The Last Psychiatrist

>Baudrillard

Yep, TLP reminds me a great bit of Baudrillard. Imo his philosophy on media is what fueled Trump's victory and the distrust/splintering of the media we have today

Just discovered TLP a couple of weeks ago myself by clicking on the link on SSC. I believe he quit writing after being doxed. Imo his best pieces are Iraq and aspirational 14% (the one about watches)

Strange feminine-aggressive style of writing and thinking - if that’s a sensible way to put it. Seems much too reductive a worldview and the following is cultish. The idea of narcissism in their writing seems too morally-infused and applied too liberally to retain a coherent meaning or application to the real world. I mean, you could assess culture and humanity with an emphasis on narcissism, for sure, and probably dig up some interesting things. But it seemed less like an intellectual affair than a deeply sordid personal one.

Where should I start with him? He has a lot of posts that go back over a decade...

Can someone recommend/link me to any good stuff by TLP?

Pls

Is his stuff compiled in a pdf anywhere?

Good. Consistently entertaining, though I'd say his quality at times could be pretty hit or miss, and he doesn't explain certain leaps of thought very well.

If you're looking for stuff he was into, already points to two of his sources, and his blog title is at least hearkening to Nietzsche's Last Men. Christopher Lasch seems to be the really decisive figure tho, since Lasch's take on Narcissism is what TLP ended up focusing on so well.

For more of his writing, definitely check out Partial Objects through archive.org. For more blogs like it...well, there's at least three that are worth mentioning, but quality is very different between them. The worst (because too "edgy") is The Blond Beast, worth glancing at but nothing more.

The Hotel Concierge (hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/) was a bit too self-consciously similar for a while, but still alright, and has suddenly gotten very good recently. Check out hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/162571849189/the-tower for a good sample.

The last I'd point to is Samzdat (samzdat.com/), which seems like the only one that kinda really builds on anything TLP did (and Lasch is explicitly discussed in a really good series). Still new enough that I'm not sure how well it'll pan out, but it's been pretty refreshing in a similar way to TLP, at least for me. A great example is samzdat.com/2017/04/21/how-to-fail-fearless-girl-statue/ which reads just like TLP at his best cultural analyses.

Start with the most recent articles on the site. His biggest articles on Narcissism are only a little ways down in his archive.

OP here, thanks for the recommendations anons! I didn't realize how much might be influencing him, but it looks like I'll have a lot to read now.

Amusing but a bit of a pseud. Always trying so hard to make people go "wow really makes you think". Never ending ebin plot twists, sort of reddit honestly. Waste of time if you have the attention span to read books instead of blog posts.

Unqualified Reservations of course, but it has also ceased operations.

Why do you want everyone else around you to be aspergers so badly?

Start with the most recent stuff.

>dressed in red
she wants to fuck
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3326027/

ugh, tossing out my time magazines already this week finally, glad to see not before time

A good decision probably

>the only appropriate time to wear make up is to look attractive to men. Or women

sounds like a stupid cum slug

It's perfectly coherent and applicable, you likely just find change itself unthinkable. You might be a narcissist.

another slut craving sex

indeed

Who the FUCK is TLP

the last psychiatrist

an underground clinical psychiatrist that made an amazing blogger page about narcissism from like, 2008-2014

>everything is narcissism
boring

Thx

>no novelty, we have seen this before, it's boring

literally the textbook example Lasch gives for narcissism

Nothing better describes the modern era.

Don't mention it. It's also important to note that if you want to get into psychoanalysis, you have to start with (mature) Freud. I'd recommend "The Ego and the Id."

Gotcha. I have "Introduction to Psychoanalysis" and "On the Interpretation of Dreams". Are those significantly different positions then in "The Ego and the Id"?

>The fraud women now believe is that it is wrong to look good for men only, as an end in itself; the progressive delusion is that looking good for men is synonymous with submissiveness, so while you're allowed to look good to men, it should always be secondary to looking good for yourself. This is madness. You are enhancing your outward appearance, which is great, but then you pretend it's for internal reasons?

