/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3814958]

Psychoanalysis general. Discuss specific thinkers or the field as a whole.

[Anonymous No.3814988]

>field as a whole

pretentious hogwash

[Anonymous No.3815006]

>>3814988

how's that?

are many literature types actually that disillusioned with psychology? is it bc of nabokins or what

[Anonymous No.3815045]

>>3815006
It's a /sci/ troll.

[Anonymous No.3815061]

>>3815045
I'm not so sure. For every one defender of psychoanalysis on here there are at least ten detractors. Look at that Harris shitshow we had a few days ago.

[Anonymous No.3815090]

Absolutely disgusting.

I've been looking at grad schools and if I see professors whose interests are in psychodynamic theory I stopped looking.

cbt >> humanistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>psychoanalysis/psychodynamic

[Anonymous No.3815107]

It's limited, but psychoanalysts generally have a hard time believing this.

[Anonymous No.3815126]

>>3815006
>>3815045
No, I'm not a /sci/ troll

I think that, though having a very small semblance of merit behind its investigations into the human psyche, it's used as a cop out for any sort of argument when it really shouldn't be. Most people put it on the pedestal of being some sort of ultimate way of determining the problems of a person's emotions, and thus the root behind their arguments, when in reality, people are a lot more complex than that. I don't know, I just hate it when people try to demerit others by saying things like "Oh, well, he just thinks that because his mother didn't love him" or "He just thinks that because he has an inadequate amount of experience socializing". You cannot adequately analyze a person's argument based on their experience or personality, and even so, it does not demerit the argument.

[Anonymous No.3815153]

>>3815126
But that is just pop-psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis in reality has always being a science of the individual. You don't make generalization on the analysand but you try to understand it in its complexity.

The reason why you make him talk a lot is because you are trying to understand his "personal myth". His story, how he envisions the world and what his relationship is. And freud always understood that to a bigger and lesser degree.
The oedipus complex for example is just a metaphor, not something to be taken literally, to express a certain dynamic i.e. the falling in love with the care taker and the sense of rivalry with his or hers love interest.
The mother with whom you fall in love may be your baby sitter or your neighbor or even your best friend (and the father with whom you are in conflict would then be his gf).

Psychoanalysis is very complex, the problem is that people at best understand it thhrough what is said in the movies.

[Anonymous No.3815157]

>>3815126
>I don't know, I just hate it when people try to demerit others by saying things like "Oh, well, he just thinks that because his mother didn't love him" or "He just thinks that because he has an inadequate amount of experience socializing".

That's pop Freudianism, but I get what you're saying. No true psychoanalytic case history is that reductive, though.

[Anonymous No.3815185]

>>3815153
>>3815157
OK, well thanks for helping me understand what it is better, I think I jumped to too rash of a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.3815187]

>>3814958

I'm studying psychology in Argentina. Here is too biased towards psychoanalysis (Lacan's interpretation). How is in the rest on the world?

[Anonymous No.3815201]

>>>3814958 (OP)
There is a group of scientists that try to reconcile psychoanalysis and neuroscience.

In the english speaking world psychology is the handmaid of psychiatry and neuro-biology and tends to do a lot of experiments but sucks at coming up with a consistent theory of the mind, since eliminativism and reductionism rule. They have a lot of fun facts and data but don't know how to interpret it.

In France and Italy classical Freudism (Anna Freud's school) dominates and a lot of attention is given to Piaget and Klein. There is also a solid Lacanian school in those countries.

Germany I don't know.

[Anonymous No.3815208]

>>3815187
The state of psychology in North America has always been biased toward behaviorism, i.e. what Lacan kept dismissively referring to as the "American point of view" in the seminar.

Generally, study of Lacan is confined to English departments here. But there are a few places here and there where Lacanian psychoanalysis is taken very seriously. Duquesne and the University of Missouri come to mind.

[Anonymous No.3815217]

>>3815208

Nice. I really like the part of psychology more related with neuropsychology, and I hate all the psychoanalysis being shoved down my thrat.o

[Anonymous No.3815238]

>>3815217
Unfortunately the approach of neuropsychology is pretty limited by how it is made today and I wish people would read more psychoanalysis in order to be less naive.

[Anonymous No.3815252]

>>3815187
I'm from Argentina too. And i'm thinking about studying that too.. Where do you study? Por qué sigo escribiendo en inglés? JAJAJA. Estoy pensando en estudiar psicología en la UBA, pero no se si es algo realmente aplicable o todas boludeces, qué pensas vos? Tu experiencia estudiando? Gracias!

[Anonymous No.3815266]

I have been reading a lot of Lacan lately,
is it still relevant to be a Lacanian in these postmodern times?

