/lit/ - Literature

>>22487525
Why are you so angry about a certain set of methods and theories that are almost dead and only a few fringe French guys care about, if their content did not rouse something in you that you do not want to be true? Look around, the "psychoanalyst perverts" were right: incest (((step)))mom porn is number 1 on pornhub and every girl wants to call you "daddy" in bed...

>>22487563
>Midwit fails to recognize the influence of subversive jewish "theories" that hold no basis and were rejected heavily when they were first created, yet picked up later down the line when it became convenient to push certain ideas and everyone was too scared to criticise because being an anti-Semite is the worst possible thing you can be in the entire world
...Huh.

>>22487563
They have been discredited but the damage is done, the whole field of psychology is a sham

>>22487525
>The extension of Freudian hypotheses seems ‘educated’, even scientific, but it is ignorant, bungling. Freudian theory is the modern fashion. I mistrust the sexual theories of the articles, dissertations, pamphlets, etc., in short, of that particular kind of literature which flourishes luxuriantly in the dirty soil of bourgeois society. I mistrust those who are always contemplating the several questions, like the Indian saint his navel. It seems to me that these flourishing sexual theories which are mainly hypothetical, and often quite arbitrary hypotheses, arise from the personal need to justify personal abnormality or hypertrophy in sexual life before bourgeois morality, and to entreat its patience. This masked respect for bourgeois morality seems to me just as repulsive as poking about in sexual matters. However wild and revolutionary the behaviour may be, it is still really quite bourgeois. It is, mainly, a hobby of the intellectuals and of the sections nearest them. There is no place for it in the Party, in the class-conscious, fighting proletariat.

>>22487563
There's more to it than that. Namely the baseless assumption that we are all "driven" by "subconscious" drives, something that literally cannot be proven and only treated as dogma. It doesn't help that the entire field is loaded with presupposed progressive values and hatred for authority when, in fact, slavery would dignify half the people who suck Freud's dead cock. It doesn't help that psychoanalysis is so incredibly rigid in its incorrect idea of what human nature is and what correct human behaviour is. Freud was literally just a retard who was too stupid for philosophy.

>>22487577
>midwit externalizes his degenerate desires and blames (((them)))
>oh no, the semetic boogeyman has subverted my unconscious
...Huh.

>>22487525
Psychoanalysts don't usually prescribe drugs

>>22487563
Psychoanalysis is still huge here in Germanyand many other countries. You can easily get it on the statutory health insurance for free. Your take is an ignorant anglo one

>>22487606
No, yet still, all of the retards who keep preaching to me about freud like a bunch of witnesses just happen to take every type of drug they can get their hands on from weed to benzedrine.

>>22487602
>externalize
There is no subconscious that drives you. There is just the self and all you have access to is its surface. Indeed, its retarded to think that you can ever hope to understand yourself as you can never truly be sure if what you find is true. It's like telling a department to audit itself.

>>22487614
That's weird. Here in Germany psychoanalysis fans usually see drugs as a treatment only of the symptom and not of the cause and avoid them. Maybe in the US or whatever it's different

>>22487624
> There is no subconscious that drives you.
Why should you be aware of everything that affects you? You are not aware of the precise functioning of your muscles and yet they still work.

It's religious thinking to say that only that which you are aware of can affect you.

>>22487610
> Your take is an ignorant anglo one
Du wetterst nur gegen deinen inneren Angloamerikaner, was zeigt, wie sehr du von ihm vereinnahmt bist. Seine Kulturdominanz ist dir so in Fleisch und Blut übergegangen, dass du Rot, Weiß und Blau in den Schatten siehst.

>Psychoanalysis is still huge here in Germanyand many other countries.
There are certain remnants that will soon be in the trash can of history. Try to get a psychoanalytic research grant at a university or to take over even a single psychology department.

>>22487643
I'm English, not German.

> Try to get a psychoanalytic research grant at a university or to take over even a single psychology department.
What does that have to do with anything? Psychoanalysis is used for actual treatment

>>22487644
> I'm English, not German.
So you have no idea what is going on in "Germanyland" and still make moronic claims about it?

> What does that have to do with anything? Psychoanalysis is used for actual treatment
Where do you think these therapists come from? Do they grow on trees?

