PSYCHOANALYSIS

I wanted to get into Lacan and Zizek for a long time and I started reading Zizek's "How to read lacan" it is good material but this is not giving me the whole picture of Lacan. Anyone has good material to understand and study Lacan?

Attached: bPqq764.png (480x720, 291.79K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mega.nz/#F!DJdkhYTR!gNrR2Hm7we5O0dyfwBHG0g
theoryleaks.org/text/books/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

One of the lacan fags of old suggested to get Bruce Fink's introductions on Lacanian analysis, as there are two.
My teachers at Uni often recommend Roudinesco and J-D Nasio, so try Roudinesco biographies of Lacan and Freud and her defense of psychoanalysis. As for Nasio, I don't know, I didn't try to read him or cared enough.
Also read Freud alongside, stuff like Beyond the Pleasure Principle his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis should help you to get an understatement in the he thought and worked, oh and Wild Analysis is short and pretty good, it's Freud saying that you shouldn't try to apply it to everything and everyone and that an analysis takes time and so on.

1997 -> 2007 -> 1995
mega.nz/#F!DJdkhYTR!gNrR2Hm7we5O0dyfwBHG0g

I remember Popper characterizing psychoanalysis as pseudoscience because he said that it was unfalsifiable. Did he have a point?

Is Popper's falsification principle falsifiable?

I know that falsification is trash as a philosophy of science, but is he right when he says that it is unfalsifiable?

No, I don't think so. But I don't think psychoanalysis is a science, in any case.

I am still here, glad that got through to someone

Depends on which psychoanalysis - for the sake of the thread, I'll refer only to Lacan. No, it is not unfalsifiable because it makes no essential assumptions about the organization or expression of the human condition. It focuses on the expression of the authentic, and this usually becomes most apparent in its interventions against the "symbolic" order, so you could see Lacanian psychoanalysis as a pure critique whose positive assumptions are not really used to try to say "humans are like this/that". Given these conditions, it should be more clear that the scientific assumption of falsifiability falls flat as a retort, as psychoanalysis is almost more akin to a philosophy of science and thought - this obviously is being extremely over-simplistic; however, a great deal of Lacanian psychoanalysis is uprooting false or contradictory consciousness, so no predictive assumptions.

Thank you. I will study Lacan through Fink, his writing is clear and concise.

Definitely also take the advice about reading other pieces on the side. Pfallers On the Pleasure Principle in Culture is a really great analysis of manifesting attitudes and ideological turns in common cultural expressions such as sports, habits, faith

thanks, libgen.io has an epub of that book for anyone else interested.

psychology as a whole is not a science, so you might as well throw it all in the garbage. #STEMmasterrace #sciencebitch

Thanks, Captain Scientism

Depends on what you call psychology; lately there where a lot of advances in the science of neuroimaging and to understand the brain we need to also look at the brain from a psychological perspective alongside a biology and chemistry one

Lacan is a colossal waste of time. Read Fashionable Nonsense if you're curious.

Speaking of fashionable critiques, the threadly reminder that Lacan is not a post-modernist or a post-structuralist and you decided to skip reading the thread so you could post that shit. The question of abuse or identification of Lacanianism as science was mentioned . Thanks for your opinion, though.

inb4 logical positivism or synchronism

give it to be straight /leftycuck/ why is the Jewish pseudoscience of psychoanalysis still so prevalent in leftist circles

as a matter of fact why is it even there in the first place? is it just because of Marcuse the jew and adorno the jew and horkheimer the jew?

genuinely (and Jewishly) curious

Read the thread, a general comment was already made about the effect and purview of psychoanalytic intervention. Though its humorous a nazi throws around 'pseudoscience' considering your general tendencies and non-belief in relativity.
Well, not that it was ever in contention, but you just demonstrated you don't know quarter-fuck about what you're saying. Psychoanalysis in leftist tendencies is not a cultural critique, and definitely does not stem from the Frankfurt School. I'd commend you for parroting actual names instead of just trotting out faceless conspiracies - alas, its a conspiracy nonetheless, and you deserve ridicule for your complete barren understanding of all subjects involved.

This is funny coming from someone whose idols (the NSDAP, of course!) tried to make use of Jung. Or has our self-identified 'white Russian' shown yet another blind spot when it comes to history?

b-but jung was not jewish!!!

COMMIE DESTROYED with LOGIC and FACTS 2018

Jewishness for nazis is a cultural identifier that has no actual relation to ethnicity. There doesn't exist a political ideology that is devoid of influence from jewish intellectuals, not shocking since they compose some the greatest thinkers of modernity (muh cultural physics)

No. Psychoanalysis is about what people think. And people can lie. Now, at least for yourself personally, you can figure out whether Freud and so on sound like they reasonably describe some mental processes that go on inside of you. But even if you don't think that this applies to you, consider that psychoanalysis is also about what people sub-consciously think. How could you possibly do a check here.

You can make up just about any story about what people sub-consciously think. I don't see why I should give particular importance to stories of some cokehead who in private letters admitted to fabricating things about his patients. The whole approach of thinkingwhatpeoplethinkwithoutthemevenknowingthattheyarethinkingitology looks like a huge waste of time. When you have a field with no way of recognizing progress, you just have idle speculation. So forget about Freud, and also forget about finding an alternative to Freud in that field. Leave the field.

FUCK I wanted to no to the other guy who was no-ing to that question. So, yes.

I don't know man, the main thing that moved science forward was speculation and lies. But the important thing is in what will that lie is told, a microbiologist lying about advances on his research when if fact he is just making shit up to get money from the government is intention based on greed.

However Galileo lying about performing the tower of pisa falling experiment wasnt done for money, he thought from pure speculation that's how the experiment is gonna go. And while his results are not flawless they still moved science and humanity forward.

What I'm trying to say is that the intention of psychoanalysis is to better understand ourselves in order to improve our lives.
And while yes psychoanalysis is done in a speculative observational manner it is still a very useful tool, and also how scientific is hegelian materialism in comparasent? To me they both reach a conclusion from pure observation

Understanding Lacan is one of best self help lessons you can have, as it teaches you very valuable stuff like how we should not seek perfection and I think this type of mentality is what the left really needs.

Sick, you got a mega with Zizek's books (the more ebups the better)

...

theoryleaks.org/text/books/

Why not?

Wow that page is so fucking good, thanks

That's nice and all but if it's not falsifiable how can you ever measure if it is effective at that? You can say that it must work because there is people paying to receive it, but…

If Popper's falsifiability principle itself is unfalsiable and unmeasurable why would we accept it as the proper method for assessing what is effective or not?

It's a really good rule of thumb to navigate our life as atoms in the void. Does psychoanalysis have a handy rule of thumb?

Not true. We believe Jews are genetically very different from us, and have developed very powerful psyonic abilities. Think of it like Terran vs Protoss.