[ 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: 1.13 MB, 1600x2400, idea merchant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5790689 No.5790689 [Reply] [Original]

Does Freudian psychoanalysis still have merit?

>> No.5790707

>>5790689
If never did
Go die commie

>> No.5790714

Just Lucien Fleurier things.

>> No.5790732

sure. just look how fucking buttpained people get about him. people don't get buttpained about other people's "crazy ideas" unless there's merit and truth to them.

just read some of his text online and judge for yourself

>> No.5790739

>>5790689
>still

top plop

>> No.5790756

>>5790689
Yeah. A lot. Without it, we are pretty much stuck between cognitive psychology, which can't account for the unconscious, and behaviourism, which can't account for consciousness.

>> No.5790766

>>5790739
>civilisation and its discontents
>not a glorious diagnosis of our problems

>> No.5790775

>>5790732
Where would you recommend me to start?

>> No.5790782

>>5790775
here:
>>5790766

or if you wan't something short, pick up "why war"

>> No.5790819

>>5790775
oh, gee, I don't know, how about Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund fucking Freud?

>> No.5790853
File: 77 KB, 650x560, 1391434368985[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5790853

>>5790689
Here's how you become a Freudian psychologist

>why why why why why why why why why...

but you have to stop at the final 'why'
final 'why' being the final transition from motive to nothingness and existentialism
then voila

I'm being serious.

>> No.5790857
File: 739 KB, 245x245, say my name.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5790857

Psychoanalysis never had merit.

>> No.5790862

>>5790857
You're just defensive because you escape into anime because you never had a real childhood.

>> No.5790864

>>5790862
Prove it.

>> No.5790868

>>5790853
you don't understand what you're talking about

>> No.5790870
File: 427 KB, 640x481, 1411996819340[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5790870

>>5790868
niceeeee

>> No.5790871

>>5790864
You asking for prove shows you are reluctant to accept the other anon's diagnosis . This reluctance stems from your defensive attitude. If you weren't defensive you would not be reluctant to accept his diagnosis The other anon is right.

>> No.5790873

>>5790870
psychoanalysis operates on the assumption that there are certain drives that are "just there"; innate to human beings because of their "nature". that's your final why. psychoanalysis deals with understanding how those drives form the (individual or collective) psyche over the course of a lifetime

>> No.5790880
File: 295 KB, 1280x960, 1414078755567.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5790880

>>5790871
there's a catch in here somewhere

>> No.5790881

Yes. It's obviously undergone some changes over the course of the last 75 years, but psychodynamic theory is still one of the most popular schools of thought in psychotherapy. I think most therapists I've met incorporate at least some elements of psychoanalysis.

People who dismiss Freud are generally the ones who have only a passing knowledge of Freud and psychology in general. It's a common occurrence when people learn just enough to move past pop-psychology and its distortion of Freudian ideas.

>> No.5790882
File: 29 KB, 393x450, 1412006386884[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5790882

>>5790873
niceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>> No.5790887

>>5790871
This is all just unfalsifiable drivel. Psychoanalysis is not a science, go back to /b/.

>> No.5790898

>>5790882
Wow, I really hate that guy's movies.

>> No.5790905

>>5790881
This.

>> No.5790913

>>5790887
>Psychoanalysis is not a science

You are correct, even Freud acknowledged this. What's the point?

>> No.5790919

>>5790913
>What's the point?
Anything that isn't scientific is useless.

>> No.5790921

>>5790881
Pretty much the only merit Freud's work has is that 1) he realised that childhood experience is developmentally important and 2) one is not necessarily aware of the motives underlying one's own behaviour

Other than he was a fucking talentless hack. Fucking psychosexual development. Ugh. Shit reads like bad fiction.

>> No.5790923

>>5790919
Why are you in a literature board? You do know that narrative and language aren't sciences, right?

>> No.5790927

>>5790919
is bread useless?

>> No.5790929

>>5790919
Why exactly?

>> No.5790936

>>5790927
>is bread useless?
Bread is scientific.
>>5790923
Don't tell me where I can and can't be, pinko.
>>5790929
Because everything else is opinionated and silly.

>> No.5790946

>>5790936
how is bread scientific?

>> No.5790949

>>5790921
Interesting, that reaction of moral disgust. You're probably not even aware of how it devalues your opposition to freudian concepts.

>> No.5790951

>>5790936
>Because everything else is opinionated and silly

That is an opinion. Is it therefore silly? If silly, why should I care about what you think?

>> No.5790952

>>5790936
>Bread is scientific.

>> No.5790955

Freud slept in the same bed as his parents fucking and was addicted to fingering his bumhole, that is all.

Read modern, where not everyone is a pervert trying desperately to reconcile themselves with the world.

>> No.5790959

>>5790955
lol sry cant understand shit lrn2english faget

>> No.5790970

>>5790955
>where not everyone is a pervert trying desperately to reconcile themselves with the world.
But that's actually how people are.

>> No.5790975

>>5790951
>That is an opinion
No, it is verifiable fact.
>>5790946
>>5790952
We know how it works and how it is made thanks to science, we don't talk about the feelings of the bread like Zizek and other such morons.

>> No.5790976

>>5790955
But everyone definitely is a pervert trying toreconcile themselves with the world. If being on 4chan hasn't taught you this, you have the intellectual capacity of bread.

>> No.5790977

>>5790970
No, not everyone. It's just a big part. It's the people who have actually succeeded that you want to read. Freud gets bogged down like fuck in his own depravity, it's too heavy for him.

>> No.5790979

Isn't this more of a /sci/ question?

>> No.5790986

>>5790975
no, we know how bread is made thanks to experience. the mesopotamians didn't have no fucking scientific method. bread doesn't "work"; that's too vague a definition.

we know now what happens during the making and consumption of bread, thanks to scientific observation, experimentation and analysis.

experience is not science, yet it has helped the mesopotamians feed themselves. hence, things can be unscientific yet useful. you lose.

>> No.5790990
File: 209 KB, 682x600, 1359466996360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5790990

>>5790986
>science is just the scientific method

>> No.5790991

>>5790979
Nah, he was more influential on the kind of thinkers that /sci/ doesn't get/considers anti-scientific.

>> No.5790995

>>5790977
Succeeded at what?

>> No.5791000

>>5790995
Negating sexuality, basically.

>> No.5791001

Are there any interesting psychological works on the internet and vidya?

>> No.5791004

>this is what psychoanalists actually believe
>I was 8
>One evening I tripped over a bag of chips and smashed my front teeth on the chair
>it was a very long night in the ER with both my parents and friends emotionally disturbed and worried about it
>20 years later I've almost forgotten about it but it remains deep in my psyche, scarring me further
>this has led me to be avoidant of chairs, and chips, which make me feel uneasy and sweaty for some reason
>everytime I hear the soul crushing sounds of a chip being chewed I start to feel psychopatic tendencies surface all of the sudden
>clearly this has nothing to do with whatever inherent, genetic or environmentally acquired mental illnesses I might have
>and all to do with that one event during my childhood

>> No.5791005

>>5790990
the kind of trial and error experience ancient people used to produce had nothing to do with your idea of science.

explain yourself or fuck off you monumental faggot.

>> No.5791006

>>5791000
Why would you want to negate your sexuality?

>> No.5791007

>>5791005
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Now fuck off.

