Psychoanalysis & Philosophy (II)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Psychoanalysis & Philosophy (II)

Post by Philosophy Now » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:08 pm

Eva Cybulska on Freud’s unconscious debt to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/68/Psychoanalysis_and_Philosophy_II

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2837
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Psychoanalysis & Philosophy (II)

Post by -1- » Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:20 am

Freud actually went into psychotherapy in order to learn how he owes $2.35 to Nietzsche and ten bucks to Schopenhauer, when he never even met the two, and never read a single solitary fucking word written by the same.

I find it funny how academic publishers and academic writers will squeeze any topic out of thin air only to satisfy the demand placed on academics to publish, and the demand placed on publishers to reject any sensible article written by a non-academic.

Well, actually, I don't find it funny. It's the shame of our era. Money talks, bullshit walks, is the motto of the new millennium. If you paid your dues by going to school for ten years in post-secondary, and mainly PAID YOUR TUITION FEES AND PUT DOWN HEAVY BUCKS ON THE TABLE FOR EXORBITANTLY PRICED TEXT BOOKS then you are in the club. You paid your dues, you can fucking write any piece of garbage and publishers will be happy to publish it.

Whereas if you have a sensible idea, because you are a genius or you happen to an idea without being a natural genius, they shit on you. Plain and simple.

That's about the size of it.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Psychoanalysis & Philosophy (II)

Post by I Like Sushu » Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:22 am

Nietzsche had a certain distain for ‘philosophy’ too.

I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘psychoanalysis’ started with Freud anyway. As a more distinct discipline it looks to me more like certain psychological phenomena were viewed more and more through a scientific lens and that the disintegration of religious attitudes necessarily led to items of human behavior coming under the umbrella of psychological investigation.

Psychoanalysis, as far as I can tell, was born out of items of human experience considered to be more metaphysical - dreams, scrying, omens, oracles, prophecy etc.,. Given the slow march if the scientific attitude toward nature it seems pretty inevitable that more and more complex patterns of nature were eventually dragged into the scientific sphere of ‘prediction’, ‘probability’ and ‘evidence based’ understanding (with experimental confirmation being the hammer to nail into place ‘facts’).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests