/lit/ - Literature

>>8828050
Read Four Archetypes, his ideas about the collective unconscious are super important.


I've also noticed what feels like a Jungian revival, feels good lads.

>>8828050
Portable Jung

>inb4 everyone gives a different recommendation
all his books are so interesting its hard to say, maybe "memories, dreams and reflections" because its sort of a background that explains how he came to believe things

>>8828050

Buy the Red Book for like £170 off Amazon.

Man And His Symbols

>>8828070
Seconded, know the man before you learn his ideas. And it gives a lot of background to his ideas, so it's pretty cool. After that, i'd say go with whatever concept interests you the most

>>8828067

SO MUCH THIS

Also, right after the Portable Jung you need to read Modern Man in Search of a Soul

>>8828050
I have a very interesting book somewhere in my house. The full correspondence between him and freud.

are there any different character classes besides Freudian and Jungian

>>8828050
synchronicity lmao

>>8828061
You can thank Peterson for that, at least on /lit/

>>8828088
Literally written as an introduction to his work, so yeah

Where does he talk about the stuff Joker talks about in Full Metal Jacket?

>>8828050

The Makings of Maleness: Men, Women, and the Flight of Daedalus

Found this book last week in the antiquarian. It's absolutely not core-Jung-reading-material but seems to be an interesting take on the recent (1990 - onward) cultural shifts in regards to gender-roles. It's written by some brittish jungian psychoanalyst.

https://www.amazon.com/Makings-Maleness-Women-Flight-Daedalus/dp/0814782043/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481477822&sr=1-5&keywords=peter+tatham

pic is my copy of the swedish translation

>>8828088
>>8828631
I'm in this camp. I started with the volume of his collected works titled 'Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious' and I found inaccessible. Later on I read 'Man and His Symbols' and found it very clear.

Sincere question from someone who hasn't read him: what is the benefit of reading Jung? What do you get out of him?

>>8828050
Lol I love MBTI
Im so glad lit is getting into that
Im INFp/j (not really sure my p/j is superbalnced guys mabey theres a psychologist itt can clear it up lol haha) what are ur guys tyoes

>>8828794
Cute bait.

>>8828777
Jung's worldview was the least cynical and yet most true out of anyone i've ever read. His theories are unique and very thought-provoking. Everything Ive read from him has changed my perspective in some way. His autobiography is one of the most interesting things I've ever read, just because of the way he thought about things.

>>8828798
thanks man. I think it's a little too close to my "did you assume OP's gender" shitpost in the other thread. I need to work a little on my b8 diversity I think. But hey ho who's perfect

What do you mean. Its a jung thread so we should talk about his theory right. OTherwise whats the point...

>>8828835

What was unique or different about the way he thought about things?

>>8828777
I haven't personally read his literature and only know of his work via Jordan Peterson but I guess the little I can say about him and his work is that;

Reading psychoanalytic literature won't turn you into a psychoanalyst. It might however give you some general reassuring insight into how your own personal experiences actually plays into larger patterns of behavior that can be observed throughout our evolution. His theories are extremely non-conventional, there's no doubt about it, but if accepted, they'll provide you with an immensely fascinating way of interpreting exactly how one can draw parallels between humankind's cultural, religious, mythological and anthropological history, and the nature of the human psyche. Depending on your own situation in life you might even find direct practical value in his theories, i.e. to effectively manage personal crisis either with yourself or with other individuals (just typical therapeutic stuff).

I could go into much more detail but I'd probably do a bad job representing his ideas.

If you're interested in test sample I'd suggest looking up Jordan Petersons Maps of Meaning 2015 playlist on youtube. Much of his work is derived from a Jungian psychological perspective.

>>8828862

here's the playlist link desu

https://youtu.be/4tQOlQRp3gQ?list=PL22J3VaeABQByVcW4lXQ46glULC-ekhOp

>>8828855
not the guy youre replying to, but he is less reductive

freud pretty much narrowed everything down to sex, and many others reduce everything down to power or sex whereas jung didnt, his theories are a lot wider and more individualistic, youd have to read it because im bad at explaining

>>8828887
>>8828862

Very cool. Thanks guys

>>8828050
Studied him, Read The Red Book to find out how absolutely fucking nutty he is and then learn to dismiss most of his ideas like with Freud since he barely knew what he was talking about and (like the Wonkaesque Frued himself) how he was only really correct on a few things, retrospectively.

>>8828932
PS: I haven't posted on /lit/ in years, but a litmus test for retardation has always been who vehemently defends Frued's ideas like they made any sense.

Protip: anyone who does that literally knows nothing past pseudoscience spiritualist neo-bullshit """psychology""", since (spoiler alert) an unconscious has never been proven to be real.

This triggers redditor psych students.

>>8828932
>>8828943

Freud was wrong about a lot of things, but he essentially discovered the unconscious. I mean come on, at least he formulated the damn thing, give em a break.

>>8828964
>discovered something nobody has proven to exist
Again, nobody has proven there is a real unconscious. It is a concept that is very popular with pop culture...it is not science.

>>8828968
>you need to empirically prove something exists, if its literally the only explanation for a whole area of human phenomena
So how do you account for a SIGNIFICANT (This is important) slip of the tongue.
If I am Condoleezza Rice, and I accidentally use the phrase "my husband" instead of the phrase "President Bush", in the sentence "As I was just telling President Bush" are you saying that she intended do so, or that this mistake was just some kind of spasm of the mouth that completely coincidentally produced this slip?

>>8828988
>you need to empirically prove something exists
Yes...that is how science works.
>if its literally the only explanation for a whole area of human phenomena
Except it's not, only underages believe this.
>are you saying that she intended do so, or that this mistake was just some kind of spasm of the mouth that completely coincidentally produced this slip?
I would say that the brain is a complex and vastly misunderstood organ that we don't fully underatand and there are far more concrete answers for why brains fuck up then "its a mystical unprovable locker in your brain you cant access" type of autism that you literally abandon after your first psych class. Things don't just become true because there is no other alternative.Talk to anyone who teaches psych...

Next?

>>8829003

You sound like a faggot. Not saying you're necessarily wrong about anything, just that you sound like a faggot.

>>8829014
Not an argument

>>8828050
fradulent just like the entire field of psychology.
fyi jung believed in materialisation aka that things could manifest out of thin air.

>>8828968

The unconscious is most certainly real and accepted by modern neuroscience

>>8828943
>an unconscious has never been proven to be real
How did you consciously decide on every word in this sentence?

>>8829018
Thank you for repeating what they already said retard.

>>8829022
prove it.

>>8829093
prove what?

>>8829003
Dude, it's a complete misrepresentation of what I'm saying to call it a "mystical unprovable locker in your brain". I'm well aware there isn't a physical chunk of my brain that could be called "the unconscious", but there are a number of intersecting factors which interrupt conscious, intended action, and it's pretty bizarre to pretend there aren't. These factors can be grouped together under the moniker of "The Unconscious". And yes, I'm sure one day, we'll know exactly what it is in the brain that causes these unconscious slips, but it's a question of finding the cause of something we know exists, rather than proving that thing exists.

Also, why are STEM-autists so incapable of calm discussion? I've know so many of them and they're all the same. Knee-jerk hostility and intolerance of ideas that don't confirm what they've learn in their freshman year so far.

>>8829113
>Also, why are STEM-autists so incapable of calm discussion?
We're all on speed because we're kewl.

>>8828932
This was a comfy thread until you came along.

>>8828088
/thread

>>8828050
Why did this need greentext?

>>8829200
>Don't destroy my fragile worldview!
classic jungian response

>>8829003
Sorry to be dumb, but I don't get your point.
Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as unconscious/subconscious ?

>>8829058
No its not

>>8829317
Yes, there is no proof.

>>8829077
Thats a logical fallacy, mate.

>>8829433
Autism

Which fallacy, because you're committing the autistic fallacy right now.

