I think psychoanalysis is patent nonsense and I'd like to hear those opinions repeated back to me in a more erudite way.
(This is probably due to some secondary narcissim which begun when my libido withdrew from myself and found its way to my mother - who knows.)
Any recommendations? Happy to read about it from all angles - feminist, conservative, marxist (if such a critique exists). Squirt your recommendations all over me
Nonsense and general culture destroyer that it was it's ideology is embedded.. in our psyches.. and though there is a frequent return of whatever we repress.. there's no going back.
[We] have been too soaked in this nonsense for almost a century. Which is precisely why this nonsense is still 'important'.
You mean to say it has been self-actualising?
J.M. Cuddihy's "The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity"
In terms of language, yes. Either it is somehow got beyond in a manner of speaking AS simple, or.. I don't know.
Competing psychiatrists are admitted into courtrooms as a direct result of psycho-analysis. What Freud did was popularize (generalize) interest in the mind in terms of sexual deviance, sexual compulsion, sexual need, etc. What's interesting is that Freud himself clearly saw through the abuilding disaster and tried to switch things up when three-quarters of the way through his program. But no one IN GENERAL is really interested in the over-ruling death-drive, or POPULARLY pursuing matters 'beyond the pleasure principle.'
Some kid here infrequently posts Ernst Becker titles. One of them, The Denial of Death is kind of about the repercussions of all this. I think it was written in the '70's. I picked it up once but couldn't get through it.
Basically current views on psychoanalysis can be divided into 4 groups
>The "psychoanalysis is nonsense" group
This includes Popper followers, clueless stemfags and a good number of psychologists and neuroscientists
>The "psychoanalysis can be a good way to interpret the human mind and, even though the field is full of scammers, it should be given a chance" group
>The Gadamer followers, who I frankly don't understand
>The clueless English student, who is intellectually stuck in the 19th century and believes the Es and the super-ego to be actual things and writes a inhuman amount of papers titled "A Freudian Reading Of"
Chapter 4 of Culture of Critique. It's the "jewish science" so of course it's bullshit.
read this
>I think psychoanalysis is patent nonsense
it is if you treat it as scientific doctrine (which it doesn't purport to be). it provides useful schema for analyzing literature. paying to see an actual psychoanalyst is probably a waste of money though. I'd like to hear the experiences of people who regularly attend Lacanian psychoanalysis sessions
>which it doesn't purport to be
We both know that is nonsense. I agree that it is a useful (or at least interesting) schema for analysing literature (though how useful can something based in speculation ultimately be?) - but there are people who earnestly pay psychoanalysts to treat their mental illness, and psychoanalysts are happy to take the money.
>which it doesn't purport to be
you cant be serious. is exactly what it trying to be.
Freud would make a shot in the head if he not gonna be respected and treated at the same level of science.
why do you say this?
Not that guy but I've read Freud and the crew.
Just read a few of his books starting with The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. He literally says that it's not a science. He strived to check as much of his stuff scientifically, but it's a theory that you can't really prove. Psychiatrists can check if it works by comparing how it worked in treatment (there's a fuckton of books of people doing just that). The best that YOU can do is to try analysing your own dreams so that you start to get that he was right about the unconscious. Philosophically, it seems like people are unsure about psychoanalysis because empiricism kinda won in the Anglo-Saxon imperialist culture instead of rationalism.
Oh yea, and try looking at it like how math is used in physics. You can check physics empirically, but you can't check math empirically.
which it doesn't purport to be
Ehm.... it does, actually. Freud thought he was some scientific genius on par with Einstein.
>I think psychoanalysis is patent nonsense
>proceeds to describe self using freudian terminologies
if you approach it as scientific : psychoanalysis is not a science. despite what lacanians say.
To be a science a field of study must :
produce knowledge based on the scientific method, and this method requires that the experiments must be repeatable by other people validating it.
