Is it me, or freud doesn't get the respect he deserves on here?

don't think that's true but it'd make sense.

youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

You could also read Bernays' books, but that would be reading.

>here friend, watch this 4 hour documentary on the godfather of a pseudoscience and you'll change your mind. btw you can't read teehee!

He is omnipresent in that some of this theories entered general thought and are now barely even associated with him.

>click link
>a new theory about human nature
>human nature

youre right, he gets too much respect

Not all of psychology is rubbish you silly goose

Try Steven Pinker and search for cognitive biases

>[YouTube] The Century of the Self (Full Documentary)
lol i've seen that before, and while it does offer interesting thought, overall it just shows how much of a circle jerk the human race has become

He bent ambiguous and interchangeable terminology into a frame around the unquantifiable, hoping that a veil of academic vocabulary would validate philosophical assumptions. Welcome to psychology. Where as long as you have a degree by your name, you have a special license to have final say about matters that we can really all observe with equal empiricality.

Psychologists do more damage to the patients and students than good.

When did Freud try to ever try to quantify anything? His work was qualitative he spoke about different drives and the ways they interact with one another. You've got at least give him credit for the developing ideas on the unconscious and talking therapies. A lot of psychology uses science where it doesn't work but even if you don't think psychoanalysis is still useful it's made some pretty important observations

You don't read Lacan "instead" of Freud, you read Freud so you can read Lacan afterwards.

I don't like the thought of archetypes and sorting of men into boxes, though I recognise the utility of it. What I really detest is when they are taken as an absolute when at most they are a complete abstraction, specifically at an individual basis. It's just repellent and dishonest

Archetypes was Jung wasn't it?

Yeah, though I impose that on analytics as a whole

Not that user, but Freud wasn't far from it in that his Oedipus complex was a structure and thus involved archetypes in some sense.

Why would he deserve respect when all he did was make shit up?

freud is a dirty, degenerate kike who's single handedly responsible for sexual liberation aka degeneracy in modern world.
kys

>I'm morally superior because nobody ever wants to fuck me

Im morally superior because unlike you i'm not a NEET and failure, but i dont want to fuck random sluts for temporary satisfaction

everyone is still naively kantian and doesn't believe that judgment is always determined by interest. freud shows disinterested judgments are impossible: the thing you're calling beautiful might always after all just be a fetish.

>why dont you talk about my guru?
great thread

God damn you're pathetic.

Someone with an active sex life who cares for multiple women doesn't necessarily have to be a NEET and/or failure, and likely isn't because the women would move on. Use preparation H next time before you internet.

nah i said, unlike you i'm not a failure who never leaves his mother's basement.
i got a good life going on and never had problems with ladies but sexual liberation is wrong and you know it, you fucking autistic liberal

Sexual repression is only a very small part of History, you know?

It is not bait. Most of his ideas weren't new and those that were have long been debunked
Give me something he contributed to, I'll wait.

You went to calling them a NEET basement dweller as soon as he critisized you its almost as if even you don't think you're right.
>"sexual liberation is wrong and you know it"
>" never had problems with ladies "

sure m8 whatever you say
.

>Modelling the unconscious
>Societal influences on the mind
>Accounts of psycho-sexual development
>Idea regarding repressed memories
>Influence of the mind on physical symptoms
>Dynamics of relationships between parents and their children

Even outside these he helped foster a community that produced a lot more valuable ideas.

I heard some lady lecturer once say:
>"Y'know, when i was in college i very much was a fan of Freud. But now I think his theories are wacky and bad. Freud was a brilliant observer of the mind, and of behaviour but his theories doesn't hold up"

How could he be a brilliant observer of the mind and behaviour and still be considered having "wacky" theories?

Yeah but mate he said I wanted to fuck my mum (and probably yours too) so he's a hack.

Wrongo. While he pioneered psychoanalysis, he did nothing to contribute to the actual study of psychology and its variants. I'm a neuroscience graduate and I recall one of my professors for a psych course who proclaimed "you use Freud as a source, I call you and him a fraud"

>I'm a neuroscience graduate

Wew, lad. I almost finished reading your post there for a minute.

