How do I get into psychoanalytic literature?

>>9457391
I also want to do this OP. My guesses would be that you should start with Freud, then move to Lacan and Jung, and then maybe some specific Žižek? Anyone more knowledgeable wanna add/change?

>>9457649
Where to start with Freud?

smoke a dick

>>9457836
The Freud Reader

File: polen nuked.png (1MB, 1361x777px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1361x777px

>>9457391
Can anyone give me an idea as to why there's such a symbiotic relationship between Marxism and psychoanalysis? Please no meme answers like "cultural marxism".

>>9457910
shit, didn't mean to post with that name. I wasn't saging the thread.

>>9457910
Marx heavily influenced Freud and there are lots of parallels -- it is easy to see how commodity fetishism interacts with the Object of desire, and how the superego can be ripe for exploitation by capitalist ideology. Many of Marx's ideas look like societal counterparts to individualistic analyses provided by psychoanalytic theory

File: jacques-lacan.jpg (84KB, 644x408px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 644x408px

I mean, do what you want, but if you want my suggestions, I'll give em to you.

Start with Freud's papers on Metapsychology. It's really cheep and gives you most of the important stuff. Then read The Ego and the Id. Then read more papers. Somewhere along the line be sure to read "Beyond the Pleasure Principle", that changed everything.

As for Lacan, you need to have read at least some Freud before getting started on him. DO NOT start with Ecrits (just find the mirror stage essay online). Then read Seminars I and II. They're easy and fun. Then read other Seminars that interest you. Then try some more of Ecrits.

This is absurd. Marx did not influence Freud, it doesn't matter what critical theorists and pseudo-deleuzeans say...

Freud was NOT very well read. He pulled most of his own stunts. As it happened, they were mostly pretty good.

It's not only Marx and Freud that get paired. Nietzsche gets added too. It's easy to "forget" that though... The three of them are often referred to as "the masters of suspicion" in the literature. It's paranoia, raw emotion, and rebelliousness that brings them together.

Some say they're all materialists, but I think that's oversimplifying things a great deal.

>>9457987
>Freud was NOT very well read
he was a physician

>>9457998
niezsche absolutely despised socialism, though. Lukács critique of him is pretty cogent on this.

>>9457910
Both are true and both are suppressed by Capitalism so people don't become woke

...And socialists despise everybody else and each other too. So Nietzsche would fit right in!

Anyway, Nietzsche's thought is totally fragmented and inconsistent. He refutes himself unambiguously all the time. Imo, his work is more about providing people with fuel to do stuff than brainwashing them, like "traditional" ideologies.

And Psychoanalysis is clearly not about enlightenment. It's a descriptive system to address how enlightenment becomes obstructed and obscured.

>>9457836
his introductory lectures... Both the first and the revisited 1930s edition. Literally explains psychoanalysis

Also, a small PSA:

Freud does not say we want to slam our mums and whack our dads. No, he says that ONLY at a certain stage of development do we desire this. If you get stuck there, you have mental problems for obvious reasons.

>>9459971
Hey I didn't come here to be judged

File: Ziz.jpg (94KB, 635x635px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 635x635px

>>9457391
>Pick up psychoanalysis
>This is stupid, this doesn't make any sense
>Everybody loves it and treats it as some absolute pinnacle of human achievement
>There must be something I'm not seeing
>Read more, stop seeing friends
>Start recognizing patterns in texts, get a feeling that I'm understanding something
>The words, the letters, the scenarios, I've seen this all before
>The words, Anon, what do they mean
>Through the text I start to understand another world
>I cannot comprehend it through language, I get that feeling I'm on the verge of something, like a rock that wants to fall from your hand, like when you're reaching a orgasm
>I must delve deeper
>Police break through the door
>I scream and defend my lair by means of violence
>White-jacketed men take me away
>Spend years in psychiatric therapy to get out of my psychoanalytic psychosis
Don't do it, man. They always say that a few chapters don't do anything. But sooner or later a chapter turns into a paper, and soon you'll move on into hardcover stuff. It's a dirty business. First they milk the money with the books and then they keep themselves employed by treating the wounds they cause.

