to rates reported for cognitive-behavioral group therapy (23.5%) (41) and phenelzine (25.7%) (41). The 52% response rate for psychodynamic therapy clearly exceeded that reported for pill placebo (31%) (40); this also applies to the psychodynamic therapy remission rate (27% compared with 7%) (27). The psychodynamic therapy response rate was somewhat higher than that recently reported for interpersonal therapy (42%) (39).

[Anonymous No.19929795]

>>19928358
>>19929756
moron

[Anonymous No.19929837]

>>19923669
I have a psychic aversion to Jews who aren't named Stine

[Anonymous No.19929968]

>>19929795
Seethe and dilate.

[Anonymous No.19929983]

>>19929837
I don’t remember this being a classic goosebumps book

[Anonymous No.19930299]

Freudbros, these guys won't stop making fun of us...

[Anonymous No.19930322]

Freud created child sexuality to protect the catholic church and its ever lasting pedo problem so he would be accepted into mainstream society

[Anonymous No.19930868]

>>19923669
Psychoanalysis is better poetry than medicine.

[Anonymous No.19930873]

>>19930322
Cause of course the Atheist Jew cares about how the Catholic Church is perceived

[Anonymous No.19930929]

>>19925011
There are case studies within the domain of Nicolosi's Reparative Therapy and it's practitioners, but you don't want to be branded with the stigma of an intolerant bigot, do you?

[Anonymous No.19931103]

>muhhh science
Strictly viewing psychology as just a "science" is troglodytic thinking. Contrarians who know nothing about psychoanalytic theory outside of what they learned in Psych 101 should not be posting in this thread.

[Anonymous No.19932660]

>>19928825
>Jung is bordering on Schizophrenia with some of his theories.
> and Jung is just too smart for his own good. Jung is more of a story teller than a psychologist.
Really sounds like Jung is just waiting to be validated like Freud.

[Anonymous No.19932762]

>>19925446
>>19926367
>>19928262
>>19928529

Man you're truly insuffarable, and that's coming from a psych major...

> MUH SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> MUH FALSIFIABILITY

Of course Freuds theories are unscientific by today's standards, but that literally doesn't matter since they work effectively in a therapeutic setting as >>19924185 and >>19929756 have pointed out to your ignorant ass. You're either to stubborn or unironically to retarded to accept this fact.
Like >>19931103 said, you're not better than an entry level psych student who's had 2 lectures on Freud and now thinks he can btfo him by applying modern scientific methods to his theories

[Anonymous No.19932844]

How do you refute the pleasure principle? Even miserable people take pleasure in their misery and studies show that pessimistic people choose to look at the glass half-empty for emotional regulation because being happy is uncomfortable for them.
Even Freud wrote a book about this called beyond the pleasure principle iirc.
>>19929011
true

[Anonymous No.19932855]

>>19924287
Difficult. Our current understanding of the brain is not enough to map a psychoanalytic model to the brain or to behavior of it.

[Anonymous No.19934049]

>>19923839
>>19923855
>Freud discussion turns into lowly insults aimed at sexual insecurity
Like clockwork

[Anonymous No.19934417]

>>19929011
People only talk about Freud and Jung because they are interesting, and therefore something they are saying rings true.
As a general rule, if your theories are boring and dont make you laugh a little bit, then you are not at the full truth yet.

[Anonymous No.19934591]

>>19923669
Fraud is half lies, half truths and cocaine.
Only sciencelets and schizos fall for it.

[Anonymous No.19934617]

>>19924069
>but I would say that the conclusion of Freud is that we should all feel good all the time, and feeling bad all the time is a unique feature of modern society and civilization.

Freud: "The aim of psychoanalysis is to relieve people of their neurotic unhappiness so that they can be normally unhappy."

>Freud would probably say that we can also fix all the issues in the world through an understanding of ourselves, since having that empathetic understanding of ourselves would be an end to all conflict and unhappiness.

Freud: "The programme of becoming happy, which the pleasure principle imposes on us, cannot be fulfilled; yet we must not — indeed, we cannot — give up our efforts to bring it nearer to fulfilment by some means or other".

[Anonymous No.19934637]

>>19926382
Why did you post this a pictuere of Peterson? If anything you should recommend that people watch Peteron's lectures on Freud because they are the best lectures on Freud there is.

[Anonymous No.19934647]

>>19923669
Freud is the epitome of midwit pseudery. Are you 15?

