Why do philosophers still constantly talk about Freud when his work is outdated/dismissed in the field of psychology?

>the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience (Wikipedia)
Why do philosopher's waste time on pseudoscience?

>compelling an interesting
Yes, sex sells, and the like. But philosophy should be a serious field of study, not a play ground where you pick out anything that sounds cool. If psychology has dismissed the idea of there being such a thing as the oedipus complex, for example, it needs to simply be dropped.

Should we speak about astrology in philosophy too?

Yes I have read quite a bit of Freud. I didn't mean he wrote in a similar style to Nietzsche, just that his work is more like a cluster of ideas than a worked out logical path.

>practical
You mean, practicing good methodology.

get fucked

Why deal honestly with sex when we can use our imaginations?

>Should we speak about astrology in philosophy too?
Why not?
I don't know why people think calling psychoanalysis a pseudoscience is derogatory. If we all become robots, then the stemlords will have their 'science'.

The good old daily psychoanalysis hate thread. Read his work before opening your mouth

You seem psychologically sound.

Why do you care so much about philosophy if you don't understand it

his work isn't "outdated/dismissed" entirely, he is relevant, thus spoken about

For the same reason that physicists and people with a popsci-tier interest in STEM still talk about Newton, or that academics and leftists still talk about Marx, even if they reject most of his conclusions: all of these figures had pathbreaking, historical importance in their respective fields, despite being discredited/overturned. Their ideas "won" at least in the shorter term, and the idea that gets repeated is the idea that wins.

I have to disagree with you there. Freud is a rather dialectical writer; often what seems to be a repetition or digression is a reexamination from a different perspective.

>Yes, sex sells, and the like.

says your mom.

because he was the psychologist that inverted Plato's classical tripartite soul where Plato put reason above passion, whereas Freud put passion above reason
the modernists who want to turn man from the "thinking animal" to a brute dominate by passions like any other animal, are forever indebted to Freud, so they pay him tribute

philosophers still wanna make money and keep their jobs

if something is stupid and wrong but allows for profs to publish than they will write about it

psychoanalysis is just Catholic confession

even Freud admitted that

5 start post

psychoanalysis is pseudoscience to the same extent that CBT, EMRI, DBT, drug therapy and anything else in psychiatry is a pseudoscience. all of these are as effective as doing nothing, and generally engaging with western psychiatric services today is the biggest indicator that you will be sicker for longer, die sooner, and experience less healthy periods and more extreme psychiatric disturbance. psychology and psychiatry have not become less of a pseudoscience since freud, and many arguments could be made it's become more of one with more wide ranging devastating effects.

philosophers and literary critics still talk about freud because his work on society contains some of the foundations of modern lit crit, public relations, and political theory. you bought bullshit from the middle category which was created to make you trust current psychology/psychiatry as something "better" when lol no it's not.

>CBT, EMRI, DBT, drug therapy and anything else in psychiatry is a pseudoscience. all of these are as effective as doing nothing
no

yes, they're all as effective (and some more detrimental) as sitting on a waiting list for six months.

In my experience things like anti-psychotics have quickly and effectively blunted the worst symptoms of my mental illness and allowed me to function in day to day life. I've never really heard an alternative other than "lol you're problems are all made up first world problems lol just snap out of it and improve you're life go traveling smoke some weed."

Maybe if you have garden variety depression and anxiety you ought not to be medicated but I'm thankful that I got proper treatment. If I had done nothing I would still be drawing pictures on my bedroom wall with a straight razor and burning my legs with a lighter.

>living in the first world
>muh mental issues

>bullying the psychotic on an image board
ok kid

What philosophers exactly are you referring to?

psychoanalysis offers useful concepts and vocabulary, for philosophers at least. Often the way philosophers use PA is pretty far from its clinical history.

Not only Freud, of course. I think I see Lacan more than Freud, though both are common.

>my one case outweighs all the studies done
First world recovery from psychosis is the worst in the world. You're more likely to relapse, less likely to work, more likely to be on drugs for longer than necessary, and have the worst outcome by just living in the first world. The first world problem is that the system often makes people sicker, especially in the case of psychosis.

