Is psychoanalysis bullshit or no?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Is psychoanalysis bullshit or no?
Is psychoanalysis bullshit or no?
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Which parts specifically are you asking about? The act of talking works. Expressive writing has positive health benefits. There's a reason why churches have confession. And no doubt free-association exercises, even if you're not a trained Psychoanalyst will clue you into certain preoccupations of the subject. Which parts though are you asking about?
le lacan phallus signifiers
I mean the underlying theory. For example the idea that everyone fits into either a perverse, neurotic, or psychotic structure, and key events in childhood involving the person’s parents will permanently put a person into one structure or another. It comes off sounding like a fancier version of MBTI tests. Plus even in Lacanian psychoanalysis, the theory is very much based around children raised in a traditional two parent family, and I’ve never heard a convincing explanation for how it’s supposed to apply to single moms, gay parents, orphanages, etc.
You seem to think that, apart from Lacan (who is a fringe figure in most of the analytic world), psychoanalysis has been frozen in time since 1920, when it has not. The idea that Freud (or any analyst) thinks someone is permanently placed in one category based solely on select childhood events is a mischaracterization. There is a good deal of research out there on alternative family structures in development, including by analysts in the 1940s working with war orphans.
I’m certain I’ve read in multiple (Lacanian) secondary sources that once someone is in a structure, they cannot change.
Anyway my main point is that I’m not sure why I should believe in these “structures” in the first place. There’s an infinite number of ways of dividing people into categories.
>It comes off sounding like a fancier version of MBTI tests
Because it categorizes? The categories aren't surface behavioral observations.
>I’ve never heard a convincing explanation for how
He regards parents as functions not as daddy and mommy irl people.
>For example the idea that everyone fits into either a perverse, neurotic, or psychotic structure, and key events in childhood involving the person’s parents will permanently put a person into one structure or another
That part is bullshit and this is why Popper rightfully pointed out that you can't test these models to determine if they aptly describe the patterns of motivation and repression.
On the other hand the complexity of humans means that it is virtually impossible to isolate these tests. This is why there's a replication crises in Cognitive Priming and Nudge Theory - sure, maybe it works, but by the very nature of these being below the threshold of consciousness you can't be sure if the independent variable is the cause or something else.
>and key events in childhood involving the person’s parents will permanently put a person into one structure or another.
This is less bullshit. People are mimics. Maybe it's not down to a few "key moments", young couples especially, they are each mimicking the gender roles of their parents. Whats interesting is when you see two people fall in love and their parent's dynamics are inverted: the dominant female-submissive male and vice versa. More often than not people date people who's parents had similar dynamics to their own.
And that's not to speak about childhood trauma like abuse, losing a parent, injury etc.
> Plus even in Lacanian psychoanalysis
Totally different subject.
I'm currently trying to write a dissertation on Freud and Hegel, I'd be happy to try to answer questions if I can.
I thought Freud was dumb the first time I read him, and it was only after I read Lacan that I came to appreciate psychoanalysis (and oddly enough I now prefer just reading Freud). Is it all bullshit? No, but I also don't think Freud is someone who should be read at face value as having all the right answers. He's absolutely limited by his cultural assumptions and his attempt to make psychoanalysis a natural science. But I also think the questions he asks and the attempts he make are interesting and worth engaging even when he fails.
To give you a sense of what I mean in reference to this question. Sure, one way of reading Freud is to see him as claiming that boys want to frick their biological mothers and literally kill their biological fathers. But as you point out, this ties him to a very traditional account of the family. One of Lacan's points is that the Oedipal complex is a story about the mediation of desire--i.e., Freud tapped into something important about the fact that children are born dependent on caretakers who introduce them to "reality" and tell them how to make sense of their needs (e.g., "this is how we adults go to the bathroom, engage in romantic relationships, speak to one another, etc."). This dependence forms one arm of the Oedipal triangle, but the very caretakers who are responsible for shaping the child's desire are themselves beings who desire others. And in this way, the child who attempts to satisfy the demands and expectations of one caretaker already has their desire pointed beyond that specific person. So the Oedipal complex is really an insight about the omnipresence of the Third, the fact that desire is always mediated, etc. born from Freud's own insight concerning the "prematurity" or "helplessness" of the child
Different anon
> No, but I also don't think Freud is someone who should be read at face value as having all the right answers.
As far as I know, Freud changed his opinions quite a lot over time. So, you may read something from Freud and find out that he discarded that idea later on. In other words, he went through a journey of his own there, and that journey is in large part philosophical. I wonder if he actually agreed with the idea of Jung's collective unconscious toward end of his life when he wrote Civilization and Its Discontents.
>He's absolutely limited by his cultural assumptions and his attempt to make psychoanalysis a natural science.
