[ 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: 8 KB, 294x400, freud1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3943403 No.3943403 [Reply] [Original]

Ok /lit/ I've been reading a lot of philosophy recently and am considering getting into psychology. What are some books/philosophers you'd recommend? I'm obviously going to read Freud, Jung, and Pavlov, but who are some other important figures I should read? Also, is Lacan the Derrida of psychology?

>> No.3943449

Gormless Bump

>> No.3943459

Why would you want to read a bunch of retarded nonsense written down by idiots who managed to make peasants regard their words as mystic? Not to mention that they are all wrong about everything. Seriously, philosophy is only around today because of the same idiots who believe in religion. It's a bunch of shit covered up by daisies and febreeze air fresher and fed to the weak minded.

>> No.3943460

>>3943403
bump for interest

>> No.3943465

>>3943459
2/10

>> No.3943478

>>3943459
>retarded STEM detected
Awwww, is da logic too hard for da little brehn??? Why don't you go watch some Dawkins and Hitch videos? Seriously, people like you are pathetic. The "reason" and "rationality" you use to justify your beliefs are entirely empirical and completely unfounded. Go back to the sandbox and leave the grown ups alone.

>> No.3943489

>>3943459
>fed to the weak minded.
This is also extremely ironic because the majority of atheists I know are under the age of 18 and have never read a book beyond The God Delusion or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

>> No.3943493

>>3943489
What's wrong with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

>> No.3943499

>>3943493
It's childish, popsci garbage.

>> No.3943500

>>3943493
Nothing, though I don't find it nearly as funny as advertised. It just happens to be popular among the type >>3943489 mentions.

>> No.3943501

>>3943478
>>3943489
and the christfags come out
You want to know whats funny? Most Christians I know under the age of 70 haven't read the Bible.

>> No.3943503

>>3943499
this retard actually believes he is an elite adult worthy of deeming other incredible works 'childish' meanwhile he sits in his mothers basement typing on an old underwood typewriter promising is family 'this is the one, this is the adult elitist novel thats going to change the world' when really he is just on his 100th box of cheezets this week and doesnt have enough money for a new ink ribbon

>> No.3943510

William James for old school psychology.
Carl Rogers for some humanistic crap.

>> No.3943521

Lacan is essential. And yes, he is similar to Derrida in the fact that he is very complex and controversial. I'd suggest "Lacanian Subject" and a "Clinical Introduction" by Bruce Fink. Most people will tell you that these are the best intros to Lacan'a project without oversimplifying him. Introduction or not, Lacan's ideas are difficult to grasp, but don't be discouraged. From there, read his seminars (chronologically). You can also poke around in his major work, Ecrits, but be warned that it is extremely difficult. Also, Zizek

>> No.3943524

>>3943501
You sound wrekt

>> No.3943526

Also, 2/3 of the world's psychoanalysts consider themselves Lacanian

>> No.3943539

>>3943501
And most Christians are only Christians because that's what religion Western society adheres to. So? At least those people don't spend hours a day on the computer complaining about how other people's opinions hurt their feelings and about how their parents don't love them. I've looked into "academic" atheism. Hitchens, Dawkins, Tyson, and Harris are illiterate frauds who know nothing about logic and deserve respect from NOONE. Honestly, I wouldn't mind atheists if they weren't so anti-intellectualist.

>> No.3943547

>>3943503
>>3943503
I would rather die hungry, homeless, and alone without ever having written a novel than write the blunder of the century a.k.a. The God Delusion. The "logic" he used in his novel has already been dismantled countless times and even the atheists in academia consider him a buffoon.

>> No.3943549

>>3943521
Ok thanks man

>> No.3943559

>>3943521
>Zizek

This. x100. Sublime Object or Ticklish Subject for hardcore mode. Desert of the Real for something a little more accessible.

>> No.3943564

>>3943559
Ok... I've been wondering. Does Desert of the Real have anything to do with Baudrillard's Desert of the Real? Also, are those books about political philosophy and socialism?

>> No.3943568

>>3943403
If you're going for psychology, then you're going to want to read ACTUAL works of psychology. Sorry guys, but psychoanalysis is not science. Go read some Karl Popper and you'll understand.
protip: get a modern psychology textbook
>inb4 stemfag
seriously guys, rejecting Freud, Jung, and Lacan (excluding their influence in lit.) does not make you a "le edgy fedora athiest".

