Could this man be considered a philosopher?
Sure, he did some research on scientific matters, such as urinary and fecal incontinence (Screw cancer, let's make advancements on the art of pee and poo), but most of his claims are very subjective and opinion-based, particularly on "the future of and illusion" and "civilization and it's malcontents".
Is he the father of psichoanalysis? A philosopher on disguise? A cocaine-addicted hobo?
Read Freud As Philosopher. Might help to read Lacan too.
>>7847186
Yes he is the father of psychoanalysis. But he isn't a philosopher because 1. His theories were gathered from case studies and is centered around the analytic situation. 2. He's more concerned with answers rather than questions.
Only if you read objective psych to go with your subjective psych.
>>7847186
You can consider any asshole a philosopher. Sigmund freud was a cocaine-addicted sexually frustrated, repressed, neurotic, apathetic prick who tried to make his neuroses and hangups those of the world. The thing is, that's mostly all there was to psychology in his time, so for it's time, he did lay a lot of the groundwork for how we talk about the psyche. That's about it. Most of psychology actually evolved in response to the ridiculousness of freud.
>>7847243
Psychology student reporting in. You're completely wrong. I take it you're either a retarded evolutionary- og neuro-cognitive favoring imbecile. Read some contenential philosophy, read his 1933 lectures and stop sucking that Popper-cock.
>>7847258
He did outline common psychological processes by people as neurotic and repressed as he was, but he thought his model of the psyche applied universally, which is ridiculous. He thought that all dreams existed to fulfill repressed desires, and that all the disharmonies of life could be traced back to sexual trauma in childhood. Everything to freud was his first impression, and everything to the contrary was just wrong. He claimed to be free of neuroses, and his theories were based off of a handful of clients and undefined and interchangeable terminologies hovering around topics like "Neurotic" and "normal". I'm sure your freshman year was fun, but i've been studying psychology, and the history of psychotherapy in general, much longer than any undergrad. Chill. Freud was full of shit. His ideas applied loosely to anything and directly to nothing and whoever's dick you're riding, be it a professor or some freudian you idealize, they are a terrible therapist, I promise you. If they go around applying about any of the central points of psychoanalysis to their patients without considering a vast amount of other possibilities first.
>>7847284
Nah. His theory on dreams is just one of other and equally plausible dream theories, though it certainly isn't proven or without holes, but neither is the leading theory of random neural imaging.
>If they go around applying about any of the central points of psychoanalysis to their patients without considering a vast amount of other possibilities first.
Are you in the US? Almost no one does pure psychoanalysis here, but psychoanalytic techniques like free association, overcoming resistance, and transference are pretty common in psychotherapy, especially so when treating personality disorders. Furthermore, I think the worst therapist would be one who arbitrarily rules out any type of therapy when it comes to treating patients, especially since psychoanalysis does no worse than other therapies in meta-analysis.
>>7847284
Bro i'm deeply sorry that your college has such a shit level of education. You truly must be american. Please stick to that american STEM. Leave the deep stuff to the people of the old world.
>>7847338
>Equally plausible dream theories
No. Absolutely not. Equally unprovable, sure. But so were most of Freud's main postulations. A large reason as to why he was a terrible psychologist.
>Psychoanalytic techniques are common
Of course they are. But not as freud used them, not with the aims and assumptions in mind which freud had. Which is what I said, that while the man himself was a horrible therapist, he did lay down some of the framework for how we discuss psychology today.
>The worst therapist would be one who arbitrarily rules out any type of therapy.
Psychoanalysis as freud used it was not therapy, it was freud telling people that his neuroses were theirs.
>>7847346
Only on /lit/ are people so stupid as to put down STEM majors like they couldn't handle social sciences and philosophers
>>7847186
He is not a philosopher.
However, the term "philosopher" has such a positive connotation that one might feel the need to apply it to those who have had such an apocalyptic influence on the world.
Freud is not a philosopher, he is a psychologist. Marx is not a philosopher, he is a political scientist. However, their influence is as, if not more, important than that of other "philosophers" of recent time.