>>9457998
When you say that they're materialists, what is the alternative?

>>9457391
How do you think you might get into psychoanalytic literature?

>>9459961
This sounds interesting! Where could one find these?

>>9457910
Mostly from a couple of people in Freud's inner psychoanalytic circle, like Reich and others, who sought to marry psychoanalysis to socialism, something which Freud was very against and caused some divergences. Had he lived long enough, Freud would likely have been very unhappy with how the Frankfurt School appropriated his ideas. Also, this anon >>9457998 makes a good point, both Freud and Marx are considered "masters of suspicion", and there is some resemblance between the unconscious and the idea of false consciousness, Gramsci's hegemony, etc, but this current, that not everything was 100% rational, was very active towards the end of the 19th century and remained strong through WWII. Freud has often been said to be heavily influenced by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, despite Freud denying the resemblance and claiming he only read them late in life.

>>9460178
nietzsche is absolutely not a materialist. for him, there is only will to power, which is manifested by forces on earth. an argument could be made that he is a physicalist in the sense that everything can be explained by physical phenomena, but i find there is much more truth in the deleuze school of interpretation by seeing him as a pluralist

>>9457910
Psychoanalysis was basically the hot new shit in the early 20th century, it was impossible for anyone that was progressively (in the literal sense of the word) minded to get around it. The Frankfurt guys were trying to fuse marxism with the new science at the time (empiric sociology / psychoanalysis) to create a new kind of theory, so it was kind of an obvious match.

>>9460164
underrated

>>9460701
Deleuze gets called a materialist as well. I suppose it's a "matter" of what materialism means and how much it can include before it stops being that. On some level you can claim that Freud was an idealist because he gives matter little say in how the mind works (a focus on relations and words), but again it's a matter of what we mean by it.

Well, someone, or something, has to take responsibility for the complaints that go unexplained and misunderstood.

Anyway, psychoanalysis can mean pretty much anything, and most psychoanalysts themselves are far from perfect.

IME, people call Freud and Deleuze materialists because they're marxists and want to think that somehow Freud and Deleuze were on board with their chosen religion

Basically both materialism and spiritualism are pretty obscure terms since we never(?) encounter matter or spirit, and both would seem to be abstractions from things as they present themselves.

File: 1484001426001.jpg (79KB, 604x539px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 604x539px

Why would you?
The people that wrote it never efficiently helped a single patient with their theories.

>>9457836
Essays on Sexuality.

File: bd38ca889a46c6b1fd2971e513b56505e53f3dbabda9b911c00a1681212f53e9.jpg (364KB, 1024x1200px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1024x1200px

>>9457910
>Can anyone give me an idea as to why there's such a symbiotic relationship between Marxism and psychoanalysis
There isn't

>>9460785
>>9460934
>>9460965
all true. i find that it's never the great philosophers themselves who argue over sweeping terms like "materialism" or "nominalism", but only second-rate commentators. it's one of the problems of academia, especially in the way they approach teaching philosophy. it's easy to talk about big concepts like the "mind-body problem" and group philosophers together by assigning labels based on different answers, but it's always a generalization of their thinking. it's fine to use as shorthand, but once you start trying to formalize precise definitions it's a waste of time. real thought is fluid and interconnected, but words always demarcate.

>>9460164
Impressive. Very nice.

by readin it lmao

>>9461006
fucking hipster
what sort of idiot with shitty eyes goes to a warzone without so much as buying some safety glasses

Indeed. Contemporary academic philosophy is primarily a filing system, just like pretty much everything else these days (a little hyperbolic, sorry).

File: 1a64af01c4a7b0d741fee9a09c73927df88c6b038985ad5119f93e70ae38f09f.png (114KB, 214x320px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 214x320px

>>9461006
This.
Read a fucking book.

