What would you ask the greatest mind of the 20th century?

Is liking traps gay if you don't touch their cock?

I have always wanted to know Zizek's opinion on evangelion.

Why did he never apologized?

Should have stayed with hitler to the end. That is his punishment now that jews are getting the spot instead of him.

How can I solve my castration anxiety and stop my sister from having penis envy???

Apologising to the metaphysical jew

>How can I solve my castration anxiety
Are you avoiding "growing up" and refusing to take responsibility and do "grown person things" such as getting a job, responsibility etc?

"Who are you?"

Partially and metaphorically

is your syster stronger than you?

Both mentally and physically yes. But she suffers from hysteria.
I just fear my sexual attraction towards my mommy will enrage my dad and cause him to castrate me. Can u understand?

what is her hysteric symptom?

It's simple, kill your dad then marry your mother. Figuratively speaking

She yells a lot and says: "How come I don't have a penis!?"
That's hysteria, right Sigmund?

or marry your sister, figuratively speaking, that's just as good

no.

hysteria was something more.. spooky. Loosing sensation in one of your limbs for instance.

Why tho? Is my father also attracted to my sister!??
What does Freudian psychoanalysis has to say about sisters?

He can't tell me much else

your father's your father but your sister's your mother

:stopspooky:

what is this?

Oedipal attraction can easily be transferred to the sister archetype through subconscious acknowledgement of sister (or daughter, but that brings other problems with it) being the best substitute for mother.

Jungian analysis explains the deeper layers of masculine association with the feminine archetypes truthfully, you'd probably do better to look there

lmao. he just copied everything from nietzsche. saged

>obviously doesn't know shit about Nietzsche nor Freud

Way to show your power-level

me

Why did he want to fuck his mother so bad?

Why is almost all of his theory projection?

He was really high on cocaine and spent a lot of time talking with his daughter (also high) about incest.

>this butthurt about your repressed desires being uncovered

Let me guess, you were taught Frued in your lit/psych degree and now you think he is some god among thinkers.

That is how he is revered in modern academia, yes, but not because of the merrit of his ideas. It is because his thinking can be easily contorted to fit into a model of thinking that demonises and humiliates masculinity. Notice how """""academics""""" never ever talk about the electra complex, even though it is ten times more pervasive in society than the oedipal complex.

Side note, you often find that the people who embrace freud most are the people who are the most fucked up. The like to feel reassured that they are 'normal', because we are all fucked up (so says Freud). I mean, yes, we are all imperfect to some degree, but I'm talking about the clear distinction between being mentally functional and emotionally sound, and people who constantly struggle with a specific mental illness, even if it is relatively mild.

The truth of the matter is that freud was fucked up, and his theories often prove true for people who are similarly fucked up. But when it comes to people who actually have their shit together, they will look at the theories of freud and be mystified. It will not ring true whatsoever. Champions of frued will then berate this people, telling them that they are just as fucked up as themselves, the only difference is the normal person is 'repressing' it.

tl;dr Freud was a wacko who was good at analysing wackos, and his ideas have been hijacked and repurposed by academics, with the goal of demonising masculinity and normalising mental illness.

>Notice how """""academics""""" never ever talk about the electra complex, even though it is ten times more pervasive in society than the oedipal complex.

Because Freud didn't accept this as a legitimate theory, women also go through the oedipal complex according to Freud.
Anyway you say all this with such hysterical assertion but I'd love to see your porn search history to prove how unfucked up you are.

>browsing Veeky Forums
>an autistic wall of text shows up defending a retarded opinion

Good to be back, boys

>cant counter
>i'll act superior and aloof instead

never seen that one before

dat projection though

:stopspooky:

Which brand he smokes.

I-is it normal to be sexually attracted to your sister or does that just mean I'm fucked up?

>Jungian

Stopped reading there

It means youve allowed yourself to become swayed by evil

You are corrupted

He looks like he murders fat women to make a skin suit

>Greatest mind of the 20th century
>Sigmund Freud
>A pseudoscientific hack whose theories are empirically unsubstantiated and theoretically implausible and simplistic and unfalsifiable

Lel toppest of keks, my friend.

You really can't compare this guy to say Wittgenstein, Alexander Grothendieck, Alfred Tarski, Noam Chomsky, or Van Neumann. Study philosophy, psychology, or cognitive science and you'll find numerous people far more brilliant than him. Move over to mathematics and logic, and they can be found left and right.

Should I just end it?

Freud was more influencial on human thought today than all those figures combined, but keep telling yourself that buddy.
Also
>mathematics and logic
lmao

You can be saved, user. Its never too late

>unironically belittling mathematics and logic

Is this cool on nu-Veeky Forums? I haven't been keeping up

They are what they are. The fact they're both disinteresting and seemingly inaccesible to most people makes them easy to mystify and idolize which is laughable.

I can't believe people actually believe this rubbish. Do you really think that these "theories" have any substance. As I mentioned in my last post, they're unfalsifiable.

Moreover, they are not only intellectually questionable, but don't even really yield any practical benefits within clinical psychology. That's why they're neither taken seriously within academic psychology, nor in clinical/medical psychology. The only people who take this guys seriously are post-modernist/edgelord literary types. Even if you're not inclined to study more interesting and rigorous areas of psychology like neuroscience or generative grammar, you could at least study shit like phenomenology or gestalt psychology, both of which present stronger and more convincing arguments.

Freud's only useful contribution was his emphasis of subconscious and irrational drives. If that's what you're interested in, however, we have behavioral economics for that.

In short, Freud was both wrong and not intelligent. That's why fans of Lacan and Freud generally know next to nothing about psychology, cognitive science, or neuroscience.

Finally if you want to study "profound" continental philosophy-esque shit at least study hermeneutics or existentialism. I'm not trying to shit on continental philosophy or post-modernism (not that Freud was po-mo, but he does appeal to such people). Rather, I'm saying study shit that intellectually honest and substantiated by plausible arguments.

>As I mentioned in my last post, they're unfalsifiable.

lol who gives a shit nerd

Wew lads

The amount of truisms you present in this post I know for a fact you never did the slightest research backing.
Here's a clue for one, Psychology as a subject is a joke and is just as unfalsifiable, and when it comes to actual clinical practice relies on huge ideological assumptions.

Cheers! To all of us depressed, possibly suicidal writers. Glad to be on Veeky Forums.

>Mathematics and logic
>Disinteresting

Pick one. You're obviously a brainlet. Math is beautiful and interesting. Shit like abstract algebra and topology shows how universal structures and patterns appear in every object and experience (something quite beautiful). Grappling with shit like logic and proof theory (Godel/Turing type stuff) is really intellectually fun and engaging. I.e. we have here both beauty and intellectual stimulation. And then shit like set theory and transfinite arithmetic is pretty trippy (e.g. that some infinities are larger than others, the axiom of choice, the continuum hypothesis, etc.).

Also you obviously don't know shit about psychology if you think Freud was one of the most influential figures in the field. He's moreso the most influential figure in pop-psychology and literary criticism. Both Jung and Freud are completely irrelevant to actual psychology. Someone like Jerry Fodor was way more influential, and then people like Chomsky, B.F. Skinner, or even philosophers like Maurice Merleau-Ponty are a lot more relevant today.

Aside from your personal gripes I would agree, if it weren't for the fact that the other user brought up logic in a conversation where it is very relevant.

Logic is certainly an important component of human behavior (so is mathematics, for that matter). Just because we're talking about psych doesn't mean we can't talk about logic, especially when the implied premise is that a logic should play a roll alongside psychology, or even replace it.

>And then shit like set theory and transfinite arithmetic is pretty trippy (e.g. that some infinities are larger than others, the axiom of choice, the continuum hypothesis, etc.).

lel have a nice day mate, I'm a little busy

>especially when the implied premise is that a logic should play a roll alongside psychology, or even replace it.

I don't think you have had any serious engagement in either the field of logic or psychology if you take this as a legitimate proposition

Yeah too bad I'm in my senior year at one of the top state universities in the US (UMCP) about to graduate with a double major in math and philosophy (of mind). I realize this sounds like autistic bragging, but I mention it because I think I am indeed qualified to comment of the scientific rigor of psychology and psychoanalysis. Admittedly I'm not a expert on the topic, but I have more formal and autodidctic training on the subject than all the English Literature majors talking shit in this thread. Also, explain to me how, e.g. psychological studies on the efficacy of SSRI's are unfalsifiable.

>Posting on an Armenian crochet and knitting message board in the middle of the night
>"a little busy"

Pick one m8

Why do I hate myself?
Why do I run 5 miles a day?
Why do I write?
Never-mind.

>psychological studies on the efficacy of SSRI's are unfalsifiable.

Simple, it assumes we have the capability to measure patient wellbeing much less define what that is exactly.
And on a seperate matter assumes that it is desirable project to promote it.

Maybe I should rephrase

As it currently stands, there are many propositions in psychology that do not hold up to basic logical scrutiny (e.g. most of Freud's thought). Psychology allows far too many of these ideas to linger in their philosophy, simply because they are spooked by figures of authority from the beginnings of psychology. Psychology being a science is a meme, pushed by the same people who believe sociology should be a science (though, to be fair, sociology at least relies somewhat on the scientific method).