>How would you like to live in a world where men had to wear make up? "Oh, I love make up on a guy, especially eyeliner." Of course you do, you're having a stroke. Ask it this way: how would you like to be in a world where men said," oh, I feel so much better about myself when I'm wearing makeup." You'd run for the nearest totalitarian regime.

He's pretty funny tbqh.

I read a little of Hotel Concierge when the guy began and he kind of came off as a copycat of TLP, how does he hold up now?

"Intro" is fine; "Dreams" borders on astrology in places. Freud's really lasting contributions are the unconscious, ego-id-superego structure, and libido and death drives.

Reading TLP made me feel this awful sinking feeling in my gut. A lot of his work was confusing in an unsettling way.

I kind of regret reading it. A lot of people whose work I read seem to be in favor of him. I think maybe I should have read more before I read Alone.

Varg Vikernes.

He's funny but he's talking like men haven't any cosmetic concerns. The idea of man he has in mind is close to the post-ww2 "lol men just do whatever the fuck they want" man which is closer to a degenerate than to a real man.

It's simply a question of being honest with yourself. That's what psychological health is.

It's also impossible to replicate.

The most equal period of the last 1000 years of human history was the start of WW1 till the end of WW2. Post WW2 was a rare enigma we can't recreate without total war.

Dude, what?

his realname got found out (hes easy to find) and he realized he was doing more harm than good.

have you read the comments on any of his blog posts? they are atrocious

Yeah, they're awful.

Have you seen the reddit page that keeps his work alive? reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/ See how long you can stomach that if you've never seen it.

>missing the point this hard

hotelconcierge.tumblr.com
slatestarcodex

both quite similar, strikingly so.

I didn't miss the point, I was just remarking how men have an interest in cosmesis as well and his implicit conception of men as "ttttru men jus do whatever the fugg they want bro" is retarded and reeks of adolescence. I'd also add that he misses the non-sexual social aspect of the importance we (women in general more than men) assign to cosmesis.

Do you not know what rhetoric and polemic is?

false flagging male trying to make women look stupid pls go.

But that isn't his conception at all, you dunce.

I feel you're missing the other point, and hilariously so do a lot of other people because you've gotten a lot of responses.

There's a feminist idea today that women can still wear makeup, not in a degrading and demeaning way just to look good for men (or women, depending on their sexual preferences), but because they "want to look good for themselves", want to feel good about themselves.

The irony about this is that they're still basing their internal self-evaluation on their external appearance. Thus, narcissism. His conceptions of masculinity don't play a very big role in this idea he's trying to get across, although he does have some ideas of masculinity you could criticize, except he's not really talking about them much in that comment of his.

This right here

Yes and as I said in the other post he's pretty funny. But people here are taking him seriously and I want to have a discussion on this anyway.
That conception of man is implicit in what he says. Why would he imply that women, and only them, are narcissistic for wearing makeup then?
>The irony about this is that they're still basing their internal self-evaluation on their external appearance. Thus, narcissism
And this is wrong, I think. The feeling of self satisfaction that comes with meeting your internalized beauty standard is immanent and anterior to the social setting (this is what women mean when they say they "feel good about themselves" when they look good), and this is normal for the 99% of the adult population, both men and women. This is why I said that his conception of man as someone who jus doesn't care brrrro is implicit in what he writes: because, why then, if he didn't have the aforementioned conception of man, would he scold women, and women only, for something that the vast majority of humans do?

This is a Devil's Advocacy for contrarianism's sake.

>The feeling of self satisfaction that comes with meeting your internalized beauty standard is immanent and anterior to the social setting (this is what women mean when they say they "feel good about themselves" when they look good)
Questions: 1) How do you know that it's immanent? 2) How do you know it's anterior to the social setting? 3) Is this the same or different from beautifying for some other ritual or end? 3a) If so, how do you know this?

Because looking good makes you feel good whether or not there's someone there to observe you. For example you: you don't need someone to look at your sick gainz that you earned by working hard at the gym to feel all good and proud about your sick gainz that you earned by working hard at the gym. Of course the concept of "looking good" is something that arises only when a human lives in a society (and in a society that has such concepts) but this is a different matter. I don't understand question 3.

