So if this is complete bullshit, should I still read it? Why or why not? Should I just skip Freud and go to Jung?

So if this is complete bullshit, should I still read it? Why or why not? Should I just skip Freud and go to Jung?

Other urls found in this thread:

fdrpodcasts.com/
warosu.org/lit/thread/S8727128
warosu.org/lit/thread/S3693094
warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=Jordan Peterson&search_ord=old
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

If you have it, read it. I would

I'm also interested in the answer. Bump.

you can skip them both

*tips fedora*

and go to what?

John Green

I think you should read it. For all Freud's wacky coke theories, the underlying methodology of his exploration is still the cornerstone of psychoanalysis today. Freud called dreams "the royal road to the unconscious," and his dichotomy of id, ego, and superego have entered the modern lexicon, not without reason. Because of his massive influence, Freud is to psychoanalysis what the Greeks are to modern literature and philosophy, indeed less removed. Take the good with the bad, treat it with an open mind and a healthy dose of critical thought, and give it a read, friendo. You'll either take something useful from his methodology, or gain a solid grounding in the field.

>So if this is complete bullshit

It isn't

>and go to Jung?

This however is

user, you can skip the book if you want, but you don't actually skip anything.

Read Jung without Freud and you'll find Freud in all that he has given to Jung and in all ways in which Jung differs from Freud. You'll read all of it from Jung. Or you can read Freud through Freuds eyes.

>So if this is complete bullshit, should I still read it?
Why do you read bullshit? Why should you read anything?

Here is what I found useful if you want to get into dream analysis.

I started with Man and his Symbols.
Then read "Inner Work" by Johnson
Finally, I listened to some podcasts from Stefan Molyneux, who interestingly enough has some dream analysis here and there.
Type "dream analysis" here fdrpodcasts.com/


Note; I haven't read any Freud and only read three Jung (Man and his Symbols, the Red Book, Aion) but I can do some decent dream analysis by myself.

Why did Jung suddenly become so popular with pseuds?

pretty sure this. peterson likes jung

Asks the pot to the kettle, black with Deleuze.

what? what does this mean?

because his concepts appeal to their self-aggrandizing automythotherapeutic ideology. the theory of archetypes makes it very easy to believe you're the hero of everyone else's story.

Why do you think pseudoscience preferable to science? I'm not arguing against philosophy just failed scientists.

>self-aggrandizing automythotherapeutic ideology. the theory of archetypes makes it very easy to believe you're the hero of everyone else's story

holy shit user that's pretty good

You are just spurting words you don't know the meaning of.

Has science been able to explain dreams?
Why then do all humans (and even animals) dream?

While the theory of Jung on dreams may not be completely correct, it is sufficiently useful to be used as a framework in a therapeutic context.

It means your inability to comprehend it, comorbid with your Deleuze-posting, puts you in no position to call the Jungsters pseuds.

You're right though, pseuds name drop him all day, particularly the ones who have never read a single book on psychoanalysis.

It's so funny seeing people bouncing off Jung. I'll never get tired of that.

thing to remember is that freud rarely if ever offers a theory of dream-symbolism. what he offers rather is a theory of dream-work: what is happening that causes the random remembered materials of everyday life to appear in such fantastic forms? psychoanalysis is usually misunderstood as offering a theory of what enunciations mean—it offers, rather, a theory of how enunciations work, how out of an almost infinitely vast space of ideas a singular enunciation manages to form itself. Check out Zizek's The Sublime Object of Ideology, chapter 1, if ur interested. But definitely read The Interpretation, as well.

i think you've got the wrong user.

1 it's not that i can't comprehend it, it's that i am confused

2 i'm not the user posting deleuze (even though i agree)

3 i haven't called the jungians pseuds. but i am pretty sure that jung is suddenly so popular here is because of peterson

4 i've started a couple of threads on psychoanalysis on Veeky Forums. still learning and no expert but i'm OP here

warosu.org/lit/thread/S8727128

so when positivist psychologists get on Freud because "well, heh, our Study determined that dreams are meaningless!" you can ignore them—meaningless or not, the metapsychological mechanisms of dream production and reporting remain largely unexplored outside psychoanalytic theory.

