[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 8 KB, 294x400, freud1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3188100 No.3188100 [Reply] [Original]

greetings, /sci/

there are 2 days left for me to complete my course work (something like a whole year's assignment) and I have nothing. although I study philosophy, I choose to do this work in psychoanalysis.

the title of my course work is "Making of man. psychoanalitical and gender study aspects". basicly, the idea is to examine Freud's views on psychosexual development with emphasis on male development and to comper his views with leading opinions of today.

Freud's works I'm going to use:

Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality
The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex
Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes
Female Sexuality
A Special Type of Choice of Object made by Man

the problem is I don't really know with what should I compare Freud's views. What are some leading thinkers of psychosexual development today? I've heard something about boyhood studies, but it's preaty damn hard to find some usable texts in this field.

So any tips or suggestions? any help would be much appreciated.

(pardon my english- not a native speaker)

>> No.3188102

>implying Freud has been routinely refuted by countless psychologists

>> No.3188133
File: 219 KB, 1024x783, 1287049383635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3188133

any help?

>> No.3188140

I think it's hilarious that you've paid money to someone so that, two days from now, they can tell you to fuck off. Class act, OP.

>> No.3188142

What were you doing the other 363 days?

>> No.3188143

>>3188140

i'm on scholarship (here it's called "being in budget")

>> No.3188149

>>3188100
Freud is important, but anachronistic. For comparison, think of the impetus-theory in physics.

Second, do you know what modern psychology works? It is based on evidence-focused research, which has nothing to do with philosophy. There is no way to succeed here.

Third, you filosofers disgust me. You do not care about evidence, but think you competent to talk about everything, from mathematics to history to chemistry.
Remember, some people study one of the above a whole life long, but you think you can understand everything by just walking by.

Your arrogance disgusts me.

>> No.3188152

I don't get it; what's this has too do with philosophy?

Now this is studied by developmental psychology, gender genetics, neuroscience, etc. Has nothing to do with philosophy, imo.