The rate of recovery is so bad in the first world, that it's the subject of decades of study: why, when we have all these services and drugs, do our patients with psychosis stay psychotic longer with more episodes closer together and in general have worse outcomes?

Interestingly, the place which had the highest rates of psychosis and the worst outcomes in the first world, West Lapland, changed it's approach to "medication last" and cut its rates over the past 20 years from being the highest in the Western world to below anyone else in the Western world. First episode psychosis is less overall, and rarely recurs. Medication is very rare and very short term. It's Open Dialogue programme is currently receiving a lot of press because it turns out, no, medication and first world services aren't any good.

But enjoy feeling right during your repeated psychotic episodes, while all the evidence says you'd have been better off if you lived in a place with minimal sanitation and where camels are the main form of transport.

He's only considered "wrong" in the modern era because of feminism and the decaying culture.

Lacan is the new thing. He built off of Freud but there are key distinctions. Freud was the master scientist of psychoanalysis, but Lacan was the humanities expert that came much later. He believed that the unconscious is structured like a language, which gave his psychoanalytic theories credibility.

Believe me, Lacanian analysis is not the same thing as Freudian. And almost all of critical theory as we see it today that has a psychoanalytic component is Lacanian.... Not Freudian.

besides that they still teach civilisation and its discontents as intro to hamlet everywhere? do you mean just in france?

>his work is outdated/dismissed in the field of psychology

[citation needed]

>the unconscious

people here don't understand that concept, or other basic concepts such as trauma. Otherwise we would'nt have cringeworthy OPs like this one.

Where did you read this? Every source I have ever seen says you are wrong.

Are you talking about open dialogue? Because that is not considered to be strongly supported by evidence. Also while you complain that the above post is anecdotal your opinions are outside the norm of the professional community and backed by the minority of the research on the matter so your tone is not at all justified.

Most of the dangers of being on a wait list are that the patient doesn't feel they are getting active treatment. Because of this, they're more likely to try something which will get them active treatment, because nobody likes to feel like they're waiting for "the cure", which is actually as effective as placebo.

Antidepressants are as effective as talk therapies for depression (Khan et al 2012, note: this study shows wait listing as less effective). They're also as effective as -any- active treatment, including placebos. Unblinded antidepressants are more effective than blinded antidepressants, because, again, it gives a greater impression of active treatment to break blind. Antidepressants and psychotherapy are slightly better than unblinded antidepressants alone, because of the impression of active treatment. Similarly, two sugar pills work better than one sugar pill in placebo v placebo trials.

What makes waiting lists dangerous is that they provide the impression of non-active treatment. It's a nocebo effect. This will give you a few recent studies on it
rpsychologist.com/some-exploratory-evidence-that-wait-list-conditions-may-act-as-a-nocebo-in-psychotherapy-trials

What's really disturbing is that atypical antipsychotics are on the rise as a new treatment because of public concern that antidepressants are as effective as placebo, and so antidepressants are losing their boosted effect from being perceived as a cure. Alongside this, we've decreased life expectancy in not just the wait list but also in the active drugs treatment lists (~20 years of life for atypical antipsychotics) and while FoI is revealing more of the damaging effects of antidepressants especially, and now, to a lesser extent, atypical antipsychotics, this is going to compound the problem because people are taking drugs they need to believe work for them to have an effect, while also finding out the drugs don't really work that well. This could reduce some of the negative effects on life expectancy, but not while we're transferring people from antidepressants which reduce life expectancy at a lower rate to drugs which reduce it at a higher rate but have a better placebo profile.

To borrow from a board meme: spooks. Because people believe they need "treatment", "treatment" of *any* kind works just as well as any other, and "non-treatment" results in strategies to access treatment (eg slitting your wrists will get you further up the wait list to getting something which is as effective as being prescribed two placebos)

For psychosis, you can just look at outcomes of first world treatment vs any other kind of treatment. Add to this the life expectancy shortening of atypical antipsychotics, and we're worse off than when we were wondering back in the last century why backwoods India does better than France etc in diminishing psychosis. As western interventions spread to developing countries their rates of recovery have slid to near US levels.

tl;dr of is that instead of wait list I should have said, no treatment whatsoever and no promise of treatment either. Wait listing itself does have some evidence that patients will get better regardless, but the hope of treatment is a whole Pandora's box.
Do you mean to say that they're just ignoring psychosis to cook their data in Lapland? Or were they overdiagnosing before? Your tone is kind of funny since "why is the first world so psychotic" is a meme in psychiatry for decades. The professional community also backed antidepressants and atypical antipsychotics, which led to the two largest corporate fines in existence for bribing the professional community and false advertising. Being normal when normal means a larger legal fuck up than BP fucking up the Gulf of Mexico should give one pause.