>>7847186
He was a hack. Nothing he has said has any scientific proof to back it up.
>>7847673
Chompsky, pls go
>>7847698
Oh please. Modern day psychologists often dismiss Freud as an idiot. Let me guess. You Read Interpretation of Dreams and think the guy is some kind of wizard? Ugh, you're the worst kind of faggot.
>>7847707
I find a lot of freud sympathizers on /lit/
Then I remember that /lit/ is mostly filled with people who are also dumb, delusional, sexually frustrated, pretentious nerds who project their every inadequacy onto the world. So go figure.
>>7847707
>Ugh, you're the worst kind of faggot.
Projection
>>7847186
Heidegger said psychology is tru philosophy thumbs up if u agree
Or something
>>7847722
>Implying I'm wrong
>>7847716
Fair points. I'm a psych major going into grad school for clinical so I'm just amazed that there are so many here. If anyone has ever taken any kind of intro psych course in college they would know that Freud's theories were just pseudoscience nonsense mostly based on case studies with no verifiable scientific evidence. Freud is often associated with psychology but modern day psychologists hate that because they are still trying to shift away from that whole misconception that psychologists are some kind of mind readers. Today, psychology employs an empirical scientific method and makes assertions based on observable evidence which must be replicated.
>>7847742
>if anyone has ever take any kind of intro psych course in college they would "know"...
Good goy, I see you've learned that knowedge is just regurgitating what your professors tell you
>>7847808
>Good goy
Opinion automatically disregarded. I have the ability to analyze information objectively and not let any bias into my views. But this is better suited for the humanities. When it comes to things like chemistry, physics, or psychology it's different. You're probably one of those morons who believes people can cure cancer themselves but the Jewish pharmaceutical companies discredit these pioneers of medicine because they want to make shekels, right? Do yourself and the world a favour, take a razor and make a blood bath.
what a pointless distinction
>>7847726
OP here.
>Heidegger said psychology is tru philosophy thumbs up if u agree
Well, i did not manage to find a concise, clear source for that claim.
I did, however, manage to grasp Heidegger's conception of philosophy (Somewhat), and by that definition, it does seem that psychology stems from philosophy, but since Heidegger also believes every kind of questioning originates from philosophy, then that definition could extend to any and every science that relies on subjective cognition instead of cold empirism such as, just to name a few, sociology and political science, wich when i come to think about, also tend to blur the line between definitions (for example, some people brand Marx as a philosopher, others as a sociologist or even a political scientist).
By that sense, it is fair to assume that psychology stems from philosophy, not to mention they most likely both heavily correlate, but if we are willing to generalize that much, then what doesn't?
Thumbs up, tough. Definitely something to consider, problematic as it may be.
>>7847673
>>7847707
I've never understood this aggression towards Freud in psych students. he might've been wrong, but that's no reason to completely disregard the man who catalysed the primordial beginnings of your field. Do philosophers shit all over Plato for his theory of forms simply because he was limited by the scientific and epistemological advancements of his time? Do filmmakers call Charlie Chaplin a retard because he was incapable of producing films with sound and colour?
>>7847849
I don't have aggression toward freud, But I'm adamantly against people taking his nonsense and making a style of therapy out of it and dealing that kind of damage to these vulnerable and confused people. And I'm also against deifying aimless pontificators like freud or jung like they were oracles when in reality they were armchair philosophers.
The big questions in life are hard. Promising people answers where there is only some dude masturbating to his esotericness is wrong.
>>7847849
You are comparing apples and oranges.
>>7847870
>But I'm adamantly against people taking his nonsense and making a style of therapy out of it and dealing that kind of damage to these vulnerable and confused people.
a fair point, but keep in mind its highly likely the majority of people who are defending Freud are more concerned with the application of psychoanalysis as a form of textual enquiry rather than individual therapy. Freud was wrong about a lot of things, but the interpretation of dreams (though empirically false) is hugely significant to understanding the basic processes and exchanges operating between reader and literature.
