Where do I start with Psychology? Sigmund Freud, then Lacan? If so: what books by freud should I start reading first? And who is the lastest most admired psychologist?
Start with the Greeks (As in Oedipus the King)
>>7465290
how does that book play a part in psychology? Would you mind elaborating?
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan
William James is good too
The Greeks are required reading for pretty much everything. Read them
Let's say I've read the Greeks. Should my next move be to read "The Psychopathology of Everyday life"?
>>7465310
>The Greeks are required reading for pretty much everything. Read them
fuck off
>>7465321
What ails you, pal?
>>7465319
Read Freud chronological order. Then straight to Lacan (Ecretis).
Or:
Interpretation of dreams > The Ego, Id, etc. > Civilaization and its discontents > Ecrites.
The greeks don't know shit about this.
>>7465325
Quite agree. Also, I think Psychopathology of everyday life is a particularly good read if you've never read anything about psychoanalysis
>>7465309
>not knowing about the Oedipus complex
/lit/, ladies and gentleman.
>>7465344
*gentlemen
Ditch Lacan, at least for the beginning, it's too unnecessarely complicated and masturbatory (structuralism, yada yada) and will only confuse you a lot. Go for Jung instead! Much better thoughts with a more solid foundation. You can always pick Lacan up again later.
If you want to understand psychoanalysis also be sure to have a good grasp of philosophy, Kant, Schop, Nietzsche and the classical greeks. Some study on antrophology,mythology and religion won't hurt either.
>>7465384
Where should I start with him? "Psychological types", "Modern man in search of a soul"?
>>7465398
Man and His Symbols should be a good starting point.
>>7465384
>structuralism
Is understanding whatever this is neccisary for Lacan?
>Lacan
No, just don't, not if you want to continue functioning as a human being
>>7465440
Guy who suggested Jung here! Man and his symbols is the best starting point, followed by the ego and the unconscious. If you get a good grasp of these two and like them, you can go onward. Be sure to read at least Freud's main operas (introduction to psychoanalysis and dream interpretation at least) and get a good understanding of his theoretical framework.
>>7465443
Yes otherwise you won't understand nothing at all and get a shitload of confusion. Lacan is heavily based on Sassurre's linguistic, Levi-Strauss structuralism and all with a strong Hegelian flavour. If you don't have a very solid understanding of those you will only get confused, since Lacan is awfully hard to read and super-complicated on purpouse.
>>7465309
kekididoooo
>>7465443
I wouldn't agree with >>7465473 here.
I don't think it would be necessary. It's would be a plus though. But seriously, for Freud as for Lacan, you could always approach them as philosophy, and that's great.
Though you could also have a more "clinical" point of view, for which you don't obligatory need an extended philosophical knowledge (by example, even if it isn't really "clinical" sensu stricto, beginning by trying what could be free association on yourself)
Concept's history is interesting but may also diverts oneself from what is (for me) the main interest in their works (i.e. the clinic). Lacan is hard and it's quite necessary to read him with some help or introduction aside. Though if you read him only as a "concept words game" it may also lead to big misunderstandings. His theory is very much a clinical one
>>7465309
Read about Freud's Oedipus Complex