Not really.

You don't feel good about sick gym gainz because they're innately good, but because they're an accomplishment achieved through work or else contributing to health which is a higher good. Looking good *may* sometimes be an accomplishment, but the good is otherwise not innate, or at least still not shown to be. The good is largely dependent upon social judgement, i.e., even if not to attract someone explicitly, it's to advertise the kind of person someone is, and so the kind of person who wants to be seen as not beautifying for others, *which requires beautifying for others*.

The focus on women over men isn't because the critique doesn't apply to men, because it totally does, but because its part of how women are specifically targeted and taught to desire.

Looking attractive gives you respect in your social circles. Straight women put on makeup to go watch movies with their girlfriends, where they get complimented on looking nice. Straight men get compliments from male friends if they've been working out. These things are only rooted in sexual appeal if you're being super super reductive about it, in which case everything is rooted in sexual appeal.

Added to that people try to look attractive for the various halo effects, people thinking you're a good person or being more successful at work, etc. What is narcism not, in this conception?

I've always heard good things about TLP but this seems like a stupid take.

>samzdat.com/2017/04/21/how-to-fail-fearless-girl-statue/
That's one petty good. So is samzdat.com/2017/10/13/the-guardians-inferno/ which is cultural analysis ala TLP. Wish he'd do more of those.

funny, i just suggested this blog to a friend of mine just yesterday or the day before, the narcisssus post.

TLP is a fkin hack and no one outside of the easily influenced dweebs here takes him seriously

So much tryharding. Those comments are garbage.

>I'm not saying you have to look good for men, I'm saying that if wearing makeup not for men makes you feel better about yourself, you don't have a strong self.

He is not arguing that everyone wears makeup or works out for sexual reasons. Just read the post, it's short.
thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

women wear makeup due to other women wearing makeup and makin remarks when they do not wear makeup

Jesus, he's not talking about wearing makeup for other people, he's talking about being such a narcissist that you have to give an account of your identity in order to wear makeup

This this this

He strikes me as a bit of a narcissist tbqh

>knee-jerk "you're a narcissist" response to any criticism
Even more annoying than Zizek's knee-jerk "PURE IDEOLOGY xDD" response to any criticism.
Probably my biggest complaint about TLP is his insufferable style, where he "ironically" mirrors the exact personality type he's railing against in most of his articles.

What is so egregious about the posts in this sub? Are there any that particularly annoyed you?

>Psychiatry and its Malcontents

Massacre of the Unicorns
Massacre of the Unicorns II

>Narcissism

If This is One of the Sexiest Things You’ve Ever Seen, You May Be a Narcissist
A Generational Pathology: Narcissism is Not Grandiosity
Just Because You See It, Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone

>Borderline

Borderline
The Diagnosis of Borderline Personal Disorder: What Does It Mean?
Penelope Truck, Abuser

>Social Criticism/Semiotic Analysis of Culture

Luxury Branding the Future Leaders of the Future
Shame
The Decline Effect is Stupid

>Personal Reflection

The Second Story of Echo and Narcissus
How to Draw
How to Create Motivation for 2010

>Other

The Trouble with Psychiatry - “Not Even Wrong”
Psychiatry is Politics
Farewell, Depression
The Ten Biggest Mistakes Psychiatrists Make (this is one where the comments are worth reading, especially from fellow practitioners)
The Most Important Article on Psychiatry You Will Ever Read, all parts

On Feminity:

thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

On Masculinity:

thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drink_guinnes.html

On Porn:

thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/hes_just_not_that_into_anyone.html

>Are there any books or blogs people could recommend like TLP?
pic
meltingasphalt.com/
theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/
slatestarcodex.com/
ribbonfarm.com/

>The focus on women over men isn't because the critique doesn't apply to men, because it totally does, but because its part of how women are specifically targeted and taught to desire.

this was my take, as well.
your posts all come off as "MEN ARE NARCISSISTS TOO!" but the TLP post would double in length to include men at the same level of depth. I've only read a few of his posts including the OP, but I'm guessing male-specific narcissism is probably the subject of a different post(s). In any event, while this post focused on women, my read of it was how women are forced into a stockholm-syndrome-type situation by the larger culture, which to my mind implicates men as well for being the source of the "imprisonment" to social mores like using makeup in the first place. I'm just a pleb who read the thing several months ago, though, but that was my take.

