Does anybody actually take Freud seriously?

Does anybody actually take Freud seriously?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the only thing he was right about was penis envy

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He has never cured a single person

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Be honest LULZ, have you actually read Freud? You do read the authors you post about, right?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm halfway through the interpretation of dreams. Honestly it reads more like the analysis of a car engine than it does the human psyche. Freud is profoundly uninspired.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm a fuckin' whiz at translating dreams. Haven't met a dream yet that I couldn't beat. What do you want translated?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I was in a really creepy and foggy forest running from a retarded aspie (he had the headphones on and everything) only to fall in a trap that lead into a room with a few naked girls who I had sex with.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hm. You have to have to escape (through change) your current aspie self in order to change your situation and to reach both your goals and to fuck hot chicks.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the headphones probably indicate that your aspie self is putting up a barrier in some way, making it hard to reach him.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You need to have sex with the retarded aspie. I must imagine that will make you very happy.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        also dream interpretation books are all bullshit, because dreams are 99% context.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's a doctor, not a poet.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t think anyone takes Feud seriously accept as a historical figure and first mover in the field. His popularisation of the theory of the unconscious of course did influence others like Jung, Bernays, and Lacan so it’s worth looking at his work just for that connection.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >influence others like Jung, Bernays, and Lacan so it’s worth looking at his work just for that connection
      I would say that those writers are not worth looking at due to their connection to Freud.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >don't read Bernays
        What are you smoking?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literary critics, cultural studies scholars, and continental style philosophers do whatever they can to prop him up.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lacanians and their descendants. Look up Stephanie Swale's thesis thing, it's a modern defense of Lacanian psych.

    More credible to me than CBT BS IMO

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jung was an improvement.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    His only fault is spawning the intellectual likes of Jung. His own work is massively based, innovative, genius, and hugely profound. Of course LULZ is too mid-wit to "get" him and get filtered instead.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Of course LULZ is too mid-wit to "get" him and get filtered instead
      very true, many such cases

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >His own work is massively based, innovative, genius, and hugely profound. Of course LULZ is too mid-wit to "get" him and get filtered instead.
      I've never heard anyone make a compelling defense of his work. The best I ever see is people claiming his bullshit is slightly better than the bullshit that proceeded it.
      Every field of intellectual inquiry he influenced ended up worse because of him. He, his work, and the field of study he created are truly indefensible.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He nailed the role of opposite sex parents in the development of the child sexuality, he nailed the relationship (conceptually) between the Id, The Ego, and The Super Ego. He identified the very existence of the subconscious and how it can operate at odds to the conscious mind. He made so many fundamental contributions to human understanding that you likely take most of it for granted without even knowing it was established by Freud.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Freud took most of those things from earlier 19th century philosophers, the main difference being child sexual development and incestuous complexes.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Him and Marx deserve damnato memoriae for all the shitposting they attract.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody takes Freud seriously. His legacy was that he was the first person who looked at hopelessly crazy people and thought "lets try to help them, instead of chaining them to a wall for the rest of their life and blasting them with a firehose."

    And now looking at what happened to mental health in the US, with special education being an utter burden on the failure that is modern education, and entire cities like Portland and Los Angeles becoming giant open air mental asylums, I wish we'd bring back the firehoses.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the marc marons of the world

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I unironically do. Psychology of the modern age has gone entirely in the wrong direction. Contemporary psychology is about being cognizant of your self and internal states and past. It is effectively an internal police state designed to make you weird and repressed so you keep going to work and stop complaing. Freudian psychology centers product albeit flawed psychological mechanisms that generate reality and desire. Even the prescription of cocaine was about energy and working through these issues rather correcting some flawed internal state. If you've ever been to a psychiatrist you know it's a pointless shit show so I have reason to think Freud was heading in a better direction than his contemporaries at the time who now dominate our flawed psychiatric system

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      tmst

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If you've ever been to a psychiatrist you know it's a pointless shit show
      Not my experience at all. You are wrong.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's gnomish, so no.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      /thread

      LULZ really needs to get more redpilled in its choice of discussed authors.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He laid the ground for psychoanalisis and I'm a sucker for Jung so there's that.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Freud the what? Freud the psychoanalyst? no, not really. Freud the anthropologist? yeah for sure. Civilization and its discontents and Totem and Yaboo are two tremendously enlightening books: which first form an antidote against many rather hopeless depictions of civilization, and second are some of the best explanations I've read on how it is that arbitrary rules such as those of law and tradition get formed.

    It's Amazing how much his description of superstition and religion matches up with the current popular idea of genes as the carrier of ancestral memory. Some bit of us that survives from from the fires in the caves and still occasionally tugs at us

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i honestly think you have to have very little experience or interaction with actual people to not take freud seriously

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    reading him right now

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The modern manifestation of what Freud was speaking about is cuckholdry. I suspect there are cultural influences which alter how these phenomena express themselves. Most men have a primal instinct against being cuckholded, as it is a symbolic castration. Of course, because today's society is so sexually perverted, this ultimate fear becomes inverted into a sexual thrill for some sad souls. If you take even a cursory look at modern society you will find all kinds of parallels to what Freud wrote about.

Your email address will not be published.