This is simply not possible with psychoanalysis because :
the object of study of the psychoanalysis is the the unconscious. witch is not a positive object. that means its not physical, cannot be measured, cannot have its length of appearance timed, and according to freud has a time of its own and can only appears on symptoms (memory lapses, hysterical or neurotic symptoms, psychotic surges, or Freudian slips). So the first conclusion : its not a science. We still have the observer/object problem, in witch a person could not observe another person psyche in a scientific way, but if you have a problem with that you also dont believe in any social science related stuff.
I just want to point out i do believe in psychoanalysis. but i also believe its not a science.
samefag :
continuing
one must think : "well if its not a science what is the point of doing it, if we cant quantify and analise the effectiveness of the form of treatment what is the point?".
Psychoanalysis was not born out the scientific method, it was born out of the medicine mindset in witch its not that important to know why a treatment works in a first moment, its better to cure the simptom. And in the case of freud the simptoms were being cured. hysterical women that were unable to drink water or even walk got better just by talking about their lives. It was not freud that invented this form of thing. The greeks had it and also a dude Called mesmer used to "enchant" paralitic women into walking again. Freud tried and managed to recreate that effect in a controlled environment. and tried to explain it the best he could. his first writings were about neurons and he tried to model a map on how those neurons would fail to work and produce hysterical symptoms. but he never published it because they were shit, and with this he knew it was a poor and retarded move to try to explain it scientifically. after his death it was published.
people feel better when they distract themselves from their trauma than when they talk and talk and talk about it
>tfw I did the clueless English student my freshman year of high school
best paper I wrote before college desu
>i have an opinion but i want to sound more pretentious when i express it
kill yourself
Keep you feelings bottled up until the day you make everyone in the room explode like Dr Manhattan.
check out
"we've had a hundred years of psychotherapy and the world is getting worse" by hillman/ventura with an introduction by the pynch himself
deleuze/guattari on schizoanalysis
i don't think psychoanalysis is bunk but i also don't think everyone needs a therapist. all that does is replace trusted friends with someone you pay to talk to, and as much as you can be friends with your psychotherapist you still have a professional relationship.
he's being ironic, autist
>implying its easy to access the trauma.
you dont even get to remember it in most cases. sometimes the traumatic idea is a false memory (fantasy) and some other there is simply no memory at all at a traumatic event and you try to revive that moment that has no valid memory attached to it. That is why its not trivial talking or accessing traumatic memory.
This is an incredibly ridiculous length to go to just to avoid admitting Freud was right
that's the joke friendo
There's also layers of access, you can remember a traumatic incident in analytic terms but have the entire emotional realm of it totally depersonalized. Often as you can see here into an ironic joke
friends does not really listen they are just there and they will soon try to turn your problems into a subject about them. it helps but does not really solve problems or redeems symptoms.
you need better friends
also, psychotherapists don't "solve problems" either, you do
>if it's not positive science, it's bullshit
Really?
they create an environment that makes it happen faster there is no analysis without transference and some intervention.
also fluctuant listening, friends cant do it withoug proper traning.
Those are the kind of jokes this autistic guy I know uses, spouting an opinion and not taking ownership.
I remember reading some exert by Nabokov railing against Freud. You can probably google it, might be up your alley
>He strived to check as much of his stuff scientifically,
this is what i refer. why?. he wants and need (is my theory) to be the most near to science that he can. (he and all the psychiatrists and psychologists) because if they cant "prove" they are right, they are just nonsensical stuff like tarot readers and all types of blatant esoterism or radical ideology.
Was it actually Nobokov or one of his characters?
psychoanalisis is protopsychology and in that way is treated in general in academy fields (at least where i live)
i mean, if psychoanalisis always and in all order begin explaining and have a clear mind about the absolutely non scientific stuff they are creating. i think we dont have psychology like a "science" now.
what i want to say is that i doubt the psychoanalysis dont have the aspiration (more or less fulfilled) to be a science since the beginning.
I'm referring to contemporary psychoanalysis. I don't think any honest psychoanalyst will tell you that it's a science.
do you know any psychoanalyst totally apart from the academic field or science environment?
they still take advantage of the "science" card.
the psychoanalists recognize themselves like pseudoscience?
that is true honesty.
