Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Sigismund Schlomo Freud

- Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:48:34 EST 5RTvrSPf No.207468
File: 1481964514674.png -(13424B / 13.11KB, 683x198) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Sigismund Schlomo Freud
What can /pss/ tell a layman about Mr. Froids?
Cedric Sacklespear - Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:59:40 EST 0aDGMcny No.207470 Reply
He was a smart dude who had a lot of interesting ideas and served as a catalyst for a necessary evolution in the discipline of psychiatry.

A lot of what he said was wrong though, or only true if you look at it in a metaphorical way. Freudian psychoanalysis is relatively rare nowadays. But his utilization of breaking the self into constituents of id, ego and superego is still very insightful and useful in certain circumstances.

His intuition about the sexual/libidinal origin of psychological phenomena was closer to the mark than people are even still willing to admit.

He had a killer beard.
Ernest Hizzlehall - Mon, 19 Dec 2016 14:05:53 EST 54PBc7Id No.207487 Reply
I whole-heartedly agree.
I studied Freud in college just for fun, but my roomie, a Psych major, also studied Freud in an academic setting. Let me tell you, they really disrespect and shit on Freud in academic Psych even though he clearly advanced the field in many ways, which is worthy of respect. You're right that people aren't even willing to admit how correct he was about sexuality. That being said, he definitely had his own weird issues that worked their way into his work.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:23:50 EST jpxkgu/G No.207496 Reply
Freud's most important and revolutionary idea was that you are at the mercy of mental processes that are beyond your conscious awareness. The (almost universally wrong) specifics of his theories are mostly irrelevant in light of this central, penetrating insight. The modern study of the mind took this idea and ran with it.
Matilda Gommertodging - Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:31:46 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207497 Reply

Isn't the subjective vs objective in psychology a valuable concept 'discovered' by him too? I'm pretty sure, from what I remember from my psych 101 classes; the whole deal with therapists affecting their patient during therapy is originally from Freud as his therapy was designed to avoid this influence of the 'healer'.
Henry Fanworth - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 10:38:13 EST 54PBc7Id No.207501 Reply
Freud understood the subconscious pretty well. People don't respect the significance of the subconscious.
Phineas Brookham - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:05:10 EST pGdi6pf4 No.207502 Reply
1482516310556.jpg -(362324B / 353.83KB, 1321x1920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I personally adore this man’s books and I consider The Interpretation of Dreams my guide in life and thought. I even have a fridge magnet in his semblance. To me, Freud means no less than a revolution in the history of rationality. I’m currently reading Moses and Monotheism and agreeing a lot with his speculations on primitive Jewish history (the Akhnaten link was already in my mind).

I think the first sentence in this post
is right on the spot as an answer to your question. As for the other sentences, I’d change the second one to: the (almost universally wrong) _critical views on_ his theories are mostly irrelevant in light of this central, penetrating insight. I wouldn’t know about the third one, I thought the “modern” (non-Freudian) study of the mind had a name that began with neuro- and studied the nervous system from a medical perspective, expecting to find thought in there. Whatever it is, I don’t think there’d be some concept of the unconscious. Not in Freud’s sense anyway.

But whatever the details, the point is that Freud found these mental processes which constitute the mind’s backbone so to speak, and they _are_ just out of reach of our awareness, of our consciousness as we are awake and sober, which doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all, because they manifest themselves here and there, in bizarre ways, e.g. in dreams. This implies the mind possesses a structure previously unheard-of, unprecedented in scientific knowledge (he wrote in one of the little footnotes that Philosophy had never considered such a structure for the Subject).

Also, enthusiasts like me and (I imagine) the flicker fellow tend to lure the profane into Freud saying he discovered the occult in the mind, the big secret, the unexpected, which is of course all true, but we also gently ignore, maybe for a moment, the sexual content of the mystery. What
say about people still unwilling to admit Freud’s views on sexuality is very, very true. To our amusement, we can even read him foreseeing his rejection on the grounds of his theory’s nature. On this topic, Freud is now a century ahead of the part of common opinion that would reject him (in favor of repression, of course), which makes reading him all the more illuminating.

Read The Interpretation of Dreams.
Albert Pockgold - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:12:23 EST 5RTvrSPf No.207503 Reply
So everyone talks about how his understanding of sexuality is profound and denied out of prudish objections. What exactly are the sexual truths he speaks of?
Hugh Sobberchitch - Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:04:11 EST dm41dPYY No.207504 Reply
Idk frood but ill try. Penis envy. People wanna fucl their parents
Phoebe Semmlestog - Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:50:56 EST DLzNkYBL No.207509 Reply
Mainly that every kind of volitional behavior and particularly subconscious impulses arise from sublimated or not so sublimated sexual/libidinal desires. Even phenomena so abstract as culture itself arise from the need to constrict and control the drive to obtain what one desires, and that these emerge from the sexual impulse because this is the only 'abstract' drive unlike the need for food, sleep, etc.
It's much more detailed than that, but that's the gist.
Walter Brerringcocke - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 05:04:53 EST fRXySuYb No.207513 Reply
Sounds sort of like circular logic. I'm not necessarily arguing against it or that he is wrong but it seems like Solipsism, cool idea to think about but it isn't falsifiable so how can it be proven?

I could relate the fact that I walk slightly different from everyone else to sex if I wanted to get really contrived. I dunno mayne. Not saying it is wrong at all, I think he is on to something but how can it be a good hypothesis if it relies on the subconscious or a part of the brain that we can't access in an objective and scientific manner?
Phoebe Semmlestog - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:32 EST DLzNkYBL No.207514 Reply
I don't see how it's circular at all. A circular argument requires the conclusion to be contained within the premise.
The fact that you walk differently from others IS due to re-directed libidinal impulses, under Freud's theory (unless it's a physical condition.) Your attempt to actualize your ego by behaving in a different way from your peers is a way of signaling your uniqueness to mates -- that one is actually pretty cut and dry.

Moreover, the subconscious is in no way unamenable to empirical ('objective and scientific') analysis. The subconscious is merely the part of the mind which is held at a level of attention so low that it doesn't enter into our executive process, which is a relatively small neural network. All subconscious brain activity occurs with the exact same kind of neuronal activity that conscious activity does, and in fact occurs in a vastly larger degree, so it is as directly susceptible to empirical investigation as everything else about the brain/mind.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.