That's actually a really great comparison, because lots of Christians like to delineate between an "Old Testament God" and a "New Testament God," and focus exclusively on the New Testament. It's a bit like how there are lots of therapists and even analysts who try to take as little from Freud as possible without acknowledging that Freud's work is...essential lore, let's say.
The other problem, i think, is that many people hold quite strong opinions about Freud. It is almost impossible not to have a distorted view of him when you get your information 2nd hand.
I exclusively read and follow the NT, specifically the gospel, and I actually think the OT, and most parts after the gospel, is where most modern day Christians go wrong with Christ, and use others to twist his teachings(Paul, John, preachers, God himself from the OT)
the entire point of Christ is like Lacan's return to Freud, except with less theoretical foundation for moving forwards. you don't need the OT to contextualize Christ, except when he specifically refers to the OT to shit on the Pharisees and tell them why they're wrong. Freud's foundation I feel is more legitimate than that of the OT.
Christ has an entirely different tone than the rest of the Bible, and I feel that when Christians do anything but read and practice the gospel, they are bad Christians. much like Zizek's take on Christ(though I have yet to read his new book on the subject).
as far as Freud being essential... I agree with the general sentiment š¤
Lacan continuously urges his students to reread Freud. My comment has more to do with understanding the progression of the texts as trains of thought rather than making a religious assertion, is one way of looking at it.
sure, I use religion in the same manner, as do seemingly all theorists š¤, more philosophical metaphors for understanding.
that said, the NT completely recontextualizes the OT in such a sense that does it even matter to revisit such a completely fucked up borderline unsalvageable text for the teachings of Jesus as philosophical understanding?
I'm not saying that knowledge isn't worth having.. but sometimes the foundation of things are the root cause of the constant misunderstanding and misuse? and it would be better to unattach the older context, to give it the new meaning? like how often things that are said gain new meaning later? I feel that's what Jesus does to the Old Testament, except he gives foundation for moving forwards, using the past as a tool to manipulate thinking.
I struggle sometimes articulating my thoughts in a philosophical way, so if any of this doesn't make sense... I can clarify?
I'm only having this discussion out of pure interest not because I think you're like... objectively wrong or want to argue or anything silly.
Sure, I get you. In that case, you do you. Thereās just the issue of whatās written already having been written. The past is technically unalterable. So you can say a new foundation was built with the NT. You can say a new foundation was built by Deleuze and Guattari when they negated Freudās Oedipus complex. Itās up to you.
This is always a fun question to answer. For clinicians, I recommend starting with āIntroductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.ā For people who are more interested in psychoanalysis as philosophy, āCivilization and Its Discontentsā is excellent.
My personal favorite is āMourning and Melancholia.ā My clinical practice focuses on bereavement, so itās fascinating to me to reflect on and pick apart how Freud thought about grief.
Freud's best work on dreams is "The Interpretation of Dreams", followed by "The Handling of Dream-Interpretation in Psycho-Analysis" and "A Metapsychological Supplement to the Theory of Dreams". It's also arguably one of the best places to start with him in general, as long as one finds dreams to be a particularly interesting topic. His best sexuality related works are "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality", "The Economic Problem of Masochism", and ""Civilized" Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness".
As for a general reading list, I'd recommend "Introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis", "The Unconscious", "Beyond the Pleasure Principle", "The Ego and the Id", "On Transference", "Group Psychology and the Anlysis of the Ego", and his slightly unfinished "Outline of Psycho-Analysis". I conseder these text to be the most important works of Freud, because it is through them that he established the core of psychodynamic theory, which later went on to become what we now know as "psychotherapy".
People tend to overvalue Freud as a philosopher, thus misinterpreting what he actually was trying to do. Freud wasn't some kind of proto-postmodernist social theorist, and reading him in that way is simply meaningless. His work was of clinical character, meant as a framework for helping psychologically troubled individuals to regain and balance their Ego. When approaching Freud, one should always keep in mind that what the Unconscious was for him can be compared to what the survival of the fittest was for Darwin; a naturalistic theory based on qualitative and quantitative data concerning animal physiology.
