Why people think Freud was stupid?

[Anonymous No.10716077]

I just finished reading a reader of his works and realised that he was right about almost every single thing he said. Why do people hate him so much? Is it a defense mechanism?

[Anonymous No.10716083]

Reproducibility

[Anonymous No.10716094]

Big question, but I think part of it comes down to how he acquired his evidence (using an awfully limited sample pool of mainly aristocratic individuals), and the fact that a lot of his justifications rely, at their core, on intuitions. And many of those intuitions were disproven by science. It also doesn't help his case that some aspects of his work (I.e. how one becomes a homosexual) are blatantly wrong, detracting from his credibility.

Why not address a specific subject or theme of his work, though? You'll never get the answer you're looking for without diving into his work and grappling with it. Where do you think he was indisputably correct?

[Anonymous No.10716096]

>>10716077
because almost all of his ideas have been disproven

[Anonymous No.10716107]

Not OP, but what should I read after the Freud Reader by Peter Gay? Meaning, material that grapples with Freud's positions or even outright disproves them.
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10716112]

>>10716077
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10716120]

>>10716107
Freud's got a lot of ideas, any in particular you are interested in exploring further?

[Anonymous No.10716135]

>>10716096
you should never insult Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Freud, Jung or Baudrillard ever; extremely inauspicious

[Anonymous No.10716141]

>>10716077
He had his usefulness in a way, but many of his ideas were harebrained. Way too much focus on the sexual, drawing connections to the genitals where they just didn't exist. He had a hangup over hangups.

[Anonymous No.10716144]

Everything he was clearly right about was just common sense. Defense mechanisms, projections, etc.
The supposed substance of his philosophy is what stands in need of proof. Theories like the Oedipus Complex, etc

[Anonymous No.10716168]

>>10716120
Perhaps I should save this question for when I'm finished with the reader. I was just wondering if there existed some similarly assembled response to his ideas, but I suppose that was naive.

[Anonymous No.10716222]

>>10716168
Try 'Images of Freud: Cultural Responses to Psychoanalysis' - it's a compilation of essays mainly attacking Freud's ideas, but some also defending his views. But what I found helpful was figuring out a topic I was interested in (I.e. mourning and melancholia) and looking up responses directly related to it (you can get a start by looking at common media like wikis to see what external links they have)

[Anonymous No.10716415]

What did he say about my cuckold fetish?

[Anonymous No.10716437]

Is Sado-Masochism a pathological disorder?

[Anonymous No.10716451]

people get mad when the mirror is held up to them

[Anonymous No.10716458]

>>10716144
Freud's discoveries that are considered correct today were in no way common sense before he started releasing his findings. People don't give him nearly enough credit.

[Anonymous No.10716467]

>>10716458
They were common sense, they simply lacked appellations and were therefore referred by phrase.
Name one Freudian contribution

[Anonymous No.10716473]

>>10716077
He wasn't stupid, but he also wasn't right.

[Anonymous No.10716479]

>>10716467
Prove they were common sense. As for his contribution? How about the field of psychology.

[Anonymous No.10716488]

>>10716135
But Nietzsche and Baudrillard are proven right

[Anonymous No.10716493]

>>10716077
the pleasure principle is an understandable simplification but taken too seriously sounds retarded to me

[Anonymous No.10716499]

>>10716077
Freud was alright for his time, the problem are leftists who took his ideas and went autistic overdrive without actualizing them with new knowledge we acquired

[Anonymous No.10716506]

>>10716479
Wilhelm Wundt, not Freud

[Anonymous No.10716532]

>>10716479
>How about the field of psychology.

[Anonymous No.10716735]

>>10716499
>the problem are leftists
good critique

[Anonymous No.10716902]

>>10716096
It's not that they have been disproven, but that they cannot be proven because he used an introperspective method as opposed to an empirical method wich can be tested by another scientists in the field.

[Anonymous No.10717024]

He was right on a lot of things that millenials now think "triggering"
Studies on women that came up true
Sexual desire accurately measured
Gays are retarded

Etc

[Anonymous No.10717025]

>>10716077
>realised that he was right about almost every single thing
t. stupid person

[Anonymous No.10717030]

>>10716467
the unconscious?

[Anonymous No.10717049]

>>10717030
not Freud

[Anonymous No.10717057]

Because le crazy penis envy theory and "male chauvinism." It's funny because feminists actually have penis envy and want to cut off men's dicks. I think he was onto something.

[Anonymous No.10717255]

>>10717057
men cut their own cocks all the time, so they are kind of redundant.

[Anonymous No.10717267]

>>10716077
Because he makes up the object of his inquiry. Don't worry though, the entire 20th century believed in his theories as well so you're not alone in your dumbassery.

[Anonymous No.10717273]

>>10717267
didn't people think he was just a meme in Europe? so his intellectual descendants had to expand in the US and Argentina? Maybe France, but the French will fall for any meme that makes them sound like smart pseuds

[Anonymous No.10717279]

>>10717273
No, he was very popular in his time with the upper classes and his popularity within continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10717280]

>>10717279
his popularity continued*

[Anonymous No.10717281]

>>10717279
>and his popularity within continental philosophy.
was he really outside of france and before the frankfurt school? which philosophers did he influence

[Anonymous No.10717289]

>>10716902
it's been proven that he recanted some of his theories to avoid getting people big mad at him.

[Anonymous No.10718557]

>>10717024
We have a winner. Also before millennials, traditionalists didn't like him because they refused to accept the role of sexuality and not so free will. In short he said a lot of truths and pissed off everybody.

[Anonymous No.10718731]

>>10716077
because he was a sick pervert