He does seem to strongly oppose anything mystical and religious. It's a position that seems to be difficult to hold from some angles, which is why it stands in such a contrast to Jung.
>But I also think the questions he asks and the attempts he make are interesting and worth engaging even when he fails.
Well, where does he fail? I think society as it is now is 'castrating' males, to use his language. He uses a specific language but that's not as important as the principles that he outlines.
>Sure, one way of reading Freud is to see him as claiming that boys want to frick their biological mothers and literally kill their biological fathers.
Well, it's not entirely clear to me that there is not at least a bit of truth in that. Regardless, I do believe as you point out later that this can be taken from a different, non literary, angle. It's not so much that Oedipal complex is about mediation of desire as it is about the beginning, in which the child sees the mother as a sort of Goddess incarnate, or the figure on which the whole world depends. In some way it may be that if the mother isn't there, the world is about to crumble and be destroyed. Then of course further down the line you get to the "making sense of their needs" as you mention, even though I still think it's more about what the relationship of the little child with the Goddess is. Since that relationship serves as a template for other relationships and for understanding of the world, quite literally. It's only at the later stages that you can "wake up" and put the Goddess down so to speak, and become and adult.
Anyway, that's my two tips of the Freudian cigar. I don't know much about Lacanian psychoanalysis.
Well yes, is about how this Mother will cut you off from autistic self pleasure, introduce you to the world of others and direct you to something she wants so that you want that too. The job is easier when it's done with a father.
Not exactly. At some point you have to move from being your mother's son to being your father's son, which is observed by the initiation rites as interpreted and described by Joseph Campbell. World of the mother is pretty closed, which is why there is the castrating element in today's society.
Yes that's castration. It can be effected by the mother or the father.
I think what he means is that desire arises when you're cut off from the word of others. Your motive is no obligation, no need to please , no need to become (or not become) a given self image. I heard an analyst once that told that desire is paranoid. I like it very much but
I still wonder if that's true. How many are out there that are self directed?
>I think what he means is that desire arises when you're cut off from the word of others.
That's a pretty interesting idea, I like that.
>I heard an analyst once that told that desire is paranoid.
Hmm, paranoid as in constantly looking over the shoulder at what others may think about my actions, desires, emotions, etc.? Sartre's "Hell is other people" comes to mind in this paranoid interpretation.
>I still wonder if that's true. How many are out there that are self directed?
No idea. Though this reminds me of Abraham Maslow and his description of people that are mentally striving for self-realisation.
Here's a short article on it: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html
No, paranoid (paranoiac?) as in self generating / liberated from the word of other. That's what Lacan meant by "being the cause of your own desire".
Some analysts claim that Freud was paranoiac (a successful one, not the look over your shoulder type) and Lacan schizophrenic (again, successful). I think they might be not far from the truth
>The act of talking works. Expressive writing has positive health benefits. There's a reason why churches have confession. And no doubt free-association exercises, even if you're not a trained Psychoanalyst will clue you into certain preoccupations of the subject.
i suspect none of these things are true
>There's a reason why churches have confession.
specifically so they know the sins of the congregants, and use their mystical powers to absolve/blackmail them
>specifically so they know the sins of the congregants, and use their mystical powers to absolve/blackmail them
There’s definitely a streak of this in psychoanalysis, as much as they try to deny it. You cannot know the source of your problems and desires, because it’s unconscious - only the psychoanalyst is capable of helping you reach the truth about yourself. Lacanians come close to peddling a sort of mysticism where psychoanalysis is the only way to access a unique state of enlightenment, with their concepts like “the pass” and “traversing the fantasy”. It definitely gives off cult vibes.
lol read Foucault
How is Foucault relevant?
> You cannot know the source of your problems and desires, because it’s unconscious - only the psychoanalyst is capable of helping you reach the truth about yourself.
this is the construction of knowledge by power(the psychoanalysist). read Derrida while you are at it.
Should I become a Pendergast while I’m at it. IDIOT.
You haven't read it enough. They accept this criticism.
Doesn't really matter what you "suspect" or your intuitions about some mystical higher power. Free association and expressive writing are legitimate, scientifically proven methods for exploring the unconscious mind. You sound a little bit delusional to be honest
>i suspect none of these things are true
Okay then don't bother.
>talk therapy is false
t. Actual moron
You have to go leave.
Search your feelings anon
Yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful.
You only say this because you want to frick your own mother. You might say you don't, but I know you do and are repressing it
I mean, have you seen how much “mommy” porn is out there? There’s clearly something going on there.
yeah - it's created Freud's co-ethnics to artificially create a demand for degeneracy. Many such cases!
>mom fricking meme
If you guys actually bothered to read Freud you would find a lot with which you agree
homie, if you read Mein Kampf you will find a lot of with which you will agree. Thats not how reading works.