>>22487638
>It's religious thinking to say that only that which you are aware of can affect you.
Lolwhat?
Disregard the fact that I find nothing wrong with religions, how do you even know if something is affecting you if you don't even know what is affecting you? How can you know something is there if you do not perceive it at all?
This goes without saying, but this is pure sophistry.

>>22487652
>So you have no idea what is going on in "Germanyland" and still make moronic claims about it?
I live in Germany but I'm English. Is this concept too confusing for you?

> Where do you think these therapists come from? Do they grow on trees?
That's not really of my concern.

>how do you even know if something is affecting you if you don't even know what is affecting you? How can you know something is there if you do not perceive it at all?
I mean, how can you know it's not? The point is that it's dumb to assume you know everything about what is affecting you. Also, the purpose of psychoanalysis is not to come to some kind of objective, actually true explanation. I actually had this confusion myself during my own experience in analysis, I was like "why should I trust this explanation". It's about finding an explanation that works for you and causes a transformation to occur, not the perfect objectively true one.

And, of course, it does work.

>>22487638
And listen, I really wish there was some hope for genuine psychology. But if it's just going to be more belief based, which might be ok, then psychanalysis can fuck right off and we should get something else that's more interesting and not geared toward nihilism

>>22487669
How is psychoanalysis geared towards nihilism? People become less nihilistic when they do it, not more

>>22487665
>I mean, how can you know it's not?
What is not? What is this thing you think is affecting me?
>The point is that it's dumb to assume you know everything about what is affecting you
I'm not assuming anything. I literally told ypu that it would quite literally be impossible to know everything if there even was anything under the surface. It just comes across as delusional.
>Also, the purpose of psychoanalysis is not to come to some kind of objective, actually true explanation.
That's clearly not true unless you are solely refering to Jung, which I doubt. Freudians have a very clear and rigid view of human nature and have a wide range of pathologies to use against anyone in order to not empathize with them.

>>22487676
People become more delusional when using it*
And uncritical.

>>22487624
then your misattribution should be even more obvious since no depthly self-reflective basis is required, retard
noose should be tightened and get off this board

>>22487699
>What is not? What is this thing you think is affecting me?
An infinite number of possible things?

> That's clearly not true unless you are solely refering to Jung, which I doubt. Freudians have a very clear and rigid view of human nature and have a wide range of pathologies to use against anyone in order to not empathize with them.
Well all I can talk about is my own analyst. She never speaks of human nature, objective causes, or pathologies, and she empathises with me. She is a classically trained Freudian

>>22487708
Whatever, they become happier, more confident, and lead more fulfilling lives. If that means they get called deluded by people like you it seems like a worthwhile tradeoff

>>22487715
>An infinite number of possible things?
Or, maybe, nothing?
>classically trained Freudian
Did she ask you whether you were potty-trained as a child?
>Whatever, they become happier, more confident, and lead more fulfilling lives.
In what way though? What do you actually think qualifies as a "good life"?
Because judging by this, you might as well just constantly deceive the wife who is angry at her husband for cheating on her by saying that a wife who convinces herself that there is nothing wrong with her husband cheating on her in order to remain happy is living a good life.
Or better yet. You might say something incredibly stupid like Lacan(or zizek?) And say that the nazi persecution of jews was like a husband being constantly afraid that his wife is cheating on him. Anyone who is not pathological would of course just divorce his wife if it was bothering him, after all (and the nazis should have just deported or killed all the jews if they were bothering them that much.)

>>22487754
> Or, maybe, nothing?
Or maybe an infinite number of possible things?
> Did she ask you whether you were potty-trained as a child?
We do speak a lot about early childhood of course
> In what way though? What do you actually think qualifies as a "good life"?
Being happy, confident, and being able to achieve the goals that I want to achieve.

>>22487754
>Because judging by this, you might as well just constantly deceive the wife who is angry at her husband for cheating on her by saying that a wife who convinces herself that there is nothing wrong with her husband cheating on her in order to remain happy is living a good life.
Let me rephrase.
You might as well say that a wife who convinces herself that her husband cheating on her is ok in order to remain happy is living a good life. In this example, she is indeed happy or doesn't feel sadness. And if that's all it takes, you just end up saying that so long as you feel happy, everything is fine.

