Why is psychoanalysis treated as a joke? Is there no legitimacy to it at all?

Why is psychoanalysis treated as a joke? Is there no legitimacy to it at all?

Other urls found in this thread:

addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/classic-notes/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

By whom? STEM undergraduates? Who cares?

What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.

Maybe because it's pseudo-science.

This is Veeky Forums, boyo. We treat everything as a joke. Life, death, love, sex, lack of it and anything in between. We hold nothing sacred. This ain't your auntie's sweater-knitting forum. This is the dark underbelly of the internet, its ventral appendage, its filthy cloacal orifice. When you gaze into the Veeky Forums, sometimes it gazes right back at ya, kid.

just use your

b/c it's difficult op and Veeky Forums is lazy and degenerate af

this

not only is chomsky wrong, you are also wrong for blockquoting him instead of actually saying what you think

maybe you're too lazy to read it
>tfw when definitely you're too lazy

see ya lads. remember if you're feeling trigged by the sniffler it would be easier if you actually read what the man had to say. dionysus died for your sins you know

When I ticked the CAPTCHA to signify I wasn't a robot, I lied, because you made me feel like a hollow metal shell with your cancer.

it can be sort of insightful but it's outdated and shouldn't be read as science. Really if you take it with a grain of salt and judge the theories based on intuitive creativity you may be able to get something out of it. It really should only be referenced ironically today,not to say that Freud and Jung didn't have some great insight

I read this in Chomsky's soft old man, kitten-purring voice. That will be the highlight of my day today. Ask me nothing.

what if I >think that Chomsky is correct?

it's not like he doesn't have things to say. he is unquestionably a big deal in linguistics and massively smarter than you or i. this is not open to question. chomsky knows things about things

however continental philosophy and psychoanalysis, specifically those aspects of language which are related to freud, is not his forte. he will not admit this

he acts like a crusty old dingus for shitting on things that are outside of his wheelhouse instead of doing what anyone would do and admitting that there are some things he does not know. there is absolutely no reason to do this and it's horrible for philosophy in general
>tfw that continental/analytic split

the debate with foucault is worth watching but disappointing for this very reason

intellectuals are frequently very silly people when it comes to defending their opinions. trust me, i'm a turbocucked pseudlord myself. it comes with the territory

so

>what if I >think that Chomsky is correct?
no problem at all. but people like to shit on analysis because they haven't read it and Veeky Forums namedrops big Z everywhere. it's understandable but sophomoric

During its existence it was always peddled as science. That's probably why you do, yes, still care so much about STEM undergraduates dissing it without a second thought.

I actually like Ziz a fair bit, but I think it's fair to call out Psychoanalysis based on it's use to make analyses and what are ostensibly statements of fact that can't really be testable.
A lot of what Zizek says I think are good and productive thoughts and ideas, but ultimately I cant help but feel that it boils down to conjecture and spitballing. It's most clear when he goes way off base on something that there really isn't a very consistent or broadly applicable lens for analysis that psychoanalysis can provide, unlike Marxism which is where more of his better ideas are coming from anyway IMO

Give me one fucking source of someone like Lacan equaling psychoanalysis with empirical science.

analysis needs calling out. not even going to disagree with you there. iron sharpens iron
>tfw feel so manly

all i'm saying is that there's a difference between calling out/challenging and dismissing entirely. that is all

analysis def deserves the reputation it has. freud was no angel and neither was lacan

analysis isn't taken super-seriously today and maybe that's how it should be. i have no problems with that. computer code is going to be a much bigger deal anyways and i suspect chomsky will be a part of that also. but this is conjecture

in the end i can't deny that like i *believe* analysis is for real. but even right there it's basically a question of faith. can't actually prove or test it. i just read the stuff and i believe ideology and objet a is a thing

it's just what the butterflies in my stomach tell me. nobody has the final answer. it's why it's not so much that chomsky is wrong, it's that he's so uncharitable. but it's not like that can't go both ways either.

if you want to read critique of analysis from within continental phil, read D&G. they're much closer to what's going on than chomsky imo. chomsky's critique is legit on his own terms but if you seriously want to fuck with zizek quote guattari at him

mirror phase

Because it's literally pic related

Back in the days when I was using Opera I'd save such texts as pastas in the "notes" section of the sidebar.

I miss Opera...

its more of a farce then statistics.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions

Honestly knowing someone better than they know themselves isn't that difficult considering how demonstrably awful people are at understanding themselves

Because people are very positivistic and materialistic.

This is partly because of the rise of science, but also partly because every single field that doesn't involve the physical sciences are invaded either by Marxists, or by philosophers of Power, who are themselves materialistic and cannot handle any idea that tries to nuance perspectives on the world.

>it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old.
But isn't that Žižek's whole shtick, making things like Lacan and Hegel more accessible by using popular culture examples?

>Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions
That's rich coming from someone whose linguistic theory is based on generalities so broad it's impossible to refute them. That and someone who has to affirm a negative like saying ethnecities never have mental differences, because it would destroy his bleeding heart idea of the world.

>Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea.
Perhaps because it treats people as the interpersonal, emotinal creatures they are and not formulas and diagarams clouded by flesh and irrationality, mr. humanist?

>'science' equals STEM because S in STEM stands for "science"
way to play the name game, faggot

>Statistics
>A farce
Stay mad you neanderthal

>whose linguistic theory is based on generalities so broad it's impossible to refute them
He says, posting from a computer

Because it's the worst of science and philosophy arsed up into the most pretentious package possible.

It presumes a lot of rationality, too.

Things don't have to be right to be useful, user.

because stembros
>muh pseudo-science
thanks for exemplifying

addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/classic-notes/
hope this helps