[Anonymous No.3815269]

>>3815266
Always. The Lacanian field is universally applicable.

[Anonymous No.3815270]

>>3815266
Moreso than a few decades ago.

[Anonymous No.3815272]

>>3815217
You, and others in this thread and threads like it, misunderstand the scope of psychoanalysis. "Chemicals in the brain producing [x]" does not displace psychoanalysis; neuroscience is not competing with psychoanalysis for explanatory supremacy. What the field of history is to the world through time, psychoanalysis is to the mind of the individual. Biology is to the world what neuroscience is to the brain. Young reactionaries who use science for identity politics, and haven't done any serious reading, research, or thinking--especially epistemological--confuse the disciplines and believe pithy truisms oft-posted on reddit like "Freud is obsolete" or "I don't want to fuck my mom."

[Anonymous No.3815286]

>>3815272
word

[Anonymous No.3815304]

>>3815252

Estudio en la UBA.
Aplicable es, depende que quieras aplicar y a que objeto (no es lo mismo trabajar en area instucional, clínica, investigación, etc. Hay un montón de ramas en el campo laboral y de teorías).

Mi experiencia estudiando? Mira, como dije a mi me interesa la neuropsicología/psicología cognitiva. La carrera en la UBA (y en toda la Argentina, con algunas excepciones) tira mucho al psicoanálisis. En el plan de estudio las materias 'importantes' que hacen al área clínica son todas psicoanalíticas. Y de las materias optativas, la mayoría también lo son.

No tengo problemas con el psicoanálisis per se, tengo problemas con que no haya pluradidad de formación.

[Anonymous No.3815321]

>>3815272
apologies, my analogy is still off. it's like a double-analogy

history : biology
psychoanalysis : neuroscience

and what i mean is history is very much like psychoanalysis. sure there is a spectrum of intellectual rigor (quantitative history is often taken more seriously than humanistic/narrative history, for example), but neither claim to be a science. there is not a historian nor a psychoanalyst who claims to have a theory like theory of evolution or relativity. and yet, psychoanalysis receives far more scathing criticism and scorn than the discipline of history.

psychoanalysis concerns subjectivity, and is still relevant regardless of the advances made in neuroscience. so much is explained by simply looking at the translations made of freud's "Das Unbehagen in der Kultur." the title published in the anglophone world is misleading: "Civilization and its Discontents." the literal translation is far more loyal to the scope of psychoanalysis: "The Uneasiness in Culture."

the individual and their relation to CULTURE. subjective production. intersubjectivity. mind and experience. these are things that psychoanalysis works with. yes, knowledge of seratonin and dopamine help us understand the brain and human experience, but the mere knowledge that seratonin circulates in the brain does not explain why i might believe in a different religion than someone else.

[Anonymous No.3815328]

>>3815272

Maybe I didn't explained myself good.
Here, to get your psychology degree you have to pass like 25 obligatory courses, and you have to chose 5 form like other 20 optional courses and pass them too.
The problem that I have is that all obligatory clinical related courses are thought form a psychoanalytical view. Of the 20 obligatory courses, there is 1 on neuropsychology, and 1 on cognitive psychology. The rest are either psychoanalytical, 1 is social psychology, 1 institutional psychology and then some more 'general' ones (statistics, epistemology, philosophy, etc).

I don't have anything against psychoanalysis, it bothers me that for people like me, that don't really care about it doesn't have any other option other than to do post-graduate studies.

[Anonymous No.3815329]

it´s almost all been disproved. What is left of it can be studies in modern psychology books that actually employ the scientific method as well as real world research are not almost complete bullshit

[Anonymous No.3815337]

Looking for a general recommendations list. I've read a bit of freud (intro to psychoanalysis and totem and taboo) but I'm not sure where to go from there. And for Jung and Lacan (the two other names I frequently encounter), what are some of the mot important texts that they've published?

[Anonymous No.3815343]

>>3815321

I'm >>3815328 and forgot to say something.

Here the posture of psychoanalysis/neuropshychology professors is that both theories are not incompatible, but I think you said (>>3815201) that scientist are trying to reconcile both fields, what can I read on that?

[Anonymous No.3815344]

>>3815153
a lot of the childhood sexuality thing is frighteningly observable.. I teach 3 year olds and some of the little boys try to do things to me that.. well if they were adults they could be arrested, and so far no girls have done it

they´re completely innocent though, there is nothing sinister in it, nothing disgusting either, but highly inappropriate

you have to react to it, you don´t want them to feel ashamed just in case freud was right about the damage that does, but you also have to let them know this is not something that is done and that you don´t like it

[Anonymous No.3815347]

the century of the self is a great documentary

[Anonymous No.3815384]

>>3815329
Not really. As popper said psychoanalysis is not falsifiable. Because it is an interpretative frame.