>>8829433
It was question.

>>8828622
should have known that the whole jung revival is based on racism and transphobia

fucking /pol/ alt right nazis

>>8829276
More of a case of you souring something nice so you can be contrarian with no constructive discussion whatsoever

>>8829113
>but it's a question of finding the cause of something we know exists
Except nobody has actually proven an unconscious mind exists...

Fucking aspie psych 101 students who think they are experts and bought into the Frued memes that most of psychology in the modern era has ignored or disproved. Kill yourselves.

>>8829421

Um, yes it is.

>http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/BerlinTreatment.pdf

>https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201403/new-clues-the-inner-workings-the-unconscious-mind

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/

>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/probing-the-unconscious-mind/

>http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/neuroscience-evidence-unconscious-processing/

>http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2015/06/the-evidence-from-neuroscience-that.html

>>8829456
Did you read your own links?

>>8829427
But you're aware that many (if not most) neuroscientists agree that there is *something* science can't yet explain, that fits the description of the unconscious... Even if research has shown that it is not a physical part or area of the brain, there is still *something* that triggers the way we dream, the way we talk, the way we experience the world around us. And even if dreams, lapsus are not proof, they're at least hints...

>>8829450
Wasn't that guy but have you actually read jung?
He does have insights but he's essentially an intellectual new-age prophet.

>>8829453
Not Reading Posts:The Anon

Do you understand how inductive reasoning works?

I literally started this post off by defending the idea that we don't need to have empirical proof of unconscious processes, because the weight of inferential evidence is so astronomically strong

Yes, you could theoretically create some kind of hypotheses that allowed you to debate me on this point, but it would have to be a matrix-tier ridiculous thought experiment. Like the idea that there is an evil wizard who causes a complex spasm of the mouth and throat leading to every case of Freudian slips, and therefore it doesn't originate in the brain. Unless you can come up with a reasonable alternative to the Unconscious which explains this kind of stuff, that doesn't resemble something as ridiculous as this, then I think we can safely close this case.

>>8829536
"Freudian slips" aren't any more common then other slips they're just confirmation biased.

>>8829541
It doesn't matter the frequency you fucking clam it only matters that they fucking happen

I've never been more triggered in all my born days. Your shitposting is a fucking art form if this is a troll.

If you aren't then please head over to the Antinatalist thread and don't breed.

>>8829583
If they're not more common there's no reason to think they're special.

>>8829609
Literally what is the reasoning here? That if a Freudian slip is less common than an average everyday slip then it can't be a sign of an Unconscious?

This is your brain on STEM

>>8829646
Not that it can't. It's just not necessary to explain it.

>>8829461

Did you?

>>8829672
Maybe.

>>8829646
not that guy but psychology is like religion pretty much, you asking someone to disprove the unconscious is like a preacher asking someone to disprove god, it's fucking stupid.

everyone who takes psychology seriously is a fucking nutter. i tried therapy only to find out these people were crazier than i was and have one psych friend who has OCD and annoyingly brings up studies in conversation.

>>8829661
You're a fucking spesh I'm gonna have an aneurysm

Look, you wanted evidence of the unconscious. I gave it to you and you reject it on the grounds that it isn't common enough to merit looking for an explanation. I'm done man

If this has been a leg-pull i sincerely applaud your talent.

>>8829724
>you wanted evidence of the unconscious
No I didn't.
>you reject it on the grounds that it isn't common enough to merit looking for an explanation
I gave a simpler explanation.

>>8829743
But you are still being retarded about something that has no evidence.

>>8829536
>we don't need to have empirical proof of unconscious processes
But....you do, you absolute nutter.

>>8829777
How so, trips?

>>8829836
You are doing this unintellectual thing of "I can't prove it does exist, but something needs to be there, so it has to exist, despite lack of evidence".

It is dishonest. I don't know why everyone is so spergy about this, I sort of knew it would trigger first year psych students, but again (for probably the third time) there has never been concrete ajd substantial evidence that Freud's concept of a "subconscious" or "unconscious" mind, exists. And you can't work backwards with evidence, that is not how any science works. If you were the clod from earlier who basically said "I feel it, so it must be true because there isn't a better answer yet", you are being intellectually dishonest.

Also, if you were the very same clod who posted the links you never read, not a single one of them corroborates that Freud's definition of subconscious and unconscious minds exist.

Now, usually, how science works, is that if you can't sufficiently prove something....it doesn't exist..

>>8829495
Which doesn't mean an unconscious mind exists...

Fucking Christ this board is idiotic.

>>8829536
>I don't understand science: the post
>written by: autist psych student

Buddy, this is literally my field; most modern psychologists would laugh at you.

>>8829697
>psychology is a religion
And depression isn't real...right? Most 0psychology that isn't fringe autism, is a form of science.

>>8829884
>You are doing this unintellectual thing of "I can't prove it does exist, but something needs to be there, so it has to exist, despite lack of evidence".
No I'm not.

>>8829724
You never produced evidence, you just said "something has to be there, so it must be true", that's fundie Christfag level of stupid. That isn't how science works, kiddo.

>>8829920
Then I confused you with someone else, my bad.

Why don't you guys provide links to papers that either refute/deny an unconscious mind, or support an unconscious mind?

>>8829916
Not exactly, I just think it's unhelpful to label it as such within the confines of psychology. Once you label someone autistic, bi-polar, schizophrenic, OCD, depressive etc it just makes them identify as such and if anything that does more harm than good. That's not to say it isn't real, it's just that the problem can be fixed and shouldn't be viewed as a permanent illness.
Treatment wise, medication as a temporary thing if someone is severely suffering isn't too bad, but anything more than a few months of medication is just harmful. Therapy can be useful but that's highly dependent on the therapist.

>>8829958
>autism can be fixed
post proof

>>8829958
Nothing you said made any sense, I hope you understand that.

>labeling mental diseases is a self fulfilling prophecy. They dont actually exist
If you believe this, you are genuinely stupid. Mental disorders and diseases are very real. What fucking century do you live in?

>>8829958
>it just makes them identify as such
Yeah...because they have that disorder or mental disease...

>>8829941
This

>>8829958
>it does more harm than good to identify the problem you suffer from

I honestly wonder why this website attracts so many uneducated people.

>>8829449
I think even though /pol/ raised awareness about Peterson, people here on /lit/ watch him more for his ideas than the fact that he came out on top in a fight with the social justice war machine. It isn't even like his stance on the autismos with 10,000 genders is something that'd be considered controversial on here anyways.

>>8829985
Because you dont prove a negative so yoi have to prove it DOES exist, yet nobody has ever done that...so it doesn't exist.

>>8829994

Dumb shitposter

>>8829998
*frogposter

>>8829998
>explaining how the burden of proof works
>makes you a shitposter
Right. Let me guess your age.

>>8830004

Dumb shitposter

OP here.
I just wanted good advice on how to get into Jung's work, in order to make my own opinion on the subject.
I didn't mean to start a war, or any kind of dick measuring contest.
I sincerely apologize.
You're all faggots

>>8830011
Apology accepted.

>>8829994
like darwin's evolution theory, you mean ?

>>8829991
I dont honestly know why people thought he was automatically correct just because they already had a confirmed bias against their social justice boogeyman, going INTO that. It's not like his one opinion informs an actual fact

>>8830024
What is your point exactly...?

>>8830024
An informed theory backed by evidence to prove a thing is not proving a negative of something not existing....what are you fucking talking about?

>>8830024
Evolution is real, christfag. Congrats for outing yourself as retarded though.

>>8829971
Read prometheus rising, maybe some wilhelm reich and do CBT.
>>8829977
I never said they weren't real, I said that the way that institutionalized psychology approaches the human condition is far too mechanistic to actually fix the problem.
Also, mental illnesses are definitely a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once you recognize that you have a problem that can be fixed and not an illness that can only be kept at bay it's quite liberating I don't know why you're getting angry at a good thing.
In many ways, "mental illness" is really just a mismanagement of the mind and body. Why do you think CBT exists? We're stuck in these mind/body habits that we identify as ourselves but we don't even realize it.

