PSYCHOANALYSIS AND LEFTISM

Read Freud so you know what Lacan is talking about. Lacan is fucking gold.

sciencebasedmedicine.org/freud-was-a-fraud-a-triumph-of-pseudoscience/ Review of Frederick Crews' new Freud book, and the author Harriet Hall shares some more amusing infuriating interesting anecdotes about Freud that Crews collected:

this is what science looks like, hard science absolutist postivists btfo

Oh wow so btfo.
How do you know it wasn't?

What if he's a diehard psychoanalyst?

Because it wasn't you on the couch.

Quick rundown on Lacan pls

your desire to post here is caused by your desire to fuck your grandmother
and before you reply anything, how do you know it isn't, huh? HUH?!

Classic projection.

yes, classic psychoanalysis

also, Freud was obviously a fag
why else would he prefer cigars?
that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" bullshit sounds like a cheap attempt of a fag to cover his tracks

and I bet my lenin hat he wanted to be fucked by his very own father and I won't be surprise if he indeed got his wants met

All these anti-psychoanalysis arguments are very similar to the classic anti-communist arguments.
Violent opposition towards something you have literally not spent more than half a minute researching.

Freudism is useful tool for leftsm because it's the psychology of the internal necessity which is being made conscious. Behaviourism, in the other hand, is psychology of choice and unlimited rational external conditioning for the needs of the construction of the world (eg. the market).

Therefore, psychoanalysis have deeper understanding of human freedom, more consistent
with Hegel-Marxian understanding. Behaviorism is associated with the understanding of free-market freedom.

The question which one is right is not only a question about scientific proof (no scientific evidence is available for both of them) but which image of man we accept as true, what philosophical assumptions about human nature. And in this respect psychoanalysis is inherently more leftist approach.

I'm not anti-psychoanalysis, but I am anti Freud.
I've read civilization and its discontents, he literally states that the human man first causing a fire to be put out by pissing on it was the psychological start of civilization.
Moreover I don't know of a single one of his models or claims that strikes me as sensible, but I'll admit to not knowing much here.

What the fuck? No. Stop that.
A concept of ideology is still possible within behaviorism (behaviorism was also largely ideologically deterministic to start with, so there's no contradiction of historical necessity anyway), if there's an actual epistemological disagreement you have with behaviorism then fine, but what you posted there doesn't even count.

Never heard the claim that Marx had a drug habit so extreme that it warped his world view and his writing suffered from it or that Marx faked economic data analogous to how Freud faked data about his patients.

...

Do you have any similarity that runs deeper than some people say it sucks.

That was not the similarity I pointed out, you fag.
It is a very feely subject that people will dismiss without having investigated at all, spouting famous slogans and ebin strawmen or ad hominem ala "lol freud was just snorting coke all day" or "lol marx never worked a day in his life"

literally is a link to a review of a huge book, a book written by a guy who used to do psychoanalytic criticism before turning against Freud. F. Crews, the author of the book, makes heavy use of Freud's private letters, the bulk of which wasn't available in the 20th century, and shows that Freud made up shit about his patients and admitted to it in his letters.

...

IF YOU DON'T UNCOMPROMISINGLY ACCEPT PSYCHOANALYSIS YOU CANNOT CALL YOURSELF A MATERIALIST

Reading the review of a smear book does not constitute research.

Beautiful strawman you got there.

i'm being completely serious

The fact that you are being serious in your construction of strawmen does not really matter to me.

/thread

They are unironically damning documents, they are not new, they are letters written by Freud himself. They were locked up by his descendants:
skeptic.com/reading_room/wizardry-of-sigmund-freud/
As far as I am concerned, when somebody admits to fabricating things in private letters I think it's fair to accuse them of fabricating the things that they admitted to.

If we accused everyone of doing things they confessed to doing what heroes would we have left?

Boas faked data and so did Meade, but didn't they have a good reason?

>skeptic.com

...

It's a good movie and it reminds me of something else. The American motivational writer Norman Vincent Peale sought to combine Christianity with Psychoanalysis. If you ever read anything he wrote you know of his boundless optimism. Norman Vincent Peale was the pastor for a young Donald Trump. Did Freud start the Trump train?

This blew capitalism out of the water for me. It made me super mad that these people used such exploitative mind manipulation techniques and have created the modern brain dead consumer.

look, you and every other person who looks at something as mind-numbingly horrible as skeptic.com has zero ground to say a fucking word about psychoanalysis until you read a god damn page of freud, because NONE OF YOU ever have, and it's so god damn frustrating

look, you and every other person who looks at something as mind-numbingly horrible as Christopher Hitchens has zero ground to say a fucking word about Christianity until you read a god damn page of the Bible, because NONE OF YOU ever have, and it's so god damn frustrating

Pretty sure most atheists in the west did indeed read plenty of the bible before becoming atheists. I read at least two different versions when I was a kid.

muddy up all current leftist theory by being a major influence for po-mo faggots

46 replies
0 arguments

t. super-ego

t. id

I gotta be honest, I'd like to here by what tangential current you'd come to that conclusion

There are no arguments, no book recommendations, and no meaningful discussion in this thread. I have never read anything about or by Freud, and it is really annoying that Holla Forumss autism is jeering itself off.

there's an easy solution to this

...