[Anonymous No.19934671]

>>19923669
>What do you make of Freud and his theories?
Better than nothing, but effectively not perfect or impervious to criticism or already obsolete

[Anonymous No.19934753]

Wow, Freud discovered low-level esoteric knowledge known for thousands of years prior??!! It is highly significant that he was jewish and molested by his freaky, weak jewish father, along with his siblings. All the later generations will have been molested as well. So of course his work only "sheds light" on the lowest stratas of human consciousness, since he and those who associate with him would necessarily be cut-off from the higher stratas; he is of course wrong in presuming that his one-sided studies represent the totality of the mind. So for this reason, you are ironically correct when pointing out that whites are generally more unable to naturally access these lower mechanisms discovered by Freud, given that these sorts of things are only normally wide open to mentally ill people or the inferior darker races, who's consciousness is more or less limited to these lower stratas in the first place.

Also, if you think there is some sort of spirituality to be found in Freud, you are an absolute fool. However if you are trans, you've already fallen to your lower nature, so if you lack all strength I suppose you could just go all the way down into the depths.

[Anonymous No.19934811]

>>19934591
If hes right hes right, it does not matter how he came to his theory.
If Freud is wrong, then why has noone else created a comprehensive theory on humanity?
If Freud really is such a midwit, then why hasnt somebody been able to provide an alternative theory for psychosexual development?

And I mean a real theory, and not some boring dusty old man book that nobody has ever heard of or cares about.

[Anonymous No.19934877]

>Freud
>Marx
Explain why these two always get a disproportionate amount of opinionated retards that don't have the slightest idea about their work.

[Anonymous No.19935200]

>>19934753
>tfw reading Evola gave you permanent brain damage

[Anonymous No.19935318]

>>19928262
>Obviously we have unconcious processes, we study them today using cognitive psych.

Cognitive psych observes and measures inputs and outputs and then tries to piece together why we observed X instead of Y. You can apply this methodology to a computer program or a toaster, neither of which are presumed to be conscious. Nothing about it proves the existence of the mind or of conscious experience.

The mind is neither observable or measurable, which is why behaviorists like B.F. Skinner believed it to be outside the scope of scientific inquiry. To this day, there is still no compelling material explanation for the existence of consciousness. We just accept a priori, like you're doing here, that it exists. We can learn a lot from cognitive psychology, but the best available tools for plumbing the depths of human conscious experience are still philosophy, the arts, and stuff like psychoanalytic theory. Freud said that of everywhere he had gone in the human mind, poets had been there first.

To be honest it sounds like you took an undergraduate research methods class and decided scientism is the end all be all. It's not.

[Anonymous No.19935655]

>>19934811
>If Freud is wrong, then why has noone else created a comprehensive theory on humanity?
Jung did this and explains why Freud was limited in his understanding. "Two Essays on Analytical Psychology".
>If Freud really is such a midwit, then why hasnt somebody been able to provide an alternative theory for psychosexual development?
Anon referenced Erikson >>19929011 who did just that.

[Anonymous No.19935690]

>>19923669
>The white man is the most unconscious human of all, so it is incredibly hard for him to ever reach this true state of himself, because he does not want to feel these deeply repressed feelings.

Keep telling yourself that. I found Freud to be correct simply because I've always been distrustful of optimist idealism that blinds people to reality. All I ever cared about was truth.

[Anonymous No.19935723]

>>19923669
Freud threads bring out the worst filth of this board, I wonder why such a strong reaction exists. If you dont like a thinker just avoid him, why you have to be some emotionally invested and feel the need to write up some schizo tier rant about someone who is supposedly so insignificant and or wrong. Maybe its because he enrages a variety of groups - npc anglos for not fitting into their standarts of science, poltards for being a jew, tradcucks for being an atheist and talking about sex, feminists because of the ideas of penis envy and fantasy about trauma etc. But still its perplexing, but on the other hand, if a thinker makes so many people seethe THIS hard, he is based in my book.

[Anonymous No.19935727]

>>19923792
> Its the rest of humanity that is batshit fucking insane.
Nah, the rest of humanity are just idealistic sheep. They just want to conform with their societies which is just a culture expression & their version of humanity. And many delude themselves thinking it's reality. Whereas Freud is as real as it gets.

[Anonymous No.19935734]

>>19923831
>>19923839
>>19923848
>>19923884
lol this board is so fucking trash, full of the most butthurt pseuds and faggot "academics" with all of their usual baggage. /pol/ unironically hosts more authentic and thoughtful content deep within its cesspits of overt shilling and retarded seething.

[Anonymous No.19935829]

He was right about penis envy in men and women existing but failed to distinguish it from healthily embodying homoerotic archetypes. A grave mistake.

[Anonymous No.19935894]

>>19935727
Humanity is not idealistic, humanity is like a herd that follows what the atttractive people in society are currently doing.
This society worships beautiful faces, and girls follow whatever tiktoker trend is going on because they only care about being popular.
This is why intellectuals are doomed, is because they are physically not attractive, which is why nobody gives a shit about what they have to say.