>>8829983
I'm not saying they don't have it. I'm saying that labeling someone with a permanent condition is fucking bad and that this condition can be fixed.
>>8829987
Identifying the problem isn't bad, identifying the problem as some chemical imbalance and therefore unfixable is.

>>8830054
>>8830060
Point is that it is STILL just a theory, and although there is a scientific consensus, many questions raised by said theory still haven't been answered. Yet, it is known to be true, and is most likely the only viable theory. So when >>8829994 says shit like this, with that logic he shouldn't "believe" in evolution theory.

>>8830071
You missed the point like the retard kid misses the bus.

>>8830085
>Read prometheus rising, maybe some wilhelm reich and do CBT.
that's not proof

>>8829941
Computers exist.

Since I last checked this thread enough people have come out of the woodwork to say that they don't believe in the existence of unconscious processes in the himan mind that I'd rather not reply to all of them.

So, as someone with no expertise in the area (not even a psychology student), how would you account for human phenomena which seems inexplicable without some concept of the unconcious such as Freudian slips and dreams, if you believe all processses in the brain are conscious? I'm honestly curious because it seems so intuitive and necessary to me as a non psych student, to believe in some form of unconscious processing in the brain

>>8830179
*phrased this badly: meant to say that im a non-psych student and ask how you would explain it to me as a non-expert

>>8830182
Oh boy, you're in for troubles, laddie

>>8830179
>Freudian slips
The simplest explanation is that they're just like other slips and the "Freudan" part is just read into it.

>>8830143

I bet you think that was clever.

>>8830196
Alright, if I accept that (it doesnt seem likely to me, but it does seem possible) what about dreams? Are they not dependent on the existence of unconscious processes?

>>8830104
>point is that it is STILL just a theory
In the sense that gravity is a theory, sure. But it is easier to just call it a scientific fact.
>many questions raised by said theory still haven't been answered
Maybe if you are retarded? But no...not really. Are you just in denial about evolution?
>with that logic he shouldn't "believe" in evolution theory.
This is retarded, I was talking about how you dont prove a negative. Then you falsely equated the lack of evidence of a subconscious, to the verifiable facts that evolution happens. You are being stupid, anon.

If you are anti-evolution at this late in the game, you may as well just stop talking. The more you talk, the stupider you will sound. Genetics put the final nail in your autism coffin, mate. Nobody debates evolution anymore.

Except for uneducated fundies and christfags...

med student here
through the last century psychiatry went (necessarily) backwards, to the observable basics
modern psychiatry just requires some knowledge of pharmacology/therapeutics and basic pattern (signs/symptoms) recognition skills as most disorders have been extensively characterized in terms of their observable manifestations (not so physiopathologically, don't believe it if someone tells you otherwise, even if they talk about "neuroscience" "neurotransmitters" "prefrontal cortex" "Insula" "cingulate cortex" etc., that's just shameless namedropping)
freud (haven't read jung) makes sense because he tries to approach mental illness in a physiopathological way. maybe some day we can translate (un)consciousness (and then his breakthroughs) to a neural pathway/circuit.
we don't have a body, we are a body.

>>8830179
>I rather not reply to them
Why? It is just a simple matter of there being no substantial evidence....because there isn't.

>>8830179
>I'm honestly curious because it seems so intuitive and necessary to me as a non psych student, to believe in some form of unconscious processing in the brain
Because you want it to be true, anon. It's a Freud meme that no modern psychologist worth his/her degree blindly agrees with.

>>8830224
Why would you just assume that dreams are some subconscious thing? Why do you assume dreams mean literally anything at all?

>>8830294
Right, and in the meantime, nobody has proven a Freudian subconscious to exist. Almost all of his ideas were either dismissed or debunked in the decades after him. Freud was responsible for a lot of client abuse. Let's not forget that, due to his harmful tactics that made people worse.

>>8830298
I left the thread for a while and the posts piled up, didnt want to have to search and reply to all of them.

And you guys keep saying there's no evidence, but there is what appears to me as a layman evidence for the unconscious in the form of dreams, the imagery of which clearly has a less-than-conscious origin. There are lots of things I do intuitively, without conscious thought, such as positioning my posture in a certain way in conversation with someone in ways that betray my feelings towards them. Is this not indication of unconscious processes? And if not, what is the explanation?

>>8830103
>identifying the problem as some chemical imbalance and therefore unfixable is.
Yet, nobody does that anon.

>>8830293
Wow.
I might not have expressed myself correctly.
I DO think evolution theory is correct.
It is also true that not everything is yet explained, which is why scientist are still studying it, looking for the missing answers.
And I DON'T consider those missing answers to be prejudiciable to the whole theory.

>so yoi have to prove it DOES exist, yet nobody has ever done that...so it doesn't exist.
Your exact words, buddy.

> you falsely equated the lack of evidence of a subconscious, to the verifiable facts that evolution happens
There are also verifiable facts that unconscious phenomena happen

>You are being stupid, anon.
No u

>If you are anti-evolution at this late in the game, you may as well just stop talking. The more you talk, the stupider you will sound. Genetics put the final nail in your autism coffin, mate. Nobody debates evolution anymore.
Ad hom' much, ay ?

>>8830328
Do you not see what you are doing? You are doing circular reasoning with saying the proof, is because it exists therefore it is real. Thats not how science works, mate. You are saying the equivalent of "I want it to be true, because this process I dont really understand, HAS to be the thing"...

>>8830328
No proof that dreams are evidence for a subconscious...

>>8830339
>It is also true that not everything is yet explained
Again, this is not really true.
>Your exact words, buddy.
And?
>There are also verifiable facts that unconscious phenomena happen
No, there arent. Hence why it is a false equivolent.

>>8830310
I don't think they have meaning, in any Freudian sense. I agree the guys outmoded. But dream imagery is connected to a store of information of which I dont need to be conscious. If I dream about my day, I will dream about elements of my day that I was not conscious of perceiving during the day. And dreams definitely betrays anxieties in particular that aren't necessarily conscious. My brain does not randomly decide to make me dream about my house being robbed and having to deal with intruders. Some stimuli has cause that anxiety to shake loose and rise to the surface. But I'm not necessarily concious of that till I have the dream.

Like I say,these are phenomenological descriptions of how I experience my mind, and I'm not a psychologist or even a student of the subject. But you still need to explain where these perceptions come from.

>>8830359
>But you still need to explain where these perceptions come from.
Yes, of course...but we havent figured that answer out yet. So until we do, let's not be intellectually dishonest.

>>8830327
>nobody has proven a Freudian subconscious to exist.
my point was that today this is impossible

>Almost all of his ideas were either dismissed or debunked in the decades after him.
and the ideas that followed were debunked years later, see what's happening

>Freud was responsible for a lot of client abuse. Let's not forget that, due to his harmful tactics that made people worse.
this happens throughout the whole history of medicine (or any science in their own way), if you look at it retrospectively

>>8830339
Just because a phenomenon exists, doesnt mean we know how it happens...

>>8830342
I dont see it as circular reasoning. I see it as the only possible explanation for unconscious processes that I know exist that there be an unconscious. And maybe thats like a pagan thinking the sun is a chariot but thats what you guys are here for, to poi t me in the right direction

>>8830375
>and the ideas that followed were debunked years later, see what's happening
Yes, science is a self-correcting system.

>>8830378
You are literally outlining circular reasoning, I'm really not trying to be a dick about this...just being honest.

>>8830369
But if these perceptions are perceptions of unconscious processes, then what else can they be caused by than an unconscious? And if they aren't perceptions of an unconscious process, they must then be perceptions of conscious processes, and you'd need to account for the way in which I consciously make those decisions and have those, for lack of a better way of saying it, perceptions of perceptions.