There are some theories none of them conclusive. As regards the individual the ego super ego id framework doesn't resemble anything that is observable. I know that the observable world isn't the only thing that matters but Freud intended to make observations of the neumenological world and failed.

that's not true.

No because his theories on dreams rely on his framework which there is no evidence for.

What isn't?

The object of psychoanalysis does not produce evidence for purely empirical observation, no. This does not mean his "framework"—however it is you're construing this arbitrary notion—lacks explanatory power concerning this object, which is the unconscious.

I don't say he is "right", but these things are observable. it is introspection

that freud was "trying to make observations." he was offering a hermeneutics.

Look, if a framework is useful in therapeutic practice but was not observed by science, I'll take that "risk" anyday.

I'll repeat myself. But people that bounces off Jung are strikingly funny.
The substructures of the psyche (archetypes) can be observed at the microscale (dreams, split in the personality, ...) and can be observed at the macroscale (the hero journey, religions, etc..). Yet people won't even consider exploring Jung's theories, not even to try to build on it.

Speaking simply, I think Deleuze is a pseud magnet. Perhaps you could convince me otherwise if you can give me a single principal of his that has a real, testable application that goes beyond that which could be explained to a 12 year old in less than 10 minutes. I can't come up with one.

When I look inside I don't see ego super ego and id any more than I see any other ways to divide my mental faculties.

That's not true he posited causal relationships between repressed urges and mental disorders.

It isn't particularly useful from a therapeutic standpoint.

Well, any great thinker can attract pseuds (shit, look at me: I've been a pseud for so many I can hardly keep track of them. Not for a hot second going to deny that I am not a pseud myself).

All I can say is that it depends on what you're interested in. I happen to think Deleuze is a god-tier metaphysician and who furthermore - as D&G - presents the most thorough explanation of capitalism I have ever read, which functions also as one of the most blistering critiques of analysis anyone can produce. And I *like* analysis, I think it's for real. I have very little experience with Jung.

Basically what pushed it over the top for me was his theory of difference and the emergence of novelty. I was reading Deleuze while trying to figure out novelty and capitalism, how it was that differences emerged at all, reification and commodities, desire, etc. What Deleuze explains is that differences emerge through repetition, through experimentation. Taken to the nth degree you wind up with the incredible (well, for me, at least) portrait of time and space and history that they produce in ATP.

I honestly don't do Convince Me (at least, not tonight). It's just not my thing. I'm skeptical about it not only because I think Veeky Forums/anonymous contexts aren't the right place to do it in, but also because I'm more into learning from the other guy than trying to prove any points on my own. The books are all out there, and they're all worth reading, but only if you're super into it. If you're not, I'd only be wasting your time. If you have questions about this stuff, I'd be interested in talking with you about them, because I'm not a professional scholar and I do like learning. But if you're not into Deleuze it would be foolish of me to try and persuade you to be.

>inb4 bla bla pseudword salad

Deleuze: I do not repeat because I repress. I repress because I repeat. I repress, because I can live certain things or certain experiences only in the mode of repetition.

To my mind, this idea does to Freud what Heidegger does to Descartes: takes the fundamental ontological principle of causation and turns it on its head. That to me is a pretty awesome intuitive leap, and I think D is correct to do so. I read Deleuze mainly through the purview of analysis, so to me he is interesting for what he contributes to theories of capital and libidinal economy. If the Oedipus complex is not the final word in analysis everything takes on a new light. To me that is enough to make him interesting.

no, you're wrong

few problems here

1. that being attractive to people who know little is somehow a bad thing—it can encourage them to learn more.

2. that philosophical ideas require "practical application." this in itself is a philosophical idea. it is called pragmatism, and is not the end-all be-all of philosophy unless you're a positivist stemcuck.

3. the old "can't be explained to a 12 year old" routine. the idea that philosophy is just the production of useful heuristics underlies this attack, and so see point 1. just because, furthermore, an idea can be summarized does not make it uncomplex. philosophy deals with the connections between and among concepts as much as with the concepts themselves.

