[ 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: 19 KB, 220x312, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3326820 No.3326820 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/!
My boyfriend is studying psychology and I thought about buying him a book that we both could read. (I am a literature student btw)
Any suggestions?

>> No.3326825

Ulysses
Ms. Dalloway
The Sound and the Fury
Hamlet
In Search of Lost Time
Sons and Lovers

>> No.3326834

The Drowned and the Saved.
The Double.

>> No.3326977

Anything by Carl Jung

>> No.3326980

>>3326825
good taste

>> No.3328540

>>3326820
Sade's Philsophy in the Bedroom. It's proto-Freudian.

>> No.3328558

>>3326977
fuck off retard

>> No.3328565

How about books by Dostoyevsky?
There's also The Red and the Black by Stendhal, a great psychological novel.
Or Kokoro by Soseki.

>> No.3328578

Literally any Faulkner at all...

>> No.3328579

>>3328558
What the hell? Not even that guy, but what the hell?

>> No.3328588

>>3328558
Try reading him when you stop being a teenager. Your frontal lobe will be a bit more developed.

>> No.3328599

>>3328588
Not that guy. But jung is terrible, just terrible.
Zizek is right when he calls him new age crap.

>> No.3328601

Nietzsche is always good, I think of him as more of a psychologist than a philosopher

>> No.3328614

How real is real? by Paul Watzlawick

Is a quite interesting read, and accessible

>> No.3328700

I know it may sound odd. But have you thought of buying your boyfriend a book by Dostoevsky. I'd recommend the Brother Karamazov, a novel which Freud called 'the most magnificent ever written'. Dostoevsky's novels explore the human psyche combined with emotional writing. Definitely worth a read for people who are studying lit or psych.

>> No.3328725

>>3328599
Zizek :(

why does his name keep appearing here. it's just more proof that you're all a bunch of pseudo-intellects.

>> No.3328743

>>3328725
I think that today pseudo-intellectuals are those saying that zizek is not worth being taken seriously.

Zizek is a serious intellectual and I can argue if you care to listen to my reasons.

>> No.3328749

>>3328725

How so? I dare you.

>> No.3328771

Crime & Punishment
Prometheus Rising (it's pretty fun)
Macbeth
Ovid's Metamorphoses
Early Stephen King novels (you can then talk about his weird fetishes and psychological hang-ups)

>> No.3328816

>>3328599
Zizek calls it new age, not "new age crap". And even in that he is merely half-right.

Everyone should go through a few books by Jung. You don't necessarily have to stick with it, just like with any other book. Whether one agrees with his approach or not is one thing, whether he is valuable or not is another. And he is definitely much valuable.

>> No.3328823

>>3328816
Jung makes Freud look like Quine.

>> No.3328830

>>3328823

>so many ways to interpret this my Post-New-Sincerometer exploded

>> No.3328841

>>3328816
Zizek has absolutely not sympathy for new age.

And I don't agree, I think that Jung takes away everything good that there was in freud: his pan sexualism, his materialism, his pessimis, his ontological uncertainty.

Jung takes freud and makes it comfortable and polite enough for the uper west-side bo-bo.

>> No.3328847

>>3328830
Try putting the emphasis on different words.

"Jung MAKES Freud look like Quine."
"Jung makes FREUD look like Quine."
"Jung makes Freud LOOK like Quine."

>> No.3328871

>>3328841
I think judging Jung based on how he interpreted Freud is barely scratching the surface. And I don't agree with that either.

>>3328823
I... also don't understand what you mean. Is this good? Bad? True at all? In relation to...?

...Wait, what?

And again, I'm talking of Jung, not Freud. You guys look like Freudians defending him by attacking Jung. It's been a while since they died, we don't need to take sides on this shit.

>> No.3328896

>>3328847
Sorry, I still don't understand why you're comparing a post-logical positivist philosopher to a pair of theoretical psychologists.

>> No.3328938

>>3328896
Freud talked a lot of vague shit, so if someone makes Freud look like a stern positivist in comparison, he must talk shitloads of vague shit.

>> No.3328943

>>3328938
I don't think either of them were that vague.

>> No.3328953

>Any suggestions?

Switch to engineering, together. Maybe "Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software," while you are at it.

>> No.3328974

>>3328943
Me neither.

