Are Freud and Jung still worth learning even thought they're completely wrong about everything and are completely...

Yes, due to the thorough influence Freud exerted on literature.
Jung less so tho.

Freud was a jew fraud. Jung was based Aryan.

>"The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will".[110] His remarks on the superiority of the "Aryan unconscious" and the “corrosive character” of Freud’s “Jewish gospel” have been cited as evidence of an anti-semitism “fundamental to the structure of Jung’s thought”.[111]

>lacks the coherence and profundity of a thinker like Lacan
>Coherence of Lacan
What did he mean by this ?

>It's someone who knows absolutely fuck all about psychology yet believes Freud and Jung are wrong without reading either of them

I fucking hate when this happens.

Theoretically coherent I'm referring to, not the naive sense of the term as easy to read

>naive sense of the term as easy to read
Oh yeah it's my naivety that misconstrued that yeah oops sorry

Jungian detractors are simply not familiar with his ideas. Their arguments are either:
(1) His ideas are not reflective of human reality(2) His mapping of the psyche is incomplete/wrong
(3) He's a mystic
Well, all of these Jung agreed with. (1) Jungian Psychology lies in the premise that there is an unconscious reality driving human behavior (First tenant of Psychoanalysis in general) and that this reality is *independent* from the physical reality(not at all, but this is advance jungian concepts, so for the sake of the argument we'll use this term). Then as a phenomenology of dreams, the notion of reflectiveness is obsolete because of the basic implications of phenom-. Dreams are their own reality, as are the entire contents of the psyche. (2) Jung acknowledges that his mapping of the psyche is wrong and unfruitful for many reasons. Firstly because of the novelty of the discipline. Secondly, because the very nature of the psyche makes it impossible for a 'fixed' mapping of its contents. Jung liked the physics/astronomy analogy, comparing the contents of the psyche to planets, constantly pulling/pushing each others in accordance to their mass. Everything changes continuously. Therefore is his 'map' is simply a guide to point out the different 'parts' of the psyche, as he observed in every patient (Keep in mind Jung analyzed well over 80 000 dreams in his life, even today he is the most prolific analysist ever). (3) Well Jung is a mystic lol. He had visions from a young age.

To be fair, I have a BSc and MSc in psychology (and am currently studying for a PhD) and even we are taught that they are wrong - I think I had about one lecture on them in all my time in academia. It was only when I started to read them for myself that I was able to study their ideas in the proper context, and realise that they're actually much more insightful than they're given credit for

>be studying for a PhD
>be told that Jung's ideas on dreams and symbolism are wrong
>no one offers any better ideas, all we know is that JUNG IS WRONG

They don't go out of their way to try and debunk psychoanalysis, they just give it a brief nod as an important historical development and then focus almost entirely on CBT as the dominant framework and treatment for mental illness. For some reason I bought into that for a while, even though I knew almost instantly that CBT was no good for the type of depression I had been suffering from

muh positive science

Any recommendations on books that make a good case for CBT? It is the treatment offered for my disorder but how am I supposed to find evidence compelling when in a derealized state? The only thing which has ever given me relief is willful self deception.

>derealized state

Its spooky horseshit like this which is why CBT is useless. CBT doesn't cure anyone, all it does is train you to respond positively to psychometrics. I wish it was anymore complicated than that

cock ball torture is for perverts

Honestly, I barely read any full books about psychology during my psychology degrees (and those that I did read were for pleasure rather than out of necessity). The types of things I read which were in favour of CBT were meta-analyses comparing the effectiveness of different treatment types - you can find these easily enough on Google Scholar, but I'm not convinced at how useful that type of study is.

The guy who developed CBT is Aaron Beck, who I think is quite well respected. Not sure if he wrote any books, but he probably did

I don't think derealization is spooky, maybe in a medicalized sense it is but it is apt and causes suffering, call it Nausea if you must.

Yeah i suppose such analyses are just more supposedly compelling evidence which i cannot possibly communicate into lived experience, hell i dont think i have an actually lived experience to speak of.

Any prescribed perspective of the world is spooky from the get go unless it can be rationally established. As far as I can discern there's no necessary irrational reason to find life depressing as much as CBT would like to tell you its wrongthink

CBT is quicker, cheaper, and palliative. Psychiatry and psychology rely on curing any defective caracteristics in patients. Defective to the system and its implications. The DSM evolution over the years is ample proof. Psychoanalysis produces irreconcilable results.

>Psychoanalysis produces irreconcilable results.

Please elaborate

>low quality bait

Academics hate Jung because he dares to assume that men and women are psychologically different. This is forbidden thought in 2017.