>> No.3943573

>>3943568
So.... I'm sorry, I'm conpletely new to this. Is Freud not psychology? What's the difference between psychology and psychoanalysis?

>> No.3943574

>>3943564
Yes to both. I haven't read Baudrillard's book, but I know that that is indeed the reference (also, the matrix!). Socialism would be a generous term - it is really more Marxism. I haven't read it in years though, so I can't give much more detail than that. But it really influenced me back in the day.

>> No.3943581

Reading psychoanalysis to understand psychology is like reading alchemy to understand chemistry

>> No.3943589

>>3943573
Psychology is basically empirical. Psychoanalysis is basically wishful thinking (more generously: it is based on case studies instead of actual studies.

>> No.3943591

>>3943573
psychology follows the scientific method whereas psychoanalysis follows the foundations set up by Freud. If you want to know why psychoanalysis isn't considered a science, then try finding a summary of Popper's critique of it. It might also help to read about behaviorism came to be (it was a reaction against psychoanalysis).

>> No.3943596

>>3943591
Ok thanks! Wasn't B.F. Skinner the first behaviorist? What did he believe?

>> No.3943599

>>3943591
Also, do you know the name of popper's critique?

>> No.3943606

>>3943596
I don't know about the first, but he was one of the founders. He believed the object of psychology should be to study observable behavior, and not processes going on in the mind (not in terms of chemicals, but as a rejection of the ideas of conscious and subconscious that psychoanalysis rested on). Psychology has grown since then, so I would do some more research on it. However I would not fall into the trap of psychoanalysis if you're truly interested in psychology.

>> No.3943608

>>3943606
Ok thanks

>> No.3943612

>>3943608
pssst

guess what

reading Freud is waaaay more interesting than looking at statistics about gibbon behavior

jus sayin

>> No.3943613

>>3943599
I don't know if he wrote an exact critique, but I do know he critiqued it. Here's an article:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

" The dominance of the critical spirit in Einstein, and its total absence in Marx, Freud and Adler, struck Popper as being of fundamental importance: the pioneers of psychoanalysis, he came to think, couched their theories in terms which made them amenable only to confirmation, while Einstein's theory, crucially, had testable implications which, if false, would have falsified the theory itself."

I think, but I could be wrong, that Popper critiqued psychoanalysis and other studies essentially because the theorists made their theories air tight proof and did not allow room for verification. Similar to how religion always has an answer to a question. Now this is a pretty watered down summary, and I'm sure you could find more articulated answers than this.

>> No.3943622

>>3943612
If you want to read because you think it's interesting, then go right ahead. I mean this is a literature board. We're all here (or so I hope) because we have an interest in literature. However I hope this board doesn't think every novel written corresponds to exact real world events. So as long as you don't read Freud as bearing any truth on the mind/behavior of humans, then I see no reason not.

>> No.3943624

goosebumps

>> No.3943633

>>3943613
Hey, not to be condescending, but just to let you know, you should probably use the word criticize instead of critique. a criticism is when one points out the flaws in something whereas a critique is a thorough analysis of something. They're not exactly the same.

>> No.3943637

>>3943622
no but it does though

>> No.3943683

>>3943539
Have I quoted Hitchens? Have I quoted Tyson? Have I quoted Dawkins? Who brought them into the conversation? Who are you to say Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris are not wise people? Who are you to say reading the Bible makes you intellectual? I know nothing of Harris and Tyson, but I will not simply discredit them. You're pathetic, truly pathetic. You're the one who gets on the internet, acts like an elite teenager, and goes looking for a fight. You are beyond scum and you deserve every crucible you have to endure in your, if the world is lucky, short lifespan. Please, kill yourself soon, you despicable excuse of a human being. Also, God is not real. Ta'da.

>> No.3943691

>>3943683
r u angry

>> No.3943694

>>3943547
?Where did I mention Dawkins? I never did, did I?
Wow, leave it to a religious nut bag to go throwing insults, generalizing, and persecuting others simply because their religious cult says to. Tsk tsk, if you had any intelligence at all you would see the flaw in your beliefs. Remember, when we got to the peak of Olympus...there were no Gods, and no one believed anymore. You pathetic creationists look as mentally challenged as those who thought the Sun was god and believed that human sacrifice brought them a good harvest. You are less than primitive, you are still living in the caves of your own mind slammed shut by delusion.