According to Lacan, this is not at all the kind of scientificity at which psychoanalysis must aim: to his mind, psychoanalysis is not currently a science, and it is not by going in that direction that it will become one. “It is not what is measured in science that is important, contrary to what people think” (Seminar XX, 116/128). (Fink 27)
why psychoanalisis is not considered a pseudoscience at the same level that scientology or some new age "free your mind" theme?
its only by her link with science (slim or not). if they recognize or dont recognize this is in part irrelevant.
they need to be totally honest and make explicit statements about his totally not scientific approach. (something they tend to say in a vague and nonchalant form)
i totally agree with what lacan said. but he is not exaclty totally apart from the academic field, you know?.
>psychoanalysis is not currently a science, and it is not by going in that direction that it will become one.
>become one
the guy know it.
>but he is not exaclty totally apart from the academic field, you know?.
Lacan in the academic context isn't really concerned with continuing the practice of Lacan so much as it is reading him through other texts (especially films). He's treated more as strictly a philosopher and theorist (similar to Freud).
A lot of people do consider it pseudoscientific quakery. I myself am ambivalent insofar as I find most 'legitimate' forms of psychotherapy to be similarly dubious. I haven't undergone either so I'm just speculation. Would like to hear from someone who has more experience with this subject
this is only in the Wikipedia page
>Psychoanalysis is a controversial discipline and its validity as a science is contested. Nonetheless, it remains a strong influence within psychiatry, more so in some quarters than others
the psychoanalisis still have a somehow subtle validity from science.
is imposible to be a psychoanalist and, in a way or another, not take advantage of the science "prestige". is something subtle but i think is real.
and precisely for that if they dont consider themselves scientists in any way, they NEED to be apart from the psychoanalisis school, or start a new discipline because this have too many links with science. the hurt is done.
There are longer posts in this thread, Fred. It doesn't matter whether he was right or wrong; what matters is that [we] have inherited his way of seeing, and accept 'unconsciously' his (early) way of delineating human behavior AS OUR OWN.
What the fuck are you talking about? Freud was wrong about nearly everything, but if he was explaining anything it was the twisted thinking of his own people, jews. Very little of that can be accurately applied to Europeans let alone some nebulous notion of "humanity," and can only be fully understood once one is aware of the warped nature of jewish thought and their penchant to project their behaviors onto non-jews.
are people really believing this or is some kind of irony?.
People use his language all the time, dude. Write a book complected like your post and it will be used 'convincingly' on (you). Just sayin. Out there's not 4/chin/
That's the truth. If it's not registering that's probably because you don't know anything about jews.
I'm well aware that Freud's semitic brethren in academia promote him, what you don't know is why. Pathologizing the goyim was a beneficial tactic for that group to employ.
psychoanalysis had since Freud was a neurologist. But he dropped this approach since he failed miserably trying to put his discoveries in a scientific shape. the reasons are my last post.
its easy to understand why that happens :
1- every single symptom we have in the manuals of psychiatry had already been described and cataloged by Freud. He had a nice way of structuring those symptoms and they made sense. There is a huge force to let this names and logic go but seems its kind of hard for them.
The biggest mistake with Psychoanalysis is to view it as theory of psychology. It is not, and is not meant to be. William James and Sigmund Freud were attempting to do two different things.
Psychology is about understanding cognition and behaviour, Psychoanalysis is about treating patients of mental illnesses. Freud basically believed that all the structures he described were metaphors, because he firmly believed that in the future the whole mind could be described in terms of the brain’s physiology. He expected that if he was correct his structures corresponded to something like what he discribed.
>This is probably due to some secondary narcissim
nope, psychoanalysis is just patent nonsense steeped in memetic symbology
>Pathologizing the goyim was a beneficial tactic
Isn't that what's being promoted here, but in reverse? As I said....
General laxity of behavior I think is more plausibly associated with 'Enlightenment' thinking (not initially a Semitic phenomenon) and the technological progress that allows it, i.e. to be less dangerous. But youre right, I don't know why. And neither do (you).