I agree that it's quicker, cheaper and focuses more on curing symptoms - for me, those are all negatives compared to psychoanalysis. When done correctly (and I favour the Jungian approach), psychoanalysis aims for a complete re-balancing of the psyche and the encouraged adoption of a more spiritually fulfilling way of being. This is what leads to eudaimonia, the most joyous and persistent form of well-being.

I can see why CBT is favoured for practical reasons and for many people it will be enough, but I don't think it's as powerful as psychoanalysis.

Eh wait what, no

CBT works because it shunts you into a rational mode of thinking, rather than the emotional mode which is dominant in depressives.

The main obstacle for depressives is their lack of motivation to even try CBT. The problem is with the subject, not the treatment.

>a rational mode of thinking, rather than the emotional mode which is dominant in depressives.

Purest of pure ideologies. Who are you to say depressed people aren't rational?

Why you, you biological determinist you.

Because depression is an emotional disorder. Stop trying to rationalise your self-indulgent bouts of sulking. You're just feeling sorry for yourself.

Woah, so this is the science of psychology

True, but that assumes that it's 'rational' to be happy. Actually we can quite easily rationalise away so much of our spiritual beliefs that everything seems meaningless and the physical world is all that there is, and descend into nihilism. That's why Jung championed a more modern form of spirituality, to try to bring some of that romanticism back into life and convince people that it's not irrational.

It's only really relevant for people who have a philosophical bent and overthink things a lot, but for such people I believe CBT is effectively useless. We need to recognise that there are different types of depressions - categorising them all the same way (and assuming that there is one 'correct' treatment which is always superior to the others, for all people) is a big mistake imho

>It's only really relevant for people who have a philosophical bent

Absolutely not, even the normiest of normiest of normies will put two and two together eventually, which is why CBT has such abyssmally poor relapse average

Freud is great. I’d read his ‘Outline’, then ‘Introductory Lectures’, then start at the beginning and read his major stuff. He had the distinction, nearly unique among people who continental philosophy like, of being actually well written and clear.

I’d less recommend Jung. Is basically all you need to know. Jung is outright a reactionary mystic, far more caught up in magic than any sort of coherent rational understanding of the mind. The whole Jungian tradition has had this underlying current of occultism. I tried listening to a podcast by somebody who was suppose to be a big name in Jungian PA and it was literally just about how to merge physics and psychology to understand something supernatural about time.

I also like Lacan, but Lacan as presented by other people, like Bruce Fink.

Nah they're both worth reading for philosophical and literary purposes, Jung is just much more of a dead end in terms of psychological theory

lmao

these nails automatically disqualify this goober as a "thinker."

Thanks for actually making an effortful post

How exactly are Freud and Lacan connected and what do something about meme man Zizek's work on Lacan?

>not growing your nails into macaroni and jumping off a balconey

>Jung is outright a reactionary mystic
Please refrain from posting next time

Lacan worked on the foundation of Freud. His major contributions were essentially a synthesis of his work with existential thought. Bringing in an awareness of the issues that arrise between the empistemological inaccessibility of reality, the Sisyphusesque nature of desire and the phenomenological nature of subjectivity and relationships.

Essentially Freud tries to teach you how to understand and stop repressing your desires. Lacan teaches you how to relate with desire itself.

>ReactionaryMystic™
>Jung is right-wing
How pathetic. Then the other moron procedes to quote Zizek. If your only perspective is political, afrain from critical thought please.

*declares Hitler a God*

this is so retarded people might believe this, like the imbecile above.

In the simplest terms, Lacan thought that the most important parts of Freud were being forgotten so he sought to do a sort of ‘return to Freud’, a lot of this seems to be more about therapy technique as much as theory. And then he tried to build on Freud, integrating in structural linguistics, and also Hegel’s writing on the mind. The best entry place for Lacan is definitely Bruce Fink’s “Lacanian Subject”

Zizek’s principal interest in philosophy is talking about ‘subjectivity’, or basically the ‘what-it’s-likenss’ of being, something that was also the main concern of the German Idealists. In Lacan he see the basis for a theory of the formation of the subject, basically how we come to recognize an “I” which is distinct from things other than “myself”. And so he takes this and then repeats the process of the dialogue of the great German Idealists, with Lacan reinterpreting the conversation from Kant to Fichte to Schelling to Hegel, and in the end the product, as he sees it, is a materialist theory of the subject. He thinks he’s managed to take out the insights of the great Idealists but turn them all on their heads to take of their rational kernels. This allows him to develop a brand new materialist theory of ideology, something which is very practically useful for trying to understand politics under late capitalism.

Basically all this work seeks to develop something along this chain. Basically from Hegel to Marx to Freud to Lacan to Kant to Fichte to Schelling back to Hegel.