4. "i can't come up with one." because of points 1 through 3, above, i think it's safe to say that this only confirms your total ignorance of philosophy, rather than, as you had intended, somehow attacking deleuze's thinking.

make no mistake, hegel and lacan, not spinoza and nietzsche. deleuze is not my favorite philosopher. but your half naked thinking hardly says anything about him, but speaks volumes as to your own ignorance. now fuck off, pseud.

sorry. point 3 should have referred you back to point 2, not point 1.

No u.

fucking rekt

Clinically it's mostly bunk but culturally it's still pretty vital. I just read Dombeck's "The Selfishness of Others: An Essay On The Fear of Narcissism" and her citation of Freud was pretty extensive.

It pays to be familiar with his greatest hits, at the very least. You can skip his book on humor, for example.

how can we reject freud if we cant even understand him yet?

somewhat off-topic but where should i start / what path should i take to understanding basic psychology? I have next to no knowledge except for a community college class i took 7? years ago

Jaden pls

>Clinically it's mostly bunk
This is just wrong.

The Interpretation of Memes
or
The Fault in Our Anus

>but i am pretty sure that jung is suddenly so popular here is because of peterson
turbonewfag

Amazing.

>1. that being attractive to people who know little is somehow a bad thing—it can encourage them to learn more.

I agree with this statement. What I was getting at, however was that Deleuze is a charlatan with no original insights who postures himself with obscurantist polysyllabic phrases. These types of intellectuals draw in the worst types of pseuds. The pseuds educated enough to understand him and think themselves superior to others despite the lack of content, meaningful or otherwise.

>2. that philosophical ideas require "practical application." this in itself is a philosophical idea. it is called pragmatism, and is not the end-all be-all of philosophy unless you're a positivist stemcuck.
I'm only interested in ideas that are in the broadest sense useful. Call me a pragmatist and dismiss me as a living stemcuck meme if you will, but let me rephrase my challenge to move away from my ideology into something more general: Give me a single principal of his that goes beyond that which could be explained to a 12 year old in less than 10 minutes. I still can't come up with one. Perhaps because Deleuze postures himself in complexity to obscure the simplicity of his ideas, rather than my ignorance.

>3. the old "can't be explained to a 12 year old" routine. the idea that philosophy is just the production of useful heuristics underlies this attack, and so see point 1. just because, furthermore, an idea can be summarized does not make it uncomplex. philosophy deals with the connections between and among concepts as much as with the concepts themselves.
I see the merit in philosophy in general, how have you jumped to the conclusion I was attacking philosophy as a whole? As you mentioned yourself, it produces useful heuristics. These don't need to be complex to be useful, indeed these heuristics guide more or less every decision we make. My objection to Deleuze specifically stems from his pseudointellectual posturing. If you're not willing to give me a practically useful principal of his, perhaps you can give me any principal of his, useful or otherwise, that justifies his verbosity. I don't mind being dismissed as a positivist, but I do mind being called a pseud when I call Deleuze out on his absolutely charlatan posturing.

>4. "i can't come up with one." because of points 1 through 3, above, i think it's safe to say that this only confirms your total ignorance of philosophy, rather than, as you had intended, somehow attacking deleuze's thinking.

I think if you can't direct me to one, it points out my answer to 1. through 3. rather than my ignorance, which indeed is an attack of Deleuze's farcical writing, and by extension his thinking.

I retract "with no original insights" in 1. Credit where it's due.

how to pronounce deleuze?

You've lost bud, go home (to reddit)

>obscurantist polysyllabic phrases
>Deleuze postures himself in complexity
>absolutely charlatan posturing
>farcical writing

user

user what are you doing

why didn't you just leave this alone

why didn't y

***signal lost***

The-looshe

Solid defense of Deleuze, s00dz. I'm with this madman

Ah, fuck it.

So the problem - for me, anyways - with trying to start from first principles with Deleuze is that I got to him after the scenic tour through Planet Capitalism. First Nietzsche, then Heidegger, then Lacan, then Deleuze, and now Rene Girard. Of all of those guys Deleuze is the one I am least good with, but this can still be interesting.

The first bunch of questions I would want to ask are these: what is capitalism? Can it be defined? Can you define it? Do you think there is any value in defining it at all?