File: s-l1000.jpg (58KB, 500x749px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x749px

>>9457391
>ctrl+f "civi"
>no results
"civilization and its discontents" is the most succinct introduction to Freudian psychoanalysis and is extremely beginner-friendly. without a doubt, this should be the first work you read if you want to understand Freud. from there, you can figure out what you want to read based on which ideas pique your interest within the text. this edition is well-formatted for its almost stream-of-consciousness style and the introduction by hitchens is a good tone-setter.

that said, i started with jung because i was into platonism and kierkegaard as a teen (not to mention dude weed lmao) and found that easy as well. i assume "man and his symbols" is similar to pic related in that it is a brief work written for laymen to understand Jung. if you're confident enough, i'd just get the modern library's "basic writings of carl jung" as well as "psyche and symbol".

i also found the series on jung edited by shamdasani ("dreams," "synchronicity," etc.) very focused for their topic. "dreams" in particular is good if you want to get into the freaky side of jung.

I always thought C&D was good and entertaining, but included far more of Freud's personal musings and speculations on issues which bear no influence on his overall theoretical development. I stand by my assertion that "Papers on Metapsychology" is the best introduction.

Also omg. I had no idea Hitchens wrote the introduction to the newer edition. Mind blown!

Freud seems to have written two kinds of books: theoretical and speculative. His speculative works (like C&D and Future/Illusion) delve into metaphysics, an area which Freud had very little experience. Thankfully, he was self-aware enough to confess this throughout these works. They're very enjoyable, and interesting from a pseudo-autobiographical perspective, but provide nothing serious to chew on philosophically or psychologically.

Any thoughts on "Modern Man in Search of a Soul"? Seems to be a good intro text to Jung but I haven't read it so can't be sure.

>>9457987
You don't need to have actually read the material of someone as titanic as Marx to be influenced by his ideas.

>>9462487
By that standard, 99% of Marx's "influence" is through misunderstanding and the imaginary thinker people build up in their heads as his surrogate

>>9462512
Only if we speak of influence in a very naive associative sense rather than the diffusion of his ideas. One does not even known in order to be influential

>>9462543
*need to be known

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 2.22.21 AM.png (425KB, 598x769px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 598x769px

Not really related but whatever

Guy goes crazy, believes that he is involved in an inter-dimensional war between gods, and that he is the only one who can who can stop the universe from being destroyed. He is convinced he can stop it by transforming into a woman. Other than being completely deluded, he still has his wits about him and is able to pretty clearly describe all his experiences in an interesting way. He basically wrote these memoirs because he thought one day people would read it and learn the truth about the universe, and he would be vindicated.

>>9462543
The point is his ideas haven't diffused to the general public. What is held up as "Marxist" is very often explicitly anti-Marxist

>>9462572
Except it has, the idea of history being driven by the conditions of productive technology and social relations is almost universal now. People are simply generally unaware that it is Marxist in origin

>>9462579
Near universally known that it is to say

>>9462579
>the idea of history being driven by the conditions of productive technology and social relations is almost universal now
Except among neocons, and intersectionalists, and postmodernists in general, and anyone who takes seriously the idea that the French and American revolutions, among others, were driven by principles and the "rights of man."

>>9462667
Of course yeah, that's why I added the qualification after. The idea is there even if its refuted by many

>>9457926
wtf no, Freud disliked Marx but also barely read him

>>9462685
>Freud disliked Marx

Source? Not that I don't believe you

>>9462692
I mean, he criticizes socialism a few times, and Marx was that dude back then for the big C. Also, Marxs theory is utterly incompatible with original Freudian psychoanalysis.

>>9457391
For Lacan I recommend A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis by Bruce Fink.

>>9462722
>Marxs theory is utterly incompatible with original Freudian psychoanalysis.

How?

>>9462744
Marx: All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and the comprehension of this practice.
Freud: lmao death drive

>>9462799
Thats true. I think bridging this contradiction has been the mystery to all subsequent Leftist thinkers.

