/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7128031]

There are people on /lit/ right now that literally think Freud isn't relevant anymore.

Can you believe these fucken morons?

[Anonymous No.7129305]

you have 60 seconds to explain why he's relevant or i'm deleting your post.

[Anonymous No.7129308]

>>7129305
we're talking about him for one.

[Anonymous No.7129312]

Jung is better.

[Anonymous No.7129314]

Psychology is just philosophy for sorority girls who are too brain-damaged by alcohol poisoning to think properly.

[Anonymous No.7129347]

>>7129312
seconded, pic related

[Anonymous No.7129371]

Is he even relevant to the humanities. Are you still taught to do "psychoanalytic" readings anymore?

[Anonymous No.7129445]

>>7129312
...for obscurantist conformism, smh.

[Anonymous No.7129458]

>>7129314
I think of psychology as an extremely easy to understand subdiscipline of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7129460]

>>7128031

I would love some more psychoanalysis in today's discourse instead of all this evolutionary biological bullshit every dummie at Darwinian thinking tries to pull on me.
I don't know why neurology and evolutionary biology suddenly got this huge following. I mean we got a fucking neurologist shouting over everyone else in the debate on religion.

Especially that brah-crowd on here who seem big on neurology and primatology to explain why they act like the narcissists they are.

>hurr let me explain all society because chimps

Fucking hate it.

[Anonymous No.7129476]

>>7129460

The same idiots who, in another era, would pull the concept of original sin.
Conservatives in all its branches, including liberals even ( who are more status quo than an Alt-Right dude, are "sans ideologié" ( Zizek would say the opposite, but I claim the unawareness still plays a role in them calling everything 'natural' and not ideological when it comes down to ).

They will always refer to human nature and whatever new explanation basically attributes the current state of affairs to "natural" causes, will get listened to.

Psychoanalysis isn't that at all, it's much more revolutionary, hence it gets hated.

[Anonymous No.7129482]

He was just a posturing charlatan who supplied no evidence for his claim.

[Anonymous No.7129483]

/r9k/ is basically the oedipal complex in effect

[Anonymous No.7129491]

>>7129483

How so?
I actually never read Freud nor ever really got to a decent introduction to him.. But I desperately want to.

[Anonymous No.7129493]

>>7129445
>Jung
>obscurantist
everyone is obscurantist if you don't know how to read, smh

[Anonymous No.7129496]

>>7129493
What does smh mean?

[Anonymous No.7129503]

>>7129496
So much hate.

[Anonymous No.7129504]

>>7129496
soomooh

[Anonymous No.7129507]

>>7129503
Oh, thanks.

[Anonymous No.7129509]

If the brain was a computer, evolutionary psychologists would be the people examining the chips and discovering machine code and proudly (rightfully so) proclaiming that they have learned what drives the machine and makes it make the choices it does.

Freud would be the guy decompiling the operating system and trying to understand the ins and outs from the top down and why it keeps fucking it up like it does.

[Anonymous No.7129512]

>>7129445

Why does Jung get such a bad rap studying esotericism?
Why is western academia as a whole so hostile towards it?

We have fucking mystical writers from the Church Fathers era all up to the modern day and they were hugely influential and wrote a lot of significant pieces that influenced thinking as such.
Look at Boehme for fuck sake. Newton has written far more on Hermeticism than he did on what he is now remembered for.

I don't get it. But whenever I bring up esotericism out in the open, I get the same reaction as if I'm bringing up flat and hollow earth theorists.
Esotericism/mysticism isn't New Age candle magic and healing crystals..

[Anonymous No.7129521]

>>7129512
I hear ya.
I wish Illuminatus! Trilogy got more respect in the world at large, it's what made me realize there was something to mysticism.

[Anonymous No.7129528]

>>7129507
no he's a troll, it means "shaking my head"

>>7129482
besides the fact that he laid the foundation to all of modern psychotherapy you dumb cunt, he didnt invent the concept of the unconscious but he was the first to recognize neuroses can be dealt with and that the unconscious shows itself through free association and slips of the tongue and so on so fuck off

you're the charlatan here pretending you know shit about Freud feeding misinformation to everybody

[Anonymous No.7129536]

>>7129496
say more heresy

[Anonymous No.7129543]

>>7129512
I don't know; Jung was a genius to recognize the collective unconscious and archetypes, long before REM sleep was even studied, it's inconceivable to me, this is where Freud was a little ignorant

I would've thought he was a complete mystic charlatan if I didn't know any better

[Anonymous No.7129740]

Freud is definitely not as influential in psychology as he imagined he would be. For somebody who is seen in the public imagination as the "figurehead" of a subject, his work shows up surprisingly little in that subject's literature. He's obviously hugely relevant in the humanities and pop psych though.