FIGHT THE DRAGON

>Newton
You're a retard
>b-b-but le relativism and muh gravity wells
Literally derived from his laws.

Hi Chiller

"Treatment type was a significant predictor of percentage symptom reduction in both un-blinded and blinded trials, but the magnitude and pattern of significance differed as a function of blinding" - Khan et al. 2012

I won't argue that different cultures don't have different rates of mental illness but the evidence that therapy and correctly administered SSRIs statistically improve the lives of those that suffer from mental illnesses in the US more than a placebo is clear.

try reading joseph dumit's work on the drug industry.

This. You're all too fucking narcissistic. You should read the man's work before you feel comfortable talking about it-- especially about how and in what ways you believe he was wrong.

No I am not, and no I don't stutter. Newton simply provided an imcomplete (and consequently flawed) picture of his field, and it is in this respect that his like the other two of Marx and Freud. That is the reason why my analogy is correct, and your nitpick fails.

No I don't think doctors are fudging their data. I think documentary filmmakers are.

kill urself

Or maybe I'm a tit because it just hit me what they meant by active intervention controls.

That's because you're naive and a sheltered baby. What do you know about the politics of being a doctor anyway? Nothing.

Except that Newton was actually fundamentally correct, and the rigorous application of his ideas were actually instrumental in those laws eventually being revised/supplemented with Einteinian physics.

Freud, OTOH, is simply wrong. His only meaningful contribution is the idea of the subconscious, whereas the rest of his blather amounts to nothing but coke-fueled crazy talk. No one has demonstrated that dreams possess latent meaning, no one has demonstrated anything like an Oedipus complex. The idea of psychological regression produces no significant predictions.

The parts of Freud that might be right, aren't science, and what could be science, is contradicted by evidence. Even the psychological idea of the subconscious might eventually be outmoded by biological theories of reflex and instinct which have abundant analogy throughout the animal kingdom.

The reverence for Freud throughout the continental tradition seems like nothing more than signaling of sophistication (and a signal which mostly proves a lack of discrimination, imo). It's for people who are repressed and would like to talk about sex openly, but can't so they talk about it obscurely and all the time instead. Just compare Foucault and Lacan.

Freud is a hack, albeit not a charlatan: and he receives the reverence he does for the same reason people revere Noam Chomsky, or Aleister Crowley. Because they are pseuds who don't know what they're talking about but desperately want to signal that they're Smart and Intellectual.

But "suffering from mental illness" in the US is a one in four chance, which is a very sharp increase even within the past 20 years. Life expectancy for the US, unlike most other developed countries, is going down, and especially in those populations most likely to receive diagnosis.

The disability burden of depression in the US is so large that it's affected the international disability burden of the disease; it's now the largest disability burden in the world. It rose 37.5% between 1990, and 2010 when it became the second largest disability burden.

In 1990, it fell fourth behind lower respiratory tract infections and diarrhoea and childbirth internationally, and that is when Prozac had two years of wonder drug advertising. Think about that: all those clean water ads about Africa are not as dire as the US mental illness situation now in terms of disability adjusted life years.

Antidepressants "work better" because of the same reason that the disability burden is getting worse, because people believe in both depression and a cure for it. The cure for it shortens life expectancy, as does the impression of it being a common disease. More people get sick because of the nocebo effect of US mental health systems, and more people die sooner because of the treatment for it. It's rising at a rate that is causing first world life expectancy to decline which is practically unprecedented; if the drugs were working at all you should expect to see the disability burden decrease, like even sporadic interventions in clean water caused the burden of diarrhoea to decrease; it hasn't.

