[ 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: 22 KB, 231x346, 51y66wverBL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6889220 No.6889220 [Reply] [Original]

Is Freud still worth reading? I know a lot of his work has been discredited in psychology but I was wondering if it's still good

>> No.6889238

>Is Freud still worth reading?
Depends. A lot of what he said was complete and absolute bullshit, but he has interesting insights into the human mind.

>> No.6889876

Freud was disproven long ago, so no.

It's an interesting read, but the only Freudian ideas that have remained relevant are the defence mechanisms.

>> No.6889883

His major works are 100% worth reading.

>> No.6890086

>>6889220
no

>> No.6890092

>>6890086
well, depends

>> No.6890125

as a historical thing yes, cause his influence has been huge.

as science no.

>> No.6890128

>>6889220
I asked a psych professor about this once. He said that the psychoanalytics are not generally studied much or taken seriously in academic psychology. However, they are still very popular in the world of literary academia. He mentioned a grad student he knew who was doing her PhD thesis on Jung's archetypal images in James Joyce. I also took an English class a couple months ago and Freud came up a few times.

So if you're interested in psychology and neuroscience, no. But if you're interested in character studies and literature (and if you want some continental philosophers or Joseph Campbell's comparative religious studies, then yes they are.

TLDR; bad psychology, good literature.

>> No.6890134

>>6889220
Your pic, the Interpretation of Dreams mostly. But its more because you can use his hermeneutics elsewhere, to understand other things. His developmental stuff is bullshit (oral, anal, genital phase), the famous case studies and neurosis vs psychosis ideas are okay, his work on culture is underrated and once you read it you will see it everywhere (Totem and Taboo, Civilization and its Discontents).

>> No.6891913

>>6889876
>disproven

when ? where?

>> No.6891985

>>6889876
>Freud was disproven
Underage go

>> No.6892038

psychoanalytic theory is a diverse and important part of 20th century western thought. you can't really study guys like Deleuze, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, and even later guys like Jameson and Habermas without at the very least reading Civ. and its Discontents. that said i can recommend, as a few others in this thread have, reading his other works, as I find Freud has a very charming writing style. reading him earnestly can really dispel a lot of the modern myths created about him that paint him as a pervert and a mad scientist and a hack. while the latter-most label may be somewhat appropriate in hindsight I think you'll find Freud was a man who was deeply troubled by some patterns he was noticing and felt an equally deep duty to find their causes and to help the people he saw as suffering from them.

>> No.6892055

>>6892038

this.

Freud's work and influence is much more vast than the field of psychology and the 'he has been disproved, read Beck or whatever' meme

>> No.6892058

>>6891913
Dream theory. Dreams are the result of activation/deactivation synthesis.

>> No.6892111

>>6892058
how does it disproves dream theory ?

>> No.6892141

>>6892111
The instigation of dreams is not repressed unconscious wish but brain activation in sleep. Visual imagery is not caused by regression to sensory level but the activation of visual centres in the brain. The bizareness is not the disguise of wishes but hyperassociative synthesis. Emotion within dreams is not the defence of the ego but the activation of the limbic system. And they are not forgotten due to repression but due to organic amnesia.

>> No.6892145
File: 519 KB, 1134x1920, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6892145

This is a sad thread with idiot lit kids parroting other people's opinions—if ye took a few months and looked into what yr babbling about you'd see that cutting edge neuroscience is coming around to a number of Freud's (and his daughter's) ideas. Like projection and reaction dormation.

Why trust whomever sold ye these 'he was disproven long ago' ideas? Look for yrself.

Jesus!

>> No.6892152

>>6892141
But ye could cut out the nots in yr examples and have nothing to show it's not true. An easier way to say that is: literally prove what ye just said. As in, link it up, drop a researcher who has shown what yr saying is worth anything.

>> No.6892162
File: 22 KB, 307x384, Cc1962.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6892162

Just read Castaneda instead, his work is about as connected with reality as Freud's but is more interesting to read.

>> No.6892164

>>6892145

Anna is shit tier tho

God Tier
Freud
Reik (for that based applied psychoanalysis)

Good Tier
Lacan
Winnicott
Rank

Meh tier
Miller, Laurent, Klein

Shit tier
Fucking Jung

>> No.6892166

>>6892152
Btw I'm not stating this as objective fact, it's just an example of a theory that contradicts Freud's view. It's the theory of Hobson and some other fella. I'd tell you more but I'm on my phone.