Who says that it has been disproved probably has set up a strawman and then attacked it or talking about what he has heard.

Modern psychology also is faring very poorly. Discordant results, no overall theory, lack of sophistication in their practitioners.

[Anonymous No.3815412]

>>3815343
ah, i understand you better after your explanation. i also was not the guy who in >>3815201. nonetheless, my response is that epistemological gaps can be bridged, and interdisciplinary syntheses can be made, but again this does not make obsolete entire fields.

"guns, germs, and steel" didn't render "the decline and fall of the roman empire" worthless, for example

[Anonymous No.3815425]

>>3815337
For Lacan, it really depends on how deep you want to go. Most readers touch only on the mirror stage and the production of the four discourses, which are arguably his best moments, but there really is a huge amount of writings to explore.

Lacan gave public lectures once a week throughout every school year, beginning in 1953 and ending only just before his death in 1981. These were done in a largely improvised and extremely idiosyncratic manner; Lacan basically jokes, coughs, and puns his way through a whirlwind of topics, all the while chainsmoking, tying and untying knots, drawing strange schema on the blackboard, and showing off his collection of flowing silk shirts. Transcripts of these classes, called Lacan's seminar, are edited and published by his son-in-law and protégé Jacques-Alain Miller. Generally, each seminar has an article as its extremely difficult written counterpart, published as part of Lacan's collection Écrits. These function as a kind of distillation of the subjects explored in each year's seminar. The method of reading suggested by his three best interpreters, Miller, Fink, and Žižek, is to start with the seminar and then read the corresponding article in the Écrits. That being said, Lacan himself maintained that the best introduction to his work was the Seminar on the Purloined Letter, which is the first article in the Écrits, and is the only one printed out of chronological order. It's rather difficult, though, and I don't advise it.

Don't feel any need to read the seminar in chronological order. XI is probably the best entry-point for someone not all that familiar with psychoanalysis, as it was Lacan's first class after being forcibly expelled from the International Psychoanalytic Association and as such having to lecture to a much larger crowd than before. If you're up for a challenge, though, I recommend the article "The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis."

I won't comment on Jung.

[Anonymous No.3815481]

>>3815425
Also, it's helpful to remember that each seminar was done over the course of a school year. So when he tells his students to re-read a certain work of Freud's, it's best to do so.

[Anonymous No.3815509]

People always bitch about Freud and psychoanalysts but they were extremely important for human understanding and art. Yes, it probably was a blunder for Freud to call it a science but that's the only way anyone was going to take him seriously. I'm not going to say that no one ever thought of this or said it before but he made it public that emotions are very slippery things and can have infinite implications. Whether or not an "unconscious" mind exists and that it always leads to some desire isn't important, it's the idea that we aren't aware of where our thoughts are coming from, which is a concept that pervaded modern literature and art from that point on.

[Anonymous No.3815524]

>>3815304
Argentina de nuevo, y qué pensas hacer cuando te recibas de la UBA? No estoy muy a favor de los consultorios, donde la gente va a contar sus problemas y el psicólogo, en una posición extraña, lo "cura", por lo que vi no hay muchas opciones de trabajo más alla de eso y la institucional acá. Qué ´pensás?

[Reasoner !qR/x.62rVM No.3815554]

>Psychoanalysis.
It doesn't serve a purpose so why.

[Anonymous No.3815591]

>>3815554
read the thread, dunce

[Anonymous No.3815650]

>>3815252
>>3815187
How popular is psychoanalysis in argentina??

I've heard is like the most Psychoanalysis country in the world.

also please, burn Judorowsky books.

[Anonymous No.3815773]

>>3815650
psychoanalysis? i don't know. But a lot (A LOT) of people go to shrinks. People who needs help dealing with their issues (personal issues). I'm not saying this in a peyorative way

[Anonymous No.3815781]

Anyone feels like telling how psychoanalysis changed your life?

it helped me getting my balls back.

[Anonymous No.3815790]

>>3815650
Pretty popular. The biggest university there has its psych programs based on analysis. it sucks butt.

[Anonymous No.3815828]

>>3815524

Me interesa la investigación (desde el área de la neuropsicología). Así que voy a hacer eso, y dar clases. Para no morirme de hambre probablemente haga neuropsicología clínica para trabajar en hospitales, o algún otro tipo de terapia (narrativa, cognitiva conductual, definitivamente no psicoanalítica). O si no, me dedique a lo institucional (recursos humanos en alguna empresa). El título te permite desempeñarte en un montón de áreas (mirá la foto), si bien es una de las carreras con mayor cantidad de alumnos, la mayoría termina en el psicoanálisis, hay un montón de ramas en las que la psi argentina esta 'atrasada', y ahí podés encontrar un montón de opciones si te gusta. Es difícil, pero bueno. Además hay un montón de campos que recién estan naciendo y expandiendose acá, y por la deficiencia de la formación universitaria en cosas como la psicolingüistica por ejemplo, los graduados con postgrado en eso tienen muchas opciones)

>>3815650

what do you mean by popular?

In the academia psychoanalysis is the only theory seriously thought (at least for clinical purposes). If you want to do something else, you end up having to do some post-graduate studies.
And culturally, I think Buenos Aires is the city with most psychologist per capita, it's and oversaturated field. And of course there is a lot of 'pop psychology' (people saying things like 'that's because his mother didn't love him', 'lol, nice Oedipus complex faggot', etc)

Judorowsky is Chilean.

[Anonymous No.3815833]

What is /lit/'s opinion on Transactional Analysis in relation to Psychoanalysis?

[Anonymous No.3815877]

>>3815828
>>3815790
>>3815773
Is weird how or why culturally psychoanalysis gets so popular in B.A.

If you lurk 4chan for a while you realize U.S people are into pills (i dont even know the names) to solve/change their bad feels, and they dont know anything about psychoanalysis. Very unhealthy if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.3815912]

>>3815554
Holy fuck drop your trip already you goddamn retard.

[Anonymous No.3815924]

>>3815090
I would find it so much easier to agree with you if you weren't just being such a self-righteous undergradish cunt about it.

[Anonymous No.3815929]

>>3815877
Not him, but as far as I can tell the use of drugs isn't really the difference between cognitive psychology, for example, and psychoanalysis. I mean both require actual therapy alongside medication. Maybe one favors medication more than the other, but that's about it. Still, my knowledge on the subject is quite limited.

But it is kinda weird how psychoanalysis, especially lacanian one, spread. I don't know the history of it, but it seems most of the world favors cognitive psychology or some form of it for treatment.

[Anonymous No.3815931]

>>3815153
What you're describing is closer to a humanistic methodology called Narrative Therapy. It's true that people overemphasize the more bizarre components of Freud's theories and completely ignore the later psychoanalytic thinkers. Nevertheless, Freud was pretty prescriptive about the way he analyzed people and he bent over backwards to conform their accounts to his drive theory.

[Anonymous No.3815942]

>>3815384
To be fair, psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theories don't hold up very well in comparative studies with more modern methodologies. The counter-argument is that psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theories simply apply different values to the process, since the standards they are usually held up against are clearly oriented towards brief and cost-effective values.

[Anonymous No.3816059]

>>3815931
That's not the whole of the therapy, but I'm showing the other side.

And while it's true that freud was a control freak there are passages where he actually talks about how his theory is just tentative. For example he says that he is not telling how us how to do therapy but it's more like a man showing us how to hold a hammer and saying "that is how I hold the hammer".
Or in the beginning of beyond the pleasure principle he says that the two drives (libido and thanatos) are not real thing but tentative concepts through which he will try to explain certain behaviors

>>3815942

This is true, they don't hold up in effectiveness, but that is not a disproving them.
Also it's true what you say about different values.

Modern therapies tend towards normalizing the patient while analysis, especially Lacanian, tends towards making the analysand (notice not patient) exceptional.
.

[Anonymous No.3816376]

>>3815781
nobody?

[Anonymous No.3816390]

ITT: people who think the unconscious doesn't affect the waking life.


Good luck wandering through life without purpose instead of listening to your unconscious and analyzing your own dreams when necessary.

Have fun ignoring all the symbols you encounter daily.

Bluepill central up in this b

[Anonymous No.3816477]

>>3815153

psychoanalysis = unreliable narrator, unreliable observer(s).

[Anonymous No.3816487]

>>3816477
Yes and the theory of psychoanalysis addresses that.
The point they would say is that the mind exists exactly because the narrator and observer are unreliable, if you observe them from an unreliable point of view you would necessary misunderstand the mind.

[Anonymous No.3816488]

>>3815201
>There is a group of scientists that try to reconcile psychoanalysis and neuroscience.
Antonio Damasio wrote that we have built frameworks that assumes the sickness of the mind is separate from the brain. The guy has a point.

Lacan should be abandoned ASAP. He's a joke. Making sure nobody understands you does not make you an intellectual or a man of science.

