Is psychoanalysis true or is it all just a scam? Reading excerpts from people like Freud, Lacan, Erikson etc...

Is psychoanalysis true or is it all just a scam? Reading excerpts from people like Freud, Lacan, Erikson etc. I cant help but feel like it's all based on nothing, and all they really achieve is looking for sexual motives behind every action people do. Even amongst authors who were only partially psychoanalysts (pic related), it's still always the weakest and strangest part of their work.

Attached: Lasch.jpg (200x251, 7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymotion.com/video/x2c1w79
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Psychoanalysis is a true, but it works only insofar as it leads one to some level of introspection. Your average normie is completely incapable of introspection so they pay someone else to more or less do it for them.

>Your average normie is completely incapable of introspection so they pay someone else to more or less do it for them.
user, you've solved a problem I was struggling with for a long time. This is the best definition I've seen. I was pondering why so many people go to psychologists today when compared to not long ago, like 10-20 years. One of the main reasons I've grasped is because of the isolation and detached communication in modern life. Back them there where communities, and even friends, that you really shared meaning with, and these groups would provide that instrospection about yourself. For normies are able to be sincere about others, but never about themselves.

The existence of subconscious mental processes is backed by neuroscience.

The way psychoanalysis tries to learn about is is obviously not at exact science, it cannot really be. It is part speculation, part creating models using empirical data.

it's 100% real, I think it was freuds daughter or freud analysing his daughter or something but this young girl had had these dreams/fantasies from a very young age, basically 100s of variations on a knight being captured by an evil knight and tortured and stuff in a kind of s and m way, pretty interesting if you can find it. definitely legit if the analyst isn't a hack

>Your average normie is completely incapable of introspection so they pay someone else to more or less do it for them.
This is true, but often times non-normies have inflated egos and have a hard time introspecting sincerely, and simply deluded themselves and do not scan themselves critically and through multiple lenses. Having a second opinion is always good, especially if you have a strong concrete about yourself, since often times it’s a self psyop. It doesn’t have to be a psychologist (although not bad option), just someone else who is intellectually introspective as well. Having people challenge your mentality is a good thing and prevents echo chambering.

>The existence of subconscious mental processes is backed by neuroscience.
This only confirms a small facet of psychoanalysis, and not the bulk of its work that seeks to reduce everything to neuroses and repressed sexuality. Nothing in modern neuroscience affirms that.

>The existence of subconscious mental processes is backed by neuroscience.
Yes, insomuch that the brain is maintaining the body like keeping the heart pumping, but that has nothing to do with psychoanalysis.

it's a long term process of atomisation, Freud plays a large role, but also liberal individualism, and industrial society more broadly and the theological understanding of the self is replaced by a therapeuthic understanding, organic relationships by contractual ones. That's why many on the liberal left have started thinking about their relationships in terms of 'emotional labour' exporting the contractual and therapeutic framework to an intimate terrain that was previously seen as the opposite of it.

dailymotion.com/video/x2c1w79

Psychoanalysts didnt discover the subconscious, brainlet. They gave it a certain name and then fell back on that as a discovery when their real theories did nothing

>repressed sexuality
That’s only Freudian psychoanalysis desu. A lot of extensions of psychoanalysis (like Anna Freud’s) downplayed the importance of the secual instinct that Freud was so fixated on.

Wanna know how I know you haven't read psychonalysis? Psychoanaylsts call it the unconscious.

Just watch the Sopranos. Tony gets psychoanalyzed for seven years, but thinks it's a scam even after seven years. Like, clearly he was learning about his problems, and maybe trying to get control of his life and emotions, but he still doubted it - even with an Italian female psychiatrist. Great show and really illustrates the weirdness of it. Also, I had a nightmare about a past therapist recently. Don't stick around if you suspect the therapist is stupid or making your problems worse or just kind of a cunt. Not worth it.

I was very into Freud in university, until I realized that his theories based on his patients experiences. So... It can't be applied to all 'normal' people. Right.

But everybody is sick, so it doesnt matter

Psychoanalysis isn't about looking for the sexual motive behind everything. That's a cartoon.

Is the success of Edward bernays in mind raping society proof of Freud's theories?

