/lit/ - Literature

>>17698921
freud is retard enough to make a theory of psychology based in little toddlers. anal and oral refer to toddlers and his way of giving pleasure themselves. not about oral or anal sex.
retards like salome and plenty, millions of people, buy that jargon and feel deep and intelligent while use it. at the same time, they try to box every notion, feeling or thought in that little "studies" of human life. freyd was one of the big mistakes of life.
and here we are years laters drowning in pills to little children because they have too much energy and people in twitter bragging about how they are in the autism spectrum.

>>16611858
there is some crucial manipulative misconceptions here
first he say
>this his concept of the "Einzige" or ownness/creative nothingness
and then in the conclusion he say
>We're left "empty" (nothingness) with Stirner
he deliberately omit the creative part of creative nothingness and he do this probably because he knows its good for his argument. and this is the kind of subtle tricks and misconceptions they do with stirner all the time.
i just dont believe he forget that creative nothingness is suddenly just nothingness.

stirner dont direct you to some essentialist kind of virtue and they feel empty for that. but you can see stirner´s virtue is the egoist virtue. stirner explain an explicit direction. even if you dont agree is not necesary the misconception of "he left you empty".

>>13288691

if you go this far only to deny science have the social legimitization of truth and coherence in this time, i think you have a shit perception of the occidental world.

>was put into a more correct, logically coherent, and reasonable context.
what exacly you think is the context?.
you are denying my point because you are assuming that if an assertion dont go through the scientific method or empirical filter, dont have the right to be saying or treated seriously. and that is the point im trying to criticize all over the thread. at the same time you suggest i should have empirical evidence, you are saying in the thread evidence and science dont prove nothing.. you are literally saying i should use your heuristic method or i dont say anything substantial. which is my whole fucking point.
my point is that the mind, the philosophical and the consciousness should not be under the yoke of psichology or science, that is my point. everybody should have his own word about himself.

if in every psychology and psychiatric office and department they have a big poster who say "we dont prove nothing". to me is enough.
i do believe there is a misunderstanding in most of the patients of psychology/psychiatry about this concern, specially when we live in a world where in the schools we are learning science is better at recognizing things because science can prove it in a material vein.

you think im against scientific method or something, but i am against its preponderance like the narrative or the "suitable tool" to know the truth of some issue. i am talking about the social perception of truth, not about the truth. in other words, im against people believing in science as truth, not at science in itself. i think it would be more useful if you go with the issue, not denying it.
think im talking about the people who go to psychiatry believing is the closer truth we have to understand his feelings or whatever they think its a problem about themselves. try to accept this people exist.

>Is this supposed to mean something
if people dont give psychology the legitimization as truth. psychology wouldnt be different than any other philosphical or pseud religious therapeutic project or design about the mind and consciousness.
>may be your only salvation.
is the second time in the thread somebody is implying im a crazy who needs psych help because im against psychiatry/psychology as truth of the mind. i think you dont understand what im talking about. the fact that you think if im crazy, i should go to psych, the automization of this thought, is to me the whole problem.

>If this thread was created with a genuine interest in the field,
you are talking as a believer who think anybody cant criticize his beloved discipline if only they know it and understanding it.

>>13005172
>just observing them as they are.
there is a residuary thought in "observing things as they are". i would put a little of healthy suspicion in the believe that this "observing things as they are" is really free of thoughts.
i dont think even this intuition or whatever you want to call it, is the ultimate nature of experience, anybody should have the autorithy to say something like that.
you choose who you give that authority.
i think is just an intuition, a creation of the thought, even if not a total synthesize thought.