How do i into psychoanalysis?

[Anonymous No.6765152]

Should I start with Freud? Jung? Lacan?
Help.

[Anonymous No.6765194]

>>6765152
bump

[Anonymous No.6765219]

>>6765152
not likely psychoanalysis is taken seriously on this board, sorry.

try /x/. they're into fields of study that make frequent baseless claims.

[Anonymous No.6765227]

>>6765152

Start with Freud's introductory lectures, move on to some of his writings such as Dream Psychology, then pick up a book on the differences between Jung and Freud, read Analytic Psychology and other assorted works by Jung.

Once you've read Freud and Jung you understand psychoanalysis. No need for Lacan.

[Anonymous No.6765231]

>>6765219
Oh :/ I thought people probably would because I've seen threads on Carl Jung and Lacan.
Thank you though

[Anonymous No.6765233]

>>6765152
early Freud + early Reich (late both are bullshit, you want Freud pre Todestrieb and pre Unbehagen in der Kultur and you want Reich pre Orgone).

[Anonymous No.6765238]

>>6765152
If you want to read Lacan and actually want to understand him, your best off starting with Freud.

If you are interested in Lacan for the philosophy, you're best off beginning with Zizek's interpretations of him.

Lastly, there is no reason whatsoever to read Jung.

[Anonymous No.6765252]

>>6765152
Start with Jung to become familiar with the psychoanalytical concepts he developed, then move on to Lacan.

Reading Freud is useless, you can forget about him.

[Anonymous No.6765258]

Always start with Freud. Maybe start with The Ego and the Id, then Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.6765268]

>>6765152
Definitely read into Freud, but Lacan and Jung tend to pervert the field, you can skip them.

[Anonymous No.6765275]

>>6765152
Lacan is good to read as a foundation for understanding Jung, but there's no real reason to read Freud anymore, his works are largely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6765312]

>>6765238
>Lastly, there is no reason whatsoever to read Jung.

[Anonymous No.6765391]

>>6765227
You are right for the most part but I would say read Lacan for two reasons: 1) if you have an interest in film/literary theory that is where his work thrives 2) in order to read antioedipus once reading that you'll never nead to touch psychoanalysis again

[Anonymous No.6765579]

>>6765152

If memory serves correctly, the term "psychoanalysis" is copywrite to Freudian psychology exclusively (one of his wishes to have the term be coined to his line of psychology). Jung worked very closely with Freud, so many ideas are similar though he could never call his form psychoanalysis from a legal standpoint (it's been many years since psychology classes, but that's my recollection of the relationship).

However, it's been said that Erik Erikson is the spiritual successor of Freud. Erikson himself speculated that Freud would have eventually tweaked his theories (which did have several overhauls already when he was exploring the concepts of Eros and Thanatos) to align closely to Erikson's own theory.

Personally, I do like Erikson's theory of personality. It's very good if you've never read it.