>>8828050
Those people are what's known as pseuds. Ignore them.

>>8830394
>But if these perceptions are perceptions of unconscious processes, then what else can they be caused by than an unconscious?
Again, this is CIRCULAR.

>>8830394
You also have to entertain the possibility that you only think you percieve that you have perceptions. Could just be a mental illness caused by an offshoot gene from a dead evolutionary end. We do crazy shit, anon. I dont think humans were ever supposed to do things like worship the sun or whig out about ghosts.

>>8830357
>Again, this is not really true.
Then please explain why evolution is still a vast field of scientific researches.

"Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolutionary biology by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing mathematical models of theoretical biology and biological theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory."
This is literally one of the first thing you'll read if you type "evolution" in ye good'ol' Wiki.

>And?
And if you don't see what's wrong with your reasonning, there is very little I can do for you.

>No, there arent
Somatization. Explain.

>>8830413
>"Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolutionary biology by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing mathematical models of theoretical biology and biological theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory."

Anon, continuing to research something doesnt imply that what we have isnt concrete or substantial....it also doesnt mean we have some massive gap in research. There is a reason the entire intellectual community doesnt dispute evolution at all.

>And if you don't see what's wrong with your reasonning, there is very little I can do for you.

You have trouble following this conversation...

>>8830380
>self-correcting system
seems to imply that it always leads to an improvement, which is absolutely wrong

>>8830427
This is fucking semantics. It is self-correcting in the sense that old ideas are dispelled with new evidence if new evidence shows established theories to be wrong. It is most certainly an improvement you stupid fuck. I'm glad we don't bloodlet and think the earth is flat anymore.

Go to bed, underage.

>>8830427
>better science isnt an improvement
What a regressive and retarded statement this is you amish traditionalist piece of shit.

>>8830388
You're not being a dick at all. This is the most civilized conversation I've had on here all night.

It probably is a version of circular reasoning. To say I have perceptions of unconscious processes, I need to assume the existence of an unconscious. But to my mind, if I have conscious processes which I am aware of influencing consciously and I become aware of processes which I have not influenced occurring in the mind and in my actions, then I can assume that not all processes are conscious. And if they aren't conscious processes, then they must be unconscious processes. You see, I'm not arguing for some kind of actual part of the brain that forbidden desires collect in or whatever. I'm just positing that if I have unconscious processes, that these form a category of processes that can be called the unconscious just as my conscious processes can be categorized as the conscious

And to undo that reasonign I'd need to seriosuly rearrange the way I think about what conciousness is. But maybe I am thinking about it the wrong way.

>>8830426
Please point out the lines where I implied knowledge on evolution wasn't "concrete or substantial", as well as the part where I mentionned the "massive gap in research".
Continuing to research something means conclusions have not come to an end, yet. "Forming and testing" hypotheses means we're still in need for some more answers.

P.S.
>Somatization
>Still not explained.

>>8830433
>if new evidence [valid] shows established theories to be wrong
exactly
there is no valid evidence on this topic

>I'm glad we don't bloodlet
this is a perfect example. we're doing it again in some specific situations.
see thalidomide for another example

>>8830450
>Continuing to research something means conclusions have not come to an end, yet.
But it does not outright mean that...
>bringing up somarization
I really dont know what your point is aboit this...

>>8830454
>there is no valid evidence on this topic
On which topic??? Evolution? Because that is cateogorically and certifiably fucking wrong.
>this is a perfect example. we're doing it again in some specific situations.
What are you even saying? That we medically bloodlet? Now? In the same fashion we did during medieval times? What? It stil wouldnt change the fact that we abandon provably false ideas or concepts in the wake of new evidence. If you disagree with this, you are honestly a regressive.

>>8830442
that's not what i said

you know shit about the scientific method

>>8830472
>you know shit about the scientific method
Funny post, anon. You have literally spouted anti-science bullshit this whole conversation. And reread your post:
>>8830427
Implying that science being a self-correcting system, somehow isnt an improvement.

Your beliefs are unscientific and ultimately regressive.

>>8830461
>I really dont know what your point is aboit this...
You brought up the fact that unconscious phenomena did not happen, I ask you to explain somatization without using the word "unconscious".

>>8830493
But that doesnt by default PROVE the unconscious exists by default...that is a fallacy, kiddo.

There being somatic disorders, doesnt correlate to the absolute existence of an unconscious brain (as outline d by Freud)

Why do you not understand how unscientific you are being with this?

>>8830493
>I am making the fallacy of assuming that the presence of somatic disorders must mean that an unconscious exists

"God of the gaps" fallacy line of logic. You are filling the absence of evidence.

You havent proved what an unconscious IS...

>>8830470
>which topic
un/consciousness
>we abandon provably false ideas or concepts in the wake of new evidence
of course, where did I disagree with this?

what i've said and you don't seem to get is that >new evidence isn't always true and an improvement

>>8830484
yep i was right you know shit about the scientific method and how science was/is made in the real world

>>8830499
>>8830516

Not him, but nobody itt is peddling Freud's vision of the unconscious. We're just asking for justification of processes which appear unconscious if all processes are conscious as modern psychology apparently claims

See my post:>>8830443

>>8830524
You realize I am agreeing with you on how there is no valid evidence of an unconsciousness, right?
>new evidence isn't always true and an improvement
>Which I fundamentally disagree with...if the new evidence is found to be objectively true. It is objectively true the earth is not flat, understanding this is indeed an improvement
yep i was right you know shit about the scientific method and how science
was/is made in the real world
I have no idea how you get this conclusion.

>>8830533
And like I said an hour ago, since I cant prove a negative, I cant just assume something is real without evidence...

>>8830533
>they appear unconcious
Is not PROOF

This


Is


Circular

What about sexual development or language acquisition? Isn't their an unconscious element to those?

>>8830540
Fucked up the greentext on my phone, but you should get the gist.

I think when people are faced with a "God of the gaps" viewpoint, It may be helpful to remember Taoism. The Tao at it's most fundamental is a duality of Order and Chaos, Order being that which we understand and consciously control, and Chaos is that which we don't understand. God of the Gaps sees god only as that which we don't understand, but the true Tao exists equally in both half, the counterplay, of these two aspects of being.

>>8830555
We dont KNOW....
>the unconscious exists because I do unconscious things therefore there is a sobconscious
Is not science. Is not logical. Is not proof.

>>8830499
Again, you should read more carefully.
Never once did I approved of Freud's unconscious theory ; just said that there are verifiable facts about unconscious phenomenons, such as somatization.

>Why do you not understand how unscientific you are being with this?
I just can't believe what I'm reading. This, coming from a guy who seems to "believe" in science rather than knowing it. Man, your whole speech, your whole reasonning, is the least scientific thing there is. A scientist who looks at something he doesn't think is right doesn't go full rethoric-retard 'bout how stupid it is. He will actually go against his belief and do his best to prove it's right ; and when he comes to the conclusion it's not, present it with utter seriousness, other than using premolded words he heard in House M.D. just to sound like the utmost cynical douche he wanna be.

>>8830564
>just said that there are verifiable facts about unconscious phenomenons, such as somatization
Jesus fucking Christ...

Somatic disorders dont prove that an unconscious mind exists because YOU HAVENT PROVED WHAT THAT FUCKING IS.

you are seriously stupid. Its "god of the gaps" autism.

>>8830516
>You havent proved what an unconscious IS...
Because that's not my point, I'm ready to admit there is no unconscious, nevertheless, I stumble upon facts that seem to fit its definition, and I won't just dismiss them because of my lack of knowledge.

and this :
>I am making the fallacy of assuming that the presence of somatic disorders must mean that an unconscious exists
This is the kind of shortcut that leads one to his death

>>8830564
I find it hilarious when I'm called "unscientific" by a circular faggot trying to peddle psuedo-psych who seems to have no concept of how proofs or evidences for things work so you throw god of the gaps """logic""" at me that has always been retarded.