[Anonymous No.7129761]

>>7129476
PHALLIC SNAKE

/AN IMAGO WITHOUT THE REAL/

[Anonymous No.7129764]

>>7128031
no i can't. freud was right about so many things.

[Anonymous No.7129778]

au revoir, Freudiennes!

[Anonymous No.7129792]

>>7129491
Human psychic development is very fucked up proposes Freud. First, there is just a titty that we love... eventually we are separated from it and we see our mother (usually). If you get stuck at this stage you love speaking, sucking on lolipops... anything involving mouths. You like food and become a fatass later. Cause this is the oral stage.

the problem with freudian psych is that it was written at a stable time with mothers. now it's possible to have a kid raised without the mythical event of having gazed into his mothers eyes. and he's just fine, he can even browse on reddit and be enthusiastic about things. the story is thrilling (the theory of psychic development) but it's probably not true.

But it's good to know I guess. Next you have toilet training. If you decide to deprive your parents of the gift of your diaper shits, you are anal retentive and hoard gold (subconscious sees all material possessions as shit). And if you do decide to shit and shit often, you are anal expulsive, and when you grow up you become a spendthrift slob. This is the anal stage.

Anyway then (according to Freud) we realize that our mom doesn't have a cock so we think because she lost hers somehow (according to Freud, boys don't naturally know wtf women are) it's also possible we'll lose our own (half of the boys split off here and become gay for sheer fear of vaginas. This is called the phallic stage.

Eventually you get a "latency period" where repression sets in, then you reach the genital stage (or the normie stage). It's here that the reality principle sets in. You get out in the real world and realize that vaginas aren't a wound where the dick got cut off. They're normally like that. Go split from thy father and mother and get a wife and be productive.

Getting hung up on any of these stages is called arrested development.

Here's an article that explains it better:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/psychosexual.html

[Anonymous No.7129793]

>>7129778
obscurantist NONSENSE

[Anonymous No.7129799]

>>7129793
says the idiot who couldn't understand it. it's not obscurantist if you know how to read theory

[Anonymous No.7129804]

>>7129799
perhaps I've gone too fast... Actually based on one understanding I have of it, I kind of agree.

Actually I'm thinking of capitalism and schizophrenia. But why couldn't they fucking write clearly?

Can you explain it as if I was retarded?

[Anonymous No.7129866]

I am afraid he isn't Science had him beat before he even passed away. no one can honestly take some unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo to be serious

[Anonymous No.7130317]

>>7129778
Though, Guattari was freudian nonetheless

[Anonymous No.7130614]

"Laid foundation" doesn't mean he's still relevant. Literally the only place I still see people taking psychoanalysis seriously is a literary studies faculty at a University. "Civilization and Its Discontents" is good, though.

[Anonymous No.7130653]

He is relevant, as an artful theorist.

His works are an epic masterclass in how to theorize artfully.

Your stuck on the wrong question. Who cares if his work has enduring merit within its subject area. Ask instead how he presented his ideas in a way that made them powerful and convincing at the time.

Freud is relevant in the field of rhetoric--a far more important field than psychology.

Only rhetoric can explain the flow of ideas, or, dare I say it

>memes

[Anonymous No.7130659]

he isn't relevant to psychology becuase they wanted to get aweay from the existential tripe that was being churned out by quite a bit of his contemporaries and afterwards, and make it more scientific beucase all the psychologists wanted in on the empiricist game. thus in lieu of Psychoanalytic theory we have behaviorism, cognitive psychology, social psychology and so on and so forth.

But I agree with you OP.
On the psychic plane , i think its better to live life "literally" (re: like literature) rather than living life striving for peak mental health.

[Anonymous No.7130662]

>>7128031

Relevant how?

Relevant for psychology? He isn't. End of.

Relevant for literature? Perhaps somewhat, especially literature written during the time where his thought reigned supreme. The problem with his ideas however, is that they are not falsifiable, paint with broad strokes, and can be used to draw ridiculous conclusions.

>>7129458

>Psychology
>Literally the study of consciousness
>easy to understand sub-discipline of philosophy

Someone hasn't read his phenomenological works.

[Anonymous No.7130665]

this guy was Freuds cousin or some shit, and he applied his principles in buisness and started public relation and laid the ground work for social control/social engineering.

[Anonymous No.7130666]

>>7129460

The problem with both psychoanalysis and evolutionary psychology, is that they are basically unfalsifiable and can be used to explain anything. One size fits all. This does not mean that they are extremely profound. It means they are basically thought-terminating clichés.

