How do I get into psychoanalytic literature?

It's not only Marx and Freud that get paired. Nietzsche gets added too. It's easy to "forget" that though... The three of them are often referred to as "the masters of suspicion" in the literature. It's paranoia, raw emotion, and rebelliousness that brings them together.

Some say they're all materialists, but I think that's oversimplifying things a great deal.

>Freud was NOT very well read
he was a physician

niezsche absolutely despised socialism, though. Lukács critique of him is pretty cogent on this.

Both are true and both are suppressed by Capitalism so people don't become woke

...And socialists despise everybody else and each other too. So Nietzsche would fit right in!

Anyway, Nietzsche's thought is totally fragmented and inconsistent. He refutes himself unambiguously all the time. Imo, his work is more about providing people with fuel to do stuff than brainwashing them, like "traditional" ideologies.

And Psychoanalysis is clearly not about enlightenment. It's a descriptive system to address how enlightenment becomes obstructed and obscured.

his introductory lectures... Both the first and the revisited 1930s edition. Literally explains psychoanalysis

Also, a small PSA:

Freud does not say we want to slam our mums and whack our dads. No, he says that ONLY at a certain stage of development do we desire this. If you get stuck there, you have mental problems for obvious reasons.

Hey I didn't come here to be judged

>Pick up psychoanalysis
>This is stupid, this doesn't make any sense
>Everybody loves it and treats it as some absolute pinnacle of human achievement
>There must be something I'm not seeing
>Read more, stop seeing friends
>Start recognizing patterns in texts, get a feeling that I'm understanding something
>The words, the letters, the scenarios, I've seen this all before
>The words, user, what do they mean
>Through the text I start to understand another world
>I cannot comprehend it through language, I get that feeling I'm on the verge of something, like a rock that wants to fall from your hand, like when you're reaching a orgasm
>I must delve deeper
>Police break through the door
>I scream and defend my lair by means of violence
>White-jacketed men take me away
>Spend years in psychiatric therapy to get out of my psychoanalytic psychosis
Don't do it, man. They always say that a few chapters don't do anything. But sooner or later a chapter turns into a paper, and soon you'll move on into hardcover stuff. It's a dirty business. First they milk the money with the books and then they keep themselves employed by treating the wounds they cause.

When you say that they're materialists, what is the alternative?

How do you think you might get into psychoanalytic literature?

This sounds interesting! Where could one find these?

Mostly from a couple of people in Freud's inner psychoanalytic circle, like Reich and others, who sought to marry psychoanalysis to socialism, something which Freud was very against and caused some divergences. Had he lived long enough, Freud would likely have been very unhappy with how the Frankfurt School appropriated his ideas. Also, this user makes a good point, both Freud and Marx are considered "masters of suspicion", and there is some resemblance between the unconscious and the idea of false consciousness, Gramsci's hegemony, etc, but this current, that not everything was 100% rational, was very active towards the end of the 19th century and remained strong through WWII. Freud has often been said to be heavily influenced by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, despite Freud denying the resemblance and claiming he only read them late in life.

nietzsche is absolutely not a materialist. for him, there is only will to power, which is manifested by forces on earth. an argument could be made that he is a physicalist in the sense that everything can be explained by physical phenomena, but i find there is much more truth in the deleuze school of interpretation by seeing him as a pluralist

Psychoanalysis was basically the hot new shit in the early 20th century, it was impossible for anyone that was progressively (in the literal sense of the word) minded to get around it. The Frankfurt guys were trying to fuse marxism with the new science at the time (empiric sociology / psychoanalysis) to create a new kind of theory, so it was kind of an obvious match.

underrated

Deleuze gets called a materialist as well. I suppose it's a "matter" of what materialism means and how much it can include before it stops being that. On some level you can claim that Freud was an idealist because he gives matter little say in how the mind works (a focus on relations and words), but again it's a matter of what we mean by it.

Well, someone, or something, has to take responsibility for the complaints that go unexplained and misunderstood.

Anyway, psychoanalysis can mean pretty much anything, and most psychoanalysts themselves are far from perfect.

IME, people call Freud and Deleuze materialists because they're marxists and want to think that somehow Freud and Deleuze were on board with their chosen religion

Basically both materialism and spiritualism are pretty obscure terms since we never(?) encounter matter or spirit, and both would seem to be abstractions from things as they present themselves.

