How hard is this to read?

How hard is this to read?

not very

En que idioma?

>have sex with your kids LMAO

It's meant to be a for a general audience, so Freud makes things simple for you.

So read this first and then move on to the more complicated books?

A figure of fun. Loathe him. Vile deceit. Freudian interpretation of dreams is charlatanic, and satanic, nonsense.

I started with Civilization and Its discontents and It was a rather easy read, albeit maybe I should re-read to geta better grasp. He is not a bad writer, this seems to be a fine book.

Are you trying to learn about psychology?

If so, why read outdated pondering by a lunatic.

Who should i read then?

The smartest person I have ever known was this Russian kid at my school when I was 15, not only had he read Tolstoy in Russian but he had also read Freud. He was a genius and also kind of an autist but whatever. What I'm saying is that Freud is for smart people.

>How hard is this to read?
Basically, you want to fuck your mother.

Yeah I already knew that, but i just want to know why that is.

Is it that different in Russian? I'm fluent in Russian but I never read in it so it'd be a lot harder than just reading it in English.

I only read it in German and its quite easy.
The question is though why you would read it.
His thoeries are outdated now no matter how groundbreaking they where back then.
Read a book about him and his theories.

These OP. I get he sounds fashionable, and his writing is aight to follow, but you have to understand you're reading a document that holds little applicable merit or truth to it.

Freud was right about everything, the reason everyone calls him outdated or charlatan is because his thought isnt liked by utilitarian autists (left and right wing)

Nice refrence

Freud is one of the few major thinkers who can actual express his thoughts in writing well.

However, the people in his field that followed through with his work brought us some of the most shitty and damaging works ever!

jung is better

Carl Gustav Jung. Unlike Freud he actually thought things through and didn't write in a coke haze. Also, he deeply studied philosophy, mythology etc. He deserved much more fame than Freud ever got. How did I learn of Jung in the first place? When I was a teenager my brother was looking for a psychologist to sort some stuff out, and he commented with me there were apparently two types of psychologists, Freudian and Jungian, but for some reason the Jungian psychologists were more expensive. It turns out understanding Jung requires knowledge in several areas, as opposed to taking rantings as gospel.

Jung is most known for popularizing dream analysis, and overall a deeper analysis of the unconscious than Freud, who tried to fit people into boxes. I recommend starting with Modern Man in Search of a Soul, it's a good intro to his works. The writing is simple, but I recommend you take notes while reading, there is a lot to flesh out from his writing. When I read it, sometimes 2 pages would take as long as 30min. It helps if you've already got some philosophy and/or mythology under your belt, so you naturally make some connections. If you don't though go for it anyway, then you'll make those same connections when you finally read philosophy and mythology works.
Jung is great because he realizes human nature goes much beyond "you had X trauma in childhood, do Y for Z period of time". Quite a lot about the mind is still unknown, and if one is to be thorough it's necessary to have at least some basic understanding of all human thought, it's all connected. I've had insights about Jung concepts while reading about architecture, for example.

Jung is a fraud disregarded by the vast majority of the psychologist community.

Op, unless you really want to study psychology/psychoanalysis don't bother with reading Jung or Fraud or anything else. I was in the same position as you a couple of years ago, interested in the topic but not invested enough to study it full time. It ended up being a waste of time of me reading meme books by meme authors like the one in your OP or Jung suggested by the poster I'm replying to.
Don't bother with this and read other literature that will actually teach you about life and humans instead of trying to rationalize the pseudoscience that is psychology.

Cheers

That's because they used the unpredictable nature of the study of the mind to push their agendas. They were seen as some kind of wizard back then(some still are), even disrespected by a lot of folks, but they influential with the rich, therefore their disease spread. It's a lot like that famous anthropologist who went to Papua Nova Guiné(or somewhere nearby) to study the natives and got really famous for her work. A couple decades later they found out not only had she frauded a good portion of her research, but the natives hated here for being an insufferable cunt and trying to fuck everyone. Yet she is still very influential in anthropology. If anyone recalls her name I'd appreciate it. Why the comparison? Because a lot of psychologists did "research" with extremely loose criteria, basically using that field of study as a way to push their opinions, without actual work to back it up. Psychology has enormous potential, unfortunately it was kidnapped by influential people for their goals. A major example is Edward Bernays, read up on him.

If you want to completely disregard Jung I expect a much more in depth analysis of the reasons why. Is it because he talked about stuff like the collective unconscious? A field such as psychology inherently has some bs in it, but unlike his counterparts Jung studied a vast sum of human thought. It isn't because he didn't come up with a definitive answer to life that his work can be disregarded. If that was enough reason to do so, you might as well discard several Greek philosophers.

Freud + Magic - science = Jung

He’s just a reactionary mystic who people like because it allows them to live in a fantasy understanding of the mind and avoid the hard truths you have to confront while reading someone like Lacan.

See The funny thing is you're implying Freud is scientific and not at all "magic", whereas he is the one whose body of work relies on patients of his as opposed to actual research.

>Lacan

lol, Freud for bachelors... completely misses the point of psychoanalysis

Go read Jung