>> No.5791009

>>5791006
You wouldn't. Not really. But it can't be seen as the end-all and be-all of being, if you're interested in an accurate picture of the mind. Because it isn't. Not even close.

>> No.5791010

>>5790689
Regardless of its merit, Freudian thought has pretty much become accepted part of our culture. Notice how people use terms like compensation and projection and subconscious and repressing at cetera.

So even if it's not "true", it may still be useful to learn about. Kind of like studying religion can be useful.

>> No.5791014

>>5790979
No, because then you get people like
>>5790887
>>5790919
>>5790936
>>5790975

Staunch materialists with little imagination who clinch onto dogmatic notions of 'facts' with a religious fever.

>> No.5791016

>>5791004
>soap opera based pop science definition of psychoanalysis
good job fuckhead

>>5791007
> Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
define systematic
define study
define observation and experiment

psychoanalysis fits your definition here about as losely as the discovery as bread.

>> No.5791017

>>5791004

How the fuck do you trip over a bag of chips tho

>> No.5791018

>>5791016
> discovery as bread
*discovery of bread

>> No.5791021

>>5790871
Guess my name!

>> No.5791022

>>5791004
Do people actually think it is about?

>> No.5791025

>>5791021
gay faggotson

>> No.5791027

>>5791016
>define systematic
>define study
>define observation and experiment
Buy a dictionary.

>> No.5791029

>>5791016
>I wasted countless of years on a subject matter that is scientifically irrelevant
>the emotional scarring has led me to try and advocate it's legitimacy on the internet as much as I can!

>> No.5791033

>>5791021
I don't know, Samuel?

>> No.5791037

>>5791022
Correlation =! Causality

>> No.5791041

>>5791027
alright then. psychoanalysis is systematic, it's a study, it uses observation and experimentation. now you're gonna bitch about how that's not true by your definition, which you haven't given yet, so this would be a good point.

>>5791029
i study molecular biology you turbo-shitposting retard. one can study STEM and still have some perspective.

>> No.5791042
File: 48 KB, 234x311, 1382068355001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791042

>>5791041
It has to be falsifiable too. Read Popper.

>> No.5791044

>>5791041
>biology
>STEM
>relevant
toppest of keks m8

>> No.5791047

>>5791027
>systematic
adjective
1.pertaining to, based on, or in accordance with a system of classification:

>study
Noun
1. application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection:

>observation
noun
1.
an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.

>experiment
Noun
1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.

All these apply to psychoanalysis

>> No.5791049

The fall of Freud is not attributed to intellectual opposition to his works, it is due to people not giving a fuck about living sensible orthodoxical lives.

People are beginning to accept that subjectivity and personality of lifestyle (no matter how filthy or morbid) are fine, and thus diminishes drive to 'fix' oneself.

>> No.5791053

>>5791047
see >>5791042

>> No.5791058

>>5791042
i know that, what i'm getting at is there's no definition that accounts for what the mesopotamians did when they discovered bread. they didn't know about, care for or understand the concept and method of falsification, their knowledge was purely based on vague experience, yet it was useful.

hence knowledge based on vague experience can be useful; hence something needn't be scientific in the strict sense to be useful.

>>5791044
> genetical engineering
> development of new materials, energy sources
> biomed
> not relevant
at least define your delusional concept of "relevant"

>> No.5791068

>>5791058
>hence something needn't be scientific in the strict sense to be useful.
That does not follow. Their experience with bread was based on experimentation and reproducibility.

>> No.5791071

>>5791009
But psychoanalysis doesn't claim that it is.

>> No.5791076

>>5791071
>Freud

>> No.5791078

>An important element in the symbolism of the elephant head is displacement or, better disguise. The myth wants to make it appear that the elephant head was not a deliberate choice but merely the nearest available head in an auspicious direction or the head of one of Siva’s opponents to whom he had already granted salvation. From a psychoanalytic perspective, there is meaning in the selection of the elephant head. Its trunk is the displaced phallus, a caricature of Siva’s linga. It poses no threat because it is too large, flaccid, and in the wrong place to be useful for sexual purposes…So Ganesa takes on the attributes of his father but in an inverted form, with an exaggerated limp phallus – ascetic and benign – whereas Siva is hard, erotic, and destructive.

Courtright's interpretations of Ganesha

>> No.5791083

>>5791037
What does that have to do with anything?

>> No.5791085
File: 337 KB, 1260x1618, gg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791085

>>5791078
pic

>> No.5791090

>>5791068
a lose form of that, not the strict form that modern sciences uses with strict procedures that have to be followed, the elimination of unrelated factors, peer-review scrutiny and whatnot.

the experience with bread was about as scientific if not less as psychoanalysis is. a factor.

>> No.5791099

>>5791068
>experimentation and reproducibility

Which also goes for psychoanalysis. What sets it apart from science is the degree of subjectivity when dealing with reproducibility, but that does not make it useless.

In Introduction to Psychoanalysis Freud makes clear that, even if one dismisses the theories of psychoanalysis, one cannot simply deny that a majority of the patients undergoing psychoanalytic therapy feel helped by it. Even if this is a mere illusion on the patient's side that does nothing to discredit psychoanalysis use, be it as an illusion or actually effective.

>> No.5791101

>>5791049
Aha. Someone understands Freudian psychology.

I don't know though, I feel there will always be societal barriers and customs as long as there is some level of group mentality control (i.e. television, news, science). This will render some train of repressed desires people have into their preconscious, and thus into unconscious with some rationalization of limitation.

However, I believe just by living in reality, Freud would agree your desires are repressed. One of the biggest examples he highlights is the baby lying down who wants to get somewhere. The baby cannot get there by mere will alone, hence he uses his physical body and moves body parts to get there. This is stored in his preconscious, then filtered into his unconscious while he sleeps along with any rationalizations that will help cathetically charge this function for The Uncertainty Principle during his waking years.

>> No.5791108

>>5791101
And to further develop this thought, this movement pattern is very, very cathetically charged. So while I'm sure the Uncertainty Principle applies to any repressed desire, it really doesn't apply to motor functions because they are infantile and related to literally everything in waking life.

>> No.5791112

>>5791076
But it's all about his pleasure principle, not merely sexuality alone.

>> No.5791113

>>5791049
orthodox : unorthodox != healthy : unhealthy

freud was never against unorthodox, and he judged very little in general. he had a neutral stance towards homosexuality for example, and that was insanely liberal considering his time.

>> No.5791121

Every Psychoanalysis thread is a shitfest with idiots that have zero knowledge on psychology.

>> No.5791124
File: 103 KB, 392x574, Gravitys_rainbow_cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791124

Was the Freudian psychologist correct? Was Slothrop manipulating the rocket with his sexual desires?

>> No.5791126

>>5791121
Well obviously, if they weren't idiots and they actual had a basic understanding of psychology, they wouldn't be such Freud babbies.

>> No.5791128
File: 918 KB, 500x299, 1234346325342.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791128

>>5791126
Exactly, because only a basic understanding of psychology would make you hate on dr. Freud

>> No.5791130

>>5791124
The girls didn't exist

>> No.5791135

>>5791130
Don't pull this Bret Easton Ellis shit on me.

>> No.5791138

>>5791126
smelly dumb behaviourist scum

>> No.5791142

>>5791049
>tfw degeneracy is healthy

>> No.5791159

>>5791101
>I feel there will always be societal barriers and customs as long as there is some level of group mentality control (i.e. television, news, science). This will render some train of repressed desires people have into their preconscious, and thus into unconscious with some rationalization of limitation.
Yeapo agree with you there.