>>9457926
The hell are you talking about

>>9459971
idiot

>>9461006
that guy is a mega fag

>>9457836
Ecce Homo

>>9460785
Manuel De Landa talked about the type of neo-materialism he had been influenced from. Namely the Deleuzian double articulation. He uses the materialist example of rocks as being first the raw material of pre-processing, then consolidated as a whole with something else. First it's sedimentation, then the process of cementation. The double articulation is first content and then expression: for language, grammatical patterns are historical sediment, and expression being the consolidation of language with rules of grammar and the like. Thus cementing sounds and words with the standardization of language.

>>9463495
>Manuel DeLanda

Pseudcore spotted

>Someone has a psychological issue.
>The root cause is dick envy.

>>9463527
Found the manlet

>>9462472

>I always thought C&D was good and entertaining, but included far more of Freud's personal musings and speculations on issues which bear no influence on his overall theoretical development.

This. I genuinely wouldn't start with C&D.

I'd begin with The Freud Reader (Adam Philips). Mark the essays you think are most important and go from there (hint: Beyond The Pleasure Principle is the most important essay in that book).

File: gradiva vatican museum.jpg (71KB, 561x473px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 561x473px

no, no, no
start with the schubert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthilf_Heinrich_von_Schubert
>His masterpiece, Symbolism of Dreams (1814) was one of the most famous books of its time, exercising influence over E. T. A. Hoffmann, and later on, Sigmund Freud and C. G. Jung

>>9462811
i'm not convinced leftism has any great need to "reconcile" itself with sex politics, to be frank.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/09/marx-s10.html

>>9460347
>look at me i am le psychologist on /lit/!

fuck off pseud, you were asked a straight question and we expect a straight answer, if you can't cope with that then fuck off.

Don't mess with me kido

This looks cool, but I don't know German, so it looks like it's off the table (unless you know of any translations)...

>>9464433
Freud praised the spanish translation, so there's that

>uh i don't know spanish neither

then fuck off you monolingual monkey

>>9463891
>wsws
Holyshit, kindly kill yourself you autistic Trot cultist

>>9464465
Nice reasoned refutation of North you got there, friendo. I especially liked the part where you made arguments.

Wow! I see that this book must have successfully taught you the humility and understanding prerequisite of any intellectual endeavor.

Anyway, I can do French, so no, not monolingual.

Seriously, it blows my mind how little etiquette people on 4chan have. There's so much potential for it as a platform, but it would seem that about 50% of the time it's being used as an emotional toilet.

>>9457649
Reich

>>9465089
Being edgy and transgressive - whatever currently qualifies as transgressive - has always been part of the channer ethos. So has been extreme collectivism (constantly shitting on tripfags for example) and the tyranny of oldfags over newfags. Get used to it, without any of these things anonymous wouldn't be anonymous.

>>9462744
The idea of an innate human nature

>>9457982
But how can I sort his relevant papers from what overlaps with the main works?

>>9465089
Grow some skin faggot

>>9465089
>There's so much potential for it as a platform
I'm going to synergistically monetize your asshole nigger

>>9464471
Neither North or Trotsky had an argument to begin with. He just handwaved off the issue with no justification while the question remains how we can expect humans to desire a revolution for a harmonious society in the face of our desires being predicated on drives that are inherently irrational and self destructive.
The fact you Trots continue to be oblivious to the fact McDonalds commericals and Porn have been uncountably more influencial on the working class for the last century than any of your cute little fliers or culty websites speaks for itself.

>>9465089
we have etiquette, it's just a sort of dialect, like how blacks have an alternative grammar, 4chan has an alternative etiquette, like when we tell fags like u to go back to le redditte

>>9466214
it's funny tho how mcdonalds uses the same eye catching red and yellow branding that communism uses lol

File: 14453526565790[1].jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>>9466214
>hoomin naycher

>>9466226
not the same guy but please grow up. Communism is an ideology for 15-year-old boys

>>9466226
since we can change the nature of humans so easily, oh wise marxist, has anyone succeeded in changes apes or chimps or gorillas natures, but like putting them in a utopian commune where suddenly they stop being hierarchical? i mean if humans don't have a nature, then probably apes don't either right?

