He was absolutely right, but nobody wants to admit it
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
He was absolutely right, but nobody wants to admit it
He was absolutely right, but nobody wants to admit it
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Yeah dude all dreams are symbolically sexual, people only repress sexuality and nothing else, so freaking true
its true for israelites
>Yeah dude all dreams are symbolically sexual, people only repress sexuality and nothing else, so freaking true
He did not actually say that. You are making strawman out of Freud. You are either misrepresenting his views on purpose or by error.
Unironically read more Freud
He was wrong, but he was pushing the bounds of what was known at the time, so he can't really be faulted for being wrong.
He was on to something, but he also projected his own sexual issues onto the rest of humanity.
Right about what?
>Oedipal complex
>Jesus, Mary and God
Dudes worship them, and hate on Freud because he told them the truth.
Yes, christians are stuck on the phallic phase. This is why they get so mad about it, they stunted their development.
Jung expounded upon the religious psychological impulse and symbolism present in all humans
Btfo'd by D. H. Lawrence. Desire is not a lack but an overflowing power. The unconscious is not a post-hoc cavern where dark thoughts get imprisoned but the pre-existant ground of the mind that the ego springs forth from.
Power implies lack as well. As for yhe unconscious, I thought this was Freud’s point, that the unconscious is the basis and the conscious what is formed.
>Power implies lack as well.
No it doesn't. Freud's unconsciousness is a dungeon for thoughts that the conscious mind suppresses, it can't be the ground for the conscious mind because it requires the conscious mind to first create it as the "dungeon horrible" to imprison the thoughts it dare no longer think: "Such place had prepar'd for those rebellious, here thir prison ordained."
Power is a paradoxal concept, in that it is always willing itself, in constant movement, ever expanding, limitless. The one character of a manifest expression of force, of burst, does not betray, nor contradict, its inherent nature to surpass itself, as in such a manifestation of power it would only affirm itself in order to surpass itself by overcoming such a potentiality, it is not constrained within a certain limit.
Now regarding Freud, it is weird that we have unconscious impulses since we are born, that perhaps he wouldn't classify as unconscious since this will imply its counterpart that is the conscious. Maybe he would say that both arise at the same time with a scission (parents?). I haven't read Freud yet as you can see, but I can't think how he could derive the unconscious as an effect of the conscious.
What does it mean if I have recurring dreams of being an on the ground witness to a plane crash
the plane represents the penis, crashing represents child trauma of not fricking your mother
they represent your father and your desire to dominate him
without joking, by going with the rough outline of dream analysing i know from freud's introductory lectures, i would assume that it has something to do with you having seen your parents have sex with each other, or something similar in this direction, like overhearing them or finding a used condom, at some point in your childhood.
The solution, if there can be one, would be to find a women to have sex with yourself
This never happened to me though. what would Freud say to that?
the plane represents an inhumane or unnatural movement, or rather motion, in your life and you watching it unfold, that's my interpretation at least
you morons, in the interpretation of dreams freud explicitly says that it's not about "oh your teeth falling out means this and if a spoon appears it's that!" he argues that all dreams are wish-fulfillment fantasies and through the process of psychoanalysis the analyst and the analysand figure out what wish(es) are being fulfilled in the patient's dreaming life. it's necessarily different for each person.
Don't know what Freud would say, but I'll take a stab at interpretation. There's not a ton of detail or much to go on from that alone, but perhaps the dream symbolizes a sense of impotence you've been feeling recently. Watching a disaster unfold without being able to do anything to stop it from occuring.
Maybe you're feeling stuck in life and unable to change certain aspects of yourself, viewing your own future with unease and a sense of helplessness.
I regularly dream about having sex with my sisters and my mom
Ironically he opens the door for the opposite as well. israelites should really be obscurantists if they really cared about their well being. They can't help themselves though.
He was just projecting his nonsense onto everyone else to claim he was normal despite his perverse thoughts.
>bisexual or pansexual
same thing
pansexual is a signal that you’re down with non-binary people. A virtue, one might say.
Where is the field at today? You have giga chads like Freud and Jung but who are modern day scholars?
>"When, a few days later, I was visiting Freud's laboratory, his sister-in-law asked me if she could talk with me. She was very much bothered by her relationship with Freud and felt guilty about it. From her I learned that Freud was in love with her and that their friendship was indeed very intimate. It was a shocking discovery to me, and even now I recall the agony I felt at the time."
>"Freud had some dreams that bothered him very much. The dreams were about the triangle. Freud, his wife, and wife's younger sister. Freud had no idea that I knew about the triangle and his intimate relationship with his sister-in-law. And so, when Freud toldme about the dream in which his wife and her sister played important parts, I asked him to tell me some of his personal associations with the dream. He looked at me with bitterness and said, 'I could tell you more, but I cannot risk my authority.' That, of course, finished my attempt to deal with his dreams. . . . If Freud had tried to understand consciously the triangle, he would have been much, much better off."
>"The next traumatic event occurred in 1910, the year of the Second Congress of the Association of Psycho-Analysis, where Freud proposed, and even insisted against organized opposition, that Jung should be appointed Permanent President. "My dear Jung," he urged on this occasion, as Jung tells, "promise me never to abandon the sexual theory.That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark." He said this with great emotion, in the tone (states Jung) of a father saying, "And promise me this one thing, my dear son: that you will go to church every Sunday." In some astonishment Jung asked him, "A bulwark-against what?" To which he replied, "Against the black tide of mud"-and here he hesitated for a moment, then added-"of occultism."