Spreading the US mental health model is desperately dangerous, and its cure is not decreasing it any. If the world had seen a near 40% increase in disability burden from unclean water, you'd be willing to say we need to intervene in the system to stop whatever we fucked up before we all die. Because it's depression and you'd hate to question the model on that, you're actually defending that increase.

The doctors are the ones who claim that they had the highest rates, and have the best outcomes.

If you mean Whitaker, yeah, he's an opportunistic dick and misrepresents the model, but I'm working off the Finnish doctors' records not him. Whitaker probably wishes there were no services there at all, rather than a different model of services.

>No I am not,
If you're not yore still a pseud
>Newton simply provided an imcomplete (and consequently flawed) picture of his field,
>flawed
Wrong
How about you actually open a physics textbook before posting, or at least stop making stupid fucking analogies?

Probably in Dianetics

>EMRI

I suppose you mean EMDR? EMDR and drug therapy have brought me out of major depressive disorder and self hatred.

>EMDR
Yes I do.
>drug therapy
Enjoy your increased risk of heart failure.

FIGHT THE DRAGON

You make a convincing argument but you would be surprised how incompetent, lazy, and overworked psychiatrists are in Western Countries. My psychiatrists weren't even "Western" they were all poo-in-loos who could barely speak English. They would forget what drugs I was on and accuse me of "not following their instructions" until they actually looked at the file and saw their mistake.

>But enjoy feeling right during your repeated psychotic episodes, while all the evidence says you'd have been better off if you lived in a place with minimal sanitation and where camels are the main form of transport.

I've not had a psychotic episode since 2008. Granted they were all drug induced and I don't do drugs anymore. . . But user people in Africa/Asia just somaticize everything. Honestly I don't think the average African, Indian, or Chinaman has the interiority or imaginative capacity to have a respectable bout of mental illness.

Not him, but lmao I used to do coke every weekend, I'll take my chances with something FDA approved.

>Honestly I don't think the average African, Indian, or Chinaman has the interiority or imaginative capacity to have a respectable bout of mental illness.
Yeah, we thought that for years too, and used it as the stand in explanation for why is the West more psychotic. The problem is that when we trained all the poo-in-loo doctors in their home countries as charity, they suddenly got outcomes as bad as ours.

>Not him, but lmao I used to do coke every weekend, I'll take my chances with something FDA approved.
Ischemic heart disease is so abnormally high in the US that there's a contingent which wants it to be declared a culture bound syndrome.

Tricyclic antidepressants increase the risks of it, so they tried for a while to treat anyone high risk with SSRIs. Then Emory did a twins study which showed SSRIs increase not decrease the risk too, and the twin who had taken antidepressants had about four years shaved off their heart's life span.

Cocaine is FDA approved, for very limited uses. Don't drink on coke, it's a bad plan for your liver Amphetamines are also FDA approved, especially for children, and are very broadly prescribed.

>they are so uneducated on the subject matter that they actually believe that psychoanalysis is outdated

lmaoi

That four years means a higher risk of heart failure every year I'm alive, right? It doesn't mean I'm going to die at 68 instead of 72?

I'm not sure either of those options bothers me desu. As long as it kills me in one shot and I don't linger too long, I won't complain. What difference does it make? I'm rarely happy, I usually just trudge through life, and I'm often miserable. I'm going to die anyway and my biggest concern for old age is how I'm going to kill myself gracefully before I get senile and decrepit. My uncle had Huntington's disease, and when the symptoms started to show, he shot himself. Ironically, because of my history of psychiatric care I won't have the firearm option, and while I won't get Huntington's, I probably will get some sort of dementia because of all the brain problems I already have.

If my SNRIs make life just a little more bearable, then it's worth it.

I don't do blow anymore but I wanted to cry when I saw people doing it to "stop feeling so drunk." I never did speed either because I heard that the comedown was even worse than coke. I wish I had a big bag of cocaine for rubbing on canker sores and that sort of thing though, that would be really nice.

To stop thinking, in any way, shape or form--to abandon ideas totally, is an error in itself.