>>9466226
Desire is the bedrock of Marx's entire project. If you don't understand desire you can not understand anything.

>>9460987
>The people that wrote it never efficiently helped a single patient with their theories.

Source?

>>9457910

Both Marx and Freud are about how the individual lives at odds with society. Freud focused on the internal structures produced by this tension as well as the ones inherent in life. Marx focused on the external structures, as well as their eventual conclusion. They both left a lot of room for synthesis at the boarders of their work, and they both existed at basically the same time.

>>9466235
but that's whats so stupid about marxism, if a worker really desires more widgets, he can take some night classes, get a job as manager at the widget factory and buy more widgets with the extra cash, or.... he could risk his life to overthrow the government, try not to get purged in the post-revolution terrors, and then end up in the same factory but without the option to go to school at night...gee, is it any wonder workers just stick with capitalism? i feel like a person isn't truly an adult until they understand that marxism is fucking ridiculous

File: quote-communism-is-for-us-not-a-state-of-affairs-which-is-to-be-established-an-ideal-to-which-reality-karl-marx-250995[1].jpg (92KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 850x400px

>>9466228
15 year old boys don't read Marx. Everyone, literally everyone, who claims to have "had a communist phase" returns a blank stare when you ask them to explain historical materialism, dialectics, anything.
>>9466234
>human nature is fixed, immutable, transcendental, context-independent, and directly contravenes X form of social organization
>hey guys, commodity fetishism proves historical materialism wrong! It's true because I say so! This only-apparent contradiction is actually real and insurmountable, because I say so!
I know you guys read less, but I wasn't expecting to find genuine idiots here.
Also pic related
>>9466264
Ah, the ever-reliable "proof by crass oversimplification."
Hurr the problem with capitalism is you eventually run out of other people's surplus labor to extract

>>9466294
To be clear I am the original poster that dug into the wswsbot. I am what would be easily described as a marxist myself and I am comitted to an emancipatory project.
My issue is not that I believe the human mind is necessarily incompatible with Communism its that if anyone is to be interested in attempting a historical-materialist analysis it must by its very definition begin at a material analysis of the human mind itself, which to me is a psychoanalytic analysis.
As it stands Orthodox Marxists still utilize the same naive Victorian perspective of the human mind as operating on the mere pleasure principle which is simply not reflective of reality and fundamentally undermines any concurrent analysis contingent on such an understanding.
Sublimation is the mission of Freudian analysis just as it should be the mission of any Leftist and without acknowledging this you'll be stumbling in the dark and will continue to be a laughing stock.

>>9466328
>its that if anyone is to be interested in attempting a historical-materialist it must by its very definition begin at a material analysis of the human mind itself
I don't agree. We don't need to solve the hard problem of consciousness or really even come close in order to understand aggregate, statistical behavior of people. Take for example, bourgeois economics. If the basic "task" of civilization is the material production and reproduction of everyday life, we can study the structure of society in terms of how this task is performed, what objective social relations are at work. After a certain point Marx just brackets metaphysics and the mind because he has built up a theory of broad generality that need not depend on or change with the validity of psychoanalytic premises.
>Orthodox Marxists still utilize the same naive Victorian perspective of the human mind as operating on the mere pleasure principle
I don't think we assume this at all. There's nowhere I can think of that Marxist thought relies on this premise.

I mean certain figures like Zizek do find psychoanalysis in its own right important enough to try and synthesize with Marx, but it shouldn't be regarded as some absolute precondition for an emancipatory project. If anything the "thinly veiled psychoanalytic critiques of misperceived power structures brought on by a misunderstanding of Marx" thronging academia and the pseudo-left are actively -detrimental- to that very cause.

>>9466365
>We don't need to solve the hard problem of consciousness or really even come close in order to understand aggregate, statistical behavior of people.

