What do you think about psychoanalysis?
Pseudo-science.
Free association is pretty good.
Freud's fantastic, Freudians are shit, no idea what in the name of God Lacan's on about (and have no desire to find out, honestly).
About as useful as astrology.
Essentially it's no different than a mythic worldview like Astrology, but that's not to say it can't be a useful tool for self-understanding.
I strongly suspect it's a load of hogwash and I definitely think it's a poor use of time reading Lacan and Freud to figure out for sure. One can't read everything. On to more pressing things.
I try not to.
>>540485
Psychoanalysis is good as any knowledge is good, in the proper context of examination and use. If you teach, its great, if your reading as a hobby and if it keeps you busy, you're good. otherwise, you might as well be rich and spend your money some place more efficient in ideal behavioral expression and modification consulting. Let's be real, science is based on experimentation and consensus of authoritarian inquiry. That's as close as we can get to deductive reasoning, and the inductive subliminal espoused by psychoanalysis is then as handy as the "did you get over your puritanical psycho-sexual repression in having a sex life with your equally sexually ignorant husband in their equally ignorant community laden with judgments and shame, or do you still masturbate to table legs"?
I.E. did it help the people it needed to, or was it a sham. It accomplished the goal for some, laid a path of philosophical and scientific inquiry, for others. in that, Alone, it holds philosophical value.
>>543950
Yes but still there is something to be said for the establishment of Psychoanalysis, examining the head from the outside may be a sort of necessity culturally, as if to say that we wished we could cure the mental ailments from communications through other individuals.
Neuroscience is necessary, sure, but psychoanalysis should not be overlooked, in fact it is frequently underrated.
>>540485
It has a vague kind of value, like Nietzsche (Freud's definite predecessor) said, any explanation is better than none for the psychologist. Sure, it attracts the pretentious who want to label everything and theorise for underlying motives, it doesn't discount the basic value that being able to change a persona stems from knowing where you are, how you got there and where the aim to go should be.
Endorsed by the logical positivists, shat on by Popper, and saved by Paul Karl "The absolute madman" Feyerabend
It wasn't even Hitchcock's best and it's already been analyzed to death
they say the psychologists are the new age priests.
and that people in the hard science view it as no better than astrology.
I'd say that psychoanalysis is more like alchemy than astrology.
>>543126
>no idea what in the name of God Lacan's on about (and have no desire to find out, honestly).
You've got the right idea. He's pretty much the Hegel of psychoanalysis. The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had previously been known only in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced general mystification that has ever taken place.