Not him, but many rationalists on the left like Chomsky are massively anti-PoMo.

youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

Dunno about you but I don't like supporting my worldview on the conjectural ramblings of an elderly coked out jewish man rambling about penises

Explain the main currents of Lacanian thought, psychoanalytical or philosophical, I'd really like to know what it is you've been reading, friend.

I was more on about how the primary contributions of Freud and, through him, Lacan can hardly be described as post-modernist developments. This goes double for Dolar, Zupančič and Žižek, who are all venomously opposed to the post-modern cultural condition and its structural ideology.

in that vein, could one not equally discount any person for their personal fallibilities - which non-amicable figure would you prefer to be associated with should have no bearing. I say that, even seeing that you've already clearly got a bone to pick with Freud' work.

Thanks, but can you point out some works? I'm reading Capital right now and I don't have the time to read all of Freud's work.

Try A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud

gutenberg.org/ebooks/38219

It's super easy to read.

You are the best poster in this whole thread, much love. I will be reading this.

Many tend to include psychoanalysis in any criticism of post-structuralism or PoMoism merely because they see it as a forerunner of what they would refer to as pseudo-scientific theorising.

Why are you still discussing a dead science?

lol like communism? amirite? XD

Psychoanalysis isn't dead. Scientifically it may lack merit, but socially it matters. Is projection, penis envy, or the super-ego real? Doubtful, but they inform our political discourse. eg Claims that gun owners feel inadequate about their penises or that bigotry arises from personal shortcomings both have their origin in psychoanalytic though.

Speak as they may, the idea that psychoanalysis eschews its philosophical and cognitive interventions to become a pretender to some universal ideology is a terrible exegesis of its legacy of trenchant critique and emancipatory potential

Communism isn't dead, psychoanalysis was found to be pseudoscience less than two decades after it's inception.

So for what purpose would deterministic over analysis of events in the sociological equivalent of the butter fly effect matter?

It's a waste of time.

If it is pseudoscience, it's still influential. Religion isn't empirically verifiable either, but it affects political decisions. My take is that Psychoanalysis is secular mysticism.

Yeah, Jung himself proves that psychoanalysis is just a dumb esoteric religion at this point.

My point is, if this is the most intellectual board on the site exactly why the fuck do any of us still believe in this shit?

The fuck are you people doing?

Hot, baby.

Man can exist without knowledge, but he can't exist without belief.

So was communism lmao, don't you even know about Marx being a satanist? communism has been tried 1000 times it's debunked by now. It's just dumb esoteric religion.

How is it psuedoscience, I know nothing of psychoanalysis.

Then man is but an animal.

Acting like an idiot to try and hide the fact that you have no argument won't work here.

It's basically psychology and sociology except with no evidence backing any claims, is very straight forward, and has spiraled into outright esoteric territory with Jung and others it's very clearly just a sham.

Nah, I'm just trying to demonstrate that you have indeed not presented an argument. Claiming it's pseudoscience does not make it so.

Indeed he is.

And by straight forward I don't mean in a good way, I mean that it's very judgmental of small things and see's connections where there are non.

It's the butterfly effect of social and mental science or well, it would be if any of it had a leg to stand on.

For instance in one of Freud's fans films they show a film about homosexuality and the ending is of a boy playing with his mothers make up, according to them and extension, Freud, the child playing with make up means he will grow to be a homosexual or transsexual as the other men in the film have.

That of course is utter bullshit, a child playing with make up doesn't think of make up as being just for females, he just finds it interesting but contrary to that what Freud and the rest will say is that he's practically begging to be molested.

Then he is truly lost.

I've very clearly stated an argument you're just mimicking me into a strawman, it's not only very childish but also Holla Forums tier.

Thanks for the explanation, but that's not an argument.

This is an argument. You referenced something and said why it is wrong.

To get less philosophical Freud's theories have one great thing going for them, coherence. Everything has a cause that can be explained by the theory. This gives it perceived predictive value. The keys to any successful theory are that it summarize a complex thing and that it has predictive value. Confirmation bias holds the ship together, because to the user they are as good as facts.

If you know anything about Freud, Jung, their followers, their works, you'd know what topics I am addressing. I only went slightly more in depth in that post but they are the same.

Anywho I'm gonna go to bed, like I said Freud and the rest are wrong, and discussing them seriously is a waste of time, please stop and goodnight.

Life isn't as direct as you may think, drinking water doesn't mean I'm the same as all other land mammals.

That's not what I'm saying.

If you come to me with the problem of nightmares I don't know the cause. I would have to see your sleeping arrangements and maