Is Freud our guy?

Is Freud our guy?

Other urls found in this thread:

ejop.psychopen.eu/article/download/304/pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>The psychic development of the individual is a short repetition of the course of development of the race.
Yes

>is a Jew who promoted degeneracy and wanted to make everything about sex /ourguy/
No you retarded britbong.
ruskies also confirmed for retards.

Freud is /ourguy/ insofar as feminists hate him but most of their ideology is based in Freudian ideas.

So he is the hammer that you use to destroy them with themselves.

This is the correct answer

he fucked his sister so i don't know. this is pretty degenerate

>was so obsessed by his own interpretation of a few observed facts he cut himself from everyone he knew and refused all his life to broaden his view to consider different points of view
Oh yes, he is.

Freud me once, shame on me.

Freud me twice, I fuck your mom.

All feminist and Lgbt theories are post-freudian. His dream analysis was one of the reasons why Popper had to come up with the fallibism.

Freud was a tard.

Actually, you fuck your mom.. in your dreams. How bout that?

Kek.

well akshually
The current form of feminism (considering society as a class struggle between the sexes) comes from marxist schools of thought more than anything.
Queer theory is 100% based on a quick read of Freud for Dummies though, and was sloppily used to justify failed literary critics writing gay fanfics about their favourite characters sucking dick.

No he's a Freud, we can't trust him

You're right. But everything after third wave feminism is inspired by Lacan, who was a sort of linguistic exstention of Freud. But overall feminism is a continuation of marxist critical readings.. I think I know what you're studying and if I'm right, then we're studying the same thing.

Jung > Freud

I'm not studying anything, but I've studied litterature then linguistics.
And while in litterature, we hade several semesters with classes on english speaking litteratures from american professors.
Holy shit, that was bad. All they did was shove their political ideologies into any and all interpretations of texts, ask us to do the same (but not with our ideologies, it had to be theirs because theirs are more correct since they are furether on the logical history of politics, because Hegel and Marx said something like that), disregard formal/stylistic commentary in favor of thematic interpretation and the worst of all was fucking queer theory. I'll never get over how retarded it is. It's wishful thinking enshrined as an academic discipline.
I'm glad I'm out of uni now. especially seeing how some parisian universities will open the first gender studies departments in the country this september. I've seen a bit of the shit they might do with language and I don't plan on going anywhere near academia anymore.

Holy shit that sounds bad.
I'm studying comparrative literature, which here also is a kind of mix between linguistics and literature. But we don't have anything like your issue. None of our lectors exposes their political views and even the ones I know from private who are very left leaning, has slammed queer theory, feminist readings and marxist criticism. They called the methods unscientific and vague. The most consistent critique they had of them, was that they were performative contradictiry. Also, we have professors whom in their private life are right-winged. My favorite professor admitted to me that feminism and post-colonial theories are the cancer of science. Also, in one of our classes we each semester get to set together our own curriculum of ten books.
If you ever consider going back to school, then seek exchange in Denmark, it's very much different from American college.

Last thing: all my classmate thought feminist theory was retarded.

>one, if not the most, overrated psycho analizers of the last 2 centuries
>a profesional of his field can be good when is understood for nu-males, beta faggots, and women of all ages.

Thing is, that stuff only came from the professors we had who camre from american backgrounds, really. And for what I have seen in comparing the overall views, there is a tendency in european writers and analysts to try and reach some universal value in their work. In a sense litterature is thus seen as a process that starts from within and expands its ideas towards the rest of teh world. on the other hand american modernism follows the opposite route and instead of trying to find truth or universal value, it tries to be as specific as possible, by blurring the line between creator and creation, always going back to the person and their subjectivity.
Which I think is why so many writers and scholars in Europe have little love and interest for stuff like patriarchy-theory or queer studies.
Needless to say, the local french teachers did not do any of that either. if anything it is possible to reproach them the opposite and being too focused on purely textual analysis and disregard of context and history.

Propaganda in french universities has beem happening since the 70s. They brainwash you into feeling guilty about colonialism and make you hate your nation and culture.

woah dude I didn't notice that at all like all the papers about colonial history and how 19th century France was viable because it could create wealth out of its colonial empire were totally self-flagelatting propaganda mind = BLOWN

Interesting stuff about the span between europe and America.
Also, I think you're right. The feminist reading we did of a novel, was merely to point out how stupid it is to overanalyze, instead of looking at the context (as you said). Also, lingusticly speaking, I find this to be the biggest clash with Derrida reading everything diachrone and Saussure reading things synchrone. Word hegemonies only work if their discoursive latent, in my opinion. So words have a historicity, but their power is ineffective if people are aware of their etymology.
I.e: Angry mason calling feeble painter a pussy, does not create a signifiant of a woman painter, it only create the signifiant of someone being cowardly. As you said, it's contextual.

if they're *

His interpretations of dreams don't hold up when you realize symbolism isn't the same to everyone or in every culture.

He is the reason why Evangelion is so good.

Fuck your mother goyim

That's why Lacan contined his work and took up the issue you're mentioning. I'm not saying Lacan is much better, but he's worth looking into.

Are you fucking kidding me ?
Have you read a book in your life. This kike is a fraud. He fucked with his cousin, was fascinated by money, slept during his sessions with his clients, told people that the poor can't be cured because they are damaged, had a mother fetish and made it a theory, stole work from other psychanalysts without mentioning them, hated women and said that they were half males with an uninvolved penis,....was made famous by kikes.

You should read Michel Onfray....he litteraly destroys him

...

He's my favorite cocaine addicted pedo.

What's your top 3?

Another one would be the guy that wrote Alice in Wonderland

It laps in politics as well as philosophy of politics mein Freund.

No.

Of course not.

Freud may have said something right, but that man is mostly poison.

At least 95% poison.

This.

Jung is /ourguy/

Again as the french guy noted.
Calling C.S Lewis a pedophile was not noted in any evidence, it was an over-analyzation of people claiming that Alice in Wonderland exposed hin as sending a pedo vibe. There are actually no real evidence leading to him having been a pedophile... regardless, I myself still call him a pedo, because it's hillarious.

If the truth is poison, you still need to take it.

Rudolf Allers my dude.

>The father of psychology is 95%.

Hmm.

omg, is this a real picture? lmao.

>>is a Jew who promoted degeneracy and wanted to make everything about sex /ourguy/
He never promoted degeneracy. Did you even read him?
As any observer he just pointed the facts. If you don't like that facts, then it doesn't mean he was wrong. It's a fallacy.

Read this ejop.psychopen.eu/article/download/304/pdf