Dunning Kruger is a marvel on here.

>>8830548
I think you're mistaking something that's self-evident for something that's circular. If you want to claim that I am not able to judge whether a part of my processing is outwith my concious experience, then youd need to redefine what my concious experiecne consists of, since its about as apparent to me as the fact I have a hand by simply looking my hand and moving my fingers.

I've explained before why I don't think my argument is begging the question. Please respond to my response before accusing me of circular reasoning again.

>>8830544
What you're being asked to prove isn't a negative. Im not asking you to prove there isn't an unconscious. Im asking you to account for way in which aspects of my conscious experience appear to be outside my influence, without presupposing the existence of unconscious processes, which is a different thing from "proving a negative".

>>8830600
Nothing is self evident, everything requires evidence...

>>8830563
The fact there are certain mechanisms outside my immediate conscious experience wouldn't be enough to show there's something outside my immediate conscious experience?

What about internal mental processes? Learning, representation, memory? I think you're confusing unconscious with noncognitive.

>>8830586
Its not a shortcut, you are literally doing god of gaps...

Jung was a gaytheist.

>>8830611
>The fact there are certain mechanisms outside my immediate conscious experience wouldn't be enough to show there's something outside my immediate conscious experience?
Nope. Not without evidence...

>>8830574
>you are seriously stupid
Listen here, buddy, of each and everyone of my post I had to explain to you what I was actually saying, because you were unable to understand it on your own.
You're nothing but an highschool kid who think is gonna be some scientist
>never gonna happen

>Somatic disorders dont prove that an unconscious mind exists because YOU HAVENT PROVED WHAT THAT FUCKING IS.
1.Never said somatization proved the existence of unconscious
2.actually said somatization should not be disregarded, as it raises questions about said unconscious
3.There is a big semantic problem with that sentence, can you spot it ?
4."god of the gaps". Alright, you learn a word, great.

>>8830600
>I've explained before why I don't think my argument is begging the question
And I explained why you were wrong...

>>8830633
oh and PS : step 2 is actually how you get into science

>>8830596
Not the person you're responding to, but he's not peddling God of the Gaps logic. That fallacy involves areas which are not understood which are increasingly diminishing as they are understood and therefore the need for god as a tool of explanation diminshing too. In this case anon is pointing out phenomena which we do understand and illustrating that these accountable phenomena are not conscious. There is not a direct mapping of the understood and the still-to-be-understood onto the conscious and the unconscious as there is in the God of the gaps fallacy

It doesn't then constitute any logical failure.

>>8830633
>You're nothing but an highschool kid who think is gonna be some scientist
Sure I am, it's not like this is actually my field and I just get triggered as all fuck at psuedo-science horseshit from Dunning Krugers.

>>8830653
>phenomena which we do understand
Except we dont...so therefore it is a gap. The analogy stands.

This isnt hard.

>>8830654
>this is actually my field
Well, since you like to throw it around so much...
>Prove it, faggot.

>>8830625
People blinded following a trauma to the secondary visual cortex react stereotypically to sights of danger. They'd still be legally blind. Wouldn't you say the reaction happens unconsciously? Insofar as they wouldn't know why they reacted as such.

>>8830664
>Wouldn't you say the reaction happens unconsciously?
No

>>8830653
This was a whole lot of wrong.

>>8830540
>the earth is not flat
this is and was incomparably easier to prove than most specific stuff in neuroscience

>I have no idea how you get this conclusion
from what you've said it shows you don't have much experience in the extreme fuck-up that is the real world of science (medicine or physiology specifically), and ignore the amount of resources needed to ATTEMPT to prove something

>>8830665
You don't believe in the conscious mind either?

>>8830673
>and ignore the amount of resources needed to ATTEMPT to prove something
Yet you are the one ignoring that in favor of saying that things which we have not proved yet, exiat because they """have to""".

>>8830675
>if you dont believe in the completely unproven concept of a subconscious, you must not believe in a conscious mind
What is the definition for conscious you want to use, mate?

>>8830663
I have nothing to prove to circular aspies

>>8830677
>things which we have not proved yet, exiat because they """have to"""
where have i said that?

>>8830635
But you didn't

You just repeated your accusation.

And if I missed your post explaining why I was wrong, please direct me towards that.

>>8830610
And are perceptions not admissable as evidence? Corroborated perceptions almost all individulas will agree they experience? Because in that case all evidence is inadmissable.

I'm sorry but at some point in the discussion of the nature of the mind, people's perceptive experiecne has to be taken into account as evidence.

I perceive unconscious processes. Everyone I know perceives similar unconscious processes. Ergo, I and the people I know have unconscious processes

>>8830689
>Poster is 12yo : The post.

>>8830690
Have you not been trying to make an argument for subconsciousness in some capacity? If not, I cant fathom why you are arguing then..

>>8830699
At least I know how evidence works and dont fall for gaps and fee feels, while at the same time pretending I have a grasp on the scientific method.

>>8830684
Actually this makes you're position a lot more tenable. I'm the non-psych guy and I always said if you wanted to claim there was no such thing as unconscious phenomena you'd have to rearrange the borders of our concpet of consciousness. Which is most likely the right thing to do.

That is what you're saying is needed here right?

>>8830698
>I perceive unconscious processes. Everyone I know perceives similar unconscious processes. Ergo, I and the people I know have unconscious processes
Sigh......I keep trying to explain..

ITT:
>anon interested in an author
>wants advice about which works to read
>a few people help out, good discussions are had
>people decide "fuck these guys, im gonna say what they like is shit for no reason"
>thread derailed, nothing but arguments

Was it fun being contrarian assholes? I hope so since your unwanted opinion killed OP's fun.

>>8830712
More or less, or at least in a concrete fashion that falls more in line with biological and neurological science.

>>8830716
Yes, trying and failing.

Go through it one more time for the dum dum. Prove you've actually read my posts

>>8830730
Well, I guess we actually agree then. Have a good night anon.

>>8830708
>I know how evidence works
You clearly don't

>gaps
Enough with that word, you've reach your limit for today

>pretending I have a grasp on the scientific method
Pretty much what you do. That and throwing around pre-made expression, just to show how much of a sweet rational-thinking dude you are.
If you were, you would have explained to me how facts that could be regarded as falling under the unconscious theory are in fact irrelevant, in a calm and rational manner, without using uppercase and premolded ad homs so much.

>>8830734
>repeat yourself to me a third time.

>>8830745
You realize that I dont know whether you're the circular guy or somebody else, because we dont have usernames right?

>>8830742
Tip that fedora some more, doesn't change how wrong your positions have been this entire night.

>>8830703
read my initial post
i was describing/contextualizing freud's approach to mental illness

i PERSONALLY AGREE with some stuff he said
no one can claim it is true or false, you should be very careful when someone points "evidence" in this field
that was my whole point

>>8830742
>dont bring up gaps because I have no argument
>I know science, I swear
Go to bed already, kiddo.

>>8830724
>he doesn't relish the anarchic spontaneity of discourse on the chan.
Back to r/psychology

>>8830751
>Tip that fedora some more
And more ad homs. Cause that what scientists do.

>how wrong your positions have been
Although you never really explained why. Cause that what scientists do.

>this entire night
Not even dark, where I live.

>>8830756
>not engaging in thoughtful discussion
>not considering other's assumptions
>spend all time yelling "YOU WRONG"
>I know science, I swear

>>8830764
>Although you never really explained why
Scroll up, though it sounds like you don't really care what I have to say or add to this anyway, so what does it matter?

>>8830768
>please consider my assumptions without evidence and dont correct my reasoning if it is circular or explain why it is backwards reasoning
>I know science, I swear
Your initial premise was faulty, I explained why, you ignored it constantly until I was nauseous...

>>8830758
>Hes an asshole just to be an asshole
Back to your fedora/katana closet

>>8830768
Because you were wrong, anon. I get it though, people dont like being told that.

