Is it just me or his critics mostly cherry-pick or dismiss him

lacan rhymes with dumb so no thanks

I don't think you nor most of /lit/ want to hear this but I think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience so that puts him on shaky ground.
Of course, even if you use a solid scientific backing (which might be temporary) for your ideas you will still speculate and one could call that pseudoscientific, but I would prefer it.

In fact I find it limiting that we do not have many philosophers who speculate based on science. Someone like Peterson has a psychological background but for his philosophising he refers to the bible and Jung.

>>9773903
>In fact I find it limiting that we do not have many philosophers who speculate based on science.
Agreed. Why do you think that psychoanalisis is a pseudoscience?

File: 1497180231154.jpg (78KB, 488x358px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 488x358px

>>9773903
>psychology is a science

>>9773975
>Why do you think that psychoanalisis is a pseudoscience?
It wasn't based on air, I mean Freud did try to take the conclusions of Darwin to the mind. So let's say he had some hypotheses, that means they will have to be tested - that's where it went wrong
>>9773988
Yes it is, it is being tested with experiments. There is a lot of bullshit with statistics and correlations though, and I still hold the belief that personality testing is flimsy, even if the Big Five personality has consensus.

I am hoping more biology will make it better but STEMfags are delusional if they think neuroscience and so on and so on can solve it all: it has limits.

>>9773903
I'm not totally on board with this notion of speculating based on science. I mean, on the surface it sounds like a great idea, you know, ground our philosophy in the realm of the physical, of what can be demonstrated empirically.

But where do you draw the line? Especially when we're theorizing about something so abstract as "The Mind". If psychoanalysis is bunk, nothing but baseless conjecture, where should we go then? Psychology? There are lots of people that regard psychology in the same way you do psychoanalysis. Then we can STEM-jerk ourselves all the way down to the level of neuroscience, but I'm not sure we can gain any valuable insights if we reduce mind to a product of sets of electrical impulses and shit.

I think high theory still has place in this world. Maybe sometime in the future we'll realize all of this was total shit, but as it stands now, I think we don't have a better tool.

>>9774103
>I'm not totally on board with this notion of speculating based on science.
Good now we can exchange thoughts and ideas. So, isn't that what Slavoj sort of did? I was under the impression that psychoanalysis was considered a science. If not, why should any theory be considered fine for philosophy?
>There are lots of people that regard psychology in the same way you do psychoanalysis. Then we can STEM-jerk ourselves all the way down to the level of neuroscience, but I'm not sure we can gain any valuable insights if we reduce mind to a product of sets of electrical impulses and shit.
I know this and talked about it here >>9774019. But now I have to ask (again) what would justify theory? STEMfags dislike both theory and psychology, so what makes it okay to use theory but not psychology?
>I think high theory still has place in this world.
I found it at plato_standford but couldn't find what it means. Could you explain it to me?
>I think we don't have a better tool.
Couldn't we (again hehe) say the same about psychology (for example)? Why? Why not?

And note that this is just how I see it, many people disagree with me.

>>9774182
>I was under the impression that psychoanalysis was considered a science.
...at first

File: harold-bloom1.jpg (240KB, 1014x986px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1014x986px

>>9774019
>Yes it is, it is being tested with experiments

Oh gee, it looks like science so it must be science.
Kindly lobotomize yourself

>>9774103
>But where do you draw the line?
This might be obnoxious: but where do we draw the line with theory?

>>9773903
Psychoanalysis doesn't claim itself to be a science, but a practice.

>>9774193
Define your terms. Why is it not a science? I'm guessing it's because the outcomes of the psychological experiments aren't 100% predictable? (as apposed to say, a basic chemistry experiment)

>>9774201
You might be correct but it presents itself also as theory

>Enter thread
>Don't know if to bully Psychoanalytics or Psychology
Shit

>>9774228
Wrong, psychoanalysis has no further purview beyond the analyst/analysand relation.

>>9774247
I had some classes in child development in which we learned about Freud's development stages

>>9773903
>I don't think you nor most of /lit/ want to hear this but I think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience

Zizek knows that, which is why he always though that is ridiculous to use psychoanalysis in actual psychiatric practice. He just thinks that Freudian and Lacanian terminological apparatus is a useful tool in philosophy.

psychoanalysis is the academic expression of the postmodernist victory in the research field (along with the deletion of mathematics in the curriculum of philosophy careers and doctorates)
hence why it triggers positivists so much, they think that the TRUE and HONEST research method is the one used in exact sciences