[Anonymous No.3816492]

>>3816488
Lacan says a lot of intelligent things. I studied him thoroughly and he is far from a joke despite often being funny.

I'm not sure I understand Damasio's point can you explain it better?

[Anonymous No.3816553]

>>3816492
Damasio is a neuroscientist. The marriage of mind and brain is one of the obvious implications of individuals with damaged brains. In Descartes' Error, he describes how some individuals with damage to the prefrontal cortex becomes disconnected to emotion despite knowing what they *should* be feeling while retaining their mental functions like 'logic' and language. Now imagine if the patient never got to a neurologist/neuroscientist, but ended up with a psychoanalyst. Damasio's position is that the body & brain are constantly updated due to environmental stimuli; feelings are body states and emotion is the 'awareness' of body states. I probably fucked up the semantics. Damasio can explain it better, but I wouldn't recommend Descartes' Error as an entry book to neuroscience since most of the explanations relies on neurophysiology.


>Lacan says a lot of intelligent things.
Lacan has the benefit of social proof. People assume he's legit because other people say he's legit even when what he says is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.3816560]

>>3816487

can you give me an example where there are scientific controls in psychoanalysis versus the arbitrary judgement of psychoanalysts as portrayed by the media?

[Anonymous No.3816587]

>>3816553
>Lacan has the benefit of social proof. People assume he's legit because other people say he's legit even when what he says is meaningless.

I have no need of social proof since I have read most of his seminars and his ecrits.

I read Damasio's book. The fact is that the neuroscientist does not exclude the psychoanalyst interpretation also because psychoanalysis in a way founds itself on neurobiology. For psychoanalysis the mind is the neurons, the unconcious in freud metapsychology is made of neurons. Freud would have totally agreed with Damasio so much that in civilization and its discontents says that neurosis are cause by biological constitutions.

The two things thus would not be in opposition. The person has a damaged brain an that causes him certain symptoms. Analysis (but any sort of therapy) would be then not to eliminate the symptom but to accommodate the symptoms in a way of living that is satisfying for the patient.

The problem is more that analysis is ineffectual because it's methods are bad, but I believe that the principles actually are very interesting.

[Anonymous No.3816602]

>>3816560
There are none. Psychoanalysis is not a science and that's a huge problem and why it's not working. Lacan himself recognizes that and that's why he comes up with the silly math and fails miserably.

The interesting point, I think, is that psychoanalysis has a better theory of the mind (not the brain) exactly because it is not scientific.
Freud understood that natural sciences do no produce knowledge of the individual (they are about general laws and behavior) but human sciences do.
So he interestingly applied to the verbal production of his patients the methodology of human sciences: hermeneutics, archeology, historiography, linguistics.

Now at Columbia I hear they are starting to record analysis so that might be a good way to learn more and to actually reduce the unreliability of the whole process.

[Anonymous No.3816611]

>>3816602

>The interesting point, I think, is that psychoanalysis has a better theory of the mind (not the brain) exactly because it is not scientific.
if "theory" is used in the non-scientific sense (hypothesis), then how can we be certain that its features and predictions are verifiable and not merely the products of confirmation bias? that's the dilemma, i think.

[Anonymous No.3816644]

>>3816587

>For psychoanalysis the mind is the neurons
I hope this isn't an accurate statement, otherwise you would be contradicting your own point and mind=neurons is not Damasio's position. I didn't read it with a psychoanalyst bent, therefore I didn't see the psychoanalysis in Descartes' Error. Freud may agree that neurosis have biological roots, the man didn't have the tools or the more rigorous methods Damasio employs. We could say X, but it's nasty when we don't have evidence for it.

If psychoanalysis will be used to accommodate the symptoms, then it should be informed by neuroscience, and not the treatment straight from unproved, unverified and untested assertions.

[Anonymous No.3816649]

>>3816611
Because it makes no predictions. It's a human science.
Natural sciences make predictions. Human sciences give explanations.

A good theory on the collapse of the roman empire makes no prediction because the roman empire is unrepeatable so there is nothing to predict. Rather what the theory gives you is a comprehension of what is going on that probably is open for improvement when subsequent data comes in.

Psychoanalysis is not a general science of the mind, but a set of tools and frames to interpret the individual mind.

Kant said in the critique of pure reason that the regularity of nature is a regulative idea that we take for true because it's useful even if we have no proof for it.
I believe that while it is reasonable for nature to assume its regularity it is not so for the mind (which is not the brain). I believe that if we want to have an understanding of the mind we cannot use the methods of natural sciences, but rather those of the human sciences exactly because it's not regular.