Would you say this desire stems from the prospect of rebellion and or the prospect of assertion?

>However, I believe just by living in reality, Freud would agree your desires are repressed.
This concept bewilders me. I wholly agree and I wholly understand, and that is why I have trouble accepting it.

-fuck it just got into a huge ass argument with my parents so i'm too pissed to finish this post.

peace

>> No.5791180
File: 145 KB, 400x352, oh-my-god.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791180

>mfw everyone in my class is analyzing the novel through the lens of Jungian archetypes

Every house isn't symbolic of a womb, you pedantic shitbirds.

>> No.5791184

>>5791180
Absolute cancer. Jung is like the Camus of psychology.

>> No.5791187

>>5791180
you got that all wrong, wombs are symbolic of houses

>> No.5791325

>>5791187
Wombs are literally houses.

>> No.5791369

>>5791184
Jung was hack, but at least he was creative as fuck. Actually changed the pessimist worldview of Freud into a positive one. Jung is pretty interesting, one might think he was a little crazy but he had a dreamy life.

>> No.5791372 [DELETED] 

Freud was the greatest essayist of the 20th century.

If you read him as such instead of someone trying to do science, he becomes infinitely better.

>> No.5791376

Freud was the greatest essayist of the 20th century.

If you read him as such, and not as someone trying to do science, he becomes infinitely better.

>> No.5791379

Freud was a genius but Anglo-American babbies hate him because 'm-m-muh empirical sciences!' so don't expect much from /lit/. Read him and then Lacan

>> No.5791390

>>5791180
>gets angry at people using jungian archetypes
>lists freudian example
step it up, son.

>> No.5791392

>>5791369
Jung was more right than Freud

>> No.5791413

>>5791379
>Freud was a genius
He really was... he's one of the only authors that when I read him I literally have to re-read the page three times to truly figure out what his line of logic is.

>> No.5791424

>>5791379
Yet Freudians hate Jung for his esoteric mysticism.

>> No.5791437

>>5791413
>line of logic
Original essayists do not always follow strict lines of logic. Freud was fighting a topic that was barely touched on, and which is now part of how we all view and understand human beings, for better and worse. You can't just delete it from the culture by simply disagreeing with it.

Civilization and its Discontents never tries to be logical, it's a daring analysis of how human beings fundamentally work.

>> No.5791440

Im a Lacanian and I think Jung is a fucking idiot

Srsly I don't know why does he make /lit/ so wet

>> No.5791442

>>5791379
>implying Freud didn't think he was an empirical scientist
>implying Freud wasn't just an empiricist with profoundly shitty methodology

>> No.5791449

>>5791440
why do you think jung is an idiot?

>> No.5791450

>>5791379

This so much

>> No.5791468

>>5791126

That's because the fags who teach psychology believe that psychology is only Behaviorism or Conducitivism, and disregard everything that can't be empirically tested (like the Unconscious)

>> No.5791471

>>5791442
So a lot of the work he did on neuroses and other psychological conditions is bullshit. So what? Interpretations of Dreams was a mainly psychoanalytical work. Totem and Taboo was sociological.

The man was a genius, just admit it.

>> No.5791485

>>5791468
Yes! I mean, what do we understand about the unconscious today? Still very little. We know which parts of the brain are active at night, but that's really all we know. How can we know what their unconscious is doing except for psychoanalysis?

The fact that everyone doesn't really appreciate dreams shows how hopeless modern society is. You can literally learn more about the world, human nature, and your soul from your dreams.

>> No.5791493

>>5791471
>so what if he was wrong and a hack on the core of his theory
>the man was a genius
Stop pushing the psychiatric Jew.

>> No.5791516

>>5791493
Ah now the truth comes out. Your home board should be /pol/, stop pretending you belong here.

>> No.5791522

>>5791485

There's nothing to understand. Freud's notion of the unconscious is pseudoscientific garbage and Searle's critique of the idea is, for once, bang on. Mental events, thoughts, are either experienced mentally by someone (that is, someone is conscious of them) or they are not, in which case they literally do not have any existence that can be experience. Plenty of things happen in your body and your brain that you are not conscious of, and there are many things that you are conscious of but cannot properly articulate or fit into greater schemata, but there is absolutely not an unconscious mind; the very idea is incoherent. Freud was selling snake oil. Your dreams are interesting because they demonstrate that you actually don't will your own experiential reality at all, that you have no actual control over your own brain at ANY level, rather than because they emanate from a mystical magic place within your brain which Doctor Siggy Froodledoodle, Esq. can illuminate for you for the reasonable price of one gazillion bucks (but it's probably just your desire to fuck your mom).

>> No.5791531

>begins as a clinical practice for diagnosing and treating mental disorders
>develops larger theory to these ends which serve as platforms to critique society from
>have no effectiveness in treating clinical practice
>still tries to diagnose society

Psychoanalysis is one of the most trivial fields of human knowledge that exists.

>> No.5791532

>>5791516
As if that isn't an accurate statement. Freud was unapologetic ally jewish.

>> No.5791539

>>5791522
No hope at all for dreams. You are no different than any other scientist out there.

Freud wasn't a scientist, he wasn't a philosopher either exactly. He was someone who recreated dream analytical theories and the field of psychoanalysis.

What have you done with your life so far? Maybe you should analyze your dreams and find some of your truly inner wishes. Once you understand your full brain's capacity, you will see what you truly desire and are capable of.

>> No.5791544

>>5791532
I'm sorry you can't look past ethnographic barriers.

>> No.5791547

>>5791544
I can. My criticism of Freud stems from his shitty theory, not his Jewishness. It's just fun sometimes to call him a Jew.

>> No.5791550

>>5791424

Because that would mean doing something that actually helps you.

Sick and unhappy people don't like healthy and happy people.

>> No.5791552

>>5791547
Which theory are we talking about?

>> No.5791562

>>5791552
freudian theory of psychosexual development

>> No.5791567

>>5791550
funny how everytime I've seen a freudian try to critique Jung, they inevitably talk about it in freudian terms. LIke in >>5791180

>> No.5791573

>>5791562
Does it offend you? Freud pretty much predicted your reaction.

>> No.5791577

>>5791567
There are no Freudian terms in that post you tard. You've never read Freud in the first place though, so how would you know?

>> No.5791591

>>5791577

Someone wants to defend Freud to the teeth.

Maybe you should go see a psychoanalyst who says you're sick and there's nothing to do about it.

>frog tier special snowflake "la vie, c'est ennui"

>> No.5791595

>>5791573
>Freud predicted that his shitty theory wouldn't be well received
What a genius...

>> No.5791600

>>5790871
so you basically just said: He's right, you're wrong.
Bravo, Freudian Internet defense force

>> No.5791605

>>5791577
>womb
>not a sexual term
>not heavily freudian
I completely agree with >>5791591

>> No.5791610

>>5791605
>An english term
>Freudian

>> No.5791612

>>5791605
Do you know what a 'term' is in literature? It's what the author defines and uses in his arguments. Freud recognized this, of course, and as a good author of quality literature, he defined his terms in the backs of the books he wrote, for the reader's convenience.

