|
On September 04 2013 03:38 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 03:34 dmnum wrote:On September 04 2013 03:30 packrat386 wrote:On September 04 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
packrat you realize the one ring is nothing if not a symbol of phallic power and the entire plot of all of tolkien is about who will possess/castrate it don't you
isildur CHOPS OFF SAURONS FINGER and TAKES HIS POWER and you think tolkien is not about daddy. You have clearly not read enough psychoanalysis! Also, according to this formula we can take any book where there is something that represents power and call it a penis. I understand that there are people who make those arguments, but I don't buy it. freud fucked everything man I have a friend who's a psychologist and she hates freud with a passion because, according to her, everything after him became penises and vaginas She probably needs to read him then... About African litterature, there's a quite interesting movement in francophone litterature called negritude, which aimed at the reappropriation of one's identity as a black person. It's not that african though, given that the main writers of that movement were in Normale Sup' together.
she has, and here's her opinion:
Freud's major influence on mainstream culture was the "discovery" of the unconscious and its power, which is great, but the guy was obsessed with sex, and that has led to an infinite number of people seeing phallic symbols in everything based on his work. That's where her hate comes from. A lot of people take Freud as the epitome of psychology without considering how one dimensional he could be sometimes. So, after all, I guess she doesn't really hate Freud, she only hates the idea the psychology layman has about him.
She loves Jung though.
edit: funnily enough taking 19th century society's views on Africa when judging HoD is a very Jungian approach.
|
On September 04 2013 03:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 03:33 packrat386 wrote:
Also, didn't realize that the HoD discussion would be so contentious. I would argue more on the side of achebe, but I really haven't done my homework on the issue, so you should probably believe farvacola and CSheep. i think farva and i are just pointing out that the HoD as racist reading is nothing new/novel, and has been pretty much part of the establishment for a few decades at least.
Yeah, this is it more or less, and to echo dmnum's sentiment, I do think that Achebe's work is very important and ought not be discarded by any means. There just seems to be this odd phenomena in the lit crit world where large swaths of people are perpetually stuck in 1975, and not just when it comes to race and gender theory.
|
Currently reading a light novel, Fate/zero, whenever I'm on train to work/home. Really like the setting and the characters. So far, thanks to the shortness of it, the pacing is fitting the story and how you would want to progress through it. Another advantage is that you don't know how the characters will react. While pretty much all of them share the spotlight equally, it's not enough to get to know them too well.
|
On September 04 2013 03:54 dmnum wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 03:38 corumjhaelen wrote:On September 04 2013 03:34 dmnum wrote:On September 04 2013 03:30 packrat386 wrote:On September 04 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
packrat you realize the one ring is nothing if not a symbol of phallic power and the entire plot of all of tolkien is about who will possess/castrate it don't you
isildur CHOPS OFF SAURONS FINGER and TAKES HIS POWER and you think tolkien is not about daddy. You have clearly not read enough psychoanalysis! Also, according to this formula we can take any book where there is something that represents power and call it a penis. I understand that there are people who make those arguments, but I don't buy it. freud fucked everything man I have a friend who's a psychologist and she hates freud with a passion because, according to her, everything after him became penises and vaginas She probably needs to read him then... About African litterature, there's a quite interesting movement in francophone litterature called negritude, which aimed at the reappropriation of one's identity as a black person. It's not that african though, given that the main writers of that movement were in Normale Sup' together. she has, and here's her opinion: Freud's major influence on mainstream culture was the "discovery" of the unconscious and its power, which is great, but the guy was obsessed with sex, and that has led to an infinite number of people seeing phallic symbols in everything based on his work. That's where her hate comes from. A lot of people take Freud as the epitome of psychology without considering how one dimensional he could be sometimes. So, after all, I guess she doesn't really hate Freud, she only hates the idea the psychology layman has about him. She loves Jung though. edit: funnily enough taking 19th century society's views on Africa when judging HoD is a very Jungian approach.
So she hates him for being popular ? Fucking hipsters 
But in all seriousness, what Freud sexuality is way larger than the usual sens of the term... I really feel that the tendency is to minimize his contributions rather than exagerate them nowadays, there's a lot of anti-Freudian backslash...
|
I just read 1Q84 by Murakami and it's really good. Although Kafka on the Shore is still the best one.
|
On September 04 2013 05:03 Kickboxer wrote:
I just read 1Q84 by Murakami and it's really good. Although Kafka on the Shore is still the best one.
