/lit/ - Literature

explain libido to a retard

>>18412613
your socialism bait threads from yesterday weren't very funny, either

he was absolutely right about cocaine,
probably the ultimate blackpill.
he only stopped promoting it because he realized everyone else just couldn't understand.

He was a genius

imagine being this much of a fucking retard

>>18412622
subjective sexual energy that is invested in certain objects. Just keep in mind that there are no sexual objects in themselves, libido has to be invested for there to be a sexual, attractive object. Its like Kant - objects have to conform to subject.

>>18412723
So it's basically just the primitive will to stay alive?

>>18412723
so basically a coomer version of panpsychism.

>>18412613
>Where did it lead you?
To become a psychoanalyst.

https://ignotascintilla.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/renc3a9-guc3a9non-the-misdeeds-of-psychoanalysis.pdf

>>18412744
It’s metapsychology, not metaphysics

>>18412613
Freud-bashing is for boomers

>>18412613
>Where did it lead you?
To Jung.

>>18412754
Freud is peak boomer pop-culture, the whole boomer paradigm is built upon pop-freudian cliches.

>>18412622
>>18412723
>>18412743
>>18412744
It seems to me like the sexual part is more fundamental than we imagine. We're all products of sexual union. That's just reality. We are the fruit of a generative act. And it's not a one time event either, but a drawn out process during which we come to consciousness of ourselves, others, and the same generative process which brought us into being. When we're too young to think consciously about our motivations and behaviors, we aren't simply sitting around doing nothing. We act regardless. The energy which directs this action is libido. Even the energy which we put towards consciously deciding on a logical course of action is libido. Maybe it would help to think of libido not as sexual, but as generative. It's the same thing, but the change of phrasing made it more clear in my mind without the coomer baggage. We're always channeling our generative energy (aka libido) into something, which can be clearly seen when our work bears some sort of fruit, even if that's just a boomer making a meme to post on Facebook.
I'm still trying to understand this stuff myself, but once I understood that action is motivated by libido and not by rationality or logic or the stars in the sky, then it made more sense. Then you begin to see how the way in which we are taught to channel that energy from a young age accompanied by especially our earliest experiences can have a sort of butterfly effect on the rest of our lives and, without any attempts to analyze or redirect this energy, will largely decide the sort of fruit we will bear throughout our lives. The relationships we have, the work we do, how we raise our children, etc. I like the butterfly effect analogy because the further back you go in your life, the bigger the potential for a significant event to change the course of our energy. In the case of trauma we might wall off a part of ourselves into which energy one flowed in the hopes that doing so will prevent the trauma associated with this part of ourselves. That energy doesn't just disappear, but it has to go somewhere, like blocking off one path of a stream will redirect its path elsewhere until it's permanently carved out a new channel.
One example of the implication of this in Freud's thinking is his theory about fetishes in men. There comes a point in a young boy's life when he realizes his mother doesn't have a penis. Because the child has generated the imagined penis with this unconscious (recall most our actions, e.g. breathing, are unconscious), there must be somewhere for this libidinal energy to flow. In that moment, the energy might flow into what the boy saw in the moment he realized this fact about his mother. He finds something to which he can ascribe this energy. If he happened to look up her skirt, this could be her ass or underpants or something. If he saw her from the front the energy could be assigned to her breasts. Point is, it goes somewhere and the effect has implications down the line.

>>18412772
I always had respect for Jung, and learning to appreciate Freud has helped me to better understand Jung as well.

Where do I start with him?

>>18412951
>One example of the implication of this in Freud's thinking is his theory about fetishes in men. There comes a point in a young boy's life when he realizes his mother doesn't have a penis. Because the child has generated the imagined penis with this unconscious (recall most our actions, e.g. breathing, are unconscious), there must be somewhere for this libidinal energy to flow. In that moment, the energy might flow into what the boy saw in the moment he realized this fact about his mother. He finds something to which he can ascribe this energy. If he happened to look up her skirt, this could be her ass or underpants or something. If he saw her from the front the energy could be assigned to her breasts. Point is, it goes somewhere and the effect has implications down the line.
Bollocks.

>>18412747
holy based..

>>18412613
Sopranos

>>18412971
I'm not saying that particular example totally describes the reality of however fetishes are formed, but it does explain the process of how he arrives at his conclusions rather than him being a quirky old man like how he's viewed by most people who've never read him. It's fair to say he didn't get everything right, but I think when we're at point where incest is one of the most popular porn categories we have to return to what he said and at least hear him out.

>>18412951
generated with this unconscious act**

I dont feel strongly one way or the other about him, but its interesting to see how others react to him. When Freud is mentioned, people seem to become immediately defensive and say things like "He is a nut, there is NO WAY that stuff can be true, nope!" Like they cant even bear to consider if there might be some truth in it. the huge discomfort that people have around these subjects makes me think he may have been more right than people like to admit

>>18412613
Guattari and Deleuze are a useful continuation and critique of him.
There's Lacan, Winnicott, Jung, Spielrein, Hillman, Von Franz, Zizek, Reich and Marcuse to continue on his project.