>> No.5791621

ITT: Freudians unable to defend psychoanalysis because it's constructed like this to be on shaky grounds so Freud can jack his heeb dick in a cuckold frenzy of the mind

>> No.5791624

>>5791621
I'm anti-Freudian but please stop. You're making us look bad.

>> No.5791648

>>5790991
Underrated post.

Freud is still having huge philosophical and literary impact via having created a kind of mythic language to shape discourse (comparable to the Greek myths which he draws on and the Bible in the past), even though he and his entire tradition are demonstrably useless in a clinical context.

That said, it would be interesting to see someone try to apply cognitive psychology or something to capital-T Theory.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17583123

>> No.5791655

>>5791595
No, he predicted that people would be offended by it, as it unveals the genealogy of our notions of sex and morality. Quite nietzschean, tbh.

>> No.5791660

>>5791442
He didn't, entirely. He used the academic apparatus of empirical science to pursue his interests, which branched all the way out into a sort of interdisciplinary philosophy. He didn't think of himself as a scientist but as an intellectual "conquistador".

>> No.5791668

>>5791655
>implying that's the only reason to be offended
>implying that the theory is right
>implying that isn't shoddy circular reasoning

>> No.5791677

>>5791668
Wait, you have even more reasons to be offended? Interesting, what are those?
Also, I never said that every single hypothesis of his was correct, that would be quite unusual for anyone, no matter how brilliant.
Also, where's the circular reasoning in stating that you confirm his prediction of people getting offended?

>> No.5791682

>>5791668
I mean, if you think about it, why ARE people so offended by Freudian logic? It's like they go out of their way to make fun of Freud, even if they haven't read him. Quite an unnecessarily brutish reaction. No wonder contemporary thinkers hate him: he said we were basically no different than monkeys who base their social communications on sex. But it's true. Think of all the communication that goes on in today's world: most of it, regardless of if the persons engaging in it realize it or not, are just based on sex.

>> No.5791683

"psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind." - Eric Kandel, neuro-scientist and Nobel Laureate

>> No.5791688

>>5791677
>>5791682
Sex is just one part of the human psyche. To elevate it to the prime position is just silly and narrowminded. People are more complex than a single goal.

>> No.5791693

>>5791683
Thank you, I am the person defending Freud.

Yes, Freudian scientific analyses of the brain are incorrect, but as stated before, psychoanalysis in The Interpretation of Dreams cannot, and will most likely never, be proven wrong.

>> No.5791708

>>5791688
You view your brain as something which is fully comprehensive of itself at all times. This is where our differences lie.

You see, Freud stipulated that your unconscious has secret desires that can manifest themselves in your waking life through 'cathetically charged events'. The 'Freudian slip' simply is referring to those bits of your unconscious you can't access releasing themselves into your waking mind through actions or words.

The idea that your brain is working in ways you cannot, or may never be able to, comprehend is a scary idea for some, but for others it's a challenge: a challenge to discover what your repressed wishes are.

>> No.5791709

>>5791693
>unfalsifiable theory
>worth anything in science

>> No.5791714

>>5791709
>science is the only way to knowledge.
get out fedora.

>> No.5791715

>>5791708
This relates to the original post, because our waking life teaches us to want sex at all times is wrong, when in actuality the masses are most likely wanting sex 24/7

>> No.5791716

>>5791709

That's why it's a spiritual system more so than anything scientific. Which doesn't make it worthless, but come on Freudians... Why exactly they hate Jung for going esoteric is beyond me, as they love to dabble in the unfalsifiable.

>> No.5791724

>>5791715
And to add on to this one further: they themselves don't want to recognize their want of sex either, which leads to a repressed desire which connects this thoughtwave to a rationalization like money or fame, and you incorporate this desire into your life instead of sex.

The ol' societal switcheroo. You really think they want you to realize your biological desires?

Sorry, I'm getting a bit Pynchonesque here.

>> No.5791725

>>5791708
>You view your brain as something which is fully comprehensive of itself at all times
Not true. I'd say I'm fairly Jungian.

>> No.5791730

>>5791688
the key concept is libido.

libido =/= sex.

It seems you are discussing something you dont really know.

>> No.5791734

>>5790689
Yeah, without a doubt
Why do we have this fucking thread everyday

>> No.5791749

>>5791730
Libido is the psychical energy that collects in the erogenous zones during psychosexual development. It is not synonymous with sex, no, but it is heavily involved with sexuality.

>> No.5791751

>>5791004
have you ever read any Freud you faglord

>> No.5791757

>>5791734
The Jews can't accept that /lit/ prefers Jung to Freud.

Freud actually thought the reason people rejected his theory was because of Anti-Semitism.

>> No.5791761

>>5791757
>The Jews can't accept that /lit/ prefers Jung to Freud.
Except no one on /lit/ takes Jung seriously, especially given this thread where people are mostly defending Freud
>Freud actually thought the reason people rejected his theory was because of Anti-Semitism.
To a small degree in Vienna that was true
Hitler taking over Austria eventually forced him to flee to the UK mind you

>> No.5791765

Libido is also creativity. Sex and art are very much related. It is this will to reproduce, to create, to express, to reaffirm, it is the piss of the dog, the brush on the canvas, pelvic thrust, stroking strings, saying things should be done, life should continue.

>> No.5791776

>>5791761

You're not taking Jung seriously. In this thread I've seen it mentioned several times how his ideas are worht considering and in other threads too.

Stop thinking the charlatan of Vienna is top tier because your gerontocratic tenured shits you look up to think he's still worthy of anyone's attention.
Time to explore other grounds instead of circle jerking over the same old kikes.

>> No.5791782

>>5791749
indeed.

The most interesting Freud's idea, is that human sexuality is not something given by birth, is something we build.

>> No.5791787

>>5791765
That's more Jungian than Freudian.

>>5791782
>Constructivism
Disgusting.

>> No.5791789

>>5791776
>In this thread I've seen it mentioned several times how his ideas are worht considering and in other threads too
>implications
Once Jung started getting all religious and spiritual he lost all credibility
>Stop thinking the charlatan of Vienna
Without that "charlatan of Vienna" there would have been no Jung
>Time to explore other grounds instead of circle jerking over the same old kikes.
>LE EBIN KIKE MAY MAY
simply epic

>> No.5791790

>>5791787
>That's more Jungian than Freudian.

You dont know shit.
Go hate jews somewhere else.

>> No.5791796

>>5791776
Not that guy, but
1. Any level-headed person can tell at an instant that jung is far more wacky in his theories than freud ever got.
2. Your antisemitism might help convince /pol/lacks of your position, but around here, it is pretty counter-productive, as it makes people think your main problem with freud is that you believe he's some evil jewish plotter working to genocide you by sexualizing children.

>> No.5791800

>>5791790
>According to Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung, the libido is identified as psychic energy. Duality (opposition) that creates the energy (or libido) of the psyche, which Jung asserts expresses itself only through symbols: "It is the energy that manifests itself in the life process and is perceived subjectively as striving and desire."
Wow it's like you're just looking for a reason to back out of this.

>> No.5791806

>>5791787
Author of that post, that's not particular to Jung at all and I love Jung. That is completely Freudian (and Jungian too, to some extent).

>> No.5791813

>>5791800
Not that anon, but that goes pretty far beyond the freudian claim that creativity is sublimated libido.

>> No.5791814

>>5791800
He took that notion from Freud, anon.

