Please recommend a few of your must read books related to psychoanalysis.

File: freud psych theory.jpg (156KB, 1100x1700px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1100x1700px

I dunno about Jung. I think you'd probably be better off just reading Plato or Plotinus.

In the context of Psychoanalysis, your best options are probably Freud, Lacan, Ferenczi, or Rank.

Picrelated is Freud's best. It's hard to find in bookstores, but is very cheap online.

reading and understanding jung will give you some good insights into people.

shame hes just known as "the mbti guy" now

>>9637030
Jung is dope, just don't be one of those people who use him as a heuristic to comprehend everything

hegel, phenomenology of spirit
brentano, psychology from an empirical standpoint
husserl, logical investigations
james, varieties of religious experience
heidegger, being and time

>>9637223
Jung may be good, but Plato and Plotinus are better.

It seems that Jung's thought is stunted in the moral development department.

If morals bother you, you'd probably be better off in the loony bin with Neechee.

>>9637258

"Better" in what sense? And why are you going on about morality? You sound like a teenager.

File: TYSON SEAGAL KINO.webm (147KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1920x1080px

>>9637215

Jung > Freud

>>9637030
Kristeva

>>9637258
Shaddup ya mentally ill child

check out erich fromm. you can start with near enough any of his work because they're extremely accessible.

>>9637263

Lol. I thought teenagers hated morality.

Jung's thought approaches Philosophy but ultimately refuses it. Like any true Psychoanalyst, he doesn't give a rip about truth. For Plato and Plotinus, forms are all forms of the Good, which is also Truth. Bottom line is that if one doesn't care about becoming a good person, one also doesn't care about learning or anything else and will fall into obscurity (or become a tyrant, as some of the people who argued "muh nihilism" against Socrates did) due to the meaninglessness of his/her urges. Follow what's meaningless, and you'll become a slave.

>>9637268

Right... Because the offspring is better than the source... Don't want to sound too critical of Jung, but there are definitely better ways to spend one's time.

>>9637279

THISx1000000

Fromm is ridiculously underrated. He writes beautifully, and has profound insights on practically every issue.

The only people, imho who don't like him are pedantic academicians, or people who haven't read him.

>>9637030
Freud got all you need, both entry level books and more deep stuff.

Read Jung after Freud tho, most of his stuff came as a reaction to Freud.

>>9637030
First read some Freud, but be aware that he was wrong about a lot of stuff.

Then read some Hegel, Geidegger, Foucault, etc., even though they aren't strictly psychoanalysis.

Now you are ready for Lacan, who is basically the psychoanalysist. Read him, study him, think like him.

After you practically become the avatar of Lacan go read his descendants, like Laclau and Žižek.

Good luck, try not to give up, it's worth it.

>>9637030
Halfway through Man and His Symbols now. I like it, but at times I feel like I'm listening to Jung repeat himself, and not diving directly into it. The reason this is as he admits is that his form of dream analysis is highly individualized, so you can't make sweeping generalizations. Instead you can only hear experiences he has with people.

I've enjoyed everything I've read so far and some of his other books like the Undiscovered Self, but this is probably best as a skim.

>>9637370
I agree with most of what you wrote.

But Laclau and ZZK as descendents of Lacan? They seem more like descendants of Marx to me. Lacan and Freud were both critical of Marxism.

>>9637459
Both of them work in more fields, I don't know Laclau well, but Žižek is in his psychoanalytical work practically pure Lacanian (even though he occassionally colours him with lefticst perspective), only reaching to Marx in his political writings. Even when he doesn't agree with Lacan, he uses Lacanian methods.

OP here. Thanks for the suggestions everyone! Proving again this is a dope board.

>>9637030
Read Freud you fucking idiots.

>>9638140
Yes indeed, it is a great board. Just remember to never respond to /b/ or /pol/ tier posts.

just don't forget what Zizek says. Lacan = Hegel. Freud is thus an afterthought

>>9638279

Whuuuuuuut...?

Lacan may be good, but Hegel covers considerably more ground than Lacan. Lacan, for instance, does not have a natural philosophy, nor a philosophy of mind. Actually, Lacan doesn't have a philosophy of anything.

Although he was a lot more well-read than Freud, he retained the disparaging view towards Philosophical thought, and metaphysics in general.

Hegel is very much pro-metaphysics. Moreover, he operates largely within the Platonic tradition in that he thought that the Good leads directly to the Absolute (see the Science of Logic).

Lacan would probably agree with Deleuze that the point of modern thought is to subvert Platonism.

>>9638497
I think he meant that Lacan is Hegelian, since he applied lots of his methods to psychoanalsys. But he also applied Foucalt, Heidegger, etc. etc.

Lacan was a great thinker, without him psychoanalsys today would be in a very sad state. If Freud is dad of psychoanalsys, then Lacan is it's motherfucker.

Hegel in Platonic tradition? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? He critiqued platonic logic, which is the foundation of Plato thought, to smithers.

Abraham Maslow
Irving Yalom
Victor Frankl
Joseph Campbell
Read up on semiotics
Edward Bernays and marketing

is it worth reading the other chapters in Man and His Symbols or can I just read Jung and dip

>>9639547
Ignore Jung, his impact isn't that big, and he wasn't really rigorous. Instead do this progression:
>>9637370

>>9639576
How come our saviour Lord Peterson is obsessed with him then?

>>9639644
He is psychologist, not a psychoanalsyst first of all, so he doesn't know much about philosophical methods and jung is much more empirical, if inaccurate (because of empirism). Hacks are always popular

>>9639461
this

Hegel is more of an Aristotle to Kant's Plato

>>9637297
>Right... Because the offspring is better than the source...
Well... Wittgenstein did say that if b says what a said, b said more.

>>9639644
he's a bellend

Where should I start with Lacan?

>>9639461

Where did Hegel critique Plato? It's certainly not in the Science of Logic, and I don't remember seeing anything like that in the Phenomenology.

Also, I don't know what "Platonic Logic" is. It wouldn't seem that Plato ever came up with a truly formalized system, as his work is pretty discontinuous. Those who are influenced by him take bits and pieces.

I get the Plato-Hegel connection from JN Findlay. Similar views can also be found in the work of FH Bradley.

>>9640199

Interesting. I tend to think of Kant as having more in common with Aristotle than Hegel does.

For one thing, both Hegel and Plato were idealists. Hegel actually said that all Philosophy is idealism. Kant is closer to a skeptic.

>>9640242
Quality=/=Quantity