>feminine-aggressive style of writing
For a while I was sure the author was a woman.

>How do you know that it's immanent?
Humans are groomers. Looking good's always been a natural imperative for humans. Obviously more so today because it's a lot easier, but still.

That still doesn't show that it's an innate good, on the one hand, and it still doesn't deal with the difference between self-consciously beautifying oneself for others and looking good ostensibly to feel good about oneself.

>thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drink_guinnes.html
Jesus, I need to do something about myself.

I was just recently introducing somebody to True Detective and thought of the TLP posts about the show.

Heavy samefagging ITT, but good to see the word being spread.

Wow, please tell us more about how boring you are as a person

It's working!

I just read it and felt nothing.

Guess i'm too far gone or just don't care.

Or you didn't understand it. That's also an option.

Possible.

I certainly find it hard to take anything seriously that uses alpha and beta.

Why? You don't think the terms can be useful and apply to real world phenomenon? Granted they are overused in today's parlance but the usage here wasn't very literal.

>What do people think of him?
I dearly wish he finished and published his book on porn.

I hope you don't think that reading TLP makes you an intellectual

>You don't think the terms can be useful and apply to real world phenomenon?

Where's the evidence it's a real world phenomenon in humans? The wolf study was debunked years ago and the guy who did campaigns against it constantly.

On the terms themselves, no I don't. They clearly get interpreted as superior/inferior. If you take the active/passive interpretation that some people do, then the terms are far too reductive since neither are inherently bad or good. Things get even more muddled when you start to bring omega in to it which has two hugely contradicting definitions.

They just aren't apt descriptors of behaviour. They are a cheap reductive status play.

>They just aren't apt descriptors of behaviour. They are a cheap reductive status play.
Only if you are a retard and take them literally, which you might be since you bring up wolves. Beta male is an excellent descriptor of a type, it effectively translates to a man that isn't outgoing and is submissive.

The problem with this guy is that he pathologises virtually every human behaviour short of breathing as "narcissism". Encouraging his readers to become even more self-absorbed by constantly questioning all of their behaviour isn't going to help them, and I think he finally realised this a few years ago. All in all his posts are insightful, but I wouldn't take his absolutist moral standards too seriously.

He's not wrong, the modern western person is a narcissists. Pathologies have become the norm.

So you have no evidence of this real world phenomenon? Just insults? Thought as much.

That's quite the rationalization, I guess.

Will you explain what you mean, or are you just going to post smug, dismissive responses to every possible criticism of this guy? This is another reason why I hate his fanbase, they read a few of his articles, think they have as much insight as he does, and assume that every possible criticism of TLP can be summed up as a narcissist being in denial. He himself has written in articles that increasing self-obsession won't help his readers to get better, which I assume is one of the reasons he stopped writing.

Not going to bother explaining what I mean to someone who lazily thinks TLP "pathologises virtually every human behaviour short of breathing". Sounds like a personal problem really.

>No, I'm not going to explain what I mean, I'm going to continue posting smug, dismissive responses to every possible criticism of TLP, including mocking his critics as being lazy thinkers while "not bothering" to explain my own point of view
All you had to type, pseud.

>Sounds like a personal problem really.
Yes it does, you should get that checked out. You seem to be quite the narcissist.

i remember reading this and i honestly don't get it, because i wear makeup. people don't notice and i look a lot more put together.

i mean, do people not think that actors wear makeup? for someone who wrote in this vein of "the media is making you out of touch with reality", he really didn't seem to get what was going on some of the time.

i don't think anyone is wearing makeup for themselves, but certainly you wear it to become another person. to imagine that person is always some type of extreme sexual personae is ridiculous, people often want to give the impression of sexuality without literally inspiring sexual arousal in others. idk just sounds like autism

You seem mad bro. Narcissism got you down?

Thanks for confirming that you have nothing of value to write. You can stop posting now.