>> No.5791817

>>5791800
what is sublimation.

>> No.5791819

>>5791789

Credibility among whom is the question here.
And that shit doesn't matter.

>Without that "charlatan of Vienna" there would have been no Jung

That doesn't matter in the greater scheme. Without Aristotle there wouldn't be a Plato. Now what does that mean about the former or the latter's ideas? Shit.

You seem like an authoritative faggot, caring a little too much about the validation others give to ideas and how they're of prime importance in the development of others and not how much the actual others their output matters, regardless of the 'influences' they've got.

>das rayciss

Isn't there some square you need to go with a "#BlackLivesMatter" sign?

>> No.5791832

>>5791819
>Without Aristotle there wouldn't be a Plato.
I have no reaction image that would appropriately capture the disgust I feel for you.

>> No.5791839

>>5791819
>Now what does that mean about the former or the latter's ideas? Shit.
Probably a lot
Especially considering more than half of what Jung ever talked about was taken from Freud
>You seem like an authoritative faggot, caring a little too much about the validation others give to ideas and how they're of prime importance in the development of others and not how much the actual others their output matters, regardless of the 'influences' they've got.
>projecting
Lol
>Isn't there some square you need to go with a "#BlackLivesMatter" sign?
Ebin
Simply

>> No.5791840

>>5791806
>>5791814
Freud thought of libido as the energy of the Id, the primal desires/drives/etc of man.
>the energy, regarded as a quantitative magnitude... of those instincts which have to do with all that may be comprised under the word 'love'
At it's basic level the Id is not strictly geared towards creativity. As >>5791817 says, Freud did come up with a way for it to do so. But Jung cut that out and simply incorporated it into libido itself. Jung is partially based in Freud, yes. That much is obvious. But he improved it and made it a workable theory rather than the overfocused sexual obsession of Freud

>> No.5791850

>>5791796

1. Again, this is a "smart pplz don't agree and I'm a smart pplz so" argument. What does that even mean?
Unless you perceive others as more important than you, then maybe yeah, it means something.
But in the pursuit of greater understanding, 'level-headed' people matter shit and only the ideas matter.
2. Well I don't care what the mores are here. He's a kike with all that entails in terms of ideas and self-victimization.
As if being a normal white dude would have kept him from a backlash.
Being a normal white dude would have destroyed him. Suddenly having no excuse for failure.

>> No.5791855

>>5791840
>But he improved it and made it a workable theory
> rather than the overfocused sexual obsession of Freud
>implications
What an over simplistic view of Freud

>> No.5791862

>>5791819
>Without Aristotle there wouldn't be a Plato

Yes there would be a plato. Go check your wikipedia links again.

>> No.5791868

>>5791850
I wasn't appealing to other people, but ratherto common sense, which is there with freud imo, but completely flies out of the window with jung.
And freud didn't need to self-victimize, as he was actually literally victimized by antisemites.

>> No.5791869
File: 41 KB, 297x404, jung.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791869

>>5791855
>Implying Freud didn't practically worship sexuality as his god
Enjoy never finding the self.

>> No.5791873

>>5791850
>Suddenly having no excuse for failure.
Freud has had and continues to have a much greater influence on clinical efforts than Jung ever had or will have.
There's a reason why Jung isn't mentioned unless in pseudo spiritual new age circles.

>> No.5791877

>>5791832

Ok error on my part.
Pathetic how another's brainfart determines your intellectual self-worth.

>>5791839

Still doesn't mean much.
"It was me, me!!" means shit in the pursuit of knowledge. If someone in the arts makes a collage of someone's entire work and the collage looks better than the original, sorry, the 'original' still matters little in what the genius of the latter produced.

>> No.5791881

>>5791873
Because he wasn't Jewish. Just like Sullivan.

>> No.5791885
File: 92 KB, 800x667, condescendinglacan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791885

>>5791869
>implying there is a "self" to find
Fuck off fag, no one cares about Jung

>> No.5791886

>>5791869
Freud's repressed desires include more than just sex, meaning he knew human beings wanted more than just sex.

It's kind of like a layer cake, sure the foundation for a Freudian conception of culture are sexually repressed desires, but everything on top are other sorts of repressions, family relations they wish they had, jobs they want to get, ideas they don't want to recognize they themselves had.

>> No.5791896

>>5791886
Freud overemphasized sexuality. Jung saw it as just one of many desires/drives behind a person not more important than any other and there really isn't a reason to think otherwise of it.

>> No.5791902

>>5791881
>Le ebin Jew conspiracy meme
ebin
>>5791877
> If someone in the arts makes a collage of someone's entire work and the collage looks better than the original
>implications

>he 'original' still matters little in what the genius of the latter produced
What autistic thought process and mental leaps and bounds did you have to do to reach this conclusion? Honestly, are you mentally retarded?

Also
>Jung
>Genius
Top Kek M80
i r8 8/8

>> No.5791903

>>5790880
jesus christ, is that what you get when you wear high heels too much?

>> No.5791908

>>5791869
He really didn't. He believed in repression of immediate urges as the precondition of civilization, beauty and autonomy. If sexuality was his god, it was a god he wanted to see enslaved.

>> No.5791916

>>5791902
It's not a conspiracy. Even Jewish heritage websites acknowledge the strong prevalence of Jews in founding psychology.
http://forward.com/articles/103139/psychotherapys-jewish-roots/

>> No.5791924

Jews are relativistic, I'm not going to lie. And it's not because I just read the episode in Pynchon where he explains the difference between relativism and a German lion.

But I really believe we need a little bit of relativism, and when you really analyze the brain in a Freudian way, it becomes not a caged beast, or a free beast, but a little of both. And you start to see the gradient, if you will, of the human mind.

>> No.5791925

>>5791896
>Explains how Freud wasn't obsessed with sex
>B-but Freud overemphasized sexuality
Saying "you're wrong" isn't an argument
>>5791908
>He believed in repression of immediate urges as the precondition of civilization, beauty and autonomy.
>If sexuality was his god, it was a god he wanted to see enslaved.
This is a bad reading of Freud
He had no problem with people following and finding out their desires via analysis, only that civilization ultimately represses some of them being that they don't align with current moral or social standards

>> No.5791927

>>5791868
>>5791873

>common sense

Is that what Freudians have to resort to? Fucking common sense?
How many fallacious shit arguments can you pull out of your ass before you bugger off and admit it's just atheist esotericism worth only in its practicality ( where Freudians fail miserably ) ?

>le new age tree huggers read Jung, muh experts don't

And again this appeal to authority.
I don't care if Jung was read by transsexual midgets, if there's merit to the idea, I'll check it out.
Your assholes clench whenever some pleb drinks the same type of coffee as you too I'm sure?

Here, let me join in on this fun:

Freudians are all unpleasant people who date hooked nose bitches with saggy tits and torture them every thursday night while quoting de Sade. Asking help from them is like asking a warden to release you.
There I joined the 4chan-tier debate method, berate an idea based on who supports it.

>> No.5791932

>>5791927
>projection
Lol

>> No.5791938

>>5791924
That duality is the heart of Jungian thought.

>> No.5791939
File: 26 KB, 640x480, le hat joke.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791939

>>5791902

It took you a long time to call me an autist.
I didn't keep count, but 3/4 posts, impressive.