>> No.3328975

OP, your boyfriend may not appreciate anything to do with psychoanalysis, and you're not in a position any better than his to defend it, so it may do well for you to dismiss the recommendations of Freud, Jung, or whoever right now until you know how he feels about psychoanalysis.

Though if he likes psychoanalysis, then by all means, get into Freud.

>> No.3329195 [DELETED] 

>>3326820
Is his name Nathaniel

>> No.3329261

>>3328823
lol?
>>3328841
everything you cite as good about Freud was also completely wrong. imagine telling Freud that, as Jung or any of the other expelled scholars, and getting banished from the movement for criticizing it at all

what you critique about Jung is essentially him not being a pseudo-scientist

>> No.3329294

>>3329261
>was also completely wrong

Don't be so sure.

Freud's Pansexualism is largely misunderstood. If anyone takes the care to read his books it's far from saying that sex is the motivating force behind every human action, but about how our representation are structured by libido. Libido is emotional investment. If anything is wrong is that his neurology is not up to date and that today we would speak of oxytocin and other hormones.

Materialism is not wrong, is a position shared by the majority of scientists when dealing with the mind.

Pessimism is a philosophical position. Certainly not proven to be completely wrong.

By ontological uncertainties,I meant his method which was always pragmatic. He never thought of describing how things are, but he was trying to think a set of principles that would allow him to make sense of the behaviors he observed during the practice. He might have been different in person, but he writings leave no doubt. One should only read the first pages of the pleasure principle and see that he declares it a regulative hypothesis.

>> No.3329307

Depends on what you mean. I am going into psychiatry so I'll offer my taste...


Shakespeare's Tremor and Orwell's Cough: The Medical Lives of Famous Writers

Haven't read yet but seems interesting, and is a good half-way between your two interests.

Fiction, Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground and earlier work.

The Collector, Fowles

basically anything the explores mental illness from the perspective of the ill.

>> No.3329339

>>3326977
>>3328558
>>3328588
>>3328599
>>3328725
>>3328816
>>3328823
>>3328841
>>3329261
as someone who's read freud, jung, lacan, and zizek (as well as other philosophers), jung is decidedly mystical, terminal not-worth-your-time stuff.

i will mention that this entire discussion is taking place on the premise that this person is at all even interested in psychology as a practice of the humanities, rather than clinical psychology, neurological psychology or the hundreds of other sub-branches of this enormous discipline

mathematical psychology is actually a thing

>> No.3329376
File: 38 KB, 650x415, groucho-filof_001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3329376

>>3329339
>as someone who's read freud, jung, lacan, and zizek (as well as other philosophers)

As someone who has read all of them as well, I would just disagree with what you said entirely. Mr. Smartypants.

>>3329294
Freud is misunderstood, yes. I agree.
Materialism is shit.
Pessimism is, well, nothing to say either way.
I agree on his ontological uncertainties.

Problem is, Jung has to do with all of that just to a certain degree. He rejected Freud's materialism, his ontological position was not like Freud's but far from an "ontological certainty", simply because the context was completely twisted by Jung, Freud's pansexualism was only denied by Jung to the extent of being "pan" and that there were other ways to approach the same idea without going for sexuality.

Say what you want, you don't have to agree and I absolutely understand those who doesn't. But back to the thread, back here down to Earth, it is perfectly understandable that someone would recommend Jung to OP and it would be a valuable read, with no reason to just jump and go "omg its bullshit dont do it youll be dumber by the minute omg he said freud was not absolutely right!".

(not the guy you are talking to)

>> No.3329396
File: 70 KB, 640x480, Chico.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3329396

>>3329376 here
I forgot my point. My point is that Jung didn't deny or destroy or shit all over what Freud said as you imply he did.

In fact, I'm a fan of both for a certain honesty that they shared in their writing, even if they had their stubborn attitudes as well. No one will be "unlearning" from reading either of them and Jung writes with a clarity and openess that is unmatched, so it's not "dangerous" at all. The "worst" that could happen is you understand his point and agree, but the actual worst thing that could happen would just to disagree and move on. Not that bad scenarios.

>> No.3329428

>>3329376
if you could read all of those guys and still thing jung is at all worth one's time, you've got no discerning capacity

>archetypes
essentialist spiritual garabe

>mandalas
mystical cultural exoticism

his indulgence in "eastern" philosophy was similarly exoticized.