You only think this way because of your unconscious desire to frick your mom.
Prove me wrong - protip: you can't
one of the most successful goy physical and mental mutilation projects
>one of the most successful goy physical and mental mutilation projects
This.
''Freudian psychology was developed by the parasitic order to neutralize the incessant efforts of the host to throw off or dislodge the parasite. Any move to dislodge the parasite is denounced as “reactionary”. It is defined and outlawed as an act of aggression, hostility, and alienation. In fact, the host is merely trying to survive by throwing off the parasite. Another law of nature is that the parasite, not only by sucking off the life sustenance of the host, but also by altering its life cycle, will inevitably kill the host. This process is called “the decline and fall of civilization”. --[1984] The World Order Our Secret Ruler by Eustace Mullins
nah it's just out of fashion now in favor of sunshine and rainbows positive psych and neurobabble. not that either are a terrible thing, but most people lack the insight for it to amount to much beyond applying a fresh coat of paint to their psyches.
analysis was once purported to supply that insight, but the medical model of therapy today will prevent any clinical revival. as a form of self-help though, i think it's a great lens to view oneself through. particularly for morons whose understanding of personality disorders are "hmm yep i check those boxes on the DSM."
i hope people cycle back to some of the 80s SPP figures soon. andre green and chasseguet-smirgel deserve some time in the sun.
All psychiatry is bullshit. The modern DSM type shit is a circle jerk between the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical giants.
The underlying theory is bullshit, there is no subconscious as Freud describes it (remember, for Freud the unconscious is the seat of ideal dynamism of representations outside of representation, i.e. a complete impossibility).
Any amount of attention given to your underlying psychological problems from a secondary point of view will be useful. Despite its inaccuracy, Freud's theory provides a functional psychological heuristic. The issue is the solutions it provides will be biased by the theory, and might exacerbate the problems it tries to correct.
imagine actually thinking that the world is caused by its own abstraction and not the other way around
That's not really the contention. For Freud, ideas, absent of conscious representation, have effects on each other, through forces such as pression and condensation. The space of this interaction is the unconscious.
For a materialist, and even for an idealist (such as myself), this should be an obvious aberration. It makes no sense. On the material side there are cognitive and hormonal systems which gives a tonality, a mood and a rhythm to our conscious activity. *That* is the only unconscious that makes sense. Ideas have "effect" in reflexive action or as regulatory expressions. Their connections are eidetical, they do not depend on the connections operated within a space inside you, but on the possible connections between the intentional acts that can be directed toward them (i.e, the essential net of relations between all potential points-of-views between a pure consciousness and the objectivity in question).
A big problem with most of the psychology field is that a bunch of research is straight up not reproducible. Either people are unable to reproduce a lot of psychological research or when they do, they aren't able to get as big of an effect as initially stated.
Some of its conclusions are true, but you do not really need it to understand the world, have good "mental health", or even better society.
It is simply another attempt at creating a system around the truths of human behaviour which can be learned in a plethora of different ways.
Freud has never cured a patient
>never cured a patient
>cure
No shit. Why do you contribute to these threads if you so obviously don’t know what you’re talking about?
Freud was a complete fraud who did tremendous damage to the field of medicine. There's countless fields he set back generations, and it's a tragedy his quackery became more popular than the work of the likes of men such as Dr. Asperger, who actually knew what the frick he was doing. Reading anything Dr. Freud wrote is a total waste of time, and you'd be better off studying the work of Dr. Zoidberg, who unironically had a significantly better trackrecord curing patients:
https://www.amazon.com/Freud-Making-Illusion-Frederick-Crews/dp/1627797173
And keep in mind, I'm aware of the fact that Dr. Asperger was a Nazi who ordered the euthanasia of children. Even considering that, he was still significantly less damaging than Dr. Freud.
>complete fraud
Except that he was just about the only person on planet earth at one point to realize you could treat certain ILLNESS with mere TALKING, so yeah, besides being fundamentally unequivocally correct about the most important aspect of his theory, he was a total fraud. Right. have a nice day moron
Ingore the Fraud, read Jung instead.
psychoanalysis is bullshit
rank and becker correctly saw that it's not about sexuality but fear of death.
Except some people are intensely driven to death
YWNBAW
israelite lies
And your picrel was also a israelite unironically
Yes, psychology is bullshit, its based on gaslighting, self hypnosis and appeal to authority. There are no objective tests for diagnoses, except the subjective experience of the patient and subjective judgement of the psychoanalysist.
freud here, i was on a lot of coke and saw my mom taking a shit, that's what started all of this. but yeah it's basically all true
>birr dirr you think astrology is bullshit but you don't even know the crab has moved into the house of dildos, educate yourself
Science says...