>> No.3943702

>>3943573
Freud is completely wrong. Everything he ever said has been proven wrong. He was simply another man who's book did not catch the eyes of millions and he decided not to call himself God and lead his worshipers against others who did not believe the same as them and kill them and cause thousands of years of mistrust, anger, hatred, and the complete inevitability of a connected world broken by religious politics and beliefs.

>> No.3943709

>>3943691
And there it is; the failure to communicate. the lack of a rebuttal, the primitive caveman has reached the depths of his mind.
go to sleep, it's past your bedtime, child.

>> No.3943717

>>3943683
I appreciate this. Ty.

>> No.3943723

>>3943683
>>3943683
Wow, you just single-handedly demolished Christianity with one decisive blow. I mean, that Ta' da put me right in my place. I can't believe I just witnessed the disembowlment of Christianity.

Please, before you embarrass yourself any further, look into the works of Alvin Platinga. You may come to realize (I say may because so far you have displayed a complete lack of critical, individualistic thinking skills) that atheism, particularly the neoatheism of today, has little to no substance to it whatsoever, and is logically incoherent in general.

>> No.3943726

>>3943694
Oh god, this has to be a troll.

>> No.3943732

>>3943723
And believing in a book that desert nomads wrote thousands of years ago is more realistic than leaving it up to what is known, what is proven, and what 'doesn't live outside of all universe and time but is real and if he isn't your a troll faggot who is going to hell, find jesus'???????????????
You're a fucking idiot, kid.

>> No.3943740

>>3943726
Like Jesus? And Zeus? and Cthulu?
All huge trolls.
in fact, Abrahamic Religions may be the greatest trolls on mankind of all time

>> No.3943742

>>3943732
>what is known, what is proven, and what 'doesn't live outside of all universe and time but is real

lrn2socrates pleb

>> No.3943749

>>3943740
Yikes, the edges, they hurt me

lrn2philosophy before you argue with someone

>> No.3943756

>>3943742
lrn2notbelievewhatamanwholivedinatimewheretherewereonly4elementsandtheybelievedthemselvestobethemostknowledgableofallpeople.

Socratroll was not a genius, he was a con man surrounded by, today standards, RETARDS who ate up everything he had to say for centuries. The only reason he or any other faggot and ignorant philosopher is still around today is because pleb retards deemed him all knowing.
He didn't even know why caused the goddamn tides or how to make an electric current yet, he has all the answers to everything?
lrn2notbefaggot

>> No.3943758

>>3943749
lrn2notbelievewhatidiotmensurroundedbyplebs
seriously, they didn't know ANYTHING.
philosophy is nothing! no facts! no proofs! no testing! no answers! just stupid shit rambled off the tongue

>> No.3943761

>>3943723
I can't believe you're a real person.

>> No.3943766
File: 239 KB, 520x638, 1367338183945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3943766

>mfw butthurt atheists

>> No.3943778

>>3943756
This is just too bad /lit/

This is like talking to a brick wall

If you want the meaning of your life to consist of wearing fedoras and reading Scientific American, so be it. I no longer have the desire to toss pearls before swine. Good night, and thank you for completely derailing my thread into oblivion.

>> No.3943781

>>3943778
>reading Scientific American
lol is this supposed to be insulting?

>> No.3943783

>>3943761
And I can't (and won't) believe that you're 18+

>> No.3943788
File: 63 KB, 560x375, 1350047182094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3943788

>>3943758
What do I know about God and the purpose of life?
I know that this world exists.
That something is problematic about it, which we call meaning.
That meaning does not lie in it but outside it.
That life is the world.
That my will penetrates the world.
That my will is good or evil.
Therefore that good and evil are somehow connected with the meaning of the world.
The meaning of life i.e. the meaning of the world, we can call God.
And connect with the comparison of God to a father.
To pray is to think about the meaning of life.
I cannot bend the happenings of the world to my will; I am completely powerless.
I can only make myself independent of the world - and so in a certain sense master it by renouncing any influence on happenings.
To believe in a God means to understand the meaning of life.
To believe in God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter.
To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning.
The world is given to me, i.e. my will enters the world completely from the outside as into something that is already there. (As for what my will is, I don't know yet).
However this may be, at any rate we are in a certain sense dependent, and what we are dependent on we call God.
In this sense God would simply be fate, or, what is the same thing: the world, which is independent of our will.
I can make myself independent of fate.
There are two godheads: the world and my independent I.
...When my conscience upsets my equilibrium, then I am not in agreement with Something. But what is it? Is it the world?
Certainly it is correct to say: conscience is the voice of God.