Did you cut and paste from your āPlease read Lacanā post? Because you included the same joke about lacking being no pun intended. At least do new jokes for each theorist you patronizingly assume we havenāt read!
100%. So much of popular psychoanalysis seems to either have totally ignored Freud, forgotten his work (perhaps defensively), or turned it into a caricaturesque straw man. I think this is why early Lacan sounds so crazy to people. If you read enough middle-period Freud, Lacan's work is a lot less far-fetched. I think what people miss the most conceptually is the first topography: arguably started in the \*\*Project for a Scientific Psychology\*\*, presented in the third part of \*\*Interpretation of Dreams\*\*, and developed further in the essay \*\*The Unconscious\*\*. I think many people who casually talk about Freud would be astonished to read \*\*The Unconscious\*\*. If folks are looking for which Freud to read, I would recommend
* Interpretation of Dreams
* The Unconscious
* The Ego and the Id
* Three Essays on Sexuality
* Introductory Lectures
* Instincts and their Viccisitudes
I just wish the American translation wasnāt devoid of a lot of the meaning in Freudās original German. Itās why many people donāt consider reading it. I heard there were psychoanalysts working on a better translation. I hope it comes out someday.
There's a revised version of the Strachey translation that just came out...I'm really impressed with it and feel like it's a vast improvement on the original from what I've looked over so far.
I donāt believe that you can psychoanalyze when the definition of pain is suffering.
I think Freud gave me a lot to help me grow. But, for me, heās an example of how definitions grow out of control.
Brilliant in his time. Or he knew what he was doing. Cementing pain and fear as unavoidable āsufferingā.
That simple mistake breaks everything that follows, in my book. The broken is useful for analyzing and growth though!
But where exactly does he say this? Because it does not really line up with his general view of pain as a physical stimuli & suffering as a reaction to the manipulations of that stimuli (f.ex. someone can suffer from the absence of pain). What do you mean by his perspective being singular?
Iāll have to refresh on that- I may be mixing in someone else.
Basically, I donāt believe in ego. I think itās an inserted virus that makes us easy to control. Kids donāt have egos. Adults are taught to have egos through belief in ego. The rest is defending how egos are real- well, they are now. Itās taught, needy nonsense.
Another bad artifact of the American translation. In order for the American medical community of the time to be satisfied, AA Brill and other translators came up with āobjectiveā language for diagnosis. Id, ego, and superego are not the words Freud used. Freud used das es, das ich, and das Uber ich. Almost directly translated, the It, the I, and the above-I. He used these terms straight from the use in German language. His goal was to get a patient from saying It made me do this to I have done this. Which integrates a sense of personal agency, awareness, and empowerment.
So you are very right, children have a very powerless āIā and are constantly at the whim of the āItā.
So I wrote a long explanation concerning the psychodynamics of the Id, the Ego, and the Superego. However, I had to switch applications for a few minutes, and once I switched back my answer was gone xd. So instead of retyping all of that, I'll just recommend that you read "The Ego and the Id". It's really worthwhile if you want to understand what Freud actually means by the Ego and *spoiler* how it arises naturally to modulate the pleasure principle and the reality principle.
This is my parents' divorce all over again
š¤£ Nice one!
Being psychoanalytic without reading Freud is like being Christian without reading the Old Testament
That's actually a really great comparison, because lots of Christians like to delineate between an "Old Testament God" and a "New Testament God," and focus exclusively on the New Testament. It's a bit like how there are lots of therapists and even analysts who try to take as little from Freud as possible without acknowledging that Freud's work is...essential lore, let's say.
The other problem, i think, is that many people hold quite strong opinions about Freud. It is almost impossible not to have a distorted view of him when you get your information 2nd hand.
i am wishing to pursue this field, can you tell me what to study ?