But Sputnik Sweetheart is even better
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On September 04 2013 04:55 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 03:54 dmnum wrote:On September 04 2013 03:38 corumjhaelen wrote:On September 04 2013 03:34 dmnum wrote:On September 04 2013 03:30 packrat386 wrote:On September 04 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
packrat you realize the one ring is nothing if not a symbol of phallic power and the entire plot of all of tolkien is about who will possess/castrate it don't you
isildur CHOPS OFF SAURONS FINGER and TAKES HIS POWER and you think tolkien is not about daddy. You have clearly not read enough psychoanalysis! Also, according to this formula we can take any book where there is something that represents power and call it a penis. I understand that there are people who make those arguments, but I don't buy it. freud fucked everything man I have a friend who's a psychologist and she hates freud with a passion because, according to her, everything after him became penises and vaginas She probably needs to read him then... About African litterature, there's a quite interesting movement in francophone litterature called negritude, which aimed at the reappropriation of one's identity as a black person. It's not that african though, given that the main writers of that movement were in Normale Sup' together. she has, and here's her opinion: Freud's major influence on mainstream culture was the "discovery" of the unconscious and its power, which is great, but the guy was obsessed with sex, and that has led to an infinite number of people seeing phallic symbols in everything based on his work. That's where her hate comes from. A lot of people take Freud as the epitome of psychology without considering how one dimensional he could be sometimes. So, after all, I guess she doesn't really hate Freud, she only hates the idea the psychology layman has about him. She loves Jung though. edit: funnily enough taking 19th century society's views on Africa when judging HoD is a very Jungian approach. So she hates him for being popular ? Fucking hipsters But in all seriousness, what Freud sexuality is way larger than the usual sens of the term... I really feel that the tendency is to minimize his contributions rather than exagerate them nowadays, there's a lot of anti-Freudian backslash...
Hey, lots of people agree that Freud was kind of a dud as a psychologist, but was a hell of a literary theorist even if he didn't know it. Explains the psychologist hate and the love, or at least attention, he gets in critical theory circles~
|
I'm just kinda trolling with the tolkien stuff. You could do a fun psychoanalytic reading of tolkien but just calling the ring a phallus isn't it. Even though the ring is totally a phallus.
anyway freud is a genius but you have to understand what psychoanalysis IS which most people don't. It's not supposed to be a science, and nobody uses it that way. But science won't tell you everything you want to know about people.
also it's not about freud anymore it's about lacan.
|
On September 04 2013 16:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm just kinda trolling with the tolkien stuff. You could do a fun psychoanalytic reading of tolkien but just calling the ring a phallus isn't it. Even though the ring is totally a phallus.
anyway freud is a genius but you have to understand what psychoanalysis IS which most people don't. It's not supposed to be a science, and nobody uses it that way. But science won't tell you everything you want to know about people.
also it's not about freud anymore it's about lacan.
Could you recommend a good book by lacan to get an introduction to psychoanalysis? Or is he too complicated to start with.
|
On September 04 2013 22:13 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 16:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm just kinda trolling with the tolkien stuff. You could do a fun psychoanalytic reading of tolkien but just calling the ring a phallus isn't it. Even though the ring is totally a phallus.
anyway freud is a genius but you have to understand what psychoanalysis IS which most people don't. It's not supposed to be a science, and nobody uses it that way. But science won't tell you everything you want to know about people.
also it's not about freud anymore it's about lacan. Could you recommend a good book by lacan to get an introduction to psychoanalysis? Or is he too complicated to start with.
Can't wait to see how sam!zdat will deal with that question. He seems to like Lacan as much as he hates him.
Beware if he tells you to read "Ecrits".
Starting the Dialectic of Reason !
|
On September 04 2013 22:13 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 16:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm just kinda trolling with the tolkien stuff. You could do a fun psychoanalytic reading of tolkien but just calling the ring a phallus isn't it. Even though the ring is totally a phallus.
anyway freud is a genius but you have to understand what psychoanalysis IS which most people don't. It's not supposed to be a science, and nobody uses it that way. But science won't tell you everything you want to know about people.
also it's not about freud anymore it's about lacan. Could you recommend a good book by lacan to get an introduction to psychoanalysis? Or is he too complicated to start with.