>true or is it all just a scam
Is anything true or is it all a scam?

Freud was innovative for his time, but we Beyond Freedom and Dignity now. Mass pavlovian social engineering is the only solution

>2019
>Still believing in free will
>not a radical behaviourist

“It is a surprising fact that those who object most violently to the manipulation of behaviour nevertheless make the most vigorous effort to manipulate minds.”-BF Skinner

Attached: teorias_de_personalidad_en_psicologia_b_f_skinner_889_600.jpg (519x340, 43K)

I highly recommend a short series of lectures by Lacan collected in a bookform entitled My Teaching. It is his only attempt to explain himself to the layman and details why Freud is still relevant. Very interesting and a good intro to both thinkers.

That's a good point. You can associate products to ideas, for these are easier to sell.

You can say that psychoanalysis is the search for meaning inside the subconscious. For Freud that meaning is always sexual, tho.

He usually had mostly "normal people" as patients, he had some more severe cases. When you read his dream literature it is almost all mostly healthy people with common neurosis (anxiety, depression - called melancholia back then I think-, and phobias of sorts.) He makes notes (at the outset of a proposition) when he derives a conclusion from a patient of more severe mental trauma, i.e schizo, insane, and such. So I would not say that most psychoanalysis is based off of very "sick people," but at the same time suppose that it doesn't matter (in most cases) if they're very sick or just a small neurosis, because it is all the same machinery.

You could say the same of platonic eros

>radical behaviorist

If you are being serious please look more into cognitive development and learning especially with regards to language. I'm not even talking about your position on free will, behaviorism in general is no longer helpful to any sciences or areas of study which require a theory of mind.

It's fraudulent to call it scientific but there is some therapeutic value. There is no such thing as mind-reading, that's the oldest power-grabbing trick in human history, that's what ancient priests used to do. Psychiatric medication is fraudulent and psychiatric diagnosis has intolerable political potential ("why do you think you need to own a gun?").

No, the reason you have heard of Freud and Einstein is the success of Bernays.

I'm just into the high modernist ethos of Skinner's work, an ethos that is sorely lacking in this day and age, a boundless trust in Science, and a willingness to take liberal enlightenment presuppositions to their logical conclusions. Our society is already a deterministic pavlovian feedback system, an adhoc construction that is killing the planet and making people massively confused and unhappy. I just hold hope in this naive faith that Victorious Reason will dissipate the storm clouds and Man will bathe in the warm light of utopia beyond God, beyond freedom and beyond dignity

“In watermelon sugar the deeds were done and done again as my life is done in watermelon sugar. I will tell you about it because I am here and you are distant.”
― Richard Brautigan, In Watermelon Sugar

Attached: DALOZ-geodesic_dome_summer.png (937x528, 934K)

Id, ego, superego -> appetites, passions, reason. It's pseudoscience, which is blasphemy against the Logos, and obscene pseudoscience at that.

who do they want to scam ??

If you want to suspect a scam, try those that wants to sell you pills to solve your "mental problems", thats a big business therefore vulnerable to be a big scam.

I don't know if Freud is real or not, and I can't really be assed to find out, but it acknowledges a non-scientific dimension to human psychology/psychiatry that is missing from the modern field. Very little about modern psychology/psychiatry is scientific, but it plays out, speaks of itself, and operates as though it had attained the same excellence in scientific procedure as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.

I too loved modernism once. You have the right hopes in mind.

if you believe that believe in reason as the highest good is a mean of man to put himself above God, then you are sorely mistaken. God gifted man with freewill, and with it reason, and both can be used for bad and good; you ought use it for good instead of bad.

>blasphemy against the logos
fucking kill yourself marcus

Attached: GetALOAD.jpg (114x125, 7K)

Your God is an empty consolation, belief in the soul a retreat into selfishness, humanism has failed to live up to its own promises. We are way too frightened by the light of radical demystification, by our own biological animal nature, by the uncanny continuity between the mineral and the animal between the human and the machine. I say, Per Monstra ad Astra. through the monstrous to the heavens. blast religion, familialism,racial or ethnic provincialisms, political ideology and the ultimate illusion of the autonomous self.