The two grandfathers of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961)...

>The two grandfathers of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961), both had a deep admiration for Nietzsche and credited him with many insights into the human character.

what did they see in him?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/ClassicalMythologyvolume10
archive.org/details/ClassicalMythologyvolume11
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

He wasn't a nazi prick, he just refuted nihilism - something almost every poster on this board fails to do personally

He gives incredible insight into emotions like resentment and the animal side of man.

Lol spoork lmao x))))

He learned a lot about himself (and humans in general) through suffering and being alone for the majority of his life

>Refuted nihilism
>Was a moral nihilist

When will people learn that Nietzsche is using the word nihilism to be synonymous with life denying rather than moral nihilism?

if that's the case, I ought to endlessly pontificate on personal relations and call it a book of philosophies. pain alone cannot breed merit, it takes a thinker to organize the suffering into useful sharable information.

You're right. He was a great thinker, reader, and prose stylist, so he was able to make something of his experiences

That's the difference between him and you, yes.

Concepts of Nietzsche which are similar to those of Freud include (a) the concept of the unconscious mind; (b) the idea that repression pushes unacceptable feelings and thoughts into the unconscious and thus makes the individual emotionally more comfortable and effective; (c) the conception that repressed emotions and instinctual drives later are expressed in disguised ways (for example, hostile feelings and ideas may be expressed as altruistic sentiments and acts); (d) the concept of dreams as complex, symbolic "illusions of illusions" and dreaming itself as a cathartic process which has healthy properties; and (e) the suggestion that the projection of hostile, unconscious feelings onto others, who are then perceived as persecutors of the individual, is the basis of paranoid thinking. Some of Freud's basic terms are identical to those used by Nietzsche.

>dude u like wanna fugg ur mom eww gross man
>sorry shit sux, wow man
>sweet talking to u bro
>heres sum zoloftt dude
>gib shekels pls

AND THUS THE EXACT, HIGHLY DISCIPLINED STUDY OF THE HUMAN PSYCHE WAS BORN

fuck freud

XD

More so this than not in the western world.
Had some good insights but the twisting of his questionable ideas into modern belief gives people one-liner psychology which is complete shit.

behaviorism should be the boogeyman not psychoanalysis desu

lol

Do you derive any satisfaction at all from spluttering out your wholly uneducated opinions?

Thanks for making me realize I should get off of Veeky Forums and read a book tho

Except he didn't refute it.

Schopenhauer remains correct. Evola demolished Nietzsche's arguments (and Heidegger's), if you're prepared to dig out Ride the Tiger.

If you've read Nietzsche you know he's quite the subtle psychologist. In fact I kind of use him as my psychiatrist sometimes.

read Human, all too Human and The Gay Science. HATH in particular is great, in the first 50 pages or so he basically provides the foundation for everything Freud did. Nietzsche also calls himself a psychologist more often than a philosopher.

Jesus Christ, people on Veeky Forums are so easily triggered, this board is somehow actually worse than tumblr.

>I hate the Nazis because they aren't Volkisch and elitist enough!
>I love the SS though they're so cool! Holocaust what? Huh? Why should I write about the barbarism of my favorite dudes?
>lmao it doesn't matter that the protocols of the learned elders of zion are a forgery I believe them to be true anyways
>lmao lets do some drugs and cast occult rituals, im so cool lmao christianity is so ghey look mom im a radical aristocrat!
>proceeds to walk into a Soviet artillery bombardment and get paralyzed
>"lol i was just riding the tiger breh"

Evola was a meme, there's a reason that Heidegger and Nietzsche are at the foundation of 20th and 21st century philosophy and Evola is only taken seriously by alt-right fedora tippers.

>he fell for the psychology major meme
>he fell for the pharmacological solution to life's problems meme
>he fell for the Jung/Freud r deeep meme
>he fell for the modern astrology meme

pick all four

You're getting confused. It was Mussolini's Brown Shirts he turned his nose up at, essentially on account of the fact that they were uncultured thugs.

Later, he realized that a bad solution is better than none; hence why he threw his lot in with the SS.

He doesn't really talk about Jews.

He tried drugs on one occasion, after which he didn't do so again as he claimed to have gained everything to be gained from the experience.

Yes, he did the rituals (Roman reenactments/etc), but you should at least read his more esoteric works to find out why.

Christianity is indeed retarded, and he argues his case well on that.

The walk-during-the-bombardment was some sort of existential exercise. He knew what he was doing, and the risks he was taking.

Lastly, I imagine you don't even know what he meant by 'Riding the Tiger'.

As with everything else, I'll assume you never actually read him; but take heart, you're not alone. People very rarely read anything on this board; that's the meme.

>refuted nihilism
>he thinks negative utilitarianism and negative hedonism are nihilism

And no, he didn't refute either. First, in a sense he was nihilistic as fuck himself. Secondly there is no genuine equity in living

>Evola
Fuck off back to the-right-stuff with your feels > reals bullshit.

>Appealing to 'reals'

Oh god, it's that Sam Harris poster again.

So Evola is the ultimate black pill? No thanks.

It's fine lad, not everyone can handle that pill.

>Implying I'm not a Kierkegaardian existentialist and have never heard of this poster.