But to illustrate it with a more vulgar example, if someone mixes your shit and people like the mix more than the original, the original has become secondary.
Get it?

>> No.5791945

>>5791932

/lit/ has to be the most pathetic ensemble of humanities students I can imagine.
Not resorting to name calling and ad hominems is really a difficult task for you shits.
I'm sure your poem club thinks it's cool though.

>> No.5791948

>>5791927
Calm your tits, i didn't actually say that freud is right because of common sense, just that common sense can give a good first indication regarding which of the two was just batshit insane.
Why is it always the jungians who get mad in these debates? It's almost like they constantly feel threatened.

>> No.5791950

>>5791938
But now you realize I was explaining Freudian thought.

Have you read anything by Freud?

>> No.5791951

>>5791945
>Not resorting to name calling and ad hominems is really a difficult task for you shits.
>Resorts to name calling and ad hominems himself
Top kek

>> No.5791953
File: 12 KB, 231x218, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5791953

>>5790689
there is an idea which says, problems of the mind can be solved through speaking about them... speech puts abstract thoughts into concrete form. and when you speak to another person who listens, the two of you will find faults (lies, contradictions, inconsistencies, or plain ol' evil and mean sentiments) in your speech and through analysis, these faults can be mended.

>> No.5791957

>>5791948
Nice generalization

>> No.5791964

>>5791957
Lmfao
Like half of your posts aren't generalizations themselves

>> No.5791966

>>5791957
It's not a generalization, but an observation. Not that you would know anything about these matters.

>> No.5791967

>>5791951

We left the debate on the Freud/Jung debacle a long time ago when you two decided to go: "le goa pystrance folks read Jung, my friends in neurology still prefer Freud."-nonsense. So yeah, I'm resorting to name calling.

No point in talking to people when they need to call in the helping hand of an authority to give validation to their preferences in ideas.

>> No.5791973

>>5791950
Quite a bit. I'm a psych major and the head of my school's psych dept is a huge lover of Freud.

>> No.5791978

>>5791967
>"le goa pystrance folks read Jung, my friends in neurology still prefer Freud."
>implying this isn't true
Neurology aside Freudian/Lacanian/Post-Freudian Psychoanalysis is way larger in terms of scope and size than "Jungian Analytic Psychology"

>> No.5791986

>>5791973
Fair enough man. I'm not the one criticizing Jung. I've spent a decent amount of time reading Freud. I have 'Man and His Symbols' by Jung I just haven't gotten to it yet.

>> No.5791996

>>5791986
Jung is very mystical which turns people off of him. But I don't like how he's usually portrayed as against Freud. He's only in contrast to him because Freud explicitly distanced himself in response to Jung's ideas. Jung simply saw weaknesses in Freud's theory and tried to address them. The film A Dangerous Method is actually quite nice in portraying their relationship and it's breakup. Starred Fassbender as Jung and Mortensen as Freud.

>> No.5792007

>>5791978

And it still means shit.
Groups disliking/liking shit never withheld me from examining an idea and following my gut instinct that there's something to it, even if the world says there's not.
Even if the pope said "it's okay", it would mean shit.

Jungians are now in the same position as Freudians were, as charlatans and preachers of woo-woo.
Thank god most don't opt out in that situation.

>> No.5792012

even if the psycho-anything schools "helped" (they also create disasters...), its usage and existence has no merit, when we could, instead, advance the knowledge in science and that of the general population.
IMO, things like this: http://www.biolmoodanxietydisord.com/content/4/1/10 are worth much more dedication than muh opinion and muh prejudices that come from psycho-bullshit, be it psychoanalysis, psychology or even psychiatry.

>> No.5792020

>>5792012
Lmfao gtfo

>> No.5792044

>>5792020
thank you for being an example of the retardation that comes from magical thinking

>> No.5792046

>>5791180
>sometimes a house is just a house

>> No.5792052

>>5792044
>Magical thinking
>>>/sci/
Out you go

>> No.5792065

>>5792052
thank you for confirming muh opinion and muh prejudices about psycho-bullshitters :^)

>> No.5792083
File: 29 KB, 500x373, c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792083