Also I dont give a crud if your arts professor said empirical measurement is irrelevant when it comes to observing society. It is, and hes a queer

Nice dubs first of all.

Now if I might ask: are you rejecting both psychology and psychoanalysis (and therefore making a even stronger clam than myself), or are you rather suggesting that neither of them are sciences and should not be treated as such, but nevertheless have some intellectual or practical merit (perhaps as humanities or purely as purely clinical disciplines or what have you)?

>there are many propositions in psychology that do not hold up to basic logical scrutiny (e.g. most of Freud's thought)

Bullshit, Freud's theory regardless of whether you agree with it or not is logically consistent.
Again I don't believe you actually understand what the parameters of the field of Logic are and are just using it for some pop-science shorthand for empirical foundations which anyone with a slight idea of semantics would know to be completely different matters
Read more before spurting such horseshit

I'm suggesting that neither psychoanalysis or psychology are sciences in the popular conception of the term. Psychoanalysis is a discourse that does not even claim to be built not on experimentation but rather discussion and theory based on clinical practice.
Psychology is based on experimentation and thus appears superficially to be closer to the natural sciences as it shares the same mechanisms of enquiry but it fails to qualify as a science, for the chief reason that our mental life, especially our subconscious can not be reduced to quantifiable data and thus like Psychoanalysis must refer to a great number of semantic and analytic assumptions.
I also have huge problems with the ethics and project of Psychology as a clinical field but thats a seperate conversation.

>Why do I hate myself?
Because you're a tripfag
>Why do I run 5 miles a day?
To run away from anonymity
>Why do I write?
Because you want everyone to see your tripcode

My dear user, the things we could teach you, but something in you refuses to believe...

Lets pick something from Feud at random. How about dream theory.

His assertion that dreams are wish fulfilment is based on nothing other than intuition. He observed experiences (recollections of dreams) and found a correlation (patients past life experience), and put forward a theory of causation (wish fulfilment) without bothering to discount any other theory of causation. Today it seems much more likely that dreams are simply a mechanism of the brain designed to provide a simulation of real life, without the consequences, designed predominantly for survival training, NOT devious fantasies (however the latter is more common in the disturbed (see: Freud).

Children have been found to dream about animals chasing them. For adults, it becomes death by other means, such as falling, losing control of a vehicle, or, most common among women, being raped (which Freud would say is just her repressed desire to get raped, right?). In reality, we are training mentally for survival in real life. Athletes dream of playing their sport, and tests have shown that dreaming of an activity improves ones ability to perform the activity in real life.

Freud was off the mark. His theory confirmed his bias and his own personal experience so he ran with it, forgetting to account for the possibility that he was not an adequate test subject, and his interpretation of the results of real test subjects would certainly have been distorted by the same bias.

Your post begins with a total misunderstanding of Freud's thought.
His analysis of dreams is the analysis of patients account of dreams not the dreams themselves, its a tremendously significant difference. Not to mention his use of dreams as a basis of analysis isn't some play on metaphor like you seem to assume, it is predominantly a means of having patients give an account of their subconscious life from which his theoretical framework can be applied.
Dreams themselves have no innate meaning to Freud like you seem to be implying, you'll need to go to Jungian retards like for that.

Why must your hangups be the world's?

>not the dreams themselves

And this is exactly where Jung fits in. Jung doesn't dispute Freud, you are supposed to use them together. Freud's territory is mainly in the personal subconscious where Jung focuses on dreams themselves and discovering the archetypes and so on

Which is even more retarded. Freud is basically misplaced science, Jung is basically mysticism/mythology but without the depth of someone like St. Augustine or Kierkegaard. How much do you know about actual psychology? Tell me user, what is the relationship between sodium, potassium and neuron signaling?

Don't bully the special children

Guess no one took the shitty ass bait, eh? Well here's your (You).

Always thought Freud was a hack. When I was about 10, my cousin tried spewing some penis envy schlock he learned in class, so I called him a retard and said Freud was a quack.

>For adults, it becomes death by other means, such as falling, losing control of a vehicle, or, most common among women, being raped

I don't dream about death. Fuck I missing my training :(.

>(which Freud would say is just her repressed desire to get raped, right?).

This sentence proves you are one of those guys that talks about Freud without even reading him.

did you know that cigars cause mouth cancer

>so I called him a retard and said Freud was a quack.
Typical castration anxiety.

Have you read Civilization and its Discontents?

When I read Finnegan's Wake, I thought Joyce was a fraud... but then I read "The Dead" and realized my error.

Probably blue Camels then