>My psychiatrists weren't even "Western" they were all poo-in-loos who could barely speak English.
While I'm not a fan of the vocab you do have a point. I got referred to a neurologist a few years back who was just plain weird, ended up writing up a report that claimed the very opposite of what I had said (I was almost totally unable to sleep and was starting to have the whole more extreme microsleeps that look like seizures thing, falling asleep mid conversation. My report said I had no problem sleeping because I happened to mention in passing I found listening to white noise a little helpful but not that much. The guy also had no idea what white noise is and made out like I was a bit mental for mentioning something he didn't know [fucking doctors mang]). He was obviously overworked and kept doing that bloody "Yes and no" bobby head thing a lot of Indians do when they don't want to give an answer.

I think that's a problem with a lot of them, they take on way too much work in an effort to become middle class and just end up being shitty doctors who can't even catch up with basic cultural and language stuff they're missing because they don't have time.

>Freud, OTOH, is simply wrong. His only meaningful contribution is the idea of the subconscious

In the very first sentence of your description of Freud, you already show your absolute lack of understanding by attributing the idea of the subconscious to Freud. What you mean is that the psychoanalytic model of the subconscious, but if that was a meaningful contribution, which it was, it was in fact revolutionary, then how could you discredit psychoanalysis, as this is the foundation of it?

Also you write:

>No one has demonstrated that dreams possess latent meaning, no one has demonstrated anything like an Oedipus complex. The idea of psychological regression produces no significant predictions.

But this is what psychoanalysis has demonstrated. Or is something only demonstrated if can be measured?

>the rest of his blather amounts to nothing but coke-fueled crazy talk.

If you had any interest or knowledge on this, you wouldn't say this, you are just pushing your agenda.

>
Freud is a hack, albeit not a charlatan: and he receives the reverence he does for the same reason people revere Noam Chomsky, or Aleister Crowley. Because they are pseuds who don't know what they're talking about but desperately want to signal that they're Smart and Intellectual.

Your anti-intellectual arrogance embarrasses me. Freud caused an absolute revolution. In all circles, from lower classes to the intellectual circles, he was heatedly discussed. His insight on the human psyche was a huge step forward for psychology and literally redefined the way humans look at themself.

The case has been made more than enough on Veeky Forums, how psychoanalytic insights have infested our day-to-day speech, they have already become integrated into the human psychic model we draw. That is of course no prove that it's right, but you forget that Freud himself has always pointed out (you didn't forget, you just didn't read him) that he was a pioneer, someone who laid the ground for future research. And even though Freud in many ways has been proven wrong, it was done in the most meaningful way by psychoanalysts, most importantly Lacan, who at the same time also revived Freuds theory.

Imma butt in here. Freud himself has next to no original ideas at all. Most of what you're probably attributing to him is his rewritings of Schopenhauer. That makes up a lot of the bulk of his work. It's the way he presents and argues those things that makes him interesting tho.

Because being outdated doesn't mean it's irrelevent. Everything with psychology has to do with context.

And what would that be? I already said that Freud didn't invent the subconscious, but that wasn't invented by Schopenhauer either.

Are you talking about the Will to live? It turned into it's true proto-psychoanalytic manifestation in Nietzsches Work with the will to power. But even then it lacks the sublimated-libido theory. There is no reality/pleasure principle, no oedipus complex, no dream theory in Schopenhauers work.

Can you explain what you mean?

Nobody "invents" ideas out of nothingness.

>That four years means a higher risk of heart failure every year I'm alive, right? It doesn't mean I'm going to die at 68 instead of 72?
Yup, it's like smoking or being overweight for a very long time; it thickens your arteries and puts you more at risk for the common heart problems which usually kick in around 40 for males.

>I'm going to die anyway and my biggest concern for old age is how I'm going to kill myself gracefully before I get senile and decrepit.
There really should be more acceptance on this. A lot of the reason why mental health is a big issue is because people are afraid to say death- so while they'll try any cockamamie scheme to prevent suicide, they don't want to tell people that their prevention method might cause later problems which might make any reasonable person want to kill themselves.

Atypical antipsychotics being linked with diabetes is another of these SNAFUs, because they're prescribed to patients who will mostly benefit from the placebo effect if at all for things like anxiety and depression, but the major effect they'll probably have overall is going to kill them slowly and painfully and probably destroy any quality of life they have past 40 when they lose their feet.