>mfw I like Freud, Jung and Lacan equally and I'm also critic towards the three of them as well
>mfw people turn them against each other as if one any of the three brilliant men were shit
>mfw meanwhile ignorants try descredit the whole three of them
~~~S2~~~

>> No.5792089

>>5792083
>le i'll just take all three in moderation cop out
Have fun being unable to make critical choices
>>5792065
Yup, goodbye now

>> No.5792096

>>5792083
>liking Freud, Jung and Lacan equally
high tier: Freud
mid tier: Lacan
pleb tier: Jung

>> No.5792101
File: 31 KB, 640x360, Carl-Jung.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792101

>>5792096
reverse it

>> No.5792110

>>5792096
High tier: Lacan
Mid tier: Freud (sorry Freud)
Better than pleb but not mid tier: Object Relations
Pleb tier: Ego Psychology
ISHYGDDT tier: Jung

>> No.5792116

>>5792096
master tier : Otto Rank

>> No.5792155

>>5791819
>Without Aristotle there wouldn't be a Plato.
kek

>> No.5792183

>>5792089
The one I like the most and the one I disagree the most is Jung. I think Jung was a very limited man, that had a big share of naive thinking, that took with him what he learned and experienced from childhood and, when facing problems (religious ones, for example) he worked them up. He is the only one of the three that speaks directly to us with so much honesty. Again, he is limited, but also a great listener and a gate opener in many ways.

Jung and Freud also had a problem that I didn't see anyone address here so far, that is that they are old. Society was much different back then and so were the main problems spotted by their patients. Freud was a pioneer, he was revolutionary, but he was still a XIX century doctor, with too much of a scientific mind that kept him from dwelving even more into the importance of language to the practice. He was stubborn, but highly intelligent.

Lacan is the one I like the least and also the one I think got everything right. He is hard to comprehend, he is filled with a hubris that makes him put on a show around his own ideas, he lacks the humility of Jung (which was also Jung's problem and that make the two practically incompatible in their ideas: Jung treats with good images, Lacan fights the inflation of images). But he was a genius nevertheless, with a truly admirable practice.

>> No.5792198

>>5792110
fair enough, Lacan would object though

>>5792116
nig pls

>> No.5792213
File: 14 KB, 340x323, Alfred-Adler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792213

Why is Alfred "Will to Power" Adler the Nietzschean psychologist getting slept on?

>> No.5792214

>>5792213
Because he sucks and his theory is obviously thrown together with "and another thing"

>> No.5792215

jung is mckenna tier

>> No.5792223

>>5792198
>Lacan would object though
Absolutely, haha
>>5792183
That's an interesting take.
Lacan actually studied under Jung briefly during his residency

>> No.5792304

>>5792215

McKenna had an amazing life, that's all that matters.
I prefer to listen to such a dude when it comes to psychological well-being.

>> No.5792318

>>5792304
>>5792215
>McKenna
>Subject Shamanism, ethnobotany, metaphysics, psychedelic drugs, alchemy
absolutely disgusting

>> No.5792324

>>5792318

Why?

>> No.5792330

>>5792318

I'm sure being a raging alcoholic is much more intellectually gratifying yes.

>> No.5792332

>>5792324

McKenna had no self-critical filter. Anything and everything he thought might be interesting was fair game.

He came up with some totally fantastic ideas, but he did almost nothing to argue them in a serious, academic manner.

>> No.5792352

>>5792304
I prefer reading people who actually write amazing books.

>shrooms are the missing links in evolution lads, the machine elves in the other dimension told me

>> No.5792358

>>5792332

>McKenna had no self-critical filter. Anything and everything he thought might be interesting was fair game.

That's what most great thinkers do, even if it ends up leading them astray along bullshit paths. It hardly invalidates his plight or his anthropological ideas.
Not saying McKenna is going to be in the pantheon of Western intellectuals, but as if that's really what it's all about.. but who am I kidding, this is /lit/ right, aspiring Foucaults and Deleuzes.

>> No.5792364

>>5790871
I diagnose you are a massive faggot. If you disagree you're being defensive and you're in denial

>> No.5792370

>>5792352

Your preferences mean shit in any topic.
Is that all you have to bring into the conversation?

>> No.5792376 [DELETED] 

>>5792352

I'd rather trust a bunch of DMT elves than some kike from Vienna who couldn't even help himself.

>> No.5792388

ITT: Freudian snobs disliking anyone else's output because it's not 'bon ton'

Oh look, it's the left-wing intelligentsia being stereotypically left-wing intelligentsia.

>> No.5792393

>>5792376
HAHah
His true colors have shown
/Pol/ Jung dickrider is confirmed for a "psychonaut" pleb
Why else would someone read Jung

>> No.5792409

>>5792393
>haha y-you're so dumb
>t-typical stormfag not accepting Our Ford's teachings

>> No.5792417

>>5792376
>being a stormfag and a hippie

there is truly no hope

>> No.5792418

>>5792393

>Jungians are raycis fascis

Yeah so what, fascism always wins nigger. History is never on your side, because Spartacus, your Jesus, got his ass beat.
Keep waiting for the 'plebs' you hate so much to rise in your name, pathetic petty bourgeois motherfucker.

>> No.5792425

>>5792304
>giving yourself cancer with your filthy drug habits
>amazing

>> No.5792428

>>5792417

You truly don't know shit about neofascism do you?
Maybe explore the other's redefinitions more. The world is getting more interesting than what is happening at the faculty of arts.

>> No.5792430

>>5792418
Haven't read the thread but

>fascism always wins

I hope this is baitey matey

>> No.5792444

>>5791776
>>5791850
>>5792376

>Global Rules

>3. You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

>> No.5792445

>>5792425

>don't do that, y-you'll get cancer

I rather get a tumor from a bad habit than living a sterile life.
Hedonism all the way, faggot.

>> No.5792451

>>5792428
you're actually proud of being a stormfag hippie?

>> No.5792453

>>5792430

Well most of history was 'fascist' and I doubt you shitheads will lead us to paradise.

>> No.5792459

>>5792445
You'll get over your yoloism once you get around your mid to late twenties.

>> No.5792463
File: 61 KB, 655x506, laughing cardinals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792463

>>5792445
>hedonism all the way

>> No.5792465

>>5792451

>stormfag hippie

I like that oxymoron. But truly, I know many right wingers who used dope and still hold unto a nationalist position and ethics derived from that.

If you think your position is only capable of heterogeneity because you have some chicks with dicks ( as do fascists btw ), than wow, you've got some group-think to fix.

>> No.5792475

>>5792459

It's only beginning now really.

>> No.5792486

>>5792418
Lmao I never said racist, just /pol/
And the fact you're so autistically aggressive only proves such

Jungians are just retarded though

Also
>Fascism always wins
ishygddt

>> No.5792487

>>5792453
Which shitheads are you suggesting I represent? In what way was most of history fascist, given fascism was a 20th century pseudo-revolutionary response to modernity's erosion of the Western nomos? Sparta I'll possibly grant you, but that was a brief moment in history and the power of the Spartan state was broken at Leuctra by a bunch of queers, hardly an example of 'fascism always wins'

>> No.5792489

>>5792475
Tell me about your childhood.

>> No.5792497

>>5792451

Most of your neomarxist farts would say hippies are essentially unwilling fascists.
So I don't see why that's such an impossibility for you to imagine.

>> No.5792502

>>5792489

Tell me about yours where there's no room for excess because of reasons.

>> No.5792512

>>5792487

Since fascism has become a synecdoche for anything authoritarian/tyranny/despotism, I was joining in on that discourse.

>> No.5792518

>>5792486

>le autist remark, le ur retarded

This board can be so enriching after the 10th comment.

>> No.5792519
File: 58 KB, 792x600, notes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792519

>>5792502
Patient is deflecting.

>> No.5792528

>>5791716
Freudians and people and general hate Jung out of sheer ignorance. Also because it seems easy. He writes a book called Psychology and alchemy and people go: Alchemy? Seriously? Fuck off! And also because no one really is invested enough to read about mythology and all background reading necessary to study him. Freud requires some background reading also, but the background reading is not as obscure and in some sense is kind of ingrained in culture. You need to read Plato basically.

>> No.5792534

>>5792518
>implicating I'm wrong
Kek

>> No.5792538

>>5792528
>Freud is the psychological equivalent of Harry Potter
>Jung is the psychological equivalent of Ulysses

>> No.5792544

>>5792519

No, seriously, what does knowing about one's childhood help at all, really? If one is fully content with one's life, even in excess, what does it even matter to have a balding Lacanian faglord digging up graves?

>happiness is a category for idiots hon hon hon

Alright enjoy your shitty life, fool.

>> No.5792551

>>5792544
Freud is inherently deterministic. Childhood is everything because he believes it determines the person you become.

>> No.5792553

>>5792183
I've never read Lacan. Some say is a charlatan of the highest order. Can someone care to give me some advice. Should I bother?

>> No.5792555

My dissertation is on synthesizing Jungian archetypal theory and Lacan's diagnostic categories. How much do all of you hate me?

>> No.5792562

>>5792555
Jungian archetypes are fascinating. They reminded me of Carlyle's conception of the different forms of Heroes.

>> No.5792567

>>5792553

No. Frogs can be artsy with words but are shit at giving meaningful advice.

>> No.5792571

>>5792544