>> No.3943797

>>3943778
As if retarded old men who did nothing but think about nothing due to their ignorant minds hold the meaning of life?

>> No.3943801

>>3943781
Not in and of itself, because Scientific American is a legitimate magazine, but when combined with the pseudointellectualism and fedoras of neoatheists creates a hilariously pathetic combo

>> No.3943809

>>3943797
Lol, I'd love to see your fat fedora-wearing self say that to an actual philosopher

They will destroy you

>> No.3943821

>>3943788
There is no God.
God is created by man.
What you call God is nothing, falseness, irrelevant.
GOD exists in no form.
good and evil is not connected to the world, it's connected in your brain do to chemicals causing empathy. it's natural, to keep you and your species alive
the meaning of the world is- there is none. It's simply a law of physics that in our circumstance our world and all that exists on it exists. There is no 'meaning' exist that it IS.
To pray is to beg a false being for good things to happen to them
yep
yep
to believe in god means to understand nothing except what a man wrote or told you. it's not real, therefore you only understand what someone else thinks
to believe in god hinders the reality of the world, therefore it hinders everything capable of experiencing the reality and therefore..hinders their nature.
if you have to have a meaning to live rather than 'this is how it is' and you have to make up or believe in a false god...you are weak. go back to living as our ancestors pre-homo sapians
the world is not given to you. to think it is is beyond ignorant and selfish and downright ludicrous. it's more logical to believe that the world is perfect for you due to nature, not a false god. You are here because the laws of the universe dictates that you should be. if not you would not
to be dependent on a false being you cannot hear, see, prove is absolutely retarded and pleb as fuck. people are already WAY too dependent on others. Then, when one falls, they all fall. pathetic way of existence
God is not fate, god is not the world, god is not independent of our will because there is no God
God is a word and a character made up by primitive human beings looking for a reason. We have found there is no god, there is no reason. It's all false.
there is no fate except death
the conscience is thing nature decided was best for our species to develop in order for us to successfully survive and evolve.
It's certainly incorrect to say 'god' has anything to do with it since god is nothing at all to do with the human existence or mind.

>> No.3943826

>>3943809
with what?
their retarded fallacy of beliefs about how nothing they know is even credible in life as we know it?
I can go say it to the guy who takes my orders at MacDonald's and watch him do nothing but shed more tears on his philosophy degree. Welp, looks like all the intellect and philosophical intelligence didn't get him any further than pleb status.

>> No.3943827

>>3943723
>teleological
>basic belief
>omnipotent but cant do x
>free will
>"According to Reformed epistemology, belief in God can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God."
>" Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief... Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it... Clearly there are any number of belief-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour."

am i missing something
cause what

>> No.3943844

>>3943821

>It's simply a law of physics that in our circumstance our world and all that exists on it exists.

Which law? I'm curious

>to believe in god means to understand nothing except what a man wrote or told you

Science is composed of a bunch of men writing and telling you things about nature. Is science just a bunch of bullshit too?

>it's more logical to believe that the world is perfect for you due to nature, not a false god

What logical maxims are you using to deduce this? It's weird that you'd bring logic into the situation when the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for the existence God are more sound than any atheistic argument for the absence of God I've ever heard.

>the conscience is thing nature decided was best for our species to develop in order for us to successfully survive and evolve.

what are qualia?

>> No.3943845

>>3943539
Okay, let's say somebody goes to church every sunday, starting at age 10 and ending at age 60 due to illness (being generous here, it's probably more like 70-80). That's 50 years, at 48 hours a year. That is 2400 hours, or 100 days spent wasting time in church.

How much time do you think edgy atheist spend arguing on the internet before they outgrow it?

>> No.3943848

>>3943845
That time isn't necessarily wasted, though, even if you don't believe in god.

>> No.3943849

>>3943821
babby's first delusion of free will
how can I understand with my mind when I don't understand my mind?

God is in man, even now, as through a mirror darkly.

>> No.3943850

>>3943826
>their retarded fallacy
>fallacies are a product of logic
>logic is a subset of philosophy

Also, I'd rather be brilliant and work at McDonald's than be an ignorant king

>> No.3943852

>>3943827
Has your brain malfunctioned?

>> No.3943858

>>3943568
Popper never addressed Lacan. Neither did he read Hegel.

>> No.3943860

>>3943845
Not all christians go to church, so that's irrelevant. Plus, church is incredibly useful in developing important social and business relationships, so I wouldn't really call the time wasted.