>> No.6892170

>>6892164
>no Bion
disappointing tbh
Jung is definitly shit tier though

>> No.6892182

>>6889220
>Is Freud still worth reading?
Only in historical context, his works are largely pseudoscientific.

>> No.6892186

>>6892170

I'm studying Psychology in Argentina, one of the few countries where psychoanalysis is still hegemonic.

We read mostly Freud and Lacan.
Can anyone explain me USA's obsession with Jung? They seem to love him there, and only there (as far as I know, he is not very respected in European's psychoanalytic circles, which are mostly influenced by Lacan and post-lacanians)

>> No.6892187

>>6892141

And how do you prove that? Through a brain scan? Brain wave activity?

Even someone who's just gone through philosophy 101 can tell you that your brain scan shows activity of the brain and that your brain wave stuff does the same thing. Nowhere in any of that can you actually explain the functions of the human mind.

OP, read your goddamn Freud. Psychoanalysis is still alive and practiced worldwide professionally. And you know what?
Freudian psychotherapy works. It's been demonstrated time and time again to have significant long lasting benefits for patients. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know a damn thing about what they're talking about.

>> No.6892194

>>6892186
>Can anyone explain me USA's obsession with Jung?
fucking hippies

>> No.6892201

>>6892141
Freud talks about the unconscious not how it works at the organic level.

is like saying you enjoy riding a rollercoster, but someone cames and says "what you enjoy is chemicals in your brains".

>> No.6892206

>>6892186

It's mostly a hippie thing, Jung's some kind of mystic guru or something.

>> No.6892235

>>6892187
Please cite one modern peer reviewed study that confirms that Freudian therapy is as effective as CBT.

>> No.6892250

>>6892235
not him but, how you measure if a therapy is effective?

Is up to the patient to decide if a therapy is effective, thats very difficult to measure in a objective/scientific way.

>> No.6892254

>>6892235
>The world's largest randomized controlled trial on therapy with anorexia outpatients, the ANTOP-Study, published 2013 in The Lancet, proved modified psychodynamic therapy to be more effective than cognitive behavioral therapy in the long term.[92]
you mad, faggot?

>> No.6892267

start with denial of death, long discourse on Freud and which ideas hold and which don't. Even if the book itself is an unfalsifiable theory too

>> No.6892268

>>6892254
A French 2004 report from INSERM said that psychoanalytic therapy is less effective than other psychotherapies (including cognitive behavioral therapy) for certain diseases. It used a meta-analysis of numerous other studies to find whether the treatment was "proven" or "presumed" to be effective on different diseases.[91] Numerous studies have shown that its efficacy is related to the quality of the therapist, rather than the psychoanalytic school or technique or training,.[109]

>> No.6892274

>>6892235

I don't have any handy.
You'll just have to take my word for it when I say that my neighbor (whose house is just a few feet away from mine) is a CB therapist who doesn't talk nearly as much shit about psychoanalysis as you pretentious /lit/ kids. Actually, most professionals I know in the field respect psychoanalysis and give a generally positive impression of it. Given that, you're also a fool if you think that professional therapists stick solely to one approach to therapy 100% of the time.

I saw a humanistic psychologist for years who also used Freudian style techniques in his practice. It's so overwhelmingly common to have a mix of approaches that it's borderline ridiculous to say "I am 100% a Jungian/Skinnerian/etc".

Fuck off I haven't slept or eaten in days.

>> No.6892281

>>6892254

Not him, but
>The primary outcome measure is the body mass index (BMI) at the end of the treatment

That's a pretty shitty way to measure therapy effectiveness in an ED like anorexia.

>> No.6892403

I'm loving how Freudian the here freudians' defense of psychoanalysis is :)

>> No.6892575

>>6892164
>no Iconoclast Tier Deleuze & Guattari

>> No.6892619

>>6890125
when has psychology ever been a science?
Unless we talking hormones here.

>> No.6892638

Some people forget that what Freud wrote was not only his own conclusions but a lot of "common knowledge" that has been in society for hundreds of years or more. When a new neurology study discovers that freudian slips are a thing they aren't rediscovering Freud but something that most people have passed on in society that at some point reached Freud.