His ideas were so absurd that it's difficult to believe, but he was right about everything

>dude like i'm a freudian
dude like link some articles. I have free time to ruin my brain with Freud's bullshit.

He was a drug addict - cocaine - and there is no evidentiary basis for his theories.

Read Frederick Crews. Read the articles published in the New York Review of Books.

Freud as some kind of literary theorist? Fine. Sure.

But a scientist whose theories had any kind of scientific evidentiary basis? Nope. All stories to the contrary = propaganda.

Attached: 1269603012.gif (265x285, 1.91M)

>He was a drug addict
Ad hominem. You might impress a normie with this, but not me. Disprove his ideas. Disprove the Oedipus complex and the existence of the unconscious mind right now.

I thought it was all a bullshit abstraction until I started seeing the "dark woman" in my dreams. Jung seems to have been much closer to the realities of the psyche and the practical application of psychoanalysis, based on what I've read of the two.

fave freud books:
three essays on the theory of sexuality
beyond the pleasure principle
civilization and its discontents
also you have to read on narcissism (1914)
totem and taboo was genius too
moses and monotheism is worth checking out
the future of an illusion is nothing you don't already know
i'd skip his early work i.e. on hysteria, the interpretation of dreams, etc
although his analyses of his early patients (dora, the wolf man, schreber, little hans) are of mythological status
the book i'm read which proves a lot of his theories (albeit indirectly, without any reference to him) is called behave by robert sapolsky
it's more /sci/ than Yea Forums though

Freud didn't come up with the idea of the unconscious mind

>behave by robert sapolsky
I've read some of Sapolsky's essays. The research on baboons and hyper-masculinity. I'll have to check that out.
Heard Moses and Monotheism is great too, just haven't had time.

Who did

Check'd but Friedrich Schelling came up with the term

Also Nietzsche talked about it often.

it's like 770 pages, it's pretty entertaining and great food for thought though, i'm enjoying slowly plowing my way through it
heh moses and monotheism is definitely a highly theoretical work, and controversial, but definitely interesting if you're interesting in the history of religion. that is definitely one of freud's theories - that there were two moses, one who was murdered by the band of brothers, and another whom delivered at the tablet at the shadow of mount sinai, and that they both represented different gods, and that our conception of the judaic god is a synthesis of these two moses', the first murdered by his people, the tablet under the shadow of mount sinai an attempt to atone for the guilt over the murder of the Primordial Father - that is, well, highly theoretical

Attached: 0e9.jpg (499x499, 26K)

>"dark woman" in my dreams.
I haven't read much Jung (couldn't get through Memories, Dreams, Reflections). Is this a dream archetype? Any convenient text more specifically describing his theories?

Freud was partly drug-addled and partly brilliant, but more as theorist than practitioner. Plenty of other Freudians were hacks with unfounded beliefs and practices. Erich Fromm, R.D. Laing, and Rollo May have some good writings out there that talk about family relationships/roles that doesn't get anywhere near Freud-land.

oedipus complex is straight up a Big Idea that people just dismiss because they can't grasp it or something, like Eternal Life in Christ, y'know? like, not saying whether either are true or false (they're probably both false), just that those are Big Ideas

you only realize how right he was when you solve your first trauma.

that's fucking out there, but interesting. In relation to the "adult" cartoon Big Mouth, the comedian Nick Kroll has talked about how guilt is a Jewish sin and shame is a Catholic sin. It might just be the words themselves, because I think they both mean more or less the same thing. Guilt can mean more like failing to do something, and so more is expected of you, whereas shame means inability to free oneself from one's error, which basically means "be more chaste, repent, and pray."
Anyways, does he say anything about early Christianity or Catholicism? No two Christs, though, right?

Belief doesn't work if you're conscious of what you're believing.

I think this is the foundation of cognitive dissonance: when we become aware that part of us believes that we're unsure about our beliefs.

Which, I mean, this doubt probably is brought on by big ideas and "Belief-challenging" exercises or books or lectures or whatever. I mean, challenging beliefs is about challenging yourself in order to grow. But again, yeah, maybe it's not the best thing for everyone, paradoxically.

>Is this a dream archetype?
Yes user, the Anima. The first stage of a man's integration of his unconscious. I am still working on this phase.
>Any convenient text more specifically describing his theories?
I am reading Psychology and Alchemy, which is a massive volume. However, On Dreams is basically a condensed version of the same book or what I've read of it so far at least. On Dreams is also much easier to grasp each of his concepts dealing with unconscious integration at base, without nearly as much of the vast and varied esoteric spiel that you'll get with Psychology and Alchemy. That's not to say that those details are easily discarded. It's difficult to condense the topic or Jung's take on it down to a couple hundred pages but On Dreams cuts it very close.

In both books, Jung weaves in and out of his own concepts and Freud's as well, with near-schizo but brilliant meanderings and displays all of these mandalas and religious/esoteric imagery while the unconscious integration of a young European scientist is observed through his dreams.

Attached: Dreams Carl Jung.jpg (323x499, 19K)

Nice. I'll check out the latter one.