Why would you?
The people that wrote it never efficiently helped a single patient with their theories.

Essays on Sexuality.

>Can anyone give me an idea as to why there's such a symbiotic relationship between Marxism and psychoanalysis
There isn't

all true. i find that it's never the great philosophers themselves who argue over sweeping terms like "materialism" or "nominalism", but only second-rate commentators. it's one of the problems of academia, especially in the way they approach teaching philosophy. it's easy to talk about big concepts like the "mind-body problem" and group philosophers together by assigning labels based on different answers, but it's always a generalization of their thinking. it's fine to use as shorthand, but once you start trying to formalize precise definitions it's a waste of time. real thought is fluid and interconnected, but words always demarcate.

Impressive. Very nice.

by readin it lmao

fucking hipster
what sort of idiot with shitty eyes goes to a warzone without so much as buying some safety glasses

Indeed. Contemporary academic philosophy is primarily a filing system, just like pretty much everything else these days (a little hyperbolic, sorry).

This.
Read a fucking book.

>ctrl+f "civi"
>no results
"civilization and its discontents" is the most succinct introduction to Freudian psychoanalysis and is extremely beginner-friendly. without a doubt, this should be the first work you read if you want to understand Freud. from there, you can figure out what you want to read based on which ideas pique your interest within the text. this edition is well-formatted for its almost stream-of-consciousness style and the introduction by hitchens is a good tone-setter.

that said, i started with jung because i was into platonism and kierkegaard as a teen (not to mention dude weed lmao) and found that easy as well. i assume "man and his symbols" is similar to pic related in that it is a brief work written for laymen to understand Jung. if you're confident enough, i'd just get the modern library's "basic writings of carl jung" as well as "psyche and symbol".

i also found the series on jung edited by shamdasani ("dreams," "synchronicity," etc.) very focused for their topic. "dreams" in particular is good if you want to get into the freaky side of jung.

I always thought C&D was good and entertaining, but included far more of Freud's personal musings and speculations on issues which bear no influence on his overall theoretical development. I stand by my assertion that "Papers on Metapsychology" is the best introduction.

Also omg. I had no idea Hitchens wrote the introduction to the newer edition. Mind blown!

Freud seems to have written two kinds of books: theoretical and speculative. His speculative works (like C&D and Future/Illusion) delve into metaphysics, an area which Freud had very little experience. Thankfully, he was self-aware enough to confess this throughout these works. They're very enjoyable, and interesting from a pseudo-autobiographical perspective, but provide nothing serious to chew on philosophically or psychologically.

Any thoughts on "Modern Man in Search of a Soul"? Seems to be a good intro text to Jung but I haven't read it so can't be sure.

You don't need to have actually read the material of someone as titanic as Marx to be influenced by his ideas.

By that standard, 99% of Marx's "influence" is through misunderstanding and the imaginary thinker people build up in their heads as his surrogate

Only if we speak of influence in a very naive associative sense rather than the diffusion of his ideas. One does not even known in order to be influential

*need to be known

Not really related but whatever

Guy goes crazy, believes that he is involved in an inter-dimensional war between gods, and that he is the only one who can who can stop the universe from being destroyed. He is convinced he can stop it by transforming into a woman. Other than being completely deluded, he still has his wits about him and is able to pretty clearly describe all his experiences in an interesting way. He basically wrote these memoirs because he thought one day people would read it and learn the truth about the universe, and he would be vindicated.

The point is his ideas haven't diffused to the general public. What is held up as "Marxist" is very often explicitly anti-Marxist

Except it has, the idea of history being driven by the conditions of productive technology and social relations is almost universal now. People are simply generally unaware that it is Marxist in origin

Near universally known that it is to say

>the idea of history being driven by the conditions of productive technology and social relations is almost universal now
Except among neocons, and intersectionalists, and postmodernists in general, and anyone who takes seriously the idea that the French and American revolutions, among others, were driven by principles and the "rights of man."

Of course yeah, that's why I added the qualification after. The idea is there even if its refuted by many

wtf no, Freud disliked Marx but also barely read him

>Freud disliked Marx

Source? Not that I don't believe you

I mean, he criticizes socialism a few times, and Marx was that dude back then for the big C. Also, Marxs theory is utterly incompatible with original Freudian psychoanalysis.

