Can Freud help me write and understand literature?

Can Freud help me write and understand literature?

Jung will.

Do you intend to summon his ghost?

Peterson will. Watch his lectures on freud

reading him wont hurt
end of thread

That would be cool as hell.

Bringing back a few great thinkers (Machiavelli, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Adam Smith, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Feynman) would probably have a greater impact on the present day than resurrecting military leaders or great conquerors.

Academics have a skillet that's much more applicable today and it would be cool to see how they respond to new research.

Jung will help you with literature in general infinitely more than Freud, although it is necessary to read both. And don't even think about watching some youtuber's rehash of them.

Which works?

Freud is trash, unironically, nothing he ever wrote was good, only perverted judaic nonsense. Jung is better; read man and his symbols and whatever else you want after that.

If you absolutely need Freud, try Civilization and its Discontents and see for yourself if you want more.

For Jung, Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.

>Marx
>Freud
>"intellectuals"
They're peddlers of Judaic pseudoscience and nothing more.

Freud is actually an amazing writer and you will find more of literature than science in his works. Jung is basically just newage b.s.

>judaic pseudoscience
anti-semite

t. anti-goy- I mean -gentile

What are some important psychoanalytic school besides Freudianism, Jungism and Lacanianism? Is Gestalt good?

Maybe if you're Jewish.

I just read The Interpretation of Dreams did I like it?

Reading Freud will certainly help you understand writers who are influenced by Freud. Beyond that no. Good characters are usually based on real people, not faulty psychological theories about how people are.

Freud maybe, Marx was right about everything

None. Gestalt psychology and Gestalt therapy were two different things, neither of which is psychoanalysis. Current year clinical psychology is cognitive-behavioral, dynamic, or humanistic.

Doesn't Bloom suggest every novel is understood better through Freud?

Keeeeeeekkkkkk. Good one, comrade.

Yes, (((Bloom))) probably did.

In truth, only a thorough analysis and a natural inclination towards intuitive thinking can achieve what you're after. It is the reason why Jungian psychology doesn't gain lots of traction. It requires decades of analysis and research and the right attitude to achieve a deeper understanding and experience of symbolism.
If you are not familiar with psychoanalysis, start with the introductory works by both authors. And don't ever listen to the worthless opinions of what others ought to say about any of these authors. Read then make up your own judgement.

He called Freud a cult leader, so no.
This.

I am what you and your clique would call ''redpilled about the jewish questions'', yet I find both authors to be the most interesting and influential of the last century and a half. Your antisemitism is not thought out, it is pathologic. How ironic in a thread about Freud and psychoanalysis...

>Jung is basically just newage b.s.
Jung is far too analytical for that.

>can't even name an aspect of Marxist theory he believes is incorrect

The global revolution.

Marx said the contradictions in capitalism mean global revolution is inevitable.

For him to proven wrong, and for Marxism to be rendered invalid, these contractions would have to be resolved through non revolutionary means.

Huxley proved the proletariat inept. All the revolutionary forces are already at the reins of power. Nobody else has the combination of evil and intellect anymore.