See to me this is incredibly naive. How for example can we speak of monumentally epoch changing events in human history such as the rise of Christianity without including this domain?
If history can not be adequately interpreted I find the thought we can analyze what the future holds is absurd.

>Thread about psychoanalysis
>Saged at the beginning but got back on its feet
>Topic desperately needed to be discussed on 4chan due to mentally pathogenic atmosphere
>Degenerates into discussion of Marx
>Confirms the suspicions of average channer about connection between commenism and da jooish reptilian psychoanalysts gonna make me bang muh mum

Nice job, anons. Now, what's that thing Lacan said to the situationist about finding a new father?

>>9457391
You don't because psychoanalysis has no scientific basis and was nothing more than Freud's conjecture.

Actually it does. Psychoanalysis is the only form of psychotherapy intentionally designed to address complaints regarding "the mind". The mind, after all, is something that we talk about, and mental problems are things we complain about.

It's at least as scientific as muh psychopharmacology and muh CBT, which operate off of confused notions of what a mind is.

>>9466526
This, far better to have a school based on legitimate philosophy and illegimate science rather than illegitimate philosophy and legitimate science.
One may need work but the other is hopeless

Metaphysics>Epistemology>Science>Technology

>>9466385
>See to me this is incredibly naive.
The "hard problem" of consciousness refers to unraveling the specific way in which "matter in motion" gives rise to the phenomenon of consciousness. It's well beyond the scope of all heretofore existing science, even as empirical psychiatry and neuroscience are encroaching ever more closely upon the territory traditionally held by philosophy of mind. My point is merely that we don't need and shouldn't expect science to "have all the answers" before we can discuss the behavior of things materialistically, or without some form of mysticism.
>How for example can we speak of monumentally epoch changing events in human history such as the rise of Christianity without including this domain?
The short answer is that in the "ecosystem of ideas" class forces played a large role in -which- Christianity or Christianities became dominant, and which fell by the wayside as ineffectual and "socially useless." Indeed the rise of Protestantism and the idea of religion as a personal relationship with God to be individually interpreted as such came about in parallel with the development of capitalism and the expansion of the bourgeoisie, and broader religious liberalism came with bourgeois enlightenment values, the "rights of man" and their broader conquest of state power.
Consider how Islam's apologists will contend that terrorists are not part of "the real Islam" and the pitfall that one cannot truly believe something to be the "correct expression" of Abrahamic faith without first believing -in- that specific faith itself - the interplay between various forms of Islam and recent conquests of the public sphere by various sorts in various places (1950s onward) is something that's profoundly difficult to rationalize outside of a framework specifically dealing with class relations and the processes/movements of international capital. For example the far-right would have you believe that the the disease is inherent to -Islam itself- (which again is not well-defined,) and the liberal "left" would have you believe there is no problem in the first place.
I feel these social phenomena must be grasped in their specific character in order to be understood, and that fully a priori arguments as to their "nature" which treat culture as fundamental to material are inherently limited in this regard.

>>9466506
>Confirms the suspicions of average channer about connection between commenism and da jooish reptilian psychoanalysts gonna make me bang muh mum
This is exactly the point I'm arguing against lol

>This is exactly the point I'm arguing against lol

Maybe, but can your opponent tell that? It looks to me like you're advocating materialism and talking to people like a bunch of knuckleheaded peasants....

Beautiful writing though. I wonder if you're published.

>>9466587
>The short answer is that in the "ecosystem of ideas" class forces played a large role in -which- Christianity or Christianities became dominant, and which fell by the wayside as ineffectual and "socially useless.

Thats not an answer thats just a restatement of the question.

>>9466587
>I feel these social phenomena must be grasped in their specific character in order to be understood, and that fully a priori arguments as to their "nature" which treat culture as fundamental to material are inherently limited in this regard.

This is blatently heterodoxical to Marx's position, have you even read his work on religion?