[Anonymous No.3816653]

>>3816644
I do agree with your last sentence, any talk therapy should be informed by neuroscience.

What I would add is that neuroscience alone is not enough for a good talk therapy. Psychology alone is not. A vast knowledge of scientific literature and the humanity is what I believe it is needed for good therapists (analysts or not).

Don't quote me on this, but I read somewhere I cannot recall that actually psychoanalysis seems to be functioning depending on how culture is the analyst. Actually I think it was Massimo Pigliucci in one of his podcasts.

[Anonymous No.3816656]

>>3816649
>Natural sciences make predictions. Human sciences give explanations.

psychoanalysis - what about probabilistic predictions?

>theory gives you is a comprehension of what is going on that probably is open for improvement when subsequent data comes in.
improvement of a theory is much more reasonable i think. do psychoanalysts throw out theory when the data contradicts it?

[Anonymous No.3816674]

>>3816656
>psychoanalysis - what about probabilistic predictions?

Even that it's basically impossible. Remember it's a knowledge of the individual. That is you have something of which you have no other previous knowledge that is not what that person tells you and that most certainly is lying to you (because that's what the analyst assumes: you are lying).

Your theory is not a series of facts that can be unproven by facts but a series of tools. The analyst says "if I read his behavior through this principles than it makes sense, if I don't it doesn't". For example a patient has a mental break down when her father gives her a crocodile bag. This makes no sense. But if I keep in mind the story that she told me about her father bringing her to the zoo and telling her "I'm going to feed you to the crocodiles if you don't behave" it starts to make sense.

This is obviously a very simplified version, and has a lot of problems, but my point here is to show how a different, non-scientific approach, can work and be enlightening and useful.

[Anonymous No.3816680]

>>3816674

ok, if psychoanalysis don't make probabilistic predictions, how do they know they are helping?

[Anonymous No.3816683]

I have a question.
Why aren't we all killing ourselves?
Higher thinking shows us that there is no reason to life. After death is nothing, and you take nothing with you. You become forgotten in time and you may as well have never existed. There is no purpose, or point to life. One might argue that the ride is the point, but if the ride eventually ends and you have no memory of it ever happening, then what is the point?

I argue that we will never find other intelligent life in the universe unless it is immortal. Otherwise higher thinking would have led them to realize the futility of life and thus end their own.

So why is anyone who is smart even alive right now? Higher thinking is a curse. Think of all the suffering and sadness that could be prevented by exterminating mankind, or somehow reverting it back to it's pre-self-aware state?

[Anonymous No.3816686]

>>3816674

ok, if psychoanalysis don't make probabilistic predictions, how do they know psychoanalysis works?

[Anonymous No.3816689]

Daily reminder that psychoanalysis is a seductive mythology that provides REASONS and not CAUSES.

[Anonymous No.3816693]

>>3816683
What do you mean by 'thinking'?

[Anonymous No.3816697]

>>3816693
Self-awareness. The ability to know that there is no point in living. That there is no higher purpose. That eventually we all die and our lives were only to produce more offspring. As individuals our lives are pointless.

[Anonymous No.3816698]

>>3816683
because we aren't all miserable assholes

[Anonymous No.3816701]

>>3816697
>babby's first existential tantrum

[Anonymous No.3816706]

Freud ruined literature. There is no Oedipal complex in Sophocles or in Hamlet.

Psychoanalysis is only relevant because of dustbin academics who swallow up any theory whatsoever.

I tackled a bit of Lacan and found that he mainly ripped off others and his originality lies in the way he can make fancy venn diagrams and algebra that will seduce the grad students who, like their mentoring professors, don't have an ounce of original thought in them.

At least he's not fucking Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.3816707]

>>3816698
Even you aren't, you have to agree that life is pointless for you, regardless of your accomplishments and experiences, because soon, you will die, and for you, those will cease to exist. So why are you choosing to live?

In fact, I'd consider it a sign of stupidity if someone found life "worth" living. It all adds up to absolutely nothing in the end, no matter how grand and happy your life was.

[Anonymous No.3816714]

>>3816707
>you have to agree that life is pointless for you
nope. i make my own meaning

>It all adds up to absolutely nothing in the end, no matter how grand and happy your life was.
who cares, i'll be dead by then

[Anonymous No.3816718]

>>3816686
Well we have to distinguish between psychoanalysis as a theory and as a therapy.

1) As a therapy psychoanalysis does not work. We know if it works I guess by patient self-reporting in surveys.