>hey, isn't masculinity and femininity like yin and yang, after all?
the only reason i'm sorry to have read that idea was the knowledge he probably wasn't blazed out of his mind when he penned up such a brilliant conclusion

>alchemy
same thing as above, just the exoticizing of the past instead of another culture. the pretense that these symbols are eternal or universal has endless problems

>collective unconscious
you can argue that there is such a thing (analysis of cultural products, for example), but not in the way he was thinking about it.

his account of mental disorder and schizophrenia in particular i found very unconvincing, even next to foucault's explanation.

overall, the guy's analysis is extraordinarily shallow compared to his standing in the literature. i don't think the bro was even self-aware to be honest. he just never operates at the same level as anyone coming before or after him. i'm really not sure why people should bother.

>> No.3329429

Buy that book that William James wrote about psychology.

>> No.3331292

Zeno's conscience by Svevo.
Also Freud is outdated as hell and is wrong in so many things and stop talking about him when you are talking psychology because it is so obvious you have no clue of what you are talking about and know only his name you pseudo-pseuds.

>> No.3331347

>>3329428
kill yourself, cuntnugget

>> No.3331604

Read books on psychology, you say? Think a few words will teach you how to operate your brain, you do? Frankly, that's not how it's done, even your analyst knows how useless analytic techniques are in lay analysis, viz. as soon as you leave his couch, -hah! if only he took up that attitude while you were on his couch. Realize it or no, you do have mind, USE IT! Psychology is not something institutional knowledge can teach you, save for if you want to understand sets of institutionalized and institutionalizing mentalities and rationalities. The best way to learn about either 'the mind' or your mind is to open your mind, take tryptamines (e.g. lsd or mescaline) and experience madness for yourself!

>> No.3331646

Hey OP, Poetics of space by Gaston Bachelard. Or Poetics of reverie.

>> No.3331668
File: 718 KB, 2100x2999, cbt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3331668

>>3326820

>> No.3331672

>>3331604
Oh look it's this faggot again.

>depressed? you should drop some acid dude
>anxiety? smoke some weed brah
>psychology? you'd better eat mescaline in the desert
>writersblock? smoke dmt
>cancer? just drink this ayahuasca mate

>> No.3331699

>>3331672
I agree with all of your points, except the cancer one. However, ayahuasca could help you come to terms with a terminal disease, so good call.

>> No.3331706

>>3331668
see, to me CBT just means cock and ball torture.

>> No.3331723

>>3331699
Psychedelics and the like aren't the answer to everything. They can have their place, but treating them as something magical that will solve all the worlds problems and ignoring the downside of them makes you come across as a highschool kid that has smoked his first joint last week and has started reading McKenna.

>> No.3331727

>>3331699
Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

>> No.3331736

Fear and Trembling

>> No.3331750

Drugs are great.
Ahayuasca and mescaline shouldn't be mentioned with the others though, it's another thing.

However, I do agree with the other guy not to turn into a highschool kid parroting McKenna

Remember this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cn-DRzAohE

>> No.3331765

>>3331750
>Ahayuasca and mescaline shouldn't be mentioned with the others though, it's another thing.

Aya is; It should be grouped with Datura or Iboga. But Mescaline isn't much different from Mushrooms.

>> No.3331770

Greatest thing drugs ever did was make this girl be like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDRbnmjzY7U

>> No.3331772

>>3331765
>grouping DMT with Datura

>> No.3331775

The confessions of Rousseau

>> No.3331784

>>3331772
Not smoked DMT crystal. But DMT combined with an MAOI. Yes, the effects can be as disassociating as Datura or a K-hole.

A strong Aya trip is more comparable to Datura than Mescaline.

>> No.3331787

>>3331750 here

>>3331784
>>3331765
Yes, you're right.

>> No.3331979

>>3329428
Can you explain in detail why his conceptions of universal archetypes and the collective unconscious are "garbage"?

Also, don't many of Freud's theories essentially represent a more sexualized conception of these very ideas?

>> No.3332065

The Man who mistook his wife for a hat. A classic, with plenty of weird anecdotes you'll probably both enjoy

>> No.3332071

>the drugs-on-/lit/-guy
This is turning into borderline spam

>> No.3332078

>>3331784
The substance is very different from datura though. It's not a full blown poisonous witchcraft deliriant.