For Lacan I recommend A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis by Bruce Fink.

>Marxs theory is utterly incompatible with original Freudian psychoanalysis.

How?

Marx: All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and the comprehension of this practice.
Freud: lmao death drive

Thats true. I think bridging this contradiction has been the mystery to all subsequent Leftist thinkers.

The hell are you talking about

idiot

that guy is a mega fag

Ecce Homo

Manuel De Landa talked about the type of neo-materialism he had been influenced from. Namely the Deleuzian double articulation. He uses the materialist example of rocks as being first the raw material of pre-processing, then consolidated as a whole with something else. First it's sedimentation, then the process of cementation. The double articulation is first content and then expression: for language, grammatical patterns are historical sediment, and expression being the consolidation of language with rules of grammar and the like. Thus cementing sounds and words with the standardization of language.

>Manuel DeLanda

Pseudcore spotted

>Someone has a psychological issue.
>The root cause is dick envy.

Found the manlet

>I always thought C&D was good and entertaining, but included far more of Freud's personal musings and speculations on issues which bear no influence on his overall theoretical development.

This. I genuinely wouldn't start with C&D.

I'd begin with The Freud Reader (Adam Philips). Mark the essays you think are most important and go from there (hint: Beyond The Pleasure Principle is the most important essay in that book).

no, no, no
start with the schubert
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthilf_Heinrich_von_Schubert
>His masterpiece, Symbolism of Dreams (1814) was one of the most famous books of its time, exercising influence over E. T. A. Hoffmann, and later on, Sigmund Freud and C. G. Jung

i'm not convinced leftism has any great need to "reconcile" itself with sex politics, to be frank.

wsws.org/en/articles/2007/09/marx-s10.html

>look at me i am le psychologist on Veeky Forums!

fuck off pseud, you were asked a straight question and we expect a straight answer, if you can't cope with that then fuck off.

Don't mess with me kido

This looks cool, but I don't know German, so it looks like it's off the table (unless you know of any translations)...

Freud praised the spanish translation, so there's that

>uh i don't know spanish neither

then fuck off you monolingual monkey

>wsws
Holyshit, kindly kill yourself you autistic Trot cultist

Nice reasoned refutation of North you got there, friendo. I especially liked the part where you made arguments.

Wow! I see that this book must have successfully taught you the humility and understanding prerequisite of any intellectual endeavor.

Anyway, I can do French, so no, not monolingual.

Seriously, it blows my mind how little etiquette people on Veeky Forums have. There's so much potential for it as a platform, but it would seem that about 50% of the time it's being used as an emotional toilet.

Reich

Being edgy and transgressive - whatever currently qualifies as transgressive - has always been part of the channer ethos. So has been extreme collectivism (constantly shitting on tripfags for example) and the tyranny of oldfags over newfags. Get used to it, without any of these things anonymous wouldn't be anonymous.

The idea of an innate human nature

But how can I sort his relevant papers from what overlaps with the main works?

Grow some skin faggot

>There's so much potential for it as a platform
I'm going to synergistically monetize your asshole nigger

Neither North or Trotsky had an argument to begin with. He just handwaved off the issue with no justification while the question remains how we can expect humans to desire a revolution for a harmonious society in the face of our desires being predicated on drives that are inherently irrational and self destructive.
The fact you Trots continue to be oblivious to the fact McDonalds commericals and Porn have been uncountably more influencial on the working class for the last century than any of your cute little fliers or culty websites speaks for itself.

we have etiquette, it's just a sort of dialect, like how blacks have an alternative grammar, Veeky Forums has an alternative etiquette, like when we tell fags like u to go back to le redditte

it's funny tho how mcdonalds uses the same eye catching red and yellow branding that communism uses lol

>hoomin naycher

not the same guy but please grow up. Communism is an ideology for 15-year-old boys

since we can change the nature of humans so easily, oh wise marxist, has anyone succeeded in changes apes or chimps or gorillas natures, but like putting them in a utopian commune where suddenly they stop being hierarchical? i mean if humans don't have a nature, then probably apes don't either right?

Desire is the bedrock of Marx's entire project. If you don't understand desire you can not understand anything.

>The people that wrote it never efficiently helped a single patient with their theories.

Source?