>If my SNRIs make life just a little more bearable, then it's worth it.
The problem I have with this are there are other options, including placebos, and those would work just as well for a lot of the cases being diagnosed. If people come in expecting drugs, it's usually not because they expect to develop heart disease or diabetes or some other life shortening problem from the drug, *and if they did they would be refused it because they would be suicidal*. It's this weird situation where if you're well informed about the drugs, then a doctor will find your reasons for wanting the drug suspect, but if you're unaware it might cause you a disability, they'll prescribe them freely.

The drugs need the reputation they deserve so people stop asking for them as the frontline, and so doctors stop thinking of them as the frontline, because currently they're prescribed for all kinds of things where they'll do much more harm than good. Antibiotics are getting this reputation now, because it's becoming apparent they won't work at all soon for the ones currently available.

Part of the problem isn't just the treatment though, it's that extreme mental distress is being normalised. Durkheim's study on suicide pointed out a relevant phenomenon ages back which we should really take note of now: suicide is as common as a culture perceives it to be, as is a lot of mental distress. The US has more depressed people because being depressed isn't strange there, and some places you won't fit in unless you're suicidal sometimes. "Normalising" mental illness makes illness more common
>coke for canker sores
kek we should be more reasonable about that too.

A matter of semantics. You can invent an idea in a certain manifestation, such as Nietzsches ''Will to Power''. Can you point out where this idea, in this constellation existed before? No.

So i get what you mean, of course they don't appear out of nothing, but it's such a non-point that arguing about it, is pointless.

>Freud didn't invent the subconscious, but that wasn't invented by Schopenhauer either.
Freud's subconscious (at least early on) is a slightly more concrete manifestation of Schopenhauer's Universal Will. While Freud makes it look a little more scientificy by using ideas like the tripartite and bipartite ideas of soul that's just the layer Freud stuck on top, you're mor or less looking at slightly rewritten Schopenhauer.

This btw is to the degree that it was a bit embarrassing for him I think. He claimed to not have read Schopenhauer until very late in life but somehow managed to cite Schopenhauer's work repeatedly in some his own earlier works.

If you do not completely and perfectly explain a thing, then that explanation contains gaps, is amenable to criticism. In otherwords, being imperfect, it has flaws. Such is the case for all three of Newton, Marx and Freud, and such has been my correct comparison of these three. Of course, all three still have their differences, especially that Newton is of course the most "right/useful" of the bunch, as other anons have correctly observed and feel like they've scored points for the banality.

Now you will not tell me my business, and I will tell you your business. My analogy is wholly correct albeit using three figures with individual gradations: all three of Newton, Marx and Freud are historically important figures whose ideas have slowly been overturned and subsumed, in /various/ ways.

If an idea is imperfect, then it is /flawed/ in that it is imperfect, and there is nowhere for you to wriggle out of this correct statement. Of course, it may happen that the project gives rise to improvements, but this of course does not gainsay the former statement. Such imperfection is the case with classical mechanics insofar as it does not account for and/or explain everything.

This post applies equally well to the other detractors in the thread, such as .

>Freud's subconscious (at least early on) is a slightly more concrete manifestation of Schopenhauer's Universal Will

Can you explain this with more detailled because i simply can't see it.

Thanks for your concession.

TKO

The Unconscious is the true physical reality m8.

Schopenhauer's argument against solipsism is pretty much that 1. We don't have all that much privileged access to our own thoughts and 2. We are manifestations of the world we live in, there is like this central Will to our actual reality that we're like projections of. Will to Live is just something Schopenhauer thought we all had in common and was fundamental to this mysterious Will.

Freud's argument is 1. We don't have privileged access to our own thoughts and 2. Our consciousness is a manifestation of a filtered unconscious. Dream interpretation is just something that applies to everyone and is a manifestation of unconscious (which in turn is from the world around us. I feel it's fair to say that Freud is using something more of a world as database idea, we all live on the same world so the things we react to are same/similar, but he is generally closer to "spooky collective unconscious" than Jung imo).

He does develop beyond Schops a fair bit, but even if you look later than Interpretation of Dreams you'll still find shit like Schopenhauer's ideas of love sometimes copied almost verbatim too. There is a ton of research on this aspect of Freud so you can also look it up yourself, I've not had to really talk about it in years so I'm not all that great at remembering everything in detail about it.