I don't know how much time an atheist spends on the internet. It could probably be determined by the length of the neckbeard, size and intricacy of the fedora, and amount of chins, among other things.

>> No.3943865

>>3943860
thats the drawback of atheism, religious fuckers get to network at their church, do you know how many people get jobs, investors, business partners, clients etc. from church? atheists need a way to network and support each other like how religious people try to support their own people but if athiests had a symbol or whatever it would probably be something embarrassing and stupid...

>> No.3943871

>>3943865
>atheists need a way to network and support each other

They already have that

It's called Dungeons & Dragons

>> No.3943875

>>3943844
>What logical maxims are you using to deduce this?
You certainly do think you know what those words mean.

>> No.3943881

>>3943852
After reading that yes. Do you actually believe it? Do you have any valid reason to?

>> No.3943884

Isn't the amount of time some atheist spends arguing on the internet equal to the amount of time some theist spends arguing on the internet

it takes 2 to argue

>> No.3943886

>>3943875
I don't think you know what logic is

>> No.3943888

>>3943403
Start with the history of the field, and read influential authors from each stage of the progression of the science.

William James is important.
Criminologists like Cesare Beccaria are the beginning of Abnormal Psychology.
Psychoanalysis is very important, but you just have to be sure you are being academically and intellectually honest with your certainties.

>> No.3943889

>>3943884
there is no /r/theism

>> No.3943895

>>3943888
Also Carl Rogers.

For therapy: A method called Unconditional Positive Regard. It is what it sounds like, and the therapist follows it to objectively treat each patient with dignity, respect, integrity, and devotion from a safe distance.

It's also great for close relationships. It's nice to know you can always be more compassionate and more understanding of our differences.

>> No.3943897

>>3943889
oh, atheists sure do shout out much more but if an argument takes place there has to be 2 people

>> No.3943899

>>3943897
no shit sherlock. what's your point?

>> No.3943905

>>3943897
there are more theists than atheists
theists spend less time arguing per capita, per your own reasoning, which demonstrates that time spent on both sides is equal

>> No.3943916

>>3943884
You're overlooking intra-atheist arguing (like, honestly, the vast majority of arguing about religion on 4chan).

But then again there's also intra-religious arguing, so really the only thing we can conclude is that people on the Internet really like to argue, regardless of their religious beliefs.

>> No.3943918 [DELETED] 
File: 128 KB, 460x323, zimmermanguiltyofnotgivingafuck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3943918

>>3943895
I can't le wait to use this because I'm le true sociopathic life
> thank you for helping me become leDexter

>> No.3943924

>>3943916
if you bring in intra-religious arguing that would be so much more than intra-atheist arguing if it included non-internet arguing 'no god for ireland' and all that

>> No.3943945

>>3943918
God, you see more 'le' on 4chan than reddit now. Fuck I hate human beings.

>> No.3943954

>>3943945
4chan has always turned ironic shitposting into board culture, stop whining

>> No.3943977

>>3943954
That's why I hate human beings, always with this shit.

>> No.3945684

>>3943977
>I hate humans because of ironic shitposting

Get a fucking grip.

>> No.3945698
File: 542 KB, 1920x1080, 1374041162361.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3945698

Psychology is fucking stupid. You're better off going into neurobiology. However, cognitive psychology is alright.

Here are some books:

"The man who mistook his Wife for a Hat" --Oliver Sachs

and

"Altered Egos"-- Todd E. Feinberg

>> No.3945746

>>3943403
OP don't bother with Freud it's all absolute horseshit. Armchair anthropology at best and utter tripe at its worst.

>> No.3945749

>>3945698
>Psychology is fucking stupid.
>You're better off going into neurobiology.

But this statement betrays you, monsieur, as it shows you know not what you are speaking of.

>> No.3945773
File: 1.95 MB, 300x227, 1370059864751.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3945773

>>3945749

B.S. in Neurobiology, minor in Creative Writing

>> No.3945780
File: 9 KB, 165x260, The_Foundations_of_Psychoanalysis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3945780

There is a book that is a must have when it comes to the critique of psychoanalysis. Pic related.