>>18413038
>Guattari and Deleuze are a useful continuation and critique of him.
>There's Lacan, Winnicott, Jung, Spielrein, Hillman, Von Franz, Zizek, Reich and Marcuse to continue on his project.
the only name of any value here is Winnicott.

>>18412613
>buck.jpg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

>>18412747
>>18412989
This was very interesting thank you. I'm not sure what he means by the proposed "superconscious." Is that essentially a conscious which transcends all human conscious? I'm struggling to understand how that's not like Jung's unconscious which is shared by all humanity. My first thought is that the superconscious is something which would be transcendent not just beyond individuals like the unconscious but also transcendent beyond all humanity, and so such a transcendent consciousness would basically be God, no?

>>18412723
>>18412951
This reminds me of Schiller's essay on aesthetics where he discusses his distinction between the sensuous and formal instincts and how the sensuous precedes the formal in early childhood, except here instead of Schiller's play drive Freud is talking about the sex drive. Anyway, good posts.

>>18412791
>Freud is peak boomer pop-culture
No, he’s only used as a joke

>>18413062
Don't agree, but any Winnicott recs?

>>18412613
>Used to
Sorry to hear you took so long to read his work by the time you finished you coped by Stockholm cockholm cocksmoke syndrome

>>18412791
>>18413381
I think he's talking about the stuff like DFW was making fun of in Infinite Jest when Hal accidentally enters into the therapy session and sees grown men pretending to be babies, crawling around to heal the trauma of their "inner child." I don't think that's something Freud would look fondly on, but it's certainly downstream of his work.

>>18412791
Freud fingered women in his office to cure "hysteresis" and snorted cocaine with said whores

But in an intellectual and dry way not a wolf of wall street way

>>18412613
>>18412613
In undergrad I majored in psychology (I'm in a MA program for clinical psychology now) and every professor I've ever had disrespected Freud and Jung implicitly. After trying to discuss Freud and Jung's ideas with them, it became clear to me that not a single professor I had ever actually read Freud or Jung; they judge the psychoanalysts on the basis of their reputation in academia rather than on the content of their writings. This is clearly insufficient and leads to vast generalizations and inaccuracies in the public perception of the psychoanalysts.
Who could describe Jung as a mystic who promoted a bunch of woo if they had actually read him? The man was focused on objective analysis of the content of mythology as applied to the active imaginations of his clients and, moreover, basically invented the field of multicultural psychology. Anyone who has read Jung's work will understand that deductive analysis of his writings, rather than empirical testing, is the most appropriate means of analysis. Still, these academics decry his work for not being empirically supported. Why? I believe it is because they haven't read his work.
And Freud -- the terminology is not great, I'll admit. But the entire basis of his basic theory is to provide definitions to constructs which impact decision making. The academics will say "his work is not falsifiable and is therefore wacky armchair philosophy", but they clearly misunderstand the arguments put forward in works like Civilization and its Discontents or his Interpretation of Dreams. Freud aimed to provide explanations for the actual content of behavior, thoughts, and dreams, rather than the frequency or tendencies of those things, or even how to manipulate them. His methodology was basically to allow a client to speak openly for the entire session with few if any interruptions. That is because all Freud could possibly have known therapeutically is that the "talking cure" works, and the entire theory of psychoanalysis was only applied in case conceptualization such that its explanatory power was not even widely applied within the therapeutic encounter. By any pragmatic standard of truth, Freud was successful in doing legitimate work. People complain about things like how he understood women, but Freud even admitted that his understanding of women was poor and that his theory was basically a placeholder one when it came to women. What was important to Freud in the case of women is that some construct was in action distinct from that which could be found in men, and he welcomed others to replace the constructs he postulated for women.
Basically, the entire academic understanding of Freud in the US today is flawed and would greatly improve if people would just read Freud instead of reading unsubstantiated opinions about him.

>>18413429
>Freud breaking does to cure their neuroses
based

>>18412772
>>18412959
Is there something like a flowchart or something similar for Freud and/or Jung? I've sampled from both but the sheer amount of works that these guys have (plus secondary texts) make them quite formidable thinkers to get into

>>18413429
Sounds like something a boomer would watch on Netflix and think of it as "dark" and "provocative".

Adler>Jung>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Freud

>>18413004
This

>>18413507
I like Jungs schizo and mythological ramblings the best because they are relatable.

>>18413488
Just start with Man and His Symbols as an overview for Jungs stuff then go into individual works from there. Prepare yourself for redundancy and repetition though.