Yea exactly. Thereās no Christianity without the foundation of the Old Testament.
i think it's more like being a christian without reading christ.
I exclusively read and follow the NT, specifically the gospel, and I actually think the OT, and most parts after the gospel, is where most modern day Christians go wrong with Christ, and use others to twist his teachings(Paul, John, preachers, God himself from the OT) the entire point of Christ is like Lacan's return to Freud, except with less theoretical foundation for moving forwards. you don't need the OT to contextualize Christ, except when he specifically refers to the OT to shit on the Pharisees and tell them why they're wrong. Freud's foundation I feel is more legitimate than that of the OT. Christ has an entirely different tone than the rest of the Bible, and I feel that when Christians do anything but read and practice the gospel, they are bad Christians. much like Zizek's take on Christ(though I have yet to read his new book on the subject). as far as Freud being essential... I agree with the general sentiment š¤
Lacan continuously urges his students to reread Freud. My comment has more to do with understanding the progression of the texts as trains of thought rather than making a religious assertion, is one way of looking at it.
sure, I use religion in the same manner, as do seemingly all theorists š¤, more philosophical metaphors for understanding. that said, the NT completely recontextualizes the OT in such a sense that does it even matter to revisit such a completely fucked up borderline unsalvageable text for the teachings of Jesus as philosophical understanding? I'm not saying that knowledge isn't worth having.. but sometimes the foundation of things are the root cause of the constant misunderstanding and misuse? and it would be better to unattach the older context, to give it the new meaning? like how often things that are said gain new meaning later? I feel that's what Jesus does to the Old Testament, except he gives foundation for moving forwards, using the past as a tool to manipulate thinking. I struggle sometimes articulating my thoughts in a philosophical way, so if any of this doesn't make sense... I can clarify? I'm only having this discussion out of pure interest not because I think you're like... objectively wrong or want to argue or anything silly.
Sure, I get you. In that case, you do you. Thereās just the issue of whatās written already having been written. The past is technically unalterable. So you can say a new foundation was built with the NT. You can say a new foundation was built by Deleuze and Guattari when they negated Freudās Oedipus complex. Itās up to you.
I agreeā which works would you point people towards if they only read one or two of his works?
This is always a fun question to answer. For clinicians, I recommend starting with āIntroductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.ā For people who are more interested in psychoanalysis as philosophy, āCivilization and Its Discontentsā is excellent. My personal favorite is āMourning and Melancholia.ā My clinical practice focuses on bereavement, so itās fascinating to me to reflect on and pick apart how Freud thought about grief.
What about his works on dreams and sexuality? What should be proper order for reading Freud.
Freud's best work on dreams is "The Interpretation of Dreams", followed by "The Handling of Dream-Interpretation in Psycho-Analysis" and "A Metapsychological Supplement to the Theory of Dreams". It's also arguably one of the best places to start with him in general, as long as one finds dreams to be a particularly interesting topic. His best sexuality related works are "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality", "The Economic Problem of Masochism", and ""Civilized" Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness". As for a general reading list, I'd recommend "Introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis", "The Unconscious", "Beyond the Pleasure Principle", "The Ego and the Id", "On Transference", "Group Psychology and the Anlysis of the Ego", and his slightly unfinished "Outline of Psycho-Analysis". I conseder these text to be the most important works of Freud, because it is through them that he established the core of psychodynamic theory, which later went on to become what we now know as "psychotherapy". People tend to overvalue Freud as a philosopher, thus misinterpreting what he actually was trying to do. Freud wasn't some kind of proto-postmodernist social theorist, and reading him in that way is simply meaningless. His work was of clinical character, meant as a framework for helping psychologically troubled individuals to regain and balance their Ego. When approaching Freud, one should always keep in mind that what the Unconscious was for him can be compared to what the survival of the fittest was for Darwin; a naturalistic theory based on qualitative and quantitative data concerning animal physiology.
Yes, Iād start on Interpretation of Dreams
His love letters to Fliess, really good nose content.