22271453
>"The incompatibility of the two minds was clear; yet they contrived to work together until the next congress, in 19I2, in Munich, where Freud was again overwhelmed by his oedipal myth. Someone had turned the talk to Ikhnaton, suggesting that because of a negative attitude toward his father he had destroyed his father's cartouches on the steles, and that in back of his creation of a monotheistic religion there lay, therefore, a father complex. Jung, irritated by such talk, responded that lkhnaton had held his father's memory in honor and that what his zeal had been directed against was the name of the god Amon: other pharaohs had replaced their fathers' names with their own, feeling they had a right to do so as incarnations of the same god; yet they had not inaugurated a new religion... On hearing which words, Freud slid off his chair in a faint."
>"The only thing he saw in my work," Jung said in his talk with Dr. Billinsky, "was resistance to the father' -my wish to destroy the father. When I tried to point out to him my reasoning about the libido, his attitude toward me was one of bitterness and rejection." More deeply, however, as Jung went on to explain: "It was my knowledge of Freud's triangle that became a very important factor in my break with Freud". And then," he continued, "I could not accept Freud's placing authority above truth."
For a race as obsessed with malformed sexuality as israelites are, I'm yet to read any erotic poetry or literature from them that amounted to something more than just semen spraying everywhere. They have zero understanding of the erotic at all.
Not only has an Oedipus complex never existed, but Freud either completely misunderstood or more likely purposely misrepresented the entire basis of this complex. He based it upon an ancient Greek myth the story of Oedipus. Although he first advanced the theory of the Oedipus complex in 1910 it was not until 1920 that he published three essays which purported to establish the foundations for this theory the projection of infantile sexuality.
It has been said that the Oedipus complex is the nuclear complex of the neuroses and constitutes the most important part of their content, because this complex, appearing early in life, is the basis for all later neuroses. It represents the peak of infantile sexuality which Freud claims appears in the first year of infancy and forever after molds the nervous structure of the adult. In fact, there is not the slightest evidence that “infantile sexuality” reaches its peak in the first year of lif, or that there is even such a phenomenon as infantile sexuality. Of course, this did not bother Freud. If there were no such thing as infantile sexuality, he would invent it. He built the Oedipus complex by tacking his pet sexual obsessions onto the myth of an ancient Greek King, Laius of Thebes. When Laius consulted the Delphic Oracle to divine his future, he was told that a child born to him and his wife Jocasta would become his murderer. A son, Oedipus, was born to him, and he had the child set out to die on Mt. Cithaeron. Years later, Oedipus, who had been rescued and brought up by a kindly shepherd who found him lying there, met Laius on a narrow path. After a quarrel as to who had the right of way, they fought, and Oedipus killed him. He continued on to the city of Thebes, where he met Laius’ widow, Jocasta, who was also his mother, and married her. The shepherd then appeared, and revealed the true origin of Oedipus, ho was overcome by remorse. He blinded himself, while Jocasta hanged herself. This legend, typical of its overtones of traditional Greek tragedy, had deep implications that we must become aware of our identity if we are to lead satisfactory lives, but Freud showed no understanding of this. Instead, he completely distorted the legend by claiming that every male child, even in the first year of infancy, as it writhes in torments of infantile sexuality, is bedeviled by jealousy of the father whom the child wants to kill so that he can have sex with his mother.
Only a israelite could bring to a traditional myth such perversion and such distortion. As Szasz points out, the Freudian elements jealousy of the father and the desire to have intercourse with the mother are completely lacking in the original myth. Donald Wormell writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica notes that the Freudian interpretation has no similarity to the classical Greek story, because Oedipus as an infant had no jealousy of his father whom he did not know or any desire to have intercourse with his mother whom he did not know.
>Freud showed no understanding of this. Instead, he completely distorted the legend by claiming that every male child, even in the first year of infancy, as it writhes in torments of infantile sexuality, is bedeviled by jealousy of the father whom the child wants to kill so that he can have sex with his mother.
I thought it was more a case of split attention. The mother to the child is a source of nourishment, and the presence lf the father means the mother cannot devote all of her nurturing affection to the child alone thus creating jealousy.
(Not defending Freud's theory of sex just trying to re-state or summarize it here more thoroughly)
>notes that the Freudian interpretation has no similarity to the classical Greek story, because Oedipus as an infant had no jealousy of his father whom he did not know or any desire to have intercourse with his mother whom he did not know.
Overly literal and nit-picking, the point is that there are a lot of stories and myths which center around the killing of a father figure. And this abundance of myths about sons killing their fathers might suggest a restrained desire which cannot be politely, directly stated without social approbation.
>And this abundance of myths about sons killing their fathers might suggest a restrained desire which cannot be politely, directly stated without social approbation.
Only in greek mythology though.
All the myths which say otherwise are simply a product of that repressed desire.
The israelites emphasis on absolute obedience to the father in the OT only further testifies to their desire to frick their mums and kill their dads obscured under the demand to "honor thy father". Honor thy father would not need to be stated, formalized into law, if they didn't wish to kill their fathers.
White people and israelites are such sex obsessed homosexuals holy shit. No wonder they came up liberalism and sexual revolution to destroy the institutions of marriage and family
About what?
of humans are bisexual or pansexual
Where did Freud wrote that?
I like his other famous quote.
> All israelites are perverts and freaks except Wittgenstein
another reddit thread full of morons
>was
correct
theories of personality are dime a dozen in psychology and since freud there have been many new theories
About what and why?
there is merit in his concepts but I think he fumbled, though sexuality and deviancy were maybe seen differently back then...the only thing I think he posited well was the death drive
Evola BTFO him. Freud is very low-level occult knowledge.
You think he ever got to tap that?