>>8830779
>assumptions without evidence
>not understanding assumptions aren't evidences
>I know science, I swear
>correct my reasoning
>Insults, uppercase internal yelling, premolded arguments
>I know science, I swear

>I explained why
Where ? You just said
>There being somatic disorders, doesnt correlate to the absolute existence of an unconscious brain (as outline d by Freud)
>Somatic disorders dont prove that an unconscious mind exists because YOU HAVENT PROVED WHAT THAT FUCKING IS.
So that is scientific explaination, by your standards ?
>I know science, I swear

>Your initial premise was faulty
Alright, lets start again then. I, for one, consider that some facts, such as somatic disorders, could be the result of an unconscious process.

>>8830801
>not understanding assumptions aren't evidences
I do understand? Your assumptions though, did not have the backing of any evidence....
>I, for one, consider that some facts, such as somatic disorders, could be the result of an unconscious process
And again, this only matters in any correlative capacity if you can prove to me what subconsciousness even IS, and then you have to explain why a somatic disorder is evidence of THAT.
>So that is scientific explaination, by your standards ?
It is a counter and a criticism, since you are loosley putting somantic disorders together without proving there is 1. Evidence of a subconscious and 2. Why somantic disorders are proof.

Also no, you really dont understand the scientific method. It honestly isnt me, bud.

>>8830818
*somatic

>>8830801
>premolded arguments
You really love this buzzword dont you? They arent premolded you retard.

>>8830783
It's a light hearted comment anon

Seriously though, I enjoy the fact that threads develop away from there starting point. Its one if my main reasons for coming here

>>8830801
Anon, this:

>There being somatic disorders, doesnt correlate to the absolute existence of an unconscious brain (as outline d by Freud)
>Somatic disorders dont prove that an unconscious mind exists because YOU HAVENT PROVED WHAT THAT FUCKING IS.

Is a real counter-argument. Answer this or go to bed.

>>8830818
>what subconsciousness even IS
Let's call subconscious the mecanism within your brain that can influence you in diverse aspects of your life (the way you talk, the way you act around people, contents and structure of your dreams, etc) ; hell, let's even put it close to the concept of ego.

>why a somatic disorder is evidence of THAT
Its fact that people suffering from somatization are subject to stress, anxiety, trauma. This could mean under that kind of pressure, the brain "orders" the body to grow some physical decease, without the subject being aware of this process.

Now, could it be possible that there is a "part" of us that stores past experiments, and influence our life in such way ?

>>8830837
>Now, could it be possible that there is a "part" of us that stores past experiments, and influence our life in such way ?
Possibly, once you prove that substantially...

>>8830855
>Possibly, once you prove that substantially...
Great.
Now could it be possible that our knowledge about the structure of the brain, and the way it works is not advanced enough to obtain sustainable proofs ?
Is it possible (and I might be treading in dangerous territory, here) that, much like with our Universe, we're stuck with nothing but hypotheses and theories?
And could it be (crazy thought here) possible that some of this theories be actually right ?

>>8830827
Ah, yes. This developed into a very enjoyable thread. Two morons ad homineming at each other is very enjoyable. I sure am glad this developed away from the initial, interesting point.

>>8830892
>two morons
One who understands that claims without evidence arent facts...

>>8830902
And an other one who understands the difference between claims and assumptions

>>8830902
>>8830910
You're both retarded

>>8830916
That makes our love even more beautiful

>>8830910
Once again, I understand the difference but keep reaching.

>>8830917
Well you got me there, who am i to judge your relationship

>>8830926
Thanks I like you

>>8830921
You do understand that if you don't reply to this
>>8830882
I'll think I won

>>8830959
>dont reply
>I won teehee
Ughhhh

>>8830025
i get the feeling that youre a little bit retarded

>>8830977
Lol oh please elaborate what about anything I said was even remotely retarded...

>>8830967
Do I hear a loser sighing ?

>>8830985
No

Oh boy, here we go

>>8830988
Yes

>>8830984
I'm not the guy you were talking to but... it's not that you're retarded, you just have dumb opinions.

>>8831014
Which are...? What?

>>8831020
>ellipses question mark, implying trailing off
>followed by another question

Dumb opinions or not, that's just bad writing dawg

There is no line between conscious and subconscious. It seems undeniable there is unconscious though.

>>8831014

>it's not that you're retarded, you just have dumb opinions.

I really like this view of things. Keep up the good work, anon.

>>8831066
>it's bad writing
I'm not trying to pass on an English paper here........anon.....
This is 4chan, not a thesis.

Now, could you answer my question or not?

>>8831066
>don't type in a conversational way
You must hate comic books, Christ.

>>8831092
Hope this is sarcasm.

>>8831066
>>8831092
>>8831094
>>8831099
>>8831101

Hey stop it ! I AM the most retarded of this thread, not you !!!

>>8828050
>37 posters, 239 replies

You're all fucking retarded for getting memed on this hard.

There are automatic (i.e. unconscious) processes/recognitions of stimuli in the brain, they teach this in psych programs, and the Freudian concept of the unconscious is taught as a historical anecdote and a basic metaphor for those processes, not as a wacky drive theory dreamscape that exists in the way Freud suggested.

Jung and Freud's theories are probably best left to the realm of philosophy, they don't have much of a place in modern clinical practice aside from a handful of (mostly older) clinical psychologists who still practice classical psychoanalysis or psychodynamic psychoanalysis. That being said, some things, like Freud's work on defenses, do hold up to some extent as examples of common patterns of thought, but not as a methodology for therapy.

If you want to see where psychologists have taken Jung's theories, you should look into the field of personality psychology. I never read Jung in school because I thought he was a wackier Freud, so I can't recommend any specific works by him.

>>8831134
Wow. Someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
Thanks (sincerely no sarcasms here).
I'm retard #21, by the way.

>>8831144
>implying only one person in this thread knows what he is talking about

>>8831151
>Implying my dubs didn't speak the truth

>>8831094
>>8831099
Nigga this is /lit/, you're gonna get shit on for writing poorly

>>8831160

Ya got me there

>>8831134
Wonder what the guy whose "field" it was (>>8830654) will have to say about this post

Some people here are really naive.

>>8831202
>implying you're not a faggot

>>8831191
Nigga, I literally said the same fucking shit and it IS my field.
>say this entire thread that Freud's concept of an unconscious is unproven
>get autists shouting unscientific bullshit at me
>nearly religious in theme and tone
>Been explaining facts concerning what we know about consciousness and what we dont
>nobody listens
>fucker says virtually the same thing hours later
>"oh wow, he's really insightful!"
Fucking retards, all of you.

>>8831222
I smell trips, lies and butthurt

>>8831216
I'm not a faggot. Go to sleep.

>>8831225
>its lies
>can literally scroll up a thread
Wew, I'm done with this aspie board.

>>8831222
So, just to be clear, this :
>There being somatic disorders, doesnt correlate to the absolute existence of an unconscious brain (as outline d by Freud)
>Somatic disorders dont prove that an unconscious mind exists because YOU HAVENT PROVED WHAT THAT FUCKING IS.
is the same thing than this :

>There are automatic (i.e. unconscious) processes/recognitions of stimuli in the brain, they teach this in psych programs, and the Freudian concept of the unconscious is taught as a historical anecdote and a basic metaphor for those processes, not as a wacky drive theory dreamscape that exists in the way Freud suggested.

>fucker says virtually the same thing hours later
>Fucking retards, all of you.
You're a special kind of stupid.

>>8831229
k bye then

>>8831240
>implying thats the only thing I have ever said.
>implying that is the first thing I said.
>implying that is even wrong.
>spoiler: it isn't.
Yeah, I'm stupid. Cheers mate, you triggered me.

>>8831250
Dude I've triggered you
>this entire night
to quote

>>8831266
>I dont care how wrong I am

>>8831272
You failed to notice the word "won" on the bord behind that quite realistic depiction of myself.