>True, but that assumes that it's 'rational' to be happy.
It's always "rational" to be happy, because the rational function is abstract, and strives for objectivity. The emotional function, by contrast, is purely subjective. Your prevailing function determines whether you want to be happy or not. CBT works by voluntarily engaging the rational function.

>Actually we can quite easily rationalise away so much of our spiritual beliefs that everything seems meaningless and the physical world is all that there is
Yes, this is a danger. It must be understood that rationality is only one function of the psyche, and over-indulging it is just as dangerous as over-indulging the emotions. CBT is simply a mental trick to pull you out of an emotional state. But it does work, if you're motivated to use it.

>We need to recognise that there are different types of depressions
Personally I don't recognise this (and I've gone through the "muh depression" phase of young adulthood.) What categories are these?

At least you have some background in the field. When I studied psychology we looked more into Jung than Freud and I preferred Jung's theories and philosophy a lot more. I think Freud is just seen as a joke considering all the sexual stuff in his works. It's always some smarmy hipster prick who tries to sound like an expert on the subject despite never taking a class or giving time to read what either are about and acting like an expert about it.

They were literally more scientific and less orthodox than modern psychology.

>It's always rational to be happy
>The rational function strives for objectivity
>The emotional function is purely subjective
Holy shit

>muh depression
You can lead a horse to water ... just kys and have done with it.

Its more like you can tell a horse that it isn't actually thirsty and if it still acts like it is then its the horses fault

>Personally I don't recognise this (and I've gone through the "muh depression" phase of young adulthood.) What categories are these?
Not that user, but it's not about categories, that's kind of the important point. Each depression is a new depression, in the same way that each encounter is different, each marriage is different, each suffering is different. This may sound as something romantic to be said to the snowflakes, but it is in fact something crucial in treating people as people, otherwise you will overlook these particularities in favour of the categories which were described by taking note of other human experiences, sometimes from a different context, time and society altogether. There are many other complex things going on to someone who is depressed, in one's sense of guilt, in triggers for anxiety, in one's self-esteem, in the way one forms expectations, in a certain pleasure that appears in giving up and so on. While categories might be useful, they are not the things in themselves, and if it becomes a matter of finding a correspondence of one's symptoms in the description of a certain condition in order to treat it, then we forget the fact that we might not find it and we forget the fact that we will not find it completely, because what first appears to the doctor as a complaint has roots in one's relationship to life and to others, and how that unfolded for that one person.

Yes, I can see how "Holy shit" encapsulates that analogy perfectly.

So what's it all about? is it about sex? is it about power? is it about death?

Different user retard

If you want to see objective thinking read Nausea and see how much of a pleasant experience that shit is

It's so common that depressive people are more rational. In fact, it is so common that being so rational makes the person depressive. Being rational is not the same as being right or being smart, or any of that. It means to emply rationality to solve issues and that, in some people, can be used as a way to escape facing one's own desire. So instead of just picking the flavour of icecream you want, you ponder on what the best choice of icecream is (which is a very different question). And if you go for the second one, you may find yourself frustrated at the fact that you'll never know the "right" choice of icecream because you could only choose one of them. This is a basic setting to trigger anxiety and sometimes the world in your shoulders, as if all that happends for the bad, the failed plans and unpredictable little things of life were something of your fault who couldn't "rationalize enough" to know better. That's the confusion between being impossibility and impotence. You feel guilty for things of life and on other things you blame the world for something you are responsible.

Freud's theory just werks. I haven't read Jung yet but he seems like a cool dude.

>So instead of just picking the flavour of icecream you want, you ponder on what the best choice of icecream is (which is a very different question). And if you go for the second one, you may find yourself frustrated at the fact that you'll never know the "right" choice of icecream because you could only choose one of them.

This hits home

Which psychoanalysists would be particularly good for an artist to read?

Yes, as would be perfectly obvious on an anonymous discussion board.

Sci-fi/Fantasy writers would like Jung.
Real writers should read Lacan

>The main obstacle for depressives is their lack of motivation to even try CBT. The problem is with the subject, not the treatment.

>The problem is with the subject, not the treatment
Of course the problem is with the subject. That is *the* problem. What you describe as "lack of motivation to even try" is depression itself. To say "the depressive would be cured if only they tried", is absurd to be said about any treatment or method, because that's precisely what they are suffering from.

Try not posting like an aggitated cretin and it wont matter

Dude just be yourself

What about painters?

Same rules apply, if you draw spaceships and elves on Deviantart Jung.
If you like Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud, Lacan

>To say "the depressive would be cured if only they tried", is absurd to be said about any treatment or method
Trying is a meme

be spontaneous (without trying)

eg next time you go to lunch don't have the same few bits of food you always have, take something you've never had before

Of course every experience is subjective, but that's not a refutation of ontology. Depression belongs to a certain class of experience, and what works as a treatment for someone may well work for someone else.