Now to be fair, there are a lot of Austrian economists out there, such as Mises, who will say that there is no need to take a Marxist line on this at all. If Mises/Rothbard/Hayek are saying stuff you like, it will be very difficult if not impossible to sway to you Deleuze, because Deleuze is channeling Nietzsche on this but the neetch did not give a fuck about capitalism. Deleuze does, because he sees it as a sort of demiurge or Spinozistic god. In brief: there is only one big cosmic phenomenon going on. No dualism, no rational efficacy, no marginal utility, nada. Just kaleidoscopic desire in all directions.

Now to my mind this makes sense. The Freud-Marx one-two punch is what gives us the modern concept of libidinal economy: the system works because it makes your balls feel good. That's all. Subsequently there may be no need to criticize it; however, some people wish to do this anyways.

Deleuze partners up with Felix Guattari in the 1960s, and they begin working on Anti-Oedipus. What's interesting about this is that G is being groomed by Lacan to be his disciple, but G eventually decides to go his own way instead, and together with D they begin asking some pretty serious questions about the entire structure of analysis itself: namely, whether or not the Oedipus complex matters at all.

(cont'd)

They will conclude that it does not. Desire is not something which is repressed, as Freud suggests, but actively manufactured, like a machine. Now this will change everything for analysis, which is why people like Zizek keep their distance from Deleuze: because he is a problem for them.

If desire works like a machine, what does this mean? For one thing, Deleuze is going to argue that life is in more or less a constant process of mutations, copies without originals. There is nothing 'new' or 'first' or 'original' with him, which is why he prefers concepts like rhizomes, structures without fixed or final forms. I imagine can be much more specific than me in this regard. Everything is in a constant flux of differentiation with everything else, and this is really not such a crazy idea to think about.

Deleuze considers himself to be carrying on a Marxist project, although his thought runs contrary to people like Badiou, who will say that - despite being a legit revolutionary in his own right - that Deleuze's thought reads more like an argument for fascism and unbridled desire. See 'The Fascism of the Potato' for more on this. But this is to miss Deleuze's point, which is that desire is something to be followed through on and experimented with creatively, rather than subjugated to a Freudian law. Deleuzian thought doesn't try to draw and clear or dividing lines between metaphysics and reality in that sense; everything is just kind of happening all at once.

Now if these seems ridiculous to you, or too obvious a claim, that is understandable; but more than this what Deleuze is aiming at in a political sense is a sort of interpolation of metaphysics and reality. If everything is metaphysics in action, if there is no higher plane from which to critique reality, you wind up with schizoanalysis: looking at the world from the purview of the creatively inspired madman with a 1:1 relationship to reality, rather than a kind of distanced critical view that Deleuze, following Nietzsche, is going to say is nonsense. The neetch, as you know, is going to say that all life is will to power, Heidegger openness to Being, Zizek/Lacan the pursuit of objet a (and I'm giving the most monumentally reductive take on these imaginable) - and Deleuze is following in that line, but also shifting tracks entirely. This is why is 100% correct to say that Hegel/Lacan are on one track, and Spinoza/Nietzche on another. They are. But everyone is talking about desire, human desire, in one sense or another.

(cont'd)

If you think Jung, or psychology in general, or any statistical science, is a good way to avoid bullshit, prepare for a long series of disappointments.

Because desire, human desire, is a thing, perhaps the only thing that matters. Eventually this dovetails back towards economic structures and economics, which is why Deleuze matters.

I'll return again to that original bundle of questions, then. Is "capitalism" a phenomenon that can be metaphysically studied? Or is it a "purely" economic phenomenon? For me, I would say that ti is the former, but this is to espouse I think a tacitly Marxist view. Once again, if you are wholly convinced that capital is strictly by the numbers, that's fine. But if you see it as a larger social phenomenon, and moreover if you believe - as it would be hard to argue otherwise - that it is basically about buying shit that makes you feel good, then capital becomes a psychic phenomenon, and has to be considered accordingly with reference to psychology. Because he does not care for Freud's perspective, D&G are going to create a completely new structure of things in which people's desires basically live creative lives independently of them as rational/autonomous beings. Desire comes first, people second, and this is really quite an amazing thing to wrap your head around, especially when all of these desires start to get mixed up together in a gigantic squishy machine that looks like something out of Fritz the Cat. Which is more or less the era he is living and working in.