[Anonymous No.19935918]

>>19935723
Best response ITT.

[Anonymous No.19936002]

>>19935655
Erikson is too sterile and boring. His life work is trying to make humans fit into his sterile and soulless world view.
Freud BTFOs Erikson in every way.

[Anonymous No.19936062]

>>19935690
The only reason I say the white man is the most unconcious, is because the white man has the brain that created all of this unconcious civilization around us. Its not exclusive to white men, but frankly, whites are the most unconcious and asleep of all the races.
Jews are a little bit more concious than whites due to their acceptance of sexuality, but are overall still pretty asleep.
Blacks are the most awake of the races, but that is mostly because they dont have the iq level to exist in a state of unconcious thought.
The white mans greatest strength is his brain, but that presents his greatest weakness, for the bigger the brain is, the more easy it becomes to form a personality living in your head in this state of deep unconcious thought.
The white man has to learn that he is not his brain, and only then will he come to the light.
Every race has their own problems they need to work on, and whites need to work on their weaknesses as a race aswell.

[Anonymous No.19936750]

I'm studying psychology and he's not even really considered a psychologist anymore. More of a "he introduced psychological thoughts and manners of study."
Personally, I think he was a pervert who had some interesting ideas but fundamentally were about jews more than average man.

[Anonymous No.19936767]

>>19923825
This is the argument I hear a lot from people. It's almost humble bragging about how "ugh people just can't understand it because they're Americans and I'm superior. "

[Anonymous No.19936783]

>>19936750
No man.
Jews have a culture of sexual openness, as well as general openness to the full range of humanity. They dont shun you from being in their community because of who you are, and therefore Jews are much more complete people than puritanical Americans, and they are not ashamed of whatever emotions and feelings drive them.
Freud is describing everyone, its just that the white westerner is puritanical in their essense, which makes getting anywhere with them near impossible from a psychological perspective because they are nothing but walls and boundaries.
The white American is the most repressed animal in the world, which is exactly why they are so easy to lead like a dog on a chain by their Jewish masters, because they are so unaware of who they are that they are basically a slave to those who do know who they are. The Jew understands you Americans better than you understand yourselves.

[Anonymous No.19938050]

>>19936002
what

>>19936750
>I'm studying psychology

Should have stopped reading here

>and he's not even really considered a psychologist anymore. More of a "he introduced psychological thoughts and manners of study."

Complete NPC moment. Could have interviewed any psychology undergrad and gotten the exact same answer. You need to be 18 to post here btw,.

[Anonymous No.19938130]

>be me, baby
>suck on mommy milkers
>yummy
>be adult
>like sucking on milkers
wow

[Anonymous No.19938168]

>>19936750
>I'm studying psychology
>durrrr Freud was a pervert

Read John Money. Read any of psychological literature about human sexuality. It may surprise you to learn that it plays a large role in our lives. Of course you will not do this because you are destined for a career in McDonald's HR like most psychology undergraduates.

It's funny how zoomers portray Freud as the progenitor of the hookup culture in which they can't get laid, whereas boomer midwits think Freud's vision of sexuality was repressive and responsible for pathologizing homsexual sex acts etc. It's almost as though nobody has actually read what he has written.

[Anonymous No.19938175]

>>19923960
>>19923848
>>19923807
>how DARE you talk that way about my favorite mensch!
Gas yourself

[Anonymous No.19938251]

He was spot on about the fact early childhood experiences shape people, that’s been confirmed again and again.

His claims about early sexuality are shaky at best. Just as one can claim that the subconscious wants to fuck your mother, I could accuse everyone of being a subconscious furryfag. And if you deny wanting to fuck Sonic, well, you’re simply in denial.

Subconscious sexual desires are irrefutable speculation and ultimately pointless.

[Anonymous No.19938316]

>>19938251
You are a complete and utter retard who hasn't dealt with Freud outside of some whacky pop culture news articles, don't pretend you have read let alone understood him. Midwits like you shit up every Freud thread with their buzzfeed opinion and make any substantial discussion about his concepts and ideas impossible

[Anonymous No.19938319]

>>19923669
You are a youman being. Be you, be true. Don't let the suckers get YOU down.

[Anonymous No.19938783]

>>19923677
well yeah, they circumcise their sons so there's 50% right there

[Anonymous No.19939339]

>>19934637
>If anything you should recommend that people watch Peteron's lectures on Freud because they are the best lectures on Freud there is.
Are there better Jung lectures though?

[Anonymous No.19939392]

>>19938316
Please explain the development of an anal retentive/expulsive personality according to freud. In a way that doesn't make it look like wild speculation.

[Anonymous No.19940352]

>>19923669
From what I've noticed Jung refuted him