Is it me or is psychoanalysis pseudo-science?

I tried reading Freud, Jung and even Peterson and all of them share the same trait while writing: they can't write for shit. Peterson's book is himself repeating over and over again. Wtf is this shit

>be alt-right meme-spouting frog retard
>get tired of YouTube videos of 'MILO absolutely BTFO feminist SJW cucks'-tier clips that he decides to watch the latest meme, Peterson
>Don't understand anything of what this new retard is spouting
>HUUUR FREUD AND LACAN BTFO

Your post isn't even coherent. What does the a person's quality of writing have to do with whether or not a field is a science?
I would literally erase you from existence if I could.

You should give your time to think before making such judgements.

Please do explain me how bridging from Is to Ought for 400 pages by saying "just act, my dude" is useful or relevant to anyone? I could have summed his book in a 20 pages article. If you're trying to defend psychoanalysis you're only making yourselves look worse.

>Peterson
>psychoanalyst

>Freud can't write for shit

He's one of the greatest writers of all time. Can you please go fuck yourself, you dumb shit

Just act? You clearly haven't read Freud or Lacan. If you're referring to Peterson, I haven't read him

Veeky Forums is full of psychoanalysists,
if you were to look, you would have known it was a bunch of non-scientific crap

>Veeky Forums and /psychoanalysis/ absolutely blown the fuck out

When the majority of the people in that field share the quality of being overly obscure or being bad writers it is very safe to assume that it just might be a bunch of charlatans pulling your leg. Any self-respecting science has a methodology that tries to achieve a clear and concise final text so the reader can understand it. Repeating yourself OVER AND OVER AND OVER isn't something praised or recognized as decent. Hell, it is a sign that you're certain or that you didn't systematized your own thoughts.

The post I was quoting was referring to Peterson.

Please do explain why.

For what are you reading science books? The prose?

it is a sign that you aren't certain** ; my bad.

>It may be that Freud's importance to our culture continues to increase almost in direct proportion to the waning of psychoanalysis as a therapy. His conceptions are so magnificent in their indefiniteness that they have begun to merge with our culture, and indeed now form the only Western mythology that contemporary intellectuals have in common. As with every true mythology, a diffused version of psychoanalysis has become a common possession of most people in middle-class Western society, who may not be particularly intellectual, and doubtless are not always aware that psychoanalysis has provided the psychology in which they can believe without continual reflection or conscious effort. What anyone finds possible to believe without self-ques-tioning is necessarily myth, whether or not it also purports to be religion.

Few recent writers on Freud would agree with much that I am saying, and no psychoanalysts would, but Freud is the most persuasive of modern discursive writers, and he is difficult to resist when he is read deeply. He is a powerful rhetorician, a subtle ironist and probably the most fascinating of all really tendentious writers in the Western intellectual tradition. His general theory of the mind not only has the speculative force of a great metaphysician, like Plato, but it also has the personal moral urgency of the greatest of essayists, Montaigne, and an astonishingly Shakespearean eloquence as well. More than the Freudian eloquence and the Freudian sense of drama are Shakespearean. The more deeply I read Freud, the more I learn to see the Shakespearean representation of human personality and motivation emerging, but emerging in a codified and rationalized form. Perhaps we need a Shakespearean interpretation of Freud rather more than we need further Freudian interpretations of Shakespeare.

Sage and report, not literature and a shill thread.

Is it even posing as a science anymore?

The psycho-analytic tradition isn't obscure in the least. Many of its theories are in everyday usage even among normies. Maybe you're just retarded.

>Any self-respecting science has a methodology that tries to achieve a clear and concise final text

Yeah, you're just retarded.
Name one science that is contained in a "final text."
I'll wait.

I'm not asking them to write as good as top notch writers, but to at least write in a way that I can understand it. Writing like this isn't acceptable even for an 8th grader:

I, for one - when I say for one I meant to say my brain [we might note that brains are our best organ - my favourite organ], like apples.

Reading sentences like this is nothing but tiresome and unproductive.

Really? When I read him I felt like I was read my average professors' doctorate thesis. Talking about low standards

Nope, Lacan clearly states it is a 'practice', not a science.

Honestly, for someone claiming that others are retarded for disagreeing with you, you seem awfully incompetent regarding interpretation of simple text. We're talking about books, thus when I said "final text" what I meant was the published version of it. I don't know if you ever wrote a paper, a masters or anything of that sort but in the due process of writing one you make several drafts, you make your final draft, and THAN you re do your final draft to systematize everything.

And I never said that final texts were meant to contain an entire science. Coincidentally, maybe you're projecting your own insecurity by calling me a retard, don't you think?

First of all, do not associate Peterson with Freud and Jung.
Secondly, Freud was fully aware thst his brand of psychoanalisis did not fit the epistemological standards that were set for sciences in the 20th century, and in fact he always claimed the validity of his field on the ground of efficacy, rather than truth. In Jung this is assumed right from the start, there was never any pretense of formalism, which was reasonable, given the fact that Jung was studying imagery and altered states of consciousness for the most part (which to this day we can still ground empirically).

So there's that: what you're complaining about was never part of the field in the first place. Regardless, Freud and Jung could not possibly gather and organize tha amount of datas modern psychologists and therapists can nowadays, so I don't really see why you should blame them for that.

That said, I'm sure you've only read Peterson and a few paragraphs and summaries of Jung's and Freud's essays. Stop reacting while not being informed.

>Harold Bloom
>low standards

Go back
>>>/pol9k/