2) As a theory it's "working" would be more or less the same way you say the interpretation of a text work. Once the text is given you are not going to get new facts. So how do you decide which interpretation is better and which is worse. Well you decide by a series of factors, other texts by the same author, how much information the interpretation manages to account for and how intelligent it seems. By intelligent what I mean is that it gives us comprehension, that is a sense of having explained the text without betraying it, simplifying it, using it for its means, or reducing it to its prejudices,

[Anonymous No.3816721]

>>3816714
So I hope you won't be perturbed that I think less of you as a human being, and as mentally inferior? Making up your own meaning still has the same ending, by the way.

[Anonymous No.3816734]

>>3816721
>So I hope you won't be perturbed that I think less of you as a human being, and as mentally inferior?
lol whatever you say

>Making up your own meaning still has the same ending, by the way.
what, that i live a generally happy life full of purpose, direction, and success?

[Anonymous No.3816748]

>>3816706
Lacan ripped off the mirror stage, but there is so much stuff in there that is not ripped off that is absurd to think so.

Think of this:

1) The lamella a metaphor for libido which is an immortal amoeba like creature which parasites people by going over their faces when they sleep and takes control of you no matter how you fight and pushes you forward for its satisfaction until you die.

2) The real not as a core to be discovered but what gives substance to the simulacra.

3) Subjectivity as anamorphosis. That is as emerging from observing a person from a non-neutral position.

4) Women don't exist. That is women is the creation of the projection of both male and female human beings.

5) Psychoanalysis as the reverse of philosophy. That is aimed at fracturing and questioning knowledge rather than giving a comprehensive theory.

All these things are pretty original. and that's just the few things that came up to me.

[Anonymous No.3816762]

>>3816734
>what, that i live a generally happy life full of purpose, direction, and success?

That ends with you dying. You take nothing with you. Your life was thusly pointless.

[Anonymous No.3816771]

>>3816762
>thusly
i don't think you've even thought through the logic of your own position

[Anonymous No.3816777]

>>3816762
Your judgments of what is pointless and what is not are only valuable in this life. So either you find meaning and then you die, or you spend all this time, the one and only time of existence you have, to be angry and depressed because everything seems pointless to you... and then you die.

[Anonymous No.3816779]

>>3816748
I think it's really his fan-base that totally puts me off his work.

Fucking LACANIACS.

[Anonymous No.3816783]

>>3816718

still psychoanalysis. how do we know if
1. self-reported improvement wasn't caused by placebo
2. if it's the act of conversing with someone willing to listen that helps, and not psychoanalysis?

[Anonymous No.3816790]

>>3816779
u mad sokal?

[Anonymous No.3816794]

>>3816706
>At least he's not fucking Deleuze.

Deleuze worked on things other than schizoanalysis, you know.

[Anonymous No.3816803]

>>3816783
I might try to guess but I'm not a therapist nor I study this parts. The therapy part of psychoanalysis I believe is terrible and should be completely redesigned. How you do that I don't know.

What interests me and I think has some value is the theory.

[Anonymous No.3816807]

>>3816779
Lacanians are terrible people. I do agree with that.

[Anonymous No.3816809]

>>3816748
>The lamella a metaphor for libido which is an immortal amoeba like creature which parasites people by going over their faces when they sleep and takes control of you no matter how you fight and pushes you forward for its satisfaction until you die.
Google translate couldn't have gobbledygooked it better.

[Anonymous No.3816813]

>>3816794
His work on the history of philosophy (his interpretations of kant, leibniz and nietzsche) is brilliat work.

Anyone who thinks that Deleuze is a hack after reading the anti-oedipus should read that stuff (or listen to his abecedaire)

[Anonymous No.3816814]

>>3816809
Yeah sorry about that. Should have re-read that.

[Anonymous No.3816826]

>>3816813
> W for Wittgenstein

Yeah, he's a hack.

[Anonymous No.3816829]

>>3816826
He loves philosophy and leibniz what would you expect he would say to a guy that says "my best students left philosophy to become miners"?

And don't get me wrong: I love wittgenstein more than deleuze.

[Anonymous No.3816833]

>>3816803

thanks for answering my questions anyway. fear not, i shall google later. i'm not very familiar with the field and i suspected media portrayal is more drama than reality. 'theory' — a lousy term in this case — is valid if experimental results verify it or if it can make probabilistic predictions. so from your answers, at least, i can see why science disowns psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.3816850]

>>3816602
>Lacan himself recognizes that and that's why he comes up with the silly math and fails miserably

The mathemes are not a way to make psychoanalysis look more scientific. Lacan did not think too highly of science. They are a way to teach without falling into common pitfalls of language.

[Anonymous No.3816862]

>>3816850
Yes I agree, the mathemes are about how to teach it. I was answering more about the arbitrariness of judgments.