>An influential book,[1] The Foundations of Psychoanalysis was seen as a landmark in the debate over the merits of psychoanalysis when it was published, and a number of critics of Freud hailed it as a masterpiece,[2] including Hans Eysenck, who deemed it the definitive work on the subject.[3] Psychoanalyst Joel Kovel credited it with providing the best discussion of the problems surrounding the validation of Freud's theories, noting that "the one area in which Grünbaum most approves of Freud is the latter's interpretation of religion."[4]

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis has been seen as an argument against the idea that psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science. This point has been made approvingly by Peter Gay, who credits the book with discrediting Karl Popper's argument that psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science since its propositions cannot be disconfirmed,[5] and disapprovingly by Richard Webster, who notes that while Grünbaum is critical of some aspects of Freud's thinking, he also defends Freud against some of his philosophical critics.

>> No.3945791

>>3945773
Then your statement on psychology is proven to be, how do you say, "nonobjective", monsieur.

>> No.3945805

>>3945791

Look, psychology is the study of the brain and it's function based on the form and function of the smaller parts of the nervous system. However, it is unsatisfactory in fulfilling the context of brain function. Neurobiology is a comprehensive overview of form and function. From there, learn about psychology and gain greater insight into the brain

>> No.3945836

>ctrl+f Dostoyevsky
>0 results
Even freud was inspired by Raskolnikov

>> No.3945844

>>3943403
Don't even think about it until you've read 'The Myth Of Mental Illness' by Thomas Szasz

>> No.3945848

>>3945805
>Look, psychology is the study of the brain
:)

>> No.3945856

>>3945805
>Look, psychology is the study of the brain and it's function based on the form and function of the smaller parts of the nervous system.
Oversimplification or just wrong. Psychology is more then just the study of the brain. nabbhead

>> No.3945863
File: 103 KB, 459x676, 1373667118108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3945863

>>3945848

I seriously love you guys. How can I ever get mad at any of you?

>> No.3945869
File: 22 KB, 480x461, dude_what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3945869

>>3945856

Don't pretend to act smarter than you are.

>> No.3945928

>>3945869
#tears4piers

>> No.3945969

>>3945863
>>3945869
>fuggen destoryed

>> No.3945996
File: 60 KB, 568x518, 1363568409651.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3945996

>>3945969

Oh look, It's the guy who hates me and doesn't have a fucking show on CNN or was editor of the mirror

>> No.3947631

Psychology is fine as long as you remember it has very little to do with reality.

>> No.3947667

>>3943403
Start with this:
http://www.lacan.com/zizhowto.html

(help, if needed: http://www.terrapsych.com/freud.html )

teaser:

Recall the unique figure of James Jesus Angleton, the ultimate cold warrior. For almost two decades, until 1973, he was the chief of the counter-intelligence section of the CIA, with the task to unearth moles within CIA. Angleton, a charismatic, highly idiosyncratic figure, literary and educated (a personal friend of T.S.Eliot, even physically resembling him), was prone to paranoia. The premise of his work was the absolute conviction in the so-called Monster Plot: a gigantic deception coordinated by a secret KGB "organization within organization," whose aim was to penetrate and totally dominate the Western intelligence network and thus bring about the defeat of the West. For this reason, Angleton dismissed practically all KGB defectors offering invaluable information as fake defectors, and sometimes even sent them back to the USSR (where, of course, they were immediately put to trial and shot, since they were true defectors). The ultimate outcome of Angleton's reign was total immobilization - crucially, in his time, not one true mole was discovered and apprehended. No wonder Clare Petty, one of top officials in Angleton's section, brought the Angleton paranoia to its logical self-negating climax, by concluding, after an exhaustive and long investigation, that Golitsyn (the Russian defector with whom Angleton was engaged in a true folie à deux, shared madness) was a fake and Angleton himself the big mole who successfully paralyzed the anti-Soviet intelligence activity.

Effectively, one is tempted to raise the question: what if Angleton was a mole justifying his activity by the search for a mole (for himself, in the real life version of Kevin Costner's No Way Out plot)? What if the true KGB Monster Plot was the very project to put in circulation the idea of a Monster Plot and thus immobilize the CIA and neutralize in advance the future KGB defectors? In both cases, the ultimate deception assumed the guise of truth itself: there was a Monster Plot (it was the very idea of the Monster Plot); there was a mole in the heart of CIA (Angleton himself). Therein resides the truth of the paranoiac stance: it is itself the destructive plot against which it is fighting. The nicety of this solution - and the ultimate condemnation of Angleton's paranoia - is that it doesn't matter if Angleton was just sincerely duped by the idea of a Monster Plot, or if he was the mole: in both cases, the result is exactly the same. The deception resided in our failure to include in the list of suspects the very idea of (globalized) suspicion - to put under suspicion the very idea of suspicion.