Both Marx and Freud are about how the individual lives at odds with society. Freud focused on the internal structures produced by this tension as well as the ones inherent in life. Marx focused on the external structures, as well as their eventual conclusion. They both left a lot of room for synthesis at the boarders of their work, and they both existed at basically the same time.

but that's whats so stupid about marxism, if a worker really desires more widgets, he can take some night classes, get a job as manager at the widget factory and buy more widgets with the extra cash, or.... he could risk his life to overthrow the government, try not to get purged in the post-revolution terrors, and then end up in the same factory but without the option to go to school at night...gee, is it any wonder workers just stick with capitalism? i feel like a person isn't truly an adult until they understand that marxism is fucking ridiculous

15 year old boys don't read Marx. Everyone, literally everyone, who claims to have "had a communist phase" returns a blank stare when you ask them to explain historical materialism, dialectics, anything.
>human nature is fixed, immutable, transcendental, context-independent, and directly contravenes X form of social organization
>hey guys, commodity fetishism proves historical materialism wrong! It's true because I say so! This only-apparent contradiction is actually real and insurmountable, because I say so!
I know you guys read less, but I wasn't expecting to find genuine idiots here.
Also pic related
Ah, the ever-reliable "proof by crass oversimplification."
Hurr the problem with capitalism is you eventually run out of other people's surplus labor to extract

To be clear I am the original poster that dug into the wswsbot. I am what would be easily described as a marxist myself and I am comitted to an emancipatory project.
My issue is not that I believe the human mind is necessarily incompatible with Communism its that if anyone is to be interested in attempting a historical-materialist analysis it must by its very definition begin at a material analysis of the human mind itself, which to me is a psychoanalytic analysis.
As it stands Orthodox Marxists still utilize the same naive Victorian perspective of the human mind as operating on the mere pleasure principle which is simply not reflective of reality and fundamentally undermines any concurrent analysis contingent on such an understanding.
Sublimation is the mission of Freudian analysis just as it should be the mission of any Leftist and without acknowledging this you'll be stumbling in the dark and will continue to be a laughing stock.

>its that if anyone is to be interested in attempting a historical-materialist it must by its very definition begin at a material analysis of the human mind itself
I don't agree. We don't need to solve the hard problem of consciousness or really even come close in order to understand aggregate, statistical behavior of people. Take for example, bourgeois economics. If the basic "task" of civilization is the material production and reproduction of everyday life, we can study the structure of society in terms of how this task is performed, what objective social relations are at work. After a certain point Marx just brackets metaphysics and the mind because he has built up a theory of broad generality that need not depend on or change with the validity of psychoanalytic premises.
>Orthodox Marxists still utilize the same naive Victorian perspective of the human mind as operating on the mere pleasure principle
I don't think we assume this at all. There's nowhere I can think of that Marxist thought relies on this premise.

I mean certain figures like Zizek do find psychoanalysis in its own right important enough to try and synthesize with Marx, but it shouldn't be regarded as some absolute precondition for an emancipatory project. If anything the "thinly veiled psychoanalytic critiques of misperceived power structures brought on by a misunderstanding of Marx" thronging academia and the pseudo-left are actively -detrimental- to that very cause.

>We don't need to solve the hard problem of consciousness or really even come close in order to understand aggregate, statistical behavior of people.

See to me this is incredibly naive. How for example can we speak of monumentally epoch changing events in human history such as the rise of Christianity without including this domain?
If history can not be adequately interpreted I find the thought we can analyze what the future holds is absurd.

>Thread about psychoanalysis
>Saged at the beginning but got back on its feet
>Topic desperately needed to be discussed on Veeky Forums due to mentally pathogenic atmosphere
>Degenerates into discussion of Marx
>Confirms the suspicions of average channer about connection between commenism and da jooish reptilian psychoanalysts gonna make me bang muh mum

Nice job, anons. Now, what's that thing Lacan said to the situationist about finding a new father?

You don't because psychoanalysis has no scientific basis and was nothing more than Freud's conjecture.

Actually it does. Psychoanalysis is the only form of psychotherapy intentionally designed to address complaints regarding "the mind". The mind, after all, is something that we talk about, and mental problems are things we complain about.

It's at least as scientific as muh psychopharmacology and muh CBT, which operate off of confused notions of what a mind is.