Fred is a fucking hack, modern psychologists think he was a retard.
Hey op, you want to fuck your mother dont you, also every long slim thing you own is actually a penis.

CARL JUNG CREW OR DIE BITCH

This is cute in how juvenile this sort of thinking is. People who have never had the intellectual wisdom nor courage to experience what knowing something actually means.

>"While he pioneered psychoanalysis"...

There are a lot of validities to knowing the nuts and bolts of what is happening inside of our brains. But please do elaborate in what way this devaluates the psychodynamic study.

Socrates thought the written word would erode peoples' memories and Descartes kicked dogs because he thought they couldn't feel pain an academic having a strange idea doesn't disregard all their work

Why do I get the impression that no one here has actually read Freud?

Psychologists think he was a hack.
I think psychology is a Jewish scheme in itself, a secular and monetized version of catholic confession.
Therapy is for rich people, the lower class doesn't get to ease their mental problems unless they crack and get sent to the nut hut.

I think the fact it costs money means the therapist will never care about your well being, if the money stopped they would stop.

The argument people would have here is that Descartes' work isn't wholly formed further by his belief that dogs cannot feel pain.
They get a little stuck here for whatever reason, even though it's not true.

bait?

CGJC represent

Solve et coagula

To be fair, Descartes was a pleb anyway. What kind of person maintains the argument that God is real simply because he's the most supreme ethereal figure we can conceive.

Yeah you're right on that far less of Descartes or Socrates work build on those examples than Freud does on the Oedipus complex etc. I still think that you can quite easily adapt a lot of it I wouldn't take what Freud wrote as Gospel more in the way you'd look at an old scientific account years ago the model isn't perfect but the method's proved valuable and other people have improved upon it. What do you mean by "even though it's not true" how much to Descartes' view rely on animals not being able to feel pain/ not having souls?

Pretty sure Descartes also thought magnetism was caused by invisible corkscrew shaped particles. Freud's been criticized so much that most people only hear about the worst of Freud's work and naturally assume he's a hack and disregard him. When I hear people mention Freud it's always "well I don't want to fuck my Mum" or something about penis envy

Freud believed schizophrenia was the direct result of having an overbearing mother. Which is completely false.

Freud was focused on the individual, but psychology is greatly expanded on the experience of the individual in various settings and their reactions/response to them.

It is very easy to attack Sigmund "Fraud" Freud when you were lucky enough to study psychology out of a textbook. Experimental psychology did not even exist when he developed psychoanalysis.

Is the Montaigne of our era.
t. Harold Bloom.

>Freud believed schizophrenia was the direct result of having an overbearing mother. Which is completely false.

...And the contemporary take on the cause of schizophrenia is exactly what?

more like sigmund fraud lmao

True when we covered schizophrenia in med school we were told not to use textbooks because the model explaining it was so recently revised that all current textbooks were out of date.

>dude sex lmao

Disparaging Freud is a certain sign that someone is undereducated

He doesn't get the respect he deserves anywhere. Scientism overrides his established popular influence and his big scary writings are dismissed for not holding water. Of course, none of these people dismissing him have really properly read Freud - all public understanding of him is tertiary. If anyone actually sat down to read his stuff, they'd probably find it's interesting writing and discard their hysteria.

agreed, hes like a better version of nietzsche.

He is so full of shit in those cases where he tries to apply therapy.

it is tho.
source
>tried hedonism once

I haven't but I just lurk. What makes you think that?

in what capacity? have you ever been to a therapist? it's nothing but a dehumanizing capitalist venture

On the contrary, he gets far too much respect.

All his good ideas were plagiarized; all his bad ideas were original.

What ideas did he plagiarize?

Freud's structures were relative. One man's father is another man's son.

No, the kicking dog and fucking mom examples are totally equivalent. Freud argued that behaviour is determined by libidinal energies willing from the id (i.e., that our instinctual animalistic urges for sex and aggression are the main driving force) and that we simply explain our behaviour away as being more advanced or concious than this when most of the time it isn't.