*Ahem* Allow me to introduce myself..

Attached: Gilles-Deleuze.png (339x400, 133K)

Shame is like the extrinsic version of guilt. Shame is a feeling others make you feel, guilt is a feeling you feel all on your own. There's a component of truth to this.

You forget to put an "r" on the end of his name there ;^)

I have that book of his about jokes, is it good? I never read anything by freud

His ideas are common place because his cousin, Barnays, made them popular with a marketing campaign.
And we also know Freud's ideas captured something fundamental about how the mind works because Barnays' theory of propaganda is just an application of Freud's ideas and it literally warped the West's culture.
Things like "diamonds are forever", or "big cars == manly", "alchool == sex", acceptance of smoking in public, product placements on movies, celebrities shilling products in "day to day" situations, etc it as all Barnays all along.

Hell, the idea that you can "express your own true self" by buying shiny/expensive stuff comes from him.
He was literally hired to create consumerism, so it's not surprising.
Freud's ideas are good enough to exploit people, so they clearly have some explanatory power.

You're forgetting that your joke is based on your ignorant mutt mispronounciation of this name and you would realize it doesn't work if you weren't so retarded ;^)

>letting yourself get territorialized and oedipalized

Attached: 3C6E81E3-67E2-4C05-8C76-C1E5F4F4295E.png (750x531, 525K)

delooseasshole
did i do it right?

Isn't the Anima the second stage after the shadow?

Civilization and its Discontents ---> Incel rebellion
Damn, he called it.

I always found it interesting that Moses had a stutter, and that often his duties had to be taken up by his brother Aaron. The priestly caste of the jewish religion descend from Aaron too, not Moses. There's always been a duality from the start in this story.

I think shame is more image-related. Shame is "I am a bad person for doing this" or "If people saw me doing this they would think I'm a bad person". It relates to the self as an image (what image you have of yourself, what image people have of you).
Guilt is action-focused. Guilt is "what I just did is bad". The action is the focus, not the person. It is less self-aware but also less narcissistic.

>you either seek a woman resembling your mother or a woman who is very different from her
Well then what the fuck else would you seek if not those?

Yes, phrased like that it sounds tautlogical. Perhaps user as trying to say "either you seek your mother, or you seek her opposite"? So somehow your choice is always weighted against the mother as reference, whether it's a reference for quality or a reference for danger.

>The first stage of a man's integration of his unconscious.
Isnt the shadow first? Shadow-anima-sage-the self?

That should not be pinned on Freud tho. He managed to discover a number of psychological facts, his cousin then decided to exploit them for motives that were entirely divorced from the original one, which was psychotherapy and psychoanalysis as a treatment for mental illness. If anything the success of Freud's cousin is just a testament (although an horrorific one) of the truthfulness of many Freudian claims about the inner functioning of the human psyche

What does that mean?

Freud’s eros and sexuality in children isn’t strictly about fucking. It’s about wish fulfillment, stimulation received through erogenous zones (like eating or putting stuff in one’s mouth, or shitting), love, and warmth. A boy desires his mother, the nourishment from her titty, he wants her for himself, as to not share with daddy.

>titty
i dont find tits appealing that much

what if """they""" use Freud Ideas to manipulate us further, in more horrorific ways, and at the same thing makes us doubt of Freud reducing the notion of him to "lol fuck mommy".

You cant really confirm or deny

The mother fucking thing is litereally the biggest pleb filter i can think of, so much to learn from this man and people are just too afraid/stupid

Ikr

That the multiplicity of your machinic unconscious gets signified under a single system namely Freud's œdipus.

More simple - that you reduce your possibility of both self knowledge and action by sticking to some arbitrary signifiers you didn't create.

Based and mommypilled

>Only a retard could think such things.
Of course, because it doesn't actually come down to "boy wants to fuck mother". People criticize Freud without having bothered reading a single full work of his.

>None of the cures he has attempted have done him any good except for one course of hydropathic treatment in a clinic in⸻, but this was no doubt only because he struck up an acquaintance there that led to regular sexual intercourse. He has no such opportunities here and has intercourse rarely and at irregular intervals. Prostitutes are repugnant to him. His sex life has been altogether wretched, and masturbation has played only a minor role, when he was 16 or 17. His potency is normal, he claims; he first had intercourse at the age of 26.

would the rat man have browsed Yea Forums?

>so much to learn from this man
There's literally nothing worth learning from him

I have Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious and Aion coming in the mail rn. What's the best pre-reading material for Jung?

>even rat man got laid sooner than you

Attached: 1567543531075.gif (250x188, 2.4M)

The Greeks

This. Freud's book on mass psychology is a real eye-opener. Same with Le Bon's book.

Jung is pretty good at explaining his ideas to those who haven't read everything he references. I'd say you're good

>skipping The Interpretation of Dreams, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, and Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious

How is user supposed to truly learn about the unconscious if he doesn’t go through these 3 works? They should at least check out Chapter VII from the dream book

>he was a drug addict
Wrong

>Wrong
wrong

Read Man and His Symbols. Why would you read the Memoirs first?