>>8831222
Mostly you just issued flat denials of unconscious thought and made a bunch of non-psychology arguments about wording and logic. You didn't actually make any points about current understandings in the field, which makes sense given that it's commonly accepted that unconscious workings are a large part of the brain's functioning. That's why they still teach the iceberg metaphor in cognition classes.

Maybe you should read more than just the Dunning-Kruger effect article on wiki if you want to convince people you work in psych.

>>8831316
If this is what you need to tell yourself to maintain that superiority complex. Have a nice evening or whatever it is where you are.

>>8831338
Not even me bro.
Wrong again.

>>8831345
>wrong again
Implies I was wrong a first time, go fuck yourself

>>8831350
>go fuck yourself
Nice comeback

>butthurt lefties derailing the thread because Jordan Peterson is mentioned

I'm onto you, you faggots.

>>8831406
Not a single person mentioned lefties or conservicucks...project less.

>>8831406
>everyone has to play my identity politics
Yeah, no faggot.

>>8831471

Wtf are you talking about? He's literally calling out the people playing identity politices

>>8831473
Yeah, by playing identity politics. You realize that the Right plays identity politics to?
>all these lefties
Not a single person mentioned politics ITT

>>8831473
>only the lefties play identity politics
Fucking delusional if you actually believe that, btw

>>8831476

Since when is true speech and freedom of speech right wing identity politics?

>>8831482
Oh shut the fuck up with that, both points of the political spectrum are pro free speech. I am saying that it is delusional to think that only one group plays identity politics, which is fucking bullshit "dindu nuffin" logic.

>>8829449
Gender is a spook m8

>>8831482
>only the right is for free speech
Sure. They never censor anyone.

kids really believe this.

>>8831487

Then why'd the put the pronoun law into the criminal code eh? I don't buy it for a fucking second

>>8831494

Well that's exactly what I'm saying, true speech is not an aspect of any ideology, because an ideology only wants to push its ideology, and you have to be manipulative or censor people to do it.

Truth of speech is the way out of left and/or right wing ideology

>>8831500
>pronoun """law"""
You talking about Canada?
>not buying it for a second
Not buying what? Are you that autistic where you think that only ONE political party or spectrum (probably one you just so happen to subscribe to) is the ONLY proponent of free speech and the benevolent side? That's just being so incredibly biased, that you are retarded...

It is seriously being autistic to think that both parties are not at fault equally just because your boogeyman of the fucking week is the "lefties". Grow up.

>>8831505
Then you werent clear before

Man, this thread was a mistake.

>>8831539
This website is a mistake.

>>8831550

It's too late for you nigga

>>8831550

>>8830331
Alot of people do that.

ITT: Proof that debate gets you nowhere and is often just a thinly veiled dick-slinging contest for people with no self-esteem

>>8831550
this is maybe the worst couple days I've ever seen on /lit/; I think something happened

>>8831916
the worst thing about anonymous discussion is that a debate that starts out as a debate devolves into name-calling and trolling -- there is no conceding defeat, and there is no coming to consensus

you would think the veil of anonymity would encourage people to set aside their ego and admit defeat when it's been dealt, but you'd be so, so wrong

>>8831134
>tfw not even a student of the subject and been arguing for this position all through the thread

Fucking faggot subject I stayed up half the night where I am trying to convince "experts" in the "field" this was the case. Literally how else could it be?

>but its circular reasoning lmao

>>8831919
haha all "debate" at the end of the day is name-calling and trolling under the guise of intellectual rhetoric civility. the only fun part of debate is fighting for a cause you don't even believe in and winning.

Psychological Types is perhaps the most (personally) important book I've read

>>8831994
>but its circular reasoning lmao
Says the underage that was circular.

>>8832023
It is legit juvenile to think that debates are about "winning". Maybe shows that you were part of the problem.

>>8832495
>It is legit juvenile to think that debates are about "winning"
My buddy Arthur has quite the opinion, on that subject

>>8832538
Arthur, who?

>>8829661
>implying there is such thing as necessity
there is no necessary correlation between anything apart from certain basic mathematical/logical truths (e.g. 2+2=4). there are many reasons to believe that the subconscious exists. in fact, it is more rational to believe it does than to reject it

>>8832495
It is though.
Perhaps your favourite intellectuals have fooled you into thinking otherwise but any intellectual who concedes to another pretty much ceases to be recognized as an intellectual.

>>8832661
Oh wow, this was a gross misunderstanding of intellectual discourse...
>you are fooled into thinking that "winning" an argument isnt important
Why are Sophists such cancer?

>>8832661
Are you 14?

>>8832696
You underestimate the ego.

>This is What Autism Looks Like : The Thread

>>8832781

Well, the thread started out strong then it just devolved into trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls, and one highly autistic digression after digression.

It always happens with people who are widely misunderstood like Jung or Nietzsche

>>8832788
>It always happens with people who are widely misunderstood like Jung or Nietzsche

You mean this is what happens when materialists open a thread where people are talking about something other than their pet theory.

>>8832830

You lost me on the last part. The discussion has been all over the place.

>>8832843
It has an underlying materialist bent. People are literally arguing that the subconscious isn't real because it hasn't been demonstrated in a lab.

It's like reading a cringe-worthy r/atheism thread on Reddit.

>>8832788
That's because both Jung and Freddy have points of insight but you have to sieve out the diarrhoea whereas people love having deities to replace Jesus so they keep the diarrhoea.

>>8832854
>t's like reading a cringe-worthy r/atheism thread on Reddit.
Quite the mischaracterization there, we don't just believe things exist implicitly without substantial evidence. There are definitions of subconscious that just aren't proven, freud's is one of them.

>>8832854
However cringe, it doesnt make r/atheism wrong. I expect to get btfo for that statement, but I'll stand by it.

>>8828050
The movie A Dangerous Method is a pretty good place to start for the absolute neophyte. Pretty well presents the historical context of these ideas and some of the key figures, all in less than two hours.

>>8832854

Gotcha. I have to agree with you there. It's demonstrably apparent that the unconscious exists, but there's still people denying its existence because "there's no evidence" is like Richard Dawkins-tier "Philosophy is all rubbish and has no practical value and can/should be disgarded".

>>8832875
>>8832880
I bet you guys don't believe that thoughts aren't real either. I mean, from a scientific perspective, they aren't.

>>8832892

They're just chemical reactions in the brain, they're not real bro

>>8832892
Nice dismissal there

>>8832889
You don't sound very smart.

>>8832889
Are we laughing at people asking for evidence now? Sure. Why would science need that? Psshhh

>>8832923
No, he's laughing at the assumption that physical evidence is the only kind of evidence that exists.

I mean, if you actually believe that thesis, there's thousands of things that you don't believe are real, but you're still acting like they are, like the stock market, or the economy, or social hierarchy, or religion, or love, or friendship, or pain.

>>8832934
Oh jeez, there are various reasons as to why this was wrong.
>if things only need physical evidence, then how do stock markets exist?
>what is love?

Fucking christ.

>>8832934
I don't think you know what evidence is...

>>8832942
You can't read either apparently.

>>8832934
>he's laughing at the assumption that physical evidence is the only kind of evidence that exists
As opposed to metaphysical? Surely, that isn't the argument you are trying to make.

>>8832954
>I mean, if you actually believe that thesis, there's thousands of things that you don't believe are real, but you're still acting like they are, like the stock market, or the economy, or social hierarchy, or religion, or love, or friendship, or pain.

The assumption is that there is no physicsl evidence for stock markets or economies..

>>8832956
As opposed to phenomenological.

I know love is real because I've experienced it. I can't explain that to you by invoking physical chemicals in my head.

OP here.
How do I kill this thread ?

>>8832988
Just because you can experience something, doesn't outright imply that is objectively exists, you realize. You insinuate that there isn't any physical (or there never will be) evidence for things you experience, which is by itself, unscientific.