>>18413501
Netflix was right about Freud

Had some lectures about Freud at university. I, and everyone else, thought he was a perv. I stumbled upon Freud again when reading Roger Scruton´s Sexual Desire. He was critical of him aswell.
At a thrift shop i found to all my amazement a really nice copy of The interpretation of Dreams, in norwegian. I read it, and i help me a lot.
if the psyciatric field would make use of psychoanalysis it would really benefit a lot of people.

>>18413400
anything really but especially his papers "Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena" "The Theory of the Parent-Infant Relationship" and "Hate in the Counter-Transference."

>>18413472
Yeah psychoanylsis is its own seperate degree which is less revelant to being a clinical psychologist than the clinical program, if you wanted psychoanlysis you should have done that as your postgraduate.
Also as a psych postgrad who has actually read they are not missing out on much. Sure he isn't as silly as a psych101 course will have him out to be but a lot of what he says is unsubstantial and he has a hard time admitting his theories are wrong, read dream psychology.

>>18413658
Where should one start? How much Freud beforehand?

Reich is the real great thinker

>>18413617
I was quite similar. I always dismissed Freud as a schizo perv who had unverifiable and outdated theories that nobody took seriously anymore. Picked up his Intro lectures and work on Dreams and am honestly really impressed with it. I started to keep a dream journal because of him and it honestly really helps (though I'm obviously limited since I am not a psycho-analyst). Freud is unironically not much different from Nietzsche and he has a lot of similarities to guys like Schelling and Hegel surprisingly.

>>18413686
the parent-infant paper. he writes very approachably and clearly but really you should be familiar with Freud and especially his clinical papers from the 1910s because Winnicott was an actual psychoanalyst and his papers all stick very closely to clinical material unlike all the screechy radicalism and theory from Guattari Lacan Reich etc.

Freud was basically just a secular Rabbi and psychonanalysis just Judaism for the affluent bourgeoisie.

>>18412613
I am 100% convinced that he is rejected by modern psychologists because they are all afraid to admit hes totally and completely right. His ideas of Id Ego and Superego are impeccable and the complexes he spoke of have held true across the years as common psychological disorders. He was a genius who is rejected only because people are too afraid to admit what really lies within themselves.

Glad to see anons actually reading Freud instead of just memeing about the incest stuff

>>18413662
Unfortunately, there is no good psychoanalysis program in my state. The only one that comes close is a psychodynamic program for a Psy.D. in a small professional school which costs $40,000 per semester (about the same as the cost of my whole MA). I'm sure there are continuing education resources out there which would provide a good opportunity for me to get a handle on its core functions in practice as an LPC. To be honest, as a pragmatist I'm very disenchanted with the world of professional psychotherapy and its irrational divisions and title requirements.

>>18413871
Depends where you are but in most of the US "psychoanalyst" is not a protected job title, literally anyone can call themselves an analyst. But of course if you actually want to know what you're doing, that's not helpful at all.

>>18413726
I am a philosophy student so my reading of psychoanalysis is not meant for clinical practice, I imagine Winnicott is still important but I want to hear your opinion of if and how he's important to philosophy.

>>18413871
>>18413902
I don't know about other states because it works differently everywhere but in New York there is a state recognized license to practice psychoanalysis and there are many institutions of different price ranges for people from psychology psychiatry medicine social work and even lay analysts.
>>18413928
His ideas are relevant to many different areas of philosophy but especially to the question of how minds and persons arise only as part of familial units. people sometimes complain that Freud saw the infant as a sovereign unit and bundle of drives that civilization molded into a person. Winnicott thought that the infant cannot be conceived or treated apart from the parent. as he famously said "there is no infant" ie there is no infant except that of the infant-parent relationship. so in that way he maintains that people are in large part constituted by their relationships reliance and meaning for others. take your pick of philosophers to whom that might be relevant. Heidegger would be one; Hans Loewald was an analyst deeply influenced by both Winnicott and Heidegger who thought similar things.

>>18413472
>>18413617

Freud is rejected in psychology because the professors and students in psychology are too retarded to handle the dynamic thought and case-specific findings of Freud

The field clings instead to stable, fixed mechanisms, syndromes and the DSM because it's much easier to handle than uncertainty and conceptual genealogies

Jacques Lacan had much to say about the DSM - one thing is that you are filtering human beings with their own lives and specific experiences through universalised and standardised syndromes (as in you're going from the specific to the general the more you learn about the patient), while Lacanian psychoanalysis goes the other direction (from generalised symtoms to a specific narrative and relationship to being/desire)

>>18413986
>they're not deep thinkers like i am
smells like teen spirit

>>18414009
Doesn't help that psychology is over-managerialised and inflated in today's society - so you have to "educate" cohorts who can do "less harm" if they only learn some basic neurochemistry and what the DSM says

there's not enough resources or time for psychoanalysis

>>18413744
I think that Freud was wrong about most things, but I also think that he was on the right track. Modern psychology feels very "safe" in that it usually wants to take people at their word and not speculate as to what actually may be motivating them. For some reason, people are terrified to consider that repressed sexual desires may play a bigger part in our lives than we think.