First reactionary: Marx to Hegel

>>9466603
>It looks to me like you're advocating materialism
Well, historical materialism sort of brackets metaphysics in a way. I mentioned Zizek and how other "Marxian" thinkers try to synthesize it with psychoanalysis, and affirmed that they're not essentially incompatible, but rather they can be separated and are not mutually interdependent. I try to separate them from a position of orthodoxy because the failures of previous workers' movements seem to go hand in hand with crises of their theoretical foundations.
>talking to people like a bunch of knuckleheaded peasants....
Condescension? I meant the "X would have you believe" as a statement of the problems mainstream political theory has in explaining modern Islam and other cultural phenomena, as a result of their centrally abandoning Marx's methods. Sorry if I came off the wrong way there or elsewhere, though.

>>9466609
>Thats not an answer thats just a restatement of the question.
I think that "cultural influence of various currents is roughly proportional to the size of their social role under present conditions" is more than a restatement of the question, but my remarks after that were also meant as a sketch of the answers.
I forgot to mention the part about "deference to one's natural superiors ordained by God" as one of the highest virtues in earlier feudalism, the contrast from that is really the important part, along with how it coincides with the social transformation.

>>9466617
>This is blatently heterodoxical to Marx's position, have you even read his work on religion?
Not a text explicitly focused on religion, but I've come across the concept. It's my understanding that it fills a sort of dual role, both an advancement/reinforcement of ruling class interests and "the soul of soulless conditions, the opiate of the masses," akin to the dual role of the modern state in both promoting bourgeois interests and providing stability in the form of placating the masses by treating the system's contradictions through welfare. Naturally "stability" is part of the objectives of class rule in the first place, but the relative weight of the opposing forces depends on the material conditions of the classes themselves, what one is willing/able to concede/accept to what degree. And the of course there's inertia/friction in how it's all socialized (bureaucracy/Church/modern, more atomized religious communities) for mediating between different conflicting local/individual interests.
If this argument doesn't extend to religion in society, please let me know, I could certainly stand to read more.

>>9457391
You don't. Read actual research backed psychology like biological psychology or Behaviorism instead of wasting your time. I seriously have no fucking clue why everyone always goes ''muh psychodynamic perspective'' even all of my psychology teachers have worshipped the charlatan Freud like some kind of Messiah. It's almost like psychologists as a whole are fucking morons.

File: 1838047.jpg (56KB, 380x411px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 380x411px

>>9466688
>is more than a restatement of the question,

No it isn't, again you just stated X=X in those quotation marks.
You have not once made any attempt to give explanative reason for the RISE in Christianity. You're talking about its alleged function but at no point have you attempted to explain how it came about to be a phenomenon to begin with and I would argue from that point any attempt to explain its function is a totally illegitimate illusion of Historical-Materialism.
I'm asking you to explain to me how using a reading of society that brackets and ignores the material structures of the minds and desires of individuals why all these people decided to swear their allegiance and radically alter the principals on which their society is ordered on the basis of a narrative they heard about a Jew being cruxified. Why across all of Europe, indeed through Islam the majority of the planet that this tale was so astoundingly profound to these people?
Except I know you have nothing to give to me here, you haven't put in the time, reading or consideration to attempt any such analysis. Your descriptions here have not arrisen from any materialist tracing of the phenomena from its material base but simply you're just regurgitating a haphazard inductive narrative spewed from your Orthodoxy. A total charade thats an affront to Marx's entire project. You're the definition of a pseudo-intellectual. You haven't a fucking thought in your head, just an emulation of the dogma that comforts you from the anxiety of uncertainty and the burden of intellectual effort.

File: 48.gif (20KB, 381x463px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 381x463px

>>9466712
>he fell for the psychology is a science meme

File: 1486771833073.jpg (169KB, 756x638px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 756x638px

Hasn't psychoanalysis been discredited as quackery? Although this is the board with literal Marxists on it so there's bound to be some True Believer who still thinks smoking represents dicks or something like that.