>The Unconscious is the true physical reality m8.
In Freuds work it certainly isn't. The unconscious is a summarization of psychological mechanisms that process physiological impulses

>Schopenhauer's argument against solipsism is pretty much that 1. We don't have all that much privileged access to our own thoughts

This notion isn't original to Schopenhauer though.

>We are manifestations of the world we live in, there is like this central Will to our actual reality that we're like projections of. Will to Live is just something Schopenhauer thought we all had in common and was fundamental to this mysterious Will.

How does this even remotely line up with psychoanalysis?

Influence on Schopys thought on psychoanalysis is no secret but
>Most of what you're probably attributing to him is his rewritings of Schopenhauer.

this is plain wrong and

> I feel it's fair to say that Freud is using something more of a world as database idea, we all live on the same world so the things we react to are same/similar, but he is generally closer to "spooky collective unconscious" than Jung imo

Makes me wonder whether you've actually read Freud. World as database? ''spooky collective unconscious'' and then even more so than Freud? These sound like interpretations of a person who read a summary on Freuds theory.
Freuds theory was purely materialistic and unlike Jung there are no Archetypes or images from a collective unconscious, rather it is the allegorical qualities of language through which consciousness is structured.

>stemcucks
>stemlords

lmao @ this blatant butthurt

>generally engaging with western oncology services today is the biggest indicator that you will be sicker for longer, die sooner, and experience less healthy periods

hmm

Yeah that's my impression. You have to be very careful about what you say, because they often don't have good language comprehension. They'll latch onto the oddest things and it's difficult to get an idea out of their heads once they've decided to believe something. I mean if it gets written down in that file. . .good luck. I told one of my shrinks that I'd decided to stop doing drugs after I spent an evening with a man who was smoking crack, and later on she talked to me about my "crack problem." Some cultural disconnects as well:

"Oh you have no many friends? Go talk to people in lineup at Tim Horton."

Or a favourite of mine, the doctor was making small talk and asked how I was feeling, and I said, "Oh, I'm a little sad because I just put my dog down." For the entire appointment he talked to me about how my depression was really getting the better of me because, "user you would not be so sad about dog if not depressed. Dog mean too much to you, because you have no real friend." I wasn't even that upset, because the dog was too old and should have been put down months earlier, but he wasted my 20 minutes of my time making a huge deal about nothing. In Canada dogs are more than just burglar alarms and people are moderately discomfited when their pets die.

most academics are old as shit and set in their ways so they make references to whoever they learned in uni back in like the 60s

>In Freuds work it certainly isn't.
I think if you google that phrase you're going to find it's almost a direct quote from Chapter 7 of Interpretation of Dreams. """""Your""""" """interpretation""" of Freud isn't uncommon but it's hard to call him "materialistic" imo since you have to have a very specific and really uncommon view of "materialism" that fits in with his whole "psychoanalysis is the key to a true scientific weltanschauung".

It's also not correct to attribute a very strong hard set of archetypes to Jung. They're more like placeholders. Jung's criticism of Freud mostly revolves around his hard and fast defining of a rigid structure to the subconscious, this is a phallus, you want to fuck your mother and so on. Jung doesn't fall into this trap, he's very much arguing instead that meaning and structure is fluid and often to divine this structure you have to go outside yourself (it's not unfair to say that a lot of mystic hoodoo attributed to him is really Jung saying "talk to you friends because your psychic life is also your social life").

And finally, Schopenhauer's thought itself is p materialistic. It may say in the cliffs that he's an accidental mystical Hindu, but that isn't itself something that precludes materialism. The guy is saying that the fundamental force is the world out there, and as much as it manifests a rock or a bush it also manifests our own will.

Freud and post-Freudian's like Lacan are read today for the account they give of human subjectivity as such. Basically they're taken to offer a kind of philosophy of mind. No one treats them as alternatives to (pseudo-) empirical psychology, since they don't concern themselves with empirical reality or pretend to be doing science. In short, psychology, as science, treats the mind as an object which can be empirically observed, while psychoanalysis (and philosophy of mind generally) treats the mind as subject. Neither approach cancels out or "refutes" the other.