Before embarking on this, you should probably know that Freud took psychoanalysis to be a science (he'd turn in his grave at sam's post and similar suggestions) and that Lacan took himself to be a Freudian. It's only more recent uses of these theories that claim a different status for them, largely in response to the fact that they are utter failures empirically.
|
yeah freud thought he was doing science but he had a different notion of science than what we have today. Whatever lacan thought he was doing is irrelevant because the man is a ridiculous clown.
if you want to know about lacan, read zizek (we shouls note that zizek takes himself to be lacanian perhaps in the same way lacan took himself to be freudian). Read 'the plague of fantasies' or 'the sublime object of ideology' (pof more about lacan). You'll find it difficult and perhaps bewildering but those are two of my favorite books
once you understand how to apply the 'real, imaginary, symbolic' triad you will never think the same way again. Same with concepts like objet a, the big Other, and things like that. I think lacanian vocabulary is an indispensible toolbox for critical thought and nobody should be without him.
I should say that I really do 'believe' psychoanalysis in the sense that I believe psychoanalysis describes something that really does happen and offers valuable insight into the way that individuals become integrated into their societies. But none of its concepts are operationalizable in the way that scientific paradigm would demand (but I think that paradigm is limiting, and that particularly you will never understand the psychodynamics of human societies using science, although certainly science might give you some interesting findings. But here we are trying to study orchids with bulldozers)
oh but you really must know some basic freud before diving into things lacanian.
edit: corum I would never advise anyone to read ecrits, ever, unless they are a masochist like me
|
Yeah, my understanding is that a good part of XXth century's epistemology was made to exclude precisely Freud from the field of science (cough Popper cough).
Man, Adorno ain't such an easy read.
|
^ that's how you know something is dangerous and therefore worth studying. Because people tell you 'it has been discredited! No person in [field x] today studies that! It's not scientific!!' it's the hysteria in their voice when they say it that gives you the real clue that this is precisely what you should be reading. Can we think of anybody who is treated similarly to freud in this way? I'm drawing a blank. But I have this nagging feeling that there must be at least one other great thinker who is slandered in precisely this way...
|
The Dark Tower series, I'm liking it, but sometimes it really feels like the story is never gonna go anywhere and I'm kind of expecting the final ending to be quite anticlimactic... =p
|
On September 05 2013 00:00 sam!zdat wrote:
^ that's how you know something is dangerous and therefore worth studying. Because people tell you 'it has been discredited! No person in [field x] today studies that! It's not scientific!!' it's the hysteria in their voice when they say it that gives you the real clue that this is precisely what you should be reading. Can we think of anybody who is treated similarly to freud in this way? I'm drawing a blank. But I have this nagging feeling that there must be at least one other great thinker who is slandered in precisely this way...
That's because Freud is treated positively in a way that other discredited people aren't. If Freud were treated like a lesser Newton, people wouldn't be upset with him. But no one tries to design GPS using Newton, whereas many people still believe completely discredited ideas about repressed memories owing to Freud.
edit: Also, the "epistemology" point is pretty outdated. Really you're just talking about Popper, who mostly enjoys popularity among scientists rather than philosophers these days. I get the impression that most take Freud's work to have been both falsifiable and, in fact, falsified. See Grunbaum for instance.
|
On September 05 2013 00:03 Bloodash wrote:
The Dark Tower series, I'm liking it, but sometimes it really feels like the story is never gonna go anywhere and I'm kind of expecting the final ending to be quite anticlimactic... =p
It's a very nice series imo, some hours really well spent!
Reading Joyland atm :-)
|
but at the same time, 'the return of the repressed' is a very real thing. To be honest, I think psychoanalysis is more useful for analyzing collections of people than individual people. Also literature.
I don't care what the clinicians want to do, that's their scam. All psychological practice is just variations on the priestly function anyway, there's nothing actually new about psychology today. You just tell someone you think is wise (the 'subject-supposed-to-know') all about your problems and you feel better. Stunning! The only difference is that today the magic potions are real, though we were probably better off with the placebos. As for myself, I found reading lacan and taking psychedlics more therapeutic than going to my CBT therapist and taking pharmaceuticals, but to each his own I suppose. I believe in freedom of religion!
|
I think your post would benefit from substituting "psychiatry" for "psychology". I don't actually think all that highly of psychiatry in many cases myself, and have personally not had any beneficial experiences with it.
That said, at least with CBT we don't have cranks implanting false childhood abuse memories into their patients. Good enough for me.
|
But psychiatry is more scientific !!
I personnally have an excellent experience with my psychiatrist, but she reads Freud, Lacan, Merleau-Ponty and her thesis was about phenomenology. We also have pretty close views on what life is about, so she can be my good priest
No idea what the medication does, but what I can tell is that when my aunt stops taking them, the result isn't really good for her :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