File: 285ea9ac2c124e712dd20d05ca2d8b294a27bc7fbf555fedbf8845d56d2a150a.png (527KB, 520x525px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 520x525px

>>9466750
>he says posting an image of antifafu taking smug pleasure from symbolically possessing the phallus through oral penetration

>>9466758
I know you thought you were smart when this comment and that you know a little psychoanalysis but you really don't.

>>9466775
>he says posturing as the subject supposed to know

I can't believe a thread like this on /lit/ of all places could be so bad. I've talked about psychoanalysis better on /sci/.

>>9466779
Perhaps we should talk about these transference feelings of yours Anon.

File: 1452317805299.jpg (44KB, 569x506px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 569x506px

>>9466782
>Perhaps we should talk about these transference feelings of yours Anon.

N-no thanks

>>9466785
Go on.

>analyses your resistances

>>9466758

>he shezsh, while poshting peectoor of mosht famous advocate of dildosh, that ish to shay, PLASHTIC PENISHES

I have a theoretical interest and am in analysis for various traumas.

I can recognise nothing in this thread corresponding to anything to do with analysis.

We have people criticising it for not being an empirical science, when it's much more than that, it's a bizarre form of social relation, a work of love and will more than science, that you can find nowhere else and which has strongly effected my thoughts and symptoms; we have people bizarrely arguing about Marx, some claiming Freud was sympathetic with Marx, which is nonsense.

/lit/ really needs to grow up a bit, where is the recommendations and advice here? I'll start:

Pick up a good few books of Freud, his early three, Interpretation of Dreams, Psychology of Everyday Life, and the Jokes book. Then there's a good collection called the Psychology of Love (I think), then Beyond the Pleasure Principle and the essay on the Unconscious, all have new (way better than the old) English translations out in penguin modern classics.

Then, because he's difficult, there are some good introductions to Lacan, such as How to Read Lacan by Žižek, Bruce Fink books, Colette Soler.

>>9466750
>Although this is the board with literal Marxists on it so there's bound to be some True Believer
>>>implying
>who still thinks smoking represents dicks or something like that.
This was a marketing creation iirc. Some porkies speculated that cigarettes represented dicks and power, or something, so set about eradicating the taboo on smoking among women by deliberately associating it with the suffragette movement to present it as an empowering, transgressive act. So the association is there in some form, but it a result of the culture industry manipulating the public consciousness, and not an inherent fact of the human psyche
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom

>>9466997
All this is the biggest cliché ever about Freud so much that Freud himself mocked it: "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

>>9466997
>but it a result of the culture industry manipulating the public consciousness, and not an inherent fact of the human psyche

This is retarded logic, if it wasn't a part of human psyche how could the manipulation have worked?

Now this is ridiculous. I've studied Psychology for years and know for a fact that 98% of Psychology profs take the orthodox "numbers" approach to the mind of cognitive-backed materialism (biological behaviorism, as I'd call it).

>>9467481
Appeal to authority will do nothing for you here.

Indeed, I was responding to an appeal to authority: a claim that one's profs were mostly psychoanalytic

File: IMG_0063.jpg (443KB, 974x1500px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 974x1500px

>>9457391
read this

>>9462738
nice one

>>9467533
And who says his weren't? Every department is different

I suppose anon could be from a different country than me. I shouldn't have made assumptions.

At least in the U.S., there are practically 0 psychoanalytically oriented psychology departments. I know this for a fact because I applied to all 2 of the psychoanalytic oriented depts in the US that weren't cash cows.

Turns out that the funded (i.e. not 50k/yr) programs are more into Marxism than Psychoanalysis these days anyway... Surprise surprise...

>>9467894
In France at least its still considered Orthodox treatment. Not that I know of its status in various countries.

It wouldn't surprise me mind that some department who nominally claim to be run by standard Psychologists have hidden heretical interests

Heretical against what? Heresy against Psychoanalysis is the norm in the U.S...

>>9467941
Much the opposite I mean, that any sympathy to psychoanalysis is heresy