But if Evola is just affirming nihilism then tradition doesn't matter in the end and you might as well just fucking kill yourself. I thought there was supposed to be some counterbalance to Ride the Tiger being about how our situation is fucked?

Evola doesn't affirm nihilism; he fucking hates it. Pretty much every ill you can possibly think of, he traces back to nihilism.

Part of the reason why he tackled Nietzsche so much was due to Nietzsche providing a false solution (the 'Superman).

I think Freud was more irked than anything, on a deep level. N. Is like the polar opposite of him in spirit.

He thoroughly refuted it. His entire work amounts to being a massive, successful refutation of Schopenhauer's nihilism.

Meaninglessness is yet another meaning you attribute to the world. The illusion never stops. The reality is not that life is inherently meaningless, but what you make it.

>The two grandfathers of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961)
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>He wasn't a nazi prick, he just refuted nihilism
This is such abstruse bullshit. What Nietzsche meant when he said "nihilism" is not the same thing that everyone else means when they say "nihilism" (and he 'refuted' neither).

>what did they see in him?
A man with a damn good understanding of the unconscious.

I mean, have you read Zarathustra? That book references every fucking alchemical and religious text under the sun.

>freud was le dumb
When will this meme die

once freudians have retaken all the academic positions, will take a decade or two

He wasn't dumb, but he was delusional as fuck

Not at all. You take what he said too much at face value, and so you don't understand what he was driving at.

Why do you think that i took him at face value?

Nietzsche's Superman solution wasnt wrong. You just gotta line up your conscious with your unconscious rather than wrestle with them. Once you can do that, it feels pretty damn great/comfy.

Still gotta read Evola though, heard he's for the Iron pillers

Freud *was* delusional as fuck. If you read more boographical/autobiographical work, youll realize he was power-tripping and wanting everything his way for all of psychology.

Which makes sense, seeing as he was a very neurotic ISTJ.

His overwhelming insight into the human condition? Nietzsche basically summarized the problem of psychoanalysis in a pithy one-liner: "if I knew myself (referring to the Ancient Greek mantra), I would run away".

>dismisses Freud
>takes MBTI seriously

Read the book on Freud by Walter Kaufmann

they saw in him an interesting case that shows what happens to a untreated patient.

I guess Groucho Marx is misattributed with this line then. It's always big N, lads.

Actually I just searched it and it looks like Goethe first said it.

Point being, Nietzsche's recognition of repression and how it fucks us up but allows society is basically ripped off by Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents

Apollonian Dionysian Archetypal duality

Professor Elizabeth Vandiver

Lecture 9

archive.org/details/ClassicalMythologyvolume10

Lecture 10

archive.org/details/ClassicalMythologyvolume11

There's a great 25 lecture series by the late Rob Solomon and his wife Kathleen Higgins (who I got to have a nice dinner with), find it and listen if you're interested. They apologize for Nietzsche and explain his views in regards to many of the things he talks about; I've never found a more accurate representation of his views anywhere.

For those who are interested.

>what did they see in him?
Nothing.

>christianity is indeed retarded
edge

*tips*

That lecture series just irritated me. I think I finally understood why when they got to the Genealogy lecture (lectures). So much time is wasted trying to dismantle it from an anthropological perspective when it's so obvious to anyone with half a brain that even if he was seriously considering that (which I already find highly suspect) that it actually has no bearing at all on the text itself, because Nietzsche is using it as a way to understand his psychology.

They are well meaning but they strike me as being so PC that instead of tackling Nietzsche seriously they try to excuse the parts they don't. This means that they never really grapple with the parts they don't like. They just ignore them mostly which leads to their usually misunderstanding him on those regards. I think it's a fine introduction to Nietzsche but there is far better and more accurate scholarship out there for people who have a reasonable familiarity with Nietzsche.

That doesn't refute moral nihilism. The ubermensch is a response to moral nihilism. If it really solved moral nihilism then moral nihilism would be false, preventing the ubermench from being an answer. To posit it as an idea which makes moral nihilism false is a paradox.

Nietzsche's use of the term nihilist can be equated to life denier. Nietzsche did provide a life affirming mode of living, so he did "solve" one of them.

I think you've got it wrong, but okay.

I haven't read any of his shut but what do you mean by that.

So moral nihilism is a statement of moral non-realism which means a belief in the lack of inherent morality in the universe, ie there is no objective morality. Nietzsche's whole moral philosophy assumes and relies on moral non-realism to be true. It is impossible for his ethics to work outside of a moral nihilistic framework because his entire philosophy (and not just his ethics) leads to it. His epistemology and ontology lead us to moral non-realism which is then the basis for his ethics.

Nietzsche rails against nihilism a lot in his writings but he is not talking about moral nihilism. For example he often calls Christianity a nihilistic religion. Clearly this is an oxymoron if he means moral nihilism. What he means is that the Christian conception of the afterlife, and this life's roll in relation to that minimises the importance of this life and has us turn away from it (at least according to his interpretation of the religion). So Nietzche uses the term nihilist to mean one who turns away from the importance of this life. He also calls Buddhism a nihilistic religion because he (incorrectly) believes the point of the religion is to extinguish ones own existence, and he even is critical of the atheism of his time because of the tendency of it's adherents to-in the lack of moral imperatives-fall into despair and deny the joy of life.

This is correct