There are plenty of things that humans believe they experience that aren't objectively real. So that isn't a great measure by any stretch of the imagination.

Does /lit/ just not like to come to terms with that? This thread sure doesn't apparently.

>>8832996
Yeah, but the point is that it doesn't matter if it "objectively exist", because you act like it does.

>>8833001
What?

>>8833002
Take religion.

Does it matter if religions are objectively true for people to act it out?

I bet you don't believe religions are true, and yet billions of people are currently acting out their truth.

>>8833008
>take religion
Oh boy, here we go..
>I bet you don't believe religions are true
Nope, but this isn't the topic.
>and yet billions of people are currently acting out their truth.
I believe that they believe it is "truth", doesn't make it objectively true just because people believe it, kiddo.

This is getting off topic and retarded. If you are religious, great. That's your thing. But we are talking about how sciences work.

>>8833008
>Does it matter if religions are objectively true for people to act it out?
Yes.

>>8833019
>doesn't make it objectively true just because people believe it

No, it doesn't make it "objectively true", because objectivity is the domain of science.

But it doesn't mean it's untrue, because objective science isn't the only truth that exists.

>>8833022
>Yes.

So, every single country on the planet should at this moment stop having political systems because political systems aren't objectively real.

>>8833019
Hey, wait a minute...
Aren't you the butthurt kid from last night ?

>>8833027
>But it doesn't mean it's untrue, because objective science isn't the only truth that exists.
This is annoying, it is untrue because it is unproven. Yes. Objective facts (especially scientific ones, which os exceptionally broad) are the only real "truths" we can say exist with any amount of certainty.

You breathe oxyen, oxygen exists. This is an objective fact because it is proven that you breathe oxygen.

I don't have time for this precursor argument to presuppositionalism...or whatever apologetics are going to follow. Both are autistic.

>>8833048
Again, that makes no sense.

>>8833058
>Objective facts (especially scientific ones, which os exceptionally broad) are the only real "truths" we can say exist with any amount of certainty.

So evolution isn't true, because speciation hasn't been observed.

>>8833022
What?
This is just stupid.
Religion relies on "truth" not truth.

>>8833050
>butthurt kid
If thats what you need to keep telling yourself to avoid a response.

>>8833064
>Again, that makes no sense.

Sure it does. Religion is just an elaborate social game, similar to a political system.

If you're going to argue that religion isn't real, then politics isn't either.

And neither is tic-tac-toe or Dungeons and Dragons either.

This thread, right now

>>8833066
Bullshit strawman
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

>>8833077
I'm not arguing that religion isn't real you fucking idiot, I'm arguing that their beliefs aren't real. Religions and political systems exist, there is physical evidence for them, to assume there isn't is a retarded meta-argument that serves no purpose. They are real in the sense that they are systems with which we conduct within and base human imposed rules around. They have social and REAL impacts on societies. I have bever once claimed some esoteric nonsense that they arent "physical bro". Just man made. That does not make them less real. You can study a religion or an economic theory or political spectrum, it has a tangible physicality to it. Your examples were silly.

What isn't tangible in a physical sense are the unproven beliefs that go beyond anything actually testable or verifiable.

>>8833084
Fair enough, I stand corrected.

But your fetishization of objective facts is just going to hurt you in the long run.

>>8833084
>strawman
>merely a paralogism
>Using rethoric's methodology terms while building his speech around argument from ignorance

>>8833102
>They are real in the sense that they are systems with which we conduct within and base human imposed rules around.

Exactly, and that's the only level of real they are ever going to get.

>>8833103
No it's not. All we have are objective facts, and people like you who muddle them and try to get people to give up and believe that there are things we can't explain, are part of the problem.

>>8833115
That doesn't make them unreal though. There is evidence for them.

>>8833117
>All we have are objective facts

That's not true at all. It's not an objective fact that you love your mother, and yet it's true anyway.

And it's not an objective fact that you have certain moral values, and yet it's true anyway.

>>8833113
You don't really know what any of that means, do you?

>>8833126
>It's not an objective fact that you love your mother
It is objectively true that I have evolutionary and biological responses that formulate my levels of effection for a parent, that are reinformed by my memories and past relationship with said parent...yes.
>And it's not an objective fact that you have certain moral values
It is objectively true that I follow a set of ethics or morals that I have either been introduced through upbringing or established on my own through experience, reflection or logical discourse...yes.

>>8833137
*affection

>>8833126
>>8833137
>bringing your mother into examples
It's time to stop kids

>>8833137
So the representation is true, but not the content for you.

"It's objectively true that humans have values" is not the same as "my values are objective".

One of them is description of humanity, the other is an admission that objective science cannot touch human subjectivity, because as far as science is concerned subjectivity isn't real.

>>8833157
>"It's objectively true that humans have values" is not the same as "my values are objective".
Yes, I am saying that. Humans have values, they are real in that we create, manage and have them. You moved the goal posts though, you were saying that things like stock markets or economies are not real...which was silly, and they don't really compare to human values so why you made that connection is beyond me.

Ultimately you seem to want me to agree that there is some measure of objectivity to beliefs without evidence that people "feel", but I won't agree with that in the slightest.

>>8833169
>you were saying that things like stock markets or economies are not real

I'm saying that the logical consequence of materialist philosophy is believing that stock markets and economies(among other things)isn't real.

I never said I believe this, because I don't.

>>8833157
>because as far as science is concerned subjectivity isn't real.
If your concept of subjectivity is immune from criticism, objectivity or correction of any kind, then it probably isn't something "real"

>>8833178
Well I never said I was a materialist, only that there are concrete explanations for everything and that Freud's concept of a subconscious is unproven.

I've been saying this all night, but triggered a bunch of faggot kids who were all armchair experts and possibly butthurt Sophists.

>>8833185
No. It's because science removes subjectivity a priori. The goal of science is to find objective facts, hence subjectivity is removed from the start.

This obviously is problematic, because it means that anything that doesn't fall within the scope of science is non-real, as you have illustrated yourself by saying "All we have is objective facts".

And if that's true, everything that we humans regard as purely social phenomena, are necessarily non-real.

Hence why I claimed that friendship, love and a whole plethora of other things would be considered unreal.

>>8833198
Added: I suppose I am not a steict materialist, as I don't disagree that everything has a physical answer or understanding, but I think perhaps you misunderstand materialist philosophy, since it mainly says that all phenomenon is explainable and physically testable.

I believe that. So my bad if I was wrong about what I actually believe.

>>8833210
*strict

>>8833210
No worries. I get what you're saying now.

>>8833209
I don't see why that is problematic, since there are physical non-phenomenon explanations for love and friendship and human made systems that are tangible and testable.

It seems pretty wonky to assume that there are magical things in your universe beyond science that you can't study or explain, there being phenomenons you cant currently explain, do not imply it is impossible to explain them. That is why I think there is a tangible answer to what a subconscious is

Having the worldview that not everything is testable, is what appears problematic. It seems lazy.

>>8833232
Well it is problematic, because it also means that morality isn't real, and you can justify unloading ebola on a village to see what happens scientifically.

The fact-value distinction isn't a joke, just so you know.

>>8833251
Morality is real in the sense that we make them, agree with a concensus in them had build some sort of system around them with parameters and rules. Morals are not absolutes.

>>8833310
Right, so morality isn't real then is what you're saying.

>>8832445

>MUH CIRCULAR
>MUH GAPS
>MUH RETHORICS
You're all fucking pathetic

>>8833335
Can you read?

>>8833398
>some arguments were circular
>it was gaps
>it was rhetoric

>>8833407
>HURR I POINT OUT RETHORIC TECHS IN AN ARGUMENT AND BASE MY OWNS SOLELY ON SAID RETHORIC I IS GENIUS
p.a.t.h.e.t.i.c.

>>8833417
Fucking shit you are autistic.