What do you think of psychoanalysis? Is it really pseudo-science?

>psychoanalysis
>>>/b/

>>8465641
Why so?

I like Ricoeur's idea of psychoanalysis as a hermeneutic of the subject, but it's also a bit of a (typically French) cop-out, so I try to keep a (typically Anglo) comment by Chomsky that psychoanalysis is categorically wrong, just flat wrong and dumb, in my head as a corrective.

In its broadest sense, it's interesting as philosophy, or as a canvas for philosophical insight to be worked out on. But it's pretty bad as science. But again, you have to resist even the subtler forms of scientism, which deny the possibility of any distant landscape just because the intervening path is badly drawn. The subtle cultural effects of a widespread attunement to psychodynamics and the hermeneutics of the unconscious might have benefits that aren't easily measurable except in hindsight. Cognitive science people are some of the greediest fucking wieners, more like psychoanalysts in trying to subsume everything to their discipline than they think.

Practicing psychoanalysis is generally pretty awful though. Some of it is OK, but generally the more OK it is, the more informed by general psychology it is, until it becomes only a source of insights rather than being anything constitutive of the therapy at its base. And it's also full of insane cultist fucks, thieves, and charisma worshipers, and has ruined many, many lives.

Psychoanalytical humanities scholarship is the same as far as I can tell. When it's a source of insights, it can be cool. But then it just becomes nuanced intellectual biography that vaguely involves "drives." When it tries to be rigorous, it starts to read like Cold War communist literature, where everything has to be written according to the comprehensive cult worldview of dialectical materialism. It's just really fucking bland.

it isnt le science so it is le bad!

>>8465622
I like how psychoanalysis is the most triggering thing you can post on /lit/ these days.

>What do you think of psychoanalysis
I like it a lot

>Is it really a pseudo-science
Even Lacan refused to call it a science:
"Psychoanalysis is not a science. It has no scientific status - it merely waits and hopes for it. Psychoanalysis is a delusion - a delusion which is expected to produce a science. . . . It is a scientific delusion, but this doesn't mean that analytic practice will ever produce a science"

Zizek explains what psychoanalysis is really well from 10:45 and a minute on

>>8465682
I'm sorry but you dismissed psychoanalysis wrong and dumb because Chomsky said so, it produced semi-cults, and it isn't science-based. It's not a very good argument.

>>8465728
But how does that make you FEEL?

>>8465740
>psychoanalysis fags on suicide watch

Why don't you try SCIENCE and logic, retards!?? lol

>>8465740
now that's an argument

>>8465715
You forgot something mate

Deriving meaning in life is not science, unless you think sexual or kin selection is meaningful, which it isn't, so fuck off stemfags.

>>8465682
>dialectical materialism

psychoanalysis is metaphysical materialism, mate