>>18413812
Freud was a conservative, anti-Marxist and had a secret obsession with Nietzsche

>>18414087
None of these things are true

>>18413687
Been interested in Reich since I first got into Kate Bush.
https://youtu.be/pllRW9wETzw
Any reccs on where to start with Reich?

If you want to get a real understanding of the libido, read Dune. The metaphysics in that is all about the untameable forces of life and creation.

>>18414176
>Any reccs on where to start with Reich?
you have to start with Reich the same way you start with Kate Bush: by being a queer.

>>18414176
check out "mass psychology of fascism" and "the sexual revolution"

>>18414143
The Nietzsche obsession might be true, but it's probably more true in Jung's case

>>18414227
Freud was interested in Nietzsche but also fairly dismissive of his work. Saying he was obsessed with Schopenhauer would be a little closer to the truth but still wouldn't count as much of an obsession. Freud didn't regard philosophy in general very highly.

>>18414143
>conservative
this is consensus among scholars

>anti-Marxist
read Civilization and its Discontents

>>18414269
>taking Freud's public dismissals, denials and disregards seriously
Freud said he never read Nietzsche but he literally pored over all of his works as evidenced in his personal correspondances

>>18414328
consesus among scholars who think it's normal to be a tranny

>>18414087
And that relates to the image how exactly?

>>18414328
>read Civilization and its Discontents
you first. he was skeptical and unconvinced by Marxism. that does not make someone ant-Marxist. and he was only conservative by the standards of those same Marxists.
>he literally pored over all of his works as evidenced in his personal correspondances
nope. good use of the first page of Google though.

>>18412622
Jung explained it as basically energy/ life force

>>18412951
>We're all products of sexual union. That's just reality. We are the fruit of a generative act.

Tenuous. Previously:

>>>/lit/thread/S16304294#p16307734
>Neither parents, nor anyone else, can deliberately make any one man. No one can guarantee a successful conception and, moreover, no one can guarantee that the one being born will be me or you. It has all but never happened, the coincidence of me and the one being born is a unique event. The efforts of all current men's parents are irrelevant to their being since no one could guarantee or even guess that any one of them would be in general, and be themselves in particular. It is only after the immanent finality of their being that their making is then retroactively imagined, ironically enough in a total inversion of your premise, i.e. a unique top-down and inside-out event sanctioning all bottom-up and outside-in failure allegedly pertaining to it. Obviously Christological.

>>18412951
>>18414364
There is a mysterious power within us that is just that: a violent force. It is the exasperation of our being that makes us seek with uncontrollable hunger for anything in order to satiate it. But it is never satiated. It is never fulfilled. All it can do is to lower ourselves to animals and debase us, that is why 'inter faeces et urinam nascimur', that is why we have the beginning of erogenous zones in the mouth, whence sin came, and begins and repeats itself. Only a miracle could curb this insatiable force: the image of God preserved within us: Spirit, Reason.

can someone explain to me why communists love Freud so much? I honestly don't get it

>>18414432
Communist is a nebulous term here. Who are you talking about specifically?

>>18412613
Jew detected.

Everything Freud said is correct and genius. Except it only applies to jewish people like him.

>>18412625
what do you mean "right about cocaine?" Elaborate.

>>18414436
20th century communist/leftist thinkers. Fromm, Zizek, Althusser, Lacan. when I was in university the critical theory type professors all had a boner for both Marx and Freud, and tried to merge their ideas as often as possible

Before reading Freud:
>coked up schizo retard making up shit
After reading Freud:
>boring ass enlightenment-type philosopher categorizing psychological phenomena like a botanist categorizes plants, no matter how weird the language, his claims are basic and very intuitive
He is extremely based though.

>>18414453
I'm a radical rightist, monarchist theocrat and I love people like Freud and Marquis de Sade.

>>18414457
>enlightenment-type
wait why????

>>18414465
im pretty right wing as well and I like Freud, I just can't help but notice that many leftist intellectuals seem infatuated with him in a way that right wingers are not. I've read a decent amount of Freud and never got strong political vibes from him.

>>18414432
Just blame Marcuse. If you're actually interested, check a BBC documentary - The Century of the Self (2002).

>>18414476
Because he himself called himself an enlightenment-type of thinker and he neatly fits into the epoch? Freud believed that one part of the world hasn't been "enlightened" yet (in German the semantics are a bit better; Aufklärung doesn't just describe enlightening a supposed subject but also "discovering" an object of inquiry), namely the psyche.

>>18414477
What I have heard from non specialists which could give off a leftist vibe is that Freud showed how institutions and society (reading conservative society) are constraints of natural impulses and thus making (social) people a bunch of neurotic robots. Then you will have intellectuals developing this to the notion of Law, Father (which is already in Freud if I'm not wrong).

>>18413976
thanks for your winnicott answers :)

>>18414453
I don't think you can categorize these people as ""Communists"", extremely vague category, especially from your list of people.
I'd also like to know what you mean by "leftists".
Either way, one could say "leftists" are interested in emancipatory and revolutionary politics. Thinkers like Freud "destabilize" what one could say "rightists" are interested in, namely tradition and "conserving".

In general terms this is what critique is all about, even with Kant. Once Freud shows that what we think of as homo natura is just an accidental product of libidinal energies being situated in a particular social order, one can start asking what these libidinal energies would be capable of once liberated (I don't think Freud suggested this himself though). Same goes for Marx. It's not evident why Marx would be a leftist, you could take large portions of his critique of capital and make use of it in a right-wing way. The key ingredient that attracts leftists of all sorts to Marx is again his critique in for example unveiling the fetish-character of commodities, social orders, capital itself etc.

>>18414552
Can't we say Freud is on the ''rightist'' side? For we know that this libidinal force is an irrational, animalistic violence. This is what sex is, it is a force against man, against reason, lowering him to the condition of a beast. This is all nature. That is why Sade showed how there is no man who is not a despot when is stiff.

>>18414574
I don't see what you mean by rightist. None of what Freud says seems fruitful for a right-wing project. His theories are wildly "destabilizing" for any pre-existing order as they unleash possibilities and critiques of previously hypostized "matters of fact".
This is why Nietzsche is so popular with left-wing thinkers (also why Freud basically took 70% from Nietzsche, he knew this, everyone knew this to the point that a close friend of Freud gifted him the complete works of Nietzsche, full well knowing that Freud owned his complete works, with the suggestion: "Since you insist so much that you have never read Nietzsche, I bought his complete works for you ;)))))"). Nietzsche, despite being "despotic" and "villainous" is incredibly destabilizing. Anything you take for granted, all the Idols (Twillight of Idols) gets shattered and beneath these previous constructions you find the energies or flows that had been pulled together in a system often analogus to the Oedipus complex.

No intelligent right-winger likes Nietzsche.

>>18414508
No problem. There are many psychoanalysts that people outside of the field haven't heard of that are philosophically valuable. Some of their ideas don't sound very profound on their own but when placed in their clinical context they really come alive and become quite persuasive. Some other authors that might be of interest are Klein Ferenzci Kohut Erikson and Bion (who was directly inspired by Kant in much of his work).

>>18412747
>Guenon
Immediately closed.

>>18414598
Not that guy, but "destabilizing for any pre-existing order" does not make it antithetical to or unsupportive of right-wing projects. All empires are built on the destruction of the old.

>>18414598
I meant ''rightist'' solely in the opposite connotation to the one you gave of leftist. You are right about Nietzsche and I don't like him indeed. But I think Freud by analyzing our psyche, showing that it is actually chaotic and violent, also pointed to the pertinence of what ''oppresses'' it and that it is only because of this oppresion that we can develop, be reasonable, have order and peace through culture and institutions, a violence against violence.

>>18414552
>Thinkers like Freud "destabilize" what one could say "rightists" are interested in, namely tradition and "conserving".
The only "revolutionary" thing in Freud is his "hermeneutics of suspicion", which can itself be seen as a pre-modern dismantling of enlightenment subjectivity. Parallels to Augustine can even be seen here.

Contrarily, Freud shows how "emancipation" and "revolution" can be seen expressions of the death drive, and he attests to the importance of tradition and the forces that "conserve" and redirect our animal urges. In the Freudian worldview, our whole psychic existence depends on our family (mostly for the better), and history and tradition (culture) can be seen as an altar where people/tribes/humanity sacrificed certain desires and freedoms in order to secure societal goods

There's no particular reason to see any distinct continuity between Freud and "liberationists" like Fromm, Reich and Marcuse who proposed "utopian solutions" - which is antithetical to Freud

>>18414574
I agree

>>18414598
>This is why Nietzsche is so popular with left-wing thinkers
Misinterpretations from the left, just as banal as "left-wing" interpretations of Heidegger.

>>18413740
most psychologists are just secular priests. Peterson is another example.

>>18414672
>and history and tradition (culture) can be seen as an altar where people/tribes/humanity sacrificed certain desires and freedoms in order to secure societal goods.
Beautiful. I'm sure you have already read, but I feel the need to comment how Girard shines through in here.

read libido dominandi by e michael jones please

>"He was obsessed with sex."
This is a value judgment. Aren't psychologists "obsessed" with trauma? Saying this just reveals sex is too taboo for the person who says it. Also, it's just an ad hominem. Very curiously deployed at Freud ALL THE TIME.

