EPTthe problem is thinking that freud's work is one big edifice which lives or dies by its victorian trappings. We can leave aside the child abuse or whatever, that doesn't mean that stuff like transference et al are not useful concepts.. I even think psychoanalysis is very useful for understanding the way a student relates to a teacher! Certainly I have had the experience of being someone's subject supposed to know
What Are You Reading 2013 - Page 118
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
the problem is thinking that freud's work is one big edifice which lives or dies by its victorian trappings. We can leave aside the child abuse or whatever, that doesn't mean that stuff like transference et al are not useful concepts.. I even think psychoanalysis is very useful for understanding the way a student relates to a teacher! Certainly I have had the experience of being someone's subject supposed to know | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 05 2013 00:46 corumjhaelen wrote: 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 :/ yes exactly, my therapist was useless because she didn't know anything about philosophy, just 'science'. She thought I was a houseplant, I wanted to talk about modern civilization and the meaning of life. edit: the 'science' stuff is just because that's what the priests need today to make themselves the subjects supposed to know. I spent four years dating a psych major, they don't really know as much as everyone thinks they do. It's all just statistics about keywords. | ||
|
eXeYukon
45 Posts
| ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On September 05 2013 00:49 sam!zdat wrote: what my last post? No, I very specifically mean psychology. If you think that the analyst-analysand relationship described by freud is not operative in psychology today, I think you are very very wrong. I think that relationship exists in many places, not limited to clinic. the problem is thinking that freud's work is one big edifice which lives or dies by its victorian trappings. We can leave aside the child abuse or whatever, that doesn't mean that stuff like transference et al are not useful concepts.. I even think psychoanalysis is very useful for understanding the way a student relates to a teacher! Certainly I have had the experience of being someone's subject supposed to know My problem with your using "psychology" in place of "psychiatry" is that the former is a large field not limited to relieving and describing psychological maladies. Seeing as all your points are addressed to that limited function, it would make more sense for you to describe the field in a more limited way. For instance, psychology is interested in the workings of perception, memory, natural language processing, and inference. I can half see the idea that there is nothing new in psychiatry aside from better potions, but if you think there's nothing new in the rest of psychology, you are strongly mistaken. As for your final point, I have no reason to believe Freudian notions haven't been useful in your self-understanding and that of others. But sadly, I don't have any such examples for myself. edit: You could also just put a 'clinical' in front of your 'psychology', I suppose. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
my understanding is that the term psychiatry means strictly prescribing meds and would be inappropriate here edit: everyone here thinks I am an anti-science zealot or something, but that's just because the general tenor here on this site is new atheist logical positivism stuff. In my own milieu I am something of a heretic for how pro-science I am. None of you will believe that though probably | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: oh and earlier you attempted to limit freud to my 'self-understanding'. Not so. Freud has helped me understand the world, not just some 'subjective truth' which is an analytic philosopher's way of saying 'nonsense', since you guys don't actually believe in subjectivity, as obtuse as that is edit: what's your experience with freud froggy? Cover him in a modern humanities survey or have you spent more time with him? | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
-Characters were nicely fleshed out. -Plot was boring because -> -Plot was marred by too many metaphors/too much symbolism at key points -> too vague. + Show Spoiler + I get that the world was supposed to be a dystopia and unreasonable, but, nothing was ever explained (at least I couldn't find any clues). I suppose the author might've been intentionally trying to make the world ridiculous to highlight the love story and how normal it is, but it made the book more about the relationship between the main characters than the ongoings of the world, which got boring after 1k+ pages. Haven't had much time to read lately, but when I do I love going to this thread and making a list for me to stop by the library with. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4667 Posts
On September 05 2013 00:54 eXeYukon wrote: Maybe someone has already said this series but if you havent read the "Sword of Truth" books by Terry Goodkind, do so... now. Finished them a while back at the start of 2013. I've read somewhere (probably in this thread, lol) that the Sword of Truth are only good if you're not an adult. The amount of horrificly lengthy objectivist wankery that goes on in Richard's speeches is just flat out awful. The series doesn't have anything else at all good about it, the prose is terrible ("Richard felt his thing begin to rise..." SERIOUSLY!??! "thing begin to rise" WTF!), the "plot" is virtually non-existent. Just spare yourself now, unless you're into twenty page long objectivist speeches. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On September 05 2013 02:22 hasuprotoss wrote: I've read somewhere (probably in this thread, lol) that the Sword of Truth are only good if you're not an adult. The amount of horrificly lengthy objectivist wankery that goes on in Richard's speeches is just flat out awful. The series doesn't have anything else at all good about it, the prose is terrible ("Richard felt his thing begin to rise..." SERIOUSLY!??! "thing begin to rise" WTF!), the "plot" is virtually non-existent. Just spare yourself now, unless you're into twenty page long objectivist speeches. Hey, I think I like you  | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
and since we're talking about lacan, 'kant avec sade' is a pretty crucial thing of his | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
daughters raping their mother and sewing their vagina Well, on principle, I agree with you. What's the gist of "Kant avec Sade" ? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: for example how kant thinks that marriage is a contract for mutual use of sexual organs. What a creep. | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
I'm currently reading "Cold City" from F. Paul Wilson + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://openbooksociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/coldcity54.jpg) What can I tell? It's a repairman Jack novel; or better: It's the very start of Repairman Jack! Great read, as usual, and just halve through! | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
On September 05 2013 01:14 sam!zdat wrote: I used the word clinical already. That's what I'm talking about. Not research. The research is fine but it doesn't ground the practice nearly as much as they want you to think. And a lot of the research, having witnessed it firsthand, is bad. Surely there is good stuff also, this is not my point. My point is that 'psychologists' are not the only people who are allowed to have an opinion about 'psychology', largely because I think if we limited ourselves in this way we will be waiting around until the singularity until we know anything. And the singularity is a ridiculous fantasy. my understanding is that the term psychiatry means strictly prescribing meds and would be inappropriate here edit: everyone here thinks I am an anti-science zealot or something, but that's just because the general tenor here on this site is new atheist logical positivism stuff. In my own milieu I am something of a heretic for how pro-science I am. None of you will believe that though probably Why, I am the same. Now u just be female and hot, and we can make out. Btw may I have some opinion on "Count of Monte Cristo", I have seen the series with Depardieu and even watched an anime (gankutsuou) bout it, and tried to read the German translation of it long time ago, had to stop halfways since I lost track of the characters. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On September 05 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote: he says that sade is the repressed truth of kant. A&h say a similar thing in dialectic of enlightenment. Zizek talks about this a lot. Both are a sort of degenerate formalism with nothing but the empty play of combinations. Like if you ever read 'watt' by beckett (i recommend reading this aloud to yourself). edit: for example how kant thinks that marriage is a contract for mutual use of sexual organs. What a creep. Yeah, it's pretty clear that Sade is the dark figure of the Aufklarung or something along those lines. Btw "Français, encore un effort si vous voulez être républicain" might be my favourite chapter title ever. | ||
| ||