>>22487776
I don't really know what kind of explanation I will find that will resonate with me, since I am a very sceptical person by nature. But also, I don't want to be unwell anymore. I still think it's better than other treatment options available

>>22487765
>Or maybe an infinite number of possible things?
Ok, but since you have no way of actually knowing that, why not assume that there is no incrediply deeper mystery behind your actions and just own them? The other option just kinda ends in determinism, not to say that you are completely unaffected, but the effects are simply things you can at least perceive and which you act on.
Honestly, you make psychoanalysis seem more like coaching.

>>22487792
> why not assume that there is no incrediply deeper mystery behind your actions and just own them?
Assuming either way is foolish.

> The other option just kinda ends in determinism, not to say that you are completely unaffected, but the effects are simply things you can at least perceive and which you act on.
I don't see what is wrong with theorising

> Honestly, you make psychoanalysis seem more like coaching.
Most psychoanalysts here also do life coaching

>>22487783
Honestly. I just really hate people who try to try pull some psychanalysis on their political opponents in order to pathologize them.
It's such a scummy and dishonest tactic that pretends to say something of value but in reality it does not. Aside from the fact that it's verifiability is incredibly iffy, let's say that someone manages to correctly deduce that the only reason why I say something or hold some belief is because some seagull bit my penis when I was a child. Ok, now what? I'm still saying the things that I am saying and have not yet had a rebuttal nor have my arguments been shown to be not valid except now we apperantly know the real reason behind my opinion. And that's when being given the benefit of doubt.

>>22487821
I think that's fair enough but I'm pursuing it for mental health treatment, not to attack others. I think there are some cases where it's relevant though. I find it hard to see atheists looking for religion without thinking they're running from something they aren't aware of

>>22487525
Best solution to freud is actually reading freud and realizing that the vast majority of his works aren't what you think he is famous for. Freud wasn't stupid and his later works show that he realized alot of his shit was effectively universalizing the problem of neurotic rich girls.

>>22487525
The strongest argument against psychoanalysis is that it explicitly and openly requires asking for a lot of money, continuing the treatment indefinitely, and making the patient depend on and possibly fall in love with the therapist. It's straightforwardly a scam. Scientology is the same way. It doesn't even matter if the underlying system "works" or not; efficient money extraction is an explicit goal.

>>22487624
>It's like telling a department to audit itself.

that happens all the time though, like the 9/11 commission for example

>>22487525
No one believes or takes any of his theories seriously today. He’s just important because he found the basics of psychoanalysis. Which I think should be disputed really. It’s such a basic idea it’s like saying someone invented materialism.

>>22487525
I'm slightly confused, why do the opinions of drug-addled junkie control freaks bother you so much?

>>22487525
Anti-oedipus and Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guattari are by far the best criticisms of psychoanalytical thinking. If you don't want to sound like a retard while critiquing psychoanalysis, you have to give analysts their due. D&G do that, while highlight exactly the problems of psychoanalytical thinking. Thousand Plateaus was written later than Anti-oedipus, but it was easier read in my opinion. Psychoanalysis won't be worthless at least for a century, but taking the critique of Capitalism and Schizophrenia to heart will make it's applications better

>>22487598
Whether he was correct in his thinking or not, Freud was actually very smart. Smarts is something that to some extent can be assessed/quantified. His ability to construct sophisticated sentences was far better than your abilities; he could speak and write in many languages (my hunch is that you can only read and write in English); and his memory recall was phenomenal (as attested by the witnesses who heard him present his Introductory Lectures on psychoanalysis.

>>22487624
That is why you seek the help of an analyst. Its sort of the whole "separation of powers" thing as seen in US government

>>22487821
Yes, you raise some valid concerns but psychobiography is controversial within the field of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is really only to be performed on a free associating patient in the clinical setting. The kind of psychoanalysis of political opponents that you describe is seen as pop psychoanalysis by most analysts.

>>22488357
>alot of his shit was effectively universalizing the problem of neurotic rich girls
So if I want to understand(have sex with) neurotic rich girls I should read his early work?

>>22488771
For sure. Read all those jews to understand the feminine mind.