So I don't know. That's pretty long-winded and all over the place, but I thought it was worth posting up anyways. I don't know if this will convince you that Deleuze is not a complete charlatan or that I am not a pseud, but I'm not too worried about the latter and frankly I'm sure somebody out here can give a better defense of D also, so the former is not really a huge concern either. And for what it's worth I really am trying to learn one thing and one thing only from Veeky Forums, and that is how not to be triggered, so by any accounts in that sense all this has been an epic fail. So good night, gentlemen, and god bless.

>i am pretty sure that jung is suddenly so popular here is because of peterson
I'm nobody, but I got into Jung recently because I picked one of his books up for no apparent reason at a used book store. And I hadn't heard of Peterson until yesterday.

It's not bullshit, it's better than 'its all determined by your le brain xdd' bullshit.

>applications
TOP KEK

Freud is still ultimately "its all determined by your le brain xdd" though isn't he?

Okay, so...looks like I'm wrong. I figured because Peterson was popular on Veeky Forums recently and because he's into Jung that there was a connection. Guess not. And I really am a newfag, so fair enough gents

Not literally determined in the modern sense, where people think that even if they figured out perfectly how every part of the brain works and how it works together that they would understand a person perfectly. Freud is subject-subject study through a general framework, modern psychology is object-object or subject-object.

>I figured because Peterson was popular on Veeky Forums recently
He's been known on Veeky Forums for a while, he's only "popular" now because he's in the limelight.

capitalism inaugurates its own metaphysics. check out Badiou

Good post user. I mean, to some degree I have. Ethics/Evil is great, as is most of his writing. B&E and LoW is sadly off-limits to me because of the math

>tfw can't into serious math
>inb4 fuck you pseudcuck i fuck you for real for real i fuck you
>tfw free_shrugs.jpeg

and my eyes glaze over when he begins writing in algebra. So I've sort of tried to work around that by reading his other stuff: Conditions, IT, etc. He's hard to argue with.

But honestly, I'm not a Badiou expert. Would be awesome if you can do a better job explaining him than I can, I love learning something new

>He's been known on Veeky Forums for a while

Link me a single archive thread where people were discussing him before the tranny spat

try Number and Numbers. he spends a lot of the book on a very patient exposition of the history, mathematical construction, and metaphysical consequence of the surreal numbers. it's fascinating stuff when you realize that finance capital has effectively made infinitesimal/transinfinite value possible given a long enough time period.

thank ye kindly sir

Are you just asking for a link to the archive? I looked it up and there are several mentions starting like 4 years ago,

Jung is bullshit too.

I said a thread discussing him, mentions are worthless

damn i got that book son, it's on my reading list for psyc first this then that academic jung book.
read that shit it's legitness

>reading (((Freud)))

warosu.org/lit/thread/S3693094

Oh wow, 9 whole replies and they weren't even talking about him

warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=Jordan Peterson&search_ord=old

Some people knew about him, he only reached meme status recently.

>First Nietzsche

You could, and should, have stopped with him desu. The others are garbage.

It's no coincidence that he was not only the last philosopher of the 19th century, but also the last philosopher of worth thus far.

9 whole replies used to be a busy week on Veeky Forums bud.

Everything follows from him...

Another user in this thread made a very good point about this: Hegel and Lacan are going one way, Spinoza and Nietzsche (and Deleuze) another. Heidegger and phenomenology are another thing. Deleuze's criticism of psychoanalysis is what it is because he's coming at it from a completely different perspective. But Lacan reads Heidegger and Hegel and Nietzsche too. So everything crosses paths with everything else. But it all starts with the Neetch.

Anyways basically it was just curiosity. Nietzsche is so good that you're right, you can basically stop with him if you want. No argument there. But for my own weird reasons I decided to pursue the rest of it and carry on reading, because there was still stuff I was curious about.

For myself I see no reason why Nietzsche is not beginning a very long title run over philosophy, like Aristotle had right up until the Renaissance. I'm okay with this.

Everybody's got a favourite Nietzsche book, but for some reason I like the double edition of HATH and BGE. I'm attached to the Wordsworth edition for sentimental reasons, but Kevin Tong's cover art is no joke. Most people have seen the rad one for Zarathustra but this is pretty solid too.