>"Freud's been debunked."
A psych student told me that, and I asked, "How?"
>It's just all wrong.
NPC responses.

>>18413488
You can get the gist of Jung with Archetypes and the Collective Unconsciousness, plus Aion if you want to get a little weirder and maybe Man and His Symbols if you need an easier introduction (though he’s surprisingly understandable in his big-boy works)

>>18412951
>Even the energy which we put towards consciously deciding on a logical course of action is libido.

THIS, in simple words, is exactly what's necessary about Freud. It's very odd, but people JUST DON'T GET THIS.

Whatever you do, and yes, whatever you think, IS MOTIVATED, and you probably don't know what motivations are. It's so fucking simple, yet people won't look at it. Or you can explain a Freudian concept in your own words, and then they'll say, "Well, everybody knows that!"

>>18414809
get help

>>18414809
>>18414422
The libidinal energy is not the ground of the natural impulse. There lies something more original.

>>18413472
>Why? I believe it is because they haven't read his work.

It's a damn shame and it's 100% true. --Psych major here, too. -- Without exception, every professor casually dismisses him, with a bit of snark, and then suspiciously cautions students against reading them ("He was sexist anyway.")

I've had classes where we FLAT OUT SKIP chapters on psychoanalysis. And yes, they have not READ the psychoanalysts, but oddly they don't admit it. Freud and the psychoanalysts are a huge gaping hole in the field, and nobody wants to talk about it, and THEY CAN'T because nobody reads him.

I've heard this has much to do with the dominance of behaviorism. Basically, disciplines like CBT are the only thing that insurances will pay for, so it's said there's no point in teaching students things they won't use in the field. So they literally skip the chapters.

I've had actual professors, actual clinicians and PhDs scoff and physically react to even mentioning Freud. I do suspect there's an insecurity, because Freud is this glaring historical figure, and they know they haven't even read him. Plus, they're probably frustrated, because, you guessed, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE.

>>18413488
For Jung, start with Man and his Symbols. There's a consensus on this and for good reason. Then go with Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Doesn't hurt to get one of these little "primer" books, too.

>>18413986
The DSM and its consequences have been a disaster for psychology. Pure dogma, and it has enabled shameless laziness on the part of clinicians. I've talked to practicing psychiatrists who will literally tell you something doesn't exist if it's not in the current DSM. They absolutely lack nuance, and its no wonder that they're lightyears away from grasping even something like Id-Ego-Superego.

>>18414328
>this is consensus among scholars
Yeah, these same people that have never read Freud? They've come to a consensus about the man and his work? I'm thrilled to hear that. By the way I was being sarcastic.

>>18414842
What is it?

>freud thread
>98% inane schizo ramblings
heh, yeah

>>18415012
99% thanks to your post

Of course Freud is right, how else would you explain all the mommy milker subs on 4chan and all the daddy issues Tiktok brats?

>>18414627
>Judges what he doesn’t read
Sounds about right

Academia seems terrified of speculation in general. They get uncomfortable when you speculate about what someone may actually be feeling instead of assigning them a "correct" diagnosis

Think twice before getting into Freud as his sources are mostly hidden.

>>18414720
I'm assuming he's not fond of Freud?

>>18414986
I would like to say evil and lead you to Boehme, but I think Sade is onto the same thing.

>>18412613
Now read Jung and learn he was full of shit

>>18412613
Freud believed there was nothing beyond the material world which is why Jung is the best psychoanalyst
Freud probably had a tiny pp and a hot mamma

>>18415589
>Freud believed there was nothing beyond the material world
And he's right

>>18415607
>>18415589
Freud's theories are mystic as fuck.

>>18415621
Not mystic, just far-fetched at times.

>>18415623
He was unironically a platonist.

>>18415621
Jung and Freud stopped being close friends because of Freud’s denied anything “occult” like parapsychology and Jung’s studies of philosophy and religion. Also didn’t value truth over being embarrassed by his past. Probably molested poor guy. This is from Jung’s notes after their

>>18415712
*falling out

>>18415607
For all the riches in this world
May be gifts from the Devil or earthly kings
I should suspect I worship’ the Devil
If I thanked my God for earthly things

>>18414598
>No intelligent right-winger likes Nietzsche.

Very silly. Nietzsche is the key to understanding every issue in the modern world. Just because he smashed the idols of modernity without making something new that was viable, it doesn't mean that his scorn against those idols aren't useful. He is far more relevant than any thinker after him.

>>18415811
did nietzsche fuck your mother?

>>18412951

Eunuchs historically have maintained productive lives despite being castrated. Freud btfo?