[Anonymous No.3817000]

>>3816783
Is hard to explain till you experiment it, but you cant lie to your body. so the best example are Somatic symptoms.
For example some men that have erectil disfunction, or women that are frigid, and get over those problems .

Those are the kind of symtomps that you dont fix by just "conversing". And hardly I think a placebo could cure them.

[Anonymous No.3817141]

>>3815828
>>3815524
hey guys, otro argentino aca, psicologo de la UBA. Tenes muchas salidas laborales, si le pones pilas al tema. La mitad de mis companieros esta en hospitales/consultorios privados, la otra mitad esta haciendo psico laboral, que todos detestamos pero es lo que mas plata deja, por lo menos al inicio. Somos muy pocos los que nos metemos en investigacion, pero hay muchisimas oportunidades. Yo soy becario doctoral de CONICET, que en otras disciplinas es muy dificil de conseguir, pero en psico hay tan poca demanda que las chances son muy buenas. Conozco gente que hizo su licenciatura aca y ahora esta afuera en las mejores universidades de UK y USA, en la vanguardia de la investigacion. Pibes normales que los veias dando vueltas por los pasillos ahora estan en Cambridge. Si le pones ganas, podes hacer cualquier cosa.

[Anonymous No.3817155]

I read Freud and Jung

what should I read next?

[Anonymous No.3817180]

Im my University (spain) psychoanalysis is seen as a pseudo-science and not really paid much attention to. But I couldn't say if its the generalized opinion in the country.

[Anonymous No.3817259]

>>3817000

You do know what placebo effect is, right?

[Anonymous No.3817515]

>>3817155
Otto Rank. Freud considered him his greatest discipline until Rank was like "yo oedipal complex is overrated"

[Anonymous No.3817518]

This thread had very interesting contributions.
I've read Freud's Introduction to Psychoanalysis. What should I read now, considering that I'm mostly interested philosophy?

[Anonymous No.3817537]

>>3815425
Why no comment on Jung, his work on symbols, individuation, shadow, archetypes, the collective unconscious, religion and myth was groundbreaking.
he had a excellent track-record as a practical psychologist, and his effort to map the psychology of the nazi-leaders was highly acclaimed by the first director of the CIA and he predicted Hitlers suicide.

[Anonymous No.3817569]

>>3817518
Civilization and Its Discontents.

[Anonymous No.3817665]

You know we once had a psychoanalist at our university department. It was fun, we used to walk him out with a leash and he would get so excited sniffing everybody and shit.

But don't get me wrong, we are not barbarians, he always had a muzzle so he couldn't convince anyone.

[Anonymous No.3817800]

>>3817155
Eros and Civilization.

Or more Freud.

[Anonymous No.3819266]

bump because interesting thread

[Anonymous No.3819745]

>>3817515

what's the best place to start with Rank?

[Anonymous No.3820039]

Give me more names other than Rank, Freud, Lacan and Jung.
This is every single psychoanalysis thread, /lit/.
Can we at least talk about Cornelius Castoriadis?

[Anonymous No.3820074]

>>3820039

Fromm's book on adolescence, as well as his effort with Suzuki in comparing Zen and psychoanalysis, are both pretty good. I also found a book of Anna Freud's while dumpster diving recently -- really looking forward to that.

[Anonymous No.3820389]

I find Fromm's "The Art of Loving" and "You Shall be as Gods" also very interesting. Definetely worth checking out.

[Anonymous No.3821489]

>>3820039
Reich is pretty wild. I once built an orgone accumulator in my back yard.

[Anonymous No.3821518]

>>3814958
>Psychoanalysis general. Deride specific thinkers or the field as a whole.

[Anonymous No.3821519]

I'm looking into psychoanalysis for treatment. CBT and meds have failed me.

[Anonymous No.3821522]

>>3821518
Eh, it isn't that annoying because you can tell the great majority of detractors aren't at all familiar with the work.

[Anonymous No.3821580]

>>3821519
Good luck. Analysis ultimately helped wean me off of SSRIs and anxiety medication; I'm a real believer in it.

[Anonymous No.3821601]

>>3821519
good luck , get familiar with the theory to take better advantage of it .

The book that helped the most to understand Freud's views on the Unconscious mind is:
The Psychopathology of Everyday Life

is really easy read.

[Anonymous No.3821688]

Personally, I think psychoanalysis is worth study, even if its worth is only the result of a placebo effect brought about by giving misplaced authority to Freud's works - but it's stupid to put all your eggs in to the Freud/Jung/Nietzsche basket, just as it is stupid to put all your eggs into any basket.