Not sure this is appropriate to post here, as it's somewhat self disclosing and personal, but I'm not asking for personal analysis—more about how to talk theory with others. I hope that's okay.
I was wondering if y'all had some thoughts on this. I'm taking a class at a community college on child development, and it's a little painful how simplified (and generally dismissive) the prof is with these theories and Freud. I understand it, as I was there once, but I was wondering if anyone had tips on approaching this, or if it's a somewhat lost-cause situation. They've been teaching this class for 20+ years and have a PhD in psych (so they're more on the academic end).
What approaches have y'all found to be the most effective?
Thanks!
EDIT: Thank you for all of the perspectives y'all have brought here! I so appreciate that this community exists. It's really nice to not feel alone in this.
i will go through all the lengths to debunk penis envy, the madonna whore and the oedipus complex
Do we subconsciously want to murder both our parents or subconsciously want to be with both of them, since we are bi???
As a psychology student, I'm not sure as to WHY I'm so engrossed with this thought, but since my boi Siggy decided that we all have some sort of sexual retention towards our parents, do you think he applied that to his kid too?
Freud argues that humans seek happiness via the pleasure principal. He notes that pleasure will never be fully satisfying but he thinks that humans are basically condemned to pursue it in service of their happiness. This pleasure principle is tied to the satisfaction of the Id, not the ego.
But, does the way Freud’s lived his life contradict this notion? He seems to have largely pursued self-esteem, the satiation of his ego. Psychoanalysis seems to have been his cultural immortality project in order that he might be loved and remembered forever. It seems the goal of his life was to feel a sort of egoic love through the esteem of others. His pleasure principle was ego driven more than it was instinctual.
Is this incorrect? I would really appreciate any thoughts or critiques
Thanks
I know Schwartz only mentions Jung which is okay as his goal is to reach millions and that is nice and Jung is the best for that. But still, Jung first learned at Freud and it was Freud who leaned from a Rabbi paient about the Kabbalists 4 Inner Faces...which they ues to interpret the Bible...(like the Ark is Mother and the Flood is Father or the other way round etc). I found in Paul Verheghe: On Being Normal and Other Disorders /fee on perlego/ the claim that Lacan modernized Freud (which is now unimportant from our perspective) and he changed many elements - first of all that he does not help the patients to just accept heir fate /with some remaining symptoms/ but he is able to lead the clients beyond that to a Full inner wholeness (of course by accepting the Hegelian idea that the whole world is inside us, but due to words not fittng facts the whole is always split and this causes lots of pain which we must learn to handle. What brings IFS in this context is that in Lacan the four levels or Inner Parts of the client (who as yet has no Self - called Subject - only partially) imagines an ideal Ego Part - our Healing part kind of a better Twin Brother...(like our mirror image when we were 6 monhs old and cannot even walk and feel dismembered. but the mirror image is Whole...so this is the kernel or stating point of Self...which (by reparenting by the therapist) can be built and by a complex journey it leads to am autonomous life (separated from th Critical father part - the superego of Freud and the ID the Addict part - the sister he Firefighter in IFS - that wants instant joy - and the Nurturing Mother Manager Part too. I suppose I am interested in this because I am after 50 years of different therapies (Jung, Freud, Lacan and others) so I have not many acute acting out dramas (or unknown exiles). So for me IFS reassures me that yes, it is not an illusion that I feel way better (and is not just due to CBS although it helps to stop worrying too much) - it is because actually thos years I was in those therapies I already did IFS work. And only Lacan says that substantial healing is avaiable. BUt he is such a difficult (or "bad") writer that my therapist never advised to read him - and he was right. But i can handle books ON him and that has shown me this insight which I wanted to share as maybe it may inspire others. Of course my experience is that a l l therapies can b mixd as each consist of tool-sets. And everyone may create the mix that is their best
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Currently reading The Interpretation of Dreams because I am having nightmares about dying, usually read Jung and I was wondering if there is any criticism some people may have as it pertains to what Freud is saying?
Thanks in advance.
He believe in weird stuff like he believed we all wanted incest. And we all had hidden desires. How did he come up with these wild theories?
Edit: There's seems to be disagreements upon whether his principles are true or not
Hey guys, I'm writing an essay on Freud's psychoanalytic theory. The paper requires me to use a direct quote from Freud's claims about his psychoanalytic theory and I'm having trouble finding a direct quote from him. I've been searching for a while but all I can find are articles talking about his psychoanalytic theory, none actually providing claims that have come directly from Freud himself. I'm hoping someone here has a bit of knowledge on where I can find Freud's own writings (papers, articles, etc.) or any of his direct claims on his psychoanalytic theory because I'm completely stuck.
I made a post here about Sara Ahmed's book The Cultural Politics of Emotion recently, and now I have another question. What exactly is Freud's role in critical theory and academia more generally?
I am really pretty ignorant of Freud's work, but he comes up a lot in Ahmed's work and I've also seen him mentioned in other readings I've done throughout my academic career. But until I was told so in school, I've been under the impression that a lot, if not all, of his theories have been disproved by modern psychology. So I essentially assumed no one used his work anymore except in an historical sense.
Clearly that isn't the case, but it leaves me wondering quite what the role of his work is, given it has such a wide reach now.
I just read that Freud once said: "My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.", has Jung analyzed what caused Freud to sexualize so many psychological phenomena?
Inspired by this post from r/historymemes, I looked up his mother and discovered that she lived long enough for his theories to be promulgated. Is there any record of her reaction to the, shall we say, uncomfortable extrapolation?
Perhaps Freud’s most infamous theories is that of the Oedipal Complex, aka that men want to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers. A running joke in the movie is that Bill is actually attracted to his stepmother. Freud would have easily observed this. To take it further, Bill actually states that he has a minor Oedipal complex, which could have inspired the name.
As for the second part, aka killing your father, Freud does an on-stage analysis of Ted and determines that he doesn’t get along with his father. He actively sees the animosity between them. So, Bill’s attraction to his mother and Ted’s animosity toward his father inspire Freud’s theories.
Finally, Freud emphasizes the importance of dreams in his work. In the film, when he is first brought into the time travel booth, he is confused and assumes he is dreaming. If he really did develop his other theory from this experience, it would lead him to think that he came up with it in a dream. The significance of all of the events he witnessed and took place in would impact him in a real, tangible way since they actually happened. But since he thought it was a dream, he would assume dreams are super important.
Im not sure when I first heard the theories. I know it was before I had even taken ap psychology when I was in high school. But certainly learning them in depth scarred me deeply. Because you see, my two abusers were my brother and cousin so Im already like scarred from incest. So when Freud would say things like girls secretly want to fuck their dads and that was touted as a valid theory in psychology class?? Oh that fucked me up. So sometimes Ill be thinking about someone I find attractive and if they look at all like my dad like the same ethnicity or eye color or shoes, even though I was not traumatized by my father and have a good-ish relationship with him, the image of my father comes to mind and I am deeply disturbed and grossed out and fearful. Like the idea that I could be attracted to my dad, as a victim of incest, is so fucked up and disturbing. And it turns out Freuds entire career was built on lies and purposefully victim blaming girls bc he found out they were incest victims but didn’t want to bring down their wealthy fathers so he convinced the world they made it up. Look up Freudian Cover up. But even knowing hes a fraud, that theory is forever implanted in my brain. My dads face always comes up when Im attracted to someone bc Im terrified of secretly liking my dad so the person Im attracted to cant be allowed to resemble him in absolutely any way. Does anyone relate to this?