>>18415918

"Castration" is just a code word for Jewish circumcision. It accounts for the male Jew coming into the world, ie through genital mutilation which creates all sorts of mental problems.

>>18415918
>Eunuchs historically have maintained productive lives despite being castrated.
Is there a historical example of one that wasn't just an automaton?

>>18412613
please look at the prevalence of mommy porn online and tell me he was wrong about the oedipus complex

>>18412613
Freud is one of those thinkers who is only recognized in the popular consciousness for his most outlandish ideas. Oft overlooked is his his penetrating analyses into the deepest questions of human nature and civilization or how he BTFOs religion etc. Instead everyone remembers him for saying adolescent boys are upset because they want to replace their dads and fuck their moms or that you're grouchy because you're obsessed with your asshole or something.

> “Individual liberty is not an asset of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization, though admittedly even then it was largely worthless, because the individual was hardly in a position to defend it. With the development of civilization it underwent restrictions, and justice requires that no one shall be spared these restrictions. Whatever makes itself felt in a human community as an urge for freedom may amount to a revolt against an existing injustice, thus favouring a further advance of civilization and remaining compatible with it. But it may spring from what remains of the original personality, still untamed by civilization, and so become a basis for hostility to civilization. The urge for freedom is thus directed against particular forms and claims of civilization, or against civilization as a whole. It does not seem as though any influence can induce human beings to change their nature and become like termites; they will probably always defend their claim to individual freedom against the will of the mass.”

>“Hence, it is quite conceivable that even the sense of guilt engendered by civilization is not recognized as such, but remains for the most part unconscious, or manifests itself as an unease, a discontent, for which other motivations are sought. The religions, at least, have never ignored the part that a sense of guilt plays in civilization. Moreover - a point I failed to appreciate earlier - they claim to redeem humanity from this sense of guilt, which they call sin. From the way in which this redemption is achieved in Christianity - through the sacrificial death of one man, who thereby takes upon himself the guilt shared by all - we drew an inference as to what may have been the original occasion for our acquiring this primordial guilt, which also marked the beginning of civilization.”

>“Observe the difference between your attitude to illusions and mine. You have to defend the religious illusion with all your might. If it becomes discredited - and indeed the threat to it is great enough - then your world collapses. There is nothing left for you but to despair of everything, of civilization and the future of mankind. From that bondage I am, we are, free. Since we are prepared to renounce a good part of our infantile wishes, we can bear it if a few of our expectations turn out to be illusions.”

>>18412622
No.

>>18412951
>Maybe it would help to think of libido not as sexual, but as generative.
Is this what Freud actually means though? Is the libido not sexual according to Freud?
If it is not sexual then you can use literally any other concept that philosophers have talked to describe the same thing (will, elan vital etc.).
I thought Freud's contribution was that he reductively just said it was all sex

>>18414432
Because Freud understood that you couldn't begin to alleviate mental stress of a patient while they had to worry about bills to pay. He understood that capitalism was making people neurotic.

>>18416354
How does he btfo religion?

>>18414446
He recommended cocaine to patients.

>>18413472
i also majored in psychology and while this is true for some, several of my professors had generally favourable attitudes towards both Freud and Jung if slightly critical.

>>18412622
libido is like a flowing river, it can't be halted or reversed, only diverted

>>18417086
The solution to wage slavery? Literal slavery. Bravo communists.

>>18414574
interesting how your solution is the castration of the human organism

>>18415293
freud is pretty up-front about his jewishness in his work

>>18418515
>this is your brain on sowell

replace the word 'libido' with power and you have the theories of Nietszche and his theoretical descendants. Sexuality is just another traffic system.

>>18415019
That ass is an eyesore. If it was proportioned right in comparison to her tits she'd have a 10/10 body (excluding her face).

>>18414432
most of the impetus for reading freud by at least marxists came from failed revolutions of XX century. They turned to psychoanalysis to explain why they failed (especially frankfurt school, also deleuze and guattari to some extent even though they are not card carrying marxists). Also there are a lot of similarities between psychoanalysis and marxist theory, so they resonate nicely at some points.

>>18418564
>man is an irrational animal
Fitting for anyone hostile to reality.

>>18416354
>>18417185
bump

>>18418564
you are already ''castrated'' if you think killing for vain motives is wrong, for example

>>18414446
cocaine is an amazing drug

>>18419186
It's fine, doesn't really do much except make me talk a lot. I prefer speed.

>>18418703
you'd like if she was shaped more like your mom?

>>18413429
I'm usually anti-freud but curing bitches of hysteria was probably the one good idea that era cam up with. Now we have to deal with hysterical women in everyday life.