The Oedipus complex is one TINY example of this that got way out of hand in the public eye and came to represent his work as though it was foundational. It's not. It never was. What is foundational is Freud's theory that the psyche is psychodynamic and his model for its different parts, and that the MAIN part is not available to our conscious awareness.

Psychology as we know it, including the more "dry" fields like cognitive psych, literally rests on the bedrock of Freud's ideas.

its you.

Jung had immense respect for Freud, and Jung's work would not exist were it not for Freud's influence, though the reverse is not true.

tried to read some of his shit because he was a big influence on my favorite writer, found it to be utterly laughable.

I like how Nabokov talked about Freud, personally

>all psychologists are equally skilled
>all mechanics rip you off
>all carpenters can do exactly the same type of woodwork
>all tennis players are evenly matched
>all Veeky Forums posters are equally retarded

"The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will"- t. carl

Thank You!!!!

Guess I'm putting too much focus on the Oedipus complex. I see what you're saying. Cheers

Kike was good, but Hunter still did more drugs and still wrote more sense.

Completely irrelevant. Whether Jung genuinely LIKED Freud is not the issue. He definitely respected his work, even if he was forced to.

Jung's models were founded on Freud's and then Adler's. In fact, Jung actually said that his own models were best only applied to a patient when the other two had already been tried and failed.

I prefer Jung's perspective because it feels nicer, but there is no denying that Freud is to psychology what Plato is to philosophy.

>Jung's models were founded on Freud's and then Adler's. In fact, Jung actually said that his own models were best only applied to a patient when the other two had already been tried and failed.

Do you have a citation for this? Jung and Adler are two very divergent takes on Freud's original model of psychoanalysis (which he hadn't necessarily fully developed before he began working with Adler or Jung); it seems strange that Jung would have recommended someone seeing Adler before seeing him, except perhaps in the early years of Jung's departure from the IPA.

Nothing has transformed our understanding of humanity like Freud's theory of the unconscious.

He is the greatest critical thinker of all time.

>freud
>greatest anything
stopped reading

>Socrates thought the written word would erode peoples' memories

He was right though. Try finding someone who can recite an epic poem from memory.

>Common sense
Doesn't exist
>fucking weird
Every stupid teenage girl is a psychology major

Is there an advantage to memorising a poem as opposed to just having a written version of it?

Freud has had a bad case of the Seinfeld effect, his influence is so omnipresent that no one even notices it. Freud invented the idea of the "subconscious".

>neuroscience
Irrelevant. Science is trash.

Not seeing Adler instead of Jung, but Jung actually using Freudian and adlerian approaches before his own. It's in Modern Man In Search of a Soul.

He basically recommends that his approach come in where the others failed, as they are more about orienting a person to be function and successful in society, whereas the Jungian approach is (generally) above and beyond this for people who dont see any reason to be functional or successful in society. It's a good book, I really recommend it. I'm a big fan of Jung AND Freud btw.

>Stopping as soon as something doesn't automatically agree with your assumptions
The very core of pseudism

Pseuds think it will get them pussy.

Protip: it won't. Literally nobody gives a fuck.

>sexual liberation is wrong
Bonobos are arguably the most sexually liberated species, and also one of the least violent. Go figure.

Writing is a pharmakon, as all technologies are: it can save us or kill us. The written word allows us to preserve and store important texts, but it changes our relationship to the ideas and stories we find in them. People may read more but do they remember everything they read? Probably not, and we're not even considering the fact that most people are aliterate.

Times change

Their conditions are totally different.

In his untiring search for the unconscious, Freud was on the way to the concealed, to concealment as such. Without concealment and darkness, man would not be the world-disclosing being that he is. Light and darkness, concealment and disclosure, belong together inseparably; Freud must have sensed this. He said this, too, of the unconscious; that it contained the 'indestructible' forces of the human mind, that it was the 'true psychical reality.' As a child of his power-hungry time, he was unable to let concealment be the secret it is. He found it necessary to make subjectivistic, psychologistic objects out of concealment in order to be able to drag it into the light and make it usable. As it has always done, and will always do, the secret withstood such characteristically modern impertinence.