> If one is fully content with one's life, even in excess, what does it even matter to have a balding Lacanian faglord digging up graves?
If you don't want to go to analysis don't go. I don't see why someone who without any bit of the least anxiety or neurotic tendency would come to an analyst. Granted such a case would be particularly peculiar because most people have some portion of those qualities, just a matter of how much.

Complete happiness and contentment is a category for slaves however in the political sense. Nevertheless goal of analysis is mostly to make the subject content with how things have come to be.

>> No.5792574

ITT: identity politics
top kek

>> No.5792581

>>5792553
Read Bruce Fink or someone else's introduction

>> No.5792588
File: 110 KB, 770x760, mfw mfw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792588

>yfw most psychoanalysts admit their shit doesn't work and are basically scamming everyone who visits them
>"it's not supposed to work you imbecile"

Oh and why are astrologers and mystics charlatans again?

>> No.5792594

>>5791916
>the existance of jews being proud about being jewish proves that there is a jewish plot
/pol/-tier argumentation

>> No.5792596
File: 41 KB, 600x579, 1324685104001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792596

>>5792588
>mfw you're full of shit

>> No.5792602
File: 95 KB, 960x516, Lacan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792602

>>5792571

Nobody, not even the biggest pleb, assumes complete happiness is even possible, just that there are people who are more content than others.

Freudians really think they figured out some epic shit to the table now don't they? "It's impossible to be fully happy at all times..." Wow, so profound of you.
Like this shit: "no such thing as an average Joe really...."

>> No.5792604

>>5791369

>Jung was hack

If you think that Jung was a hack then you really don't know what the word hack means.

>> No.5792606

>>5792428
>neofascism
>drug addicts
whoa, that shit exists?
I wonder, how are they able to cope with the cognitive dissonance?

>> No.5792610

>>5792594
>field is dominated by men means there is a patriarchy
>field is dominated by whites means there is a white hegemony
>field is dominated by Jews is just a coincidence
Oh okay.

>> No.5792611

>>5792602
>"It's impossible to be fully happy at all times..." Wow, so profound of you.
That has nothing to do with Freud or Lacan or anyone
That's just common knowledge
>Like this shit
A lot of statisticians would say otherwise

You seem to be taking the pretty personally lol
And nice way to avoid all that I was saying

>> No.5792616

>>5792606

Well in ancient days the priestcast was high as fuck.

So....there's the historical legitimization of such a lifestyle.
Doesn't take that much of thought really.

>> No.5792627

>>5792588
>A student presents a patient he treated.
>All the session sums up to the fact that the patient was fucked up and talking about it with a figure that is in theory there to help, actually makes the patient reach insight.
>Always a dream is presented and any student gives his dumb opinion, all of them have no other option than kind of agree with the student.
>A dumb ass guest made the outrageous claim the men and women are the same, so they can love anyone, basically denying any kind of biological difference, at least in the brain.

Don't even get me started on systemic therapy discussions.

>> No.5792628

>>5792610

SHUT.IT.DOWN

>> No.5792650
File: 33 KB, 309x448, eysenck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792650

>>5792596
>Maybe if I close my eyes, Eysenck will go away.

>> No.5792654

>>5792616
>So....there's the historical legitimization of such a lifestyle.
by that logic... why don't fascists become, say, witch hunters or whatever?

>Doesn't take that much of thought really.
of course, fascists are barely able to think anyway. see above

>> No.5792656

>psychoanalysis is out there to help people you projecting insecure piece of autist shit

The psychology department attracts some of the most empathetic of souls out there it seems.

>> No.5792659

>>5792650
>Eysenck
Lol the guy who personally took money from the Tobacco companies when researching the health effects of them? Kek

Regardless the 90s are over, his bullshit is disappearing thankfully.

>> No.5792665

>>5792610
When did I even claim any of that.
There is a reason Jews dominate so much, and it has to do with banking in the middle ages, jewish families becoming wealthy and education being a costly and inherited priviledge to this day.
/pol/ hates den Juden, because of his priviledge.
Ironic.

>> No.5792666

>>5792656
Lmao you'll only find psychoanalysis in European or Hipster college psychology departments
Regardless that's pretty funny

The people I know who are actually training to be psychoanalysts or already are one from my experience are very level headed and calm in debates

>> No.5792672

>>5792654

You've never heard about survivalist right wingers?

>> No.5792676

>>5792665
>White privilege is bad
>Jewish privilege is just fine

>> No.5792686

>>5792665

Why should we trust heebs then?
Or are their ideas totally bona fide?

>> No.5792691

>>5792602
>Freudians really think they figured out some epic shit to the table now don't they? "It's impossible to be fully happy at all times..." Wow, so profound of you.
Like this shit: "no such thing as an average Joe really...."

It may seem obvious, but people continue to guide themselves through those things. The interviewer was guiding his question through that. A lot of people who seek therapy are there exactly because they can't shake these notions out, they must speak and hear themselves talk about this. "But that other guy is happy and I'm depressed...", idealizing a happiness that does not exist. "But most people...", not realizing that doesn't mean it's true, "but my mother said...", not realizing that doesn't mean it's true, etc. Stuff that, logically, is obvious, but emotionally we get tangled about.

>> No.5792695

>>5792676
Not that guy, but did he actually say white privilege was bad?

>> No.5792705

>>5792695
I'm sorry, I'm assuming based on your terms. Saying privilege usually follows that white privilege is bad. I take it back given it's unfair to assume your position

>> No.5792715

>>5792705
Good. Privilege is actually a good thing, as it means people having nice things. It's not privilege that should be criticized, but want.

>> No.5792721

>>5792715
So you'd agree that the "gibs me dat" attitude is what should be criticised?

>> No.5792753

>>5792705
White priviledge is unfair perhaps, but I am not going to do something as retarded as assigning ethical values to sociocultural phaenomena. Instead I'm happy to be a white man, because I have it easier. Other people are responsible for themselves. I'm also leftist.
You should stop getting triggered by words that are used by people you don't like followed by projecting an imaginary boogey-man all over people you barely know.

>> No.5792767

>>5792715
Privilege means there is a nice thing and that only some can have it. It contains both the nice thing and the exclusiion of people from it.

Say, if I have an icecream, that's not a privilege, that's a nice thing. If I have an icecream and you can't have an icecream, that's privilege.

>> No.5792775

>>5792721
Not necessarily so, no. If there is actual disenfranchisement, calls for reparations are obviously legitimate.

>> No.5792776

>>5792767
What an utterly retarded analogy. Not at all surprised someone who would go on about "privilege" is this stupid.

>> No.5792783

>>5792775
Nope. If they don't like it they are free to leave white-majority countries. They're apparently racist and oppressive anyway. Interesting that so-called "minorities" have higher global populations and yet only white countries have mass immigration.

>> No.5792793

>>5792767
Yeah alright, but then we shouldn't criticize the person that has the icecream, or the fact that he has it, but rather the fact that the other has none. This will of course get complicated if a) there is a limited supply of icecream and b) the person having it is not directly responsible for the other not having it.
The solution is obvious, though: socialize the means of icecream production, and organize production so that everyone gets a share.

>> No.5792804

>>5792783
Sorry mate, but it doesn't work like that. A society is responsible for justice among all its members. In your attempt to segregate minorities from the common good, you are actually working towards the dissolution of the social whole, and thats degeneracy if I've ever seen it.

>> No.5792951

>>5791180
>>5791184
>>5791187
>>5791325

Womb is Jung

>> No.5792953

>>5792793
Honestly, if there is only one icecream and I have it and the other don't, it doesn't matter who gave it to me, it's only my moral duty to share with the other guy.

I agree with you, except for that part. I think the guy who has the icecream has direct and full responsibility for it. In fact, the only thing keeping him from sharing his icecream is that the supplier puts it in terms of merit, that he deserves this icecream, that the icecream was made just for him, that people who don't have it are evil and that's why they don't have it, etc. People are convinced of it and so, naturally, they get offended when people demand them to share their icecream. Media and means of production have the job to separate the icecream eater from knowing the true reasons why other people don't have icecreams, he is absolutely distant from the icecream factory, the icecream becomes magical.

>> No.5792979

>>5791547
It's just fun sometimes to call him a Jew

>regression

>> No.5793010

>>5791765
>things should be done, life should continue
I like this comparison, yet maybe a stretch to impose this

>> No.5793027

>>5792602

You can be perfectly logical based guy, and still suffer from unexpected stupid emotional shit. There are people that are very functional, but still feel like shit about a lot of things without knowing what's going on.

>> No.5793028

>>5791945
>Attacks character by attacking their ad hominems

kek