>>18412951
I've also heard that theory about the formation of foot fetishes.
>you, a child, walk into your mother's bedroom
>she's changing, nude or in underwear
>she shrieks
>you avert your eyes casting them downwards
>you're now looking at and charging her feet with libidinal energy

It's a little too convenient if you ask me but it is interesting

>>18416354
they use the outlandish ideas to demonstrate that he was talking out of his ass

>btfo religion
religion doesn't need to be btfo. just like freud the fact that anyone took it seriously in the first place is ludicrous

from what I am reading he is the philosophical equivalent of >words words words

he isn't saying anything at all. the first thing is basically just Rousseau
>Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they

He is talking about an indescribable yearning for a unquantifiable "completeness". What is even worse he starts complaining that human beings don't seem to be acting as "termites" in an attempt to resolve these nondescript issues he claims are everywhere. His criticism of religion is basically just that it is a false resolution that stops people from just tearing everything apart because they are not satisfied 100% of the time. Criticisms of religion because they get in the way of people following your insane philosophies are not valid criticisms of religion.

Rather than people rejecting freud because they are afraid of his implications, what he and his followers are actually afraid of is that it is possible that not everyone is as miserable as them, and that some people can be geneily happy doing whatever it is they are doing, in my case shitposting on a mongolian throat singing forum about how Freud is an idiot.

He isn't actually criticizing religion so much as he is saying
>STOP ENJOYING THINGS
with religion just being one thing people enjoy

>>18419967
What do you think religion is?

>>18419986
well christianity is just platonism and freud is presenting a shitty version of platonism where rather than discovering the secrets of the universe on the adventure of philosophy together he is saying that after leaving the cave of "civilization" all you end up doing is giving up some of your infantile wishes and expectations that come from a yearning to fill this unquantifiable incompleteness by admitting that it will never be filled.

Freud is just shitty plato.

>>18420039
>Freud is a platonist
Holy based.

>>18420039
>discovering the secrets of the universe on the adventure of philosophy
Sounds like an infantile wish to me

>>18420273
providing you are not larping this is more or less what freudianism boils down to. attacking those who disagree with you by calling them infantile, repressed, or for lack of a better term, psycho-analyze them to determine the "real" reason they are saying what they are saying as it can't possibly be what they say it is. It is a technique more than a philosophy.

They will tell you it is in the interest of being "liberated" but you would think people could define what "liberation" would actually entail, but they can't because the entire thing revolves around exploiting an undefinable yearning for completeness so providing that makes it lose its power.

Provided you reject Freud wholesale, like you should with religion, it is entirely possible to feel complete, rather than wallow in misery like Freud wants you too because he invites you to enter with world but never actually resolves anything because he just says shit like "hell is other people" and other edgy things. I truly believe that dissatisfaction is caused by terrible ideas that don't go anywhere that promote misery because it loves company. You can be happy provided you decide to be, and a good way to do it is by making fun of miserable people who want everyone else to be miserable as it is quite funny once you realize this is what is going on.

>>18420352
anyway you know religion is a necessary evil right? i think this is freud's stance on society and civilization, isn't it?

>>18420407
>anyway you know religion is a necessary evil right?
religion is neither necessary nor evil
>i think this is freud's stance on society and civilization, isn't it?
the assertion that we secretly want to rape each other but don't because we could never live with each other if we were always trying to rape is not groundbreaking

>>18420429
yes and this is why religion is necessary and a miraculous gift even if it is not an end in itself. you should read girard he says almost literally what you said too about Freud being a platonist.

>>18420444
>you should read girard he says almost literally what you said too about Freud being a platonist.
if he is saying what I'm saying I don't see why I need to read him. I don't really read philosophers unless they piss me off enough that I need to refute them, in which case I just start tearing into them by identifying earlier emergences of their ideas. For instance Freud just seems like a restating of Rousseau and Hobbes synthesized, and in saying that it becomes pretty clear as to why he was an atheist as people accused Hobbes of being an atheist because of the implication of his ideas. People weren't dumb just because of religion, they knew where things could head. Hobbes was basically just "follow the law you dumbasses. it is for your own good" which is an atheistic defense of authority, which makes god unnecessary.

I don't see why the point of philosophy should be in anyway related to god though. Everyone always seems to want to come back to it, whether it is to refute it, or say we should come back to it, or lamenting it. This is entirely a product of being post-christian and it didn't exist in the pre-christian world. Even Nietzche despite seeming to want to get outside Christianity wasn't immune from this. It probably wasn't possible to get outside of it without the benefit of seeing the entire development from a bird's eye view, but like almost all philosophy going on while "god was dying" is literally just the stuff from the previous century but reinstated this time where people are being explicit about the fact that they don't care what the church says rather than needing to ostensibly claim they still care. God wasn't even god, god was the church. God without the church is just stupid, and the church is unnecessary.

>>18420554
you probably get freud but your takes on religion are utterly retarded and i just wanted to help you with that but you seem to be also insufferable, whatever bye

>>18414201
Pwned, as they used to say.