This is not to denigrate psychoanalysis: it can be emotionally satisfying to mine the particular causes of one's problems. But the objective, practical dangers of depression are demotivation and self-destructive behaviour. CBT is a way to obviate these by simply abnegating emotional thought.

Wow, this post cured my depression

Lead the way, faggot.

Fucker do not use the word ontology when you're pulling an a priori assumption out of your ass that thinking objectively = answering positively on all psychometrics

>To say "the depressive would be cured if only they tried", is absurd to be said about any treatment or method, because that's precisely what they are suffering from.

We're saying the same thing: depression is a voluntary state of mind, and can only be cured voluntarily.

CBT is an exit route. Take it or not, zero fucks given.

>CBT is an exit route.

Its not though since it offers absolutely nothing

This is anecdotal, but my mother is a so-called CBT success story, and her crippling bipolar disorder has still been tearing apart my family for years.

>But the objective, practical dangers of depression are demotivation and self-destructive behaviour.

Oh no, we can't have people realizing there's no point in engaging in modern wagecucking or opting out of this life of misery, what an objective problem!

>you're pulling an a priori assumption out of your ass that thinking objectively = answering positively on all psychometrics
[citation needed]

I said it was rational to be happy, because the rational function deals purely in concepts (which are abstract, thus objective.)

Other functions are available, including the emotional function, which is subjective and irrational, and may convince you to be unhappy.

Psychometric tests, if they're any good, aim to evaluate all psychic functions.

>Subjective emotional thinking detected.

you never had depression, it isn't real

you don't study psychology to cure your depression you study it to find it doesn't exist, then you play the same hoax of convincing other people something is wrong with them and that they need therapy. psychologists, therapists and priests all have got to do this in order to make a living and once you've gotten so deep into your hoax you have no choice but to keep going

Absolutely nonsense. There is no ontological distinction between "emotional thinking" and "rational thinking". One always thinks emotionally and one always thinks rationally.
You always think subjectively because you're always a fucking subject.
Emotion is simply suggestive of dialectical paths of logic, but there is no inherent reason to assume that the dialectical path suggested by any particular emotional state should be any more or less logical than another. Which is why we have emotions to begin with, in certain situations certain emotions lead to better logical outcomes (fear in danger, anger in adversity, sadness in persecution).

>There is no ontological distinction between "emotional thinking" and "rational thinking".

Oh dear. In a thread that is (partly) about Jung, this is about the biggest faux pas imaginable.

Not an argument

What can I say, except this isn't the discussion you're looking for. Jung clearly delineates distinct modes of thinking, and that's where I'm coming from.

If you don't accept this, try starting another thread.

>you have to accept my religious tier unsustainable ontology before we can even discuss a subject about psychiatric treatment

I'll pass

>OP uses adverb "completely" twice in the same sentence
>91 replies

you guys have really low standards

Sure.

Depression is the lack of a goal / a priority list. No goal, no action. No positive emotional responses either - so no innate priorities can be had.

Depressed people need a change in the world, or their whole world view.

>tfw innate priorities

You don't need to feel good about external priorities. It's your divine, parental, societal or ideological drive.
Sometimes suffering is what we are meant to do.

You seem to be suggesting that a lack of emotionality is happiness, and that's wrong. A lack of emotionality is called anhedonia - a complete inability to experience positive emotion. Along with the experience of prolonged negative affect, it's one of the two defining symptoms of depression. In fact, in my own experience I've suffered a lot from anhedonia, but not so much by being overcome by negative emotion (my problem is I don't get overcome by any emotion at all).

I don't know exactly what the different categories of depression might be because I've not studied it in depth, but I think it's clear that there's a difference between existential angst and irrational depressive thinking, for example. Even in the DSM-V, the diagnostic criteria is such that two people with almost a completely different set of symptoms can both be diagnosed with depression. I think it's time for us to start to narrow the diagnosis further, because it's affecting treatment outcomes to suggest that everyone's depression is the same and has the same broad underlying cause.

Yes that's right, Freud is easy to see as a joke if you take his work completely out of context and present it to a modern audience. There's lots in Freud that I disagree with, but I think he deserves to be treated with more respect in modern psychology because he's a true pioneer in the field.

I don't mean to argue against CBT completely because, as your anecdote demonstrates, for some people it can be very effective. My issue is more to do with the way psychoanalysis is treated in academic psychology and professional clinical practice (at least in the UK), where it is seen as an unscientific and inferior approach.