[Anonymous No.7130685]

>>7130662
this guy took a psych 101 class

[Anonymous No.7130688]

>>7130317
well, Lacanian, if we want to get nit-picky with it, but yes

[Anonymous No.7130694]

>more Jew influence on social science
Oy vey, how relevant

[Anonymous No.7130702]

>>7130666
>>7129866

>unfalsifiable

Someone just learned a new word.

[Anonymous No.7130713]

>>7130685

Behold the monolith of my intellect, plebeian untermensch.

I actually didn't, and I am a bit of an idiot. If you'd like to discuss, please elaborate your points

[Anonymous No.7130717]

>>7130702

Compelling counterargument compadré.

[Anonymous No.7130720]

>>7130665
gustave lebon is the true influence when it comes to mass psychology.
even freud cited him heavily when he first began writing about masses during 20s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Psychology_and_the_Analysis_of_the_Ego

[Anonymous No.7130723]

>>7130666
everything that happens inside your imagination is unfalsifiable because you'd need a clone of yourself together with identic environment.
not a good reason to stop talking about it.

[Anonymous No.7130727]

>>7130665
Century of the Self, muh man.

[Anonymous No.7130741]

>>7130717
I dont want to counterargument.

I'll be patient and wait for you to grew up and learn some epistemology.

[Anonymous No.7130744]

>http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21662619-large-study-replicates-psychology-experiments-not-most-their-results-try
>only half of the studies were replicable

Where were you when the entirety of psychology was BTFO?

[Anonymous No.7130746]

>>7130653
Well, this is how Bernays gained notoriety, so you are right.

[Anonymous No.7130750]

>>7128031
It is silly, yes.

[Anonymous No.7130756]

>>7130741

>I'll be patient and wait for you to grew up
>wait for you to grew up
>for you to grew up
>grew up

All credibility has been lost.

GG, thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.7130871]

>>7129799
there is such a panoply of concepts being tossed around in the first chapter alone that it is impossible to summarize in a 4chan post, but i'll attempt to get at some of the main points of one of my favorite theoretical writing machines (deleuze and guattari cannot be taken in isolation when discussing these works; they both transformed each others ideas such that the 'we' or 'nous' they insist on in the books comes alive of its own accord. moreover i will note that some of my readings come from their later efforts, Kafka and A Thousand Plateaus)

capitalism and schizophrenia: to understand the relationship between these terms, i like to propose the image of a denim vest with metal band patches. in an early-to-mid capitalist society (note that AO appears in the wake of may 68, situated in a historical moment peculiarly on the fulcrum between labor economies and financial economies, between pure Fordism and Thatcherism/Reagonomics) one might buy a denim vest from a local clothing store, and start to attend shows and collecting patches. the vest comes to SIGNIFY these events, and your attendance at them; it directly refers to a certain cultural event with all its necessary and inseparable meanings and connotations. well, almost inseparable: under late capitalism, you can simply go to hot topic and purchase the vest with the patches sewn on. this is how capitalism becomes schizophrenic: the meaning is short-circuited, in a sense: the reference to counter-culture is maintained, but the counter-culture itself is lost. however, we must note that D&G frequently refer to schizophrenia as the limit of capitalism. meaning is never entirely lost: the multiplicity of potential meanings (now that the vest has been abstracted from its origin, it can mean anything) is made to submit to the 'despotic Signifier' (in this case, we might say that is money; you can still buy it, and know to what it refers). the signifier is never completely destabilized under capitalism. it always retains some vestige of the signified, so that it can be marketed. there are some critics who say D&G inadvertently wrote an instruction manual for marketers with Anti-Oedipus.

[Anonymous No.7130903]

>>7130871
desire: desire in D&G is never a lack as Freudo-Lacanians would have it. for the schizoanalyst there is no penis envy, and in fact there may as well be no penis. well, no PHALLUS anyway, in the freudian sense. of course there is a penis; it's one of many desiring-machines that cut and redirect the flows of desire through the subject-machine that is each and every human, himself plugged into a whole array of other desiring-machines that-- i'm getting ahead of myself. the point is that desire is always productive for deleuze and guattari, hence their phrase desiring-production, which for them is the only formula by which marxist psychiatry, or freudian political economy, become possible venues of critique. they are not interested in mere syllogisms between marx and freud, as in the famous formula money = shit. it is more complex than that, or perhaps simpler: money and shit are not identities of each other, but identities of the same productive flow of desire. marx and freud therefore are not approaching different topics using the same critical mindset, but rather they are approaching the same topic from different perspectives, marx from the macroscopic, and freud from the microscopic.

[Anonymous No.7130948]

>>7128031
Those motherfuckers!