>If an idea is imperfect, then it is /flawed/ in that it is imperfect
Except it isn't you dumb fucking pretentious retard pseud piece of shit pick up a fucking physics textbook, without Newton's 3 laws Einstein, Feynman, and the whole other slew of physicians you probably deem "correct" would have to derive them themselves. Einstein's energy equations are derived directly from Newton's second.
Fucking chop off your damn hands so you never post again.

In that same time wealth inequality went through the roof as did obesity two predictors of depression. I don't know that the western model of psychiatric care had sharp increases in that period.

>Life expectancy for the US, unlike most other developed countries, is going down, and especially in those populations most likely to receive diagnosis.
????

Kek

Jung, much like yourself, was a very poor reader of Freud. New agers like to reduce their schism to Freud's neurotic tendencies not being able to "handle" Jung's radicalism, or whatever, but the truth is that Freud just got fed up with calling Jung a student when he clearly refused to learn anything that didn't fit his esoteric Orientalist fetishes.

Jung basically takes 100 pages (see Two Essays on Analytic Psychology) to say, there is a zeitgeist and your psyche is formed by fragments of it. great, fine. To do so he bastardizes Freud's position on motivation, reducing, as many of his worst readers do, to "sexual desire." Sexuality is certainly one of the privileged objects of psychoanalytic study, but it is to be understood metonymically, a part for which the whole complex of desire stands in for. Jung thought he was being revolutionary by defining libido as "desire as such," but the psychosexual stages of development already include this possibility, taking them as "figures" for the different patterns desire takes, the different modes of investment.

No hands will be getting chopped off, although I do like the idea that you are infuriated by a simple, truthful observation. Why is that?

I'll say it again, just so you get it right: /of course/ an incomplete, imperfect idea, model, theory etc is flawed for that very reason. Your post amounts to "nuh-uh because we improved incrementally", which is clearly false. If Newtonian mechanics were flawless, then by definition it would not have required revisiting, improvement, etc.

>it would not have required revisiting
That's the point, Newton's three laws didn't require revisiting you fucking retard, anything else like the kinematics equations are irrelevant because they rest upon those three laws. Einstein's equations would not be derived without them, not because he improved them, but because they were essential to the derivations. Without Newton's second law there would be none of Einstein's energy equations. Trying to derive his equations without Newton's laws would be like trying to work a geometrical problem without basic geometrical theorems. Pick up a fucking physics textbook or even just look up the damn papers where he presented his work before ever posting about this again, retarded pseud.
If you're saying that physics itself is a flawed model then that's a while different problem, but you're saying that Newton is just an irrelevant historical figure who set the wheels in motion who doesn't have any direct impact on current physics breakthroughs, like the pretentious idiot you are, when all, and yes all, physics theories are within the framework of his three laws.
Stop posting anytime if you don't want to be continually btfo

You realise you're going
> nobody else has ever really read Freud not even Jung, I know because I read 100 pages of Jung once
Like pot kettle m8.

And if you're the same one confused about the influence of Schopenhauer on Freud you're legit retarded if you think you've got any grounds to speak from.

You're right but you're confusing the matter. All of Newton's Laws still hold true, much like Thermodynamics, but how force and speed and time and so on (the elements of those laws) are understood has changed.

And Newtonian mechanics still holds true enough. The other user yaking about perfection or revision or whatever (is this babby's first Descartes or something?) is missing that science (at least now and in general) is merely a way of speaking true (a la Canguilhem). Yes everything is in reality falsifiable and as such in some sense it is already expected or implied or w/e that every extent theory is wrong.

So to go "Oh well it was inaccurate and had to he improved so it was WRONG" is not I this spirit. They can still say something about the world and as such are perfect enough for science.

pls user, if you're going to make up an argument that's irrelevant, go with dentistry. it scares people better. being good at one discipline doesn't mean you're any good at another, otherwise you could get your oncologist to drill your teeth.
>37.5% in 20 years is not a sharp increase
mmmkay
don't worry, it's mostly for white people.

That is highly interesting and I want to read more. Care to link soem sources to back it up? Especially on West Lapland.