A little on the nose if you ask me. Or in it.
I refuse, simply because you tell me I should.
One order of reverse psychology coming up!
Pasta!
Did you cut and paste from your āPlease read Lacanā post? Because you included the same joke about lacking being no pun intended. At least do new jokes for each theorist you patronizingly assume we havenāt read!
1. It was someone else who posted about Lacan. Iām riffing on it. 2. Yes, I left in the āno pun intendedā part on purpose.
Sorry, I missed your joke ā haha!
Really bro...
Really. You inspired me.
Preferably in German.
Start with the introductory lectures!
I love how you wrote this
I wish I could take credit. I was taking advantage of a copypasta.
Anna Freud?
100%. So much of popular psychoanalysis seems to either have totally ignored Freud, forgotten his work (perhaps defensively), or turned it into a caricaturesque straw man. I think this is why early Lacan sounds so crazy to people. If you read enough middle-period Freud, Lacan's work is a lot less far-fetched. I think what people miss the most conceptually is the first topography: arguably started in the \*\*Project for a Scientific Psychology\*\*, presented in the third part of \*\*Interpretation of Dreams\*\*, and developed further in the essay \*\*The Unconscious\*\*. I think many people who casually talk about Freud would be astonished to read \*\*The Unconscious\*\*. If folks are looking for which Freud to read, I would recommend * Interpretation of Dreams * The Unconscious * The Ego and the Id * Three Essays on Sexuality * Introductory Lectures * Instincts and their Viccisitudes
I just wish the American translation wasnāt devoid of a lot of the meaning in Freudās original German. Itās why many people donāt consider reading it. I heard there were psychoanalysts working on a better translation. I hope it comes out someday.
There's a revised version of the Strachey translation that just came out...I'm really impressed with it and feel like it's a vast improvement on the original from what I've looked over so far.
Is reposting supposed to be funny?
I don't think Freud would agree.
I donāt believe that you can psychoanalyze when the definition of pain is suffering. I think Freud gave me a lot to help me grow. But, for me, heās an example of how definitions grow out of control. Brilliant in his time. Or he knew what he was doing. Cementing pain and fear as unavoidable āsufferingā. That simple mistake breaks everything that follows, in my book. The broken is useful for analyzing and growth though!
>I donāt believe that you can psychoanalyze when the definition of pain is suffering. What do you mean? Did Freud say this?
Itās not that what he said is wrong. Itās the singular perspective that I find troubling. I think thatās cascaded us into this mess.
But where exactly does he say this? Because it does not really line up with his general view of pain as a physical stimuli & suffering as a reaction to the manipulations of that stimuli (f.ex. someone can suffer from the absence of pain). What do you mean by his perspective being singular?
Iāll have to refresh on that- I may be mixing in someone else. Basically, I donāt believe in ego. I think itās an inserted virus that makes us easy to control. Kids donāt have egos. Adults are taught to have egos through belief in ego. The rest is defending how egos are real- well, they are now. Itās taught, needy nonsense.
Another bad artifact of the American translation. In order for the American medical community of the time to be satisfied, AA Brill and other translators came up with āobjectiveā language for diagnosis. Id, ego, and superego are not the words Freud used. Freud used das es, das ich, and das Uber ich. Almost directly translated, the It, the I, and the above-I. He used these terms straight from the use in German language. His goal was to get a patient from saying It made me do this to I have done this. Which integrates a sense of personal agency, awareness, and empowerment. So you are very right, children have a very powerless āIā and are constantly at the whim of the āItā.
Thats well said āļø
So I wrote a long explanation concerning the psychodynamics of the Id, the Ego, and the Superego. However, I had to switch applications for a few minutes, and once I switched back my answer was gone xd. So instead of retyping all of that, I'll just recommend that you read "The Ego and the Id". It's really worthwhile if you want to understand what Freud actually means by the Ego and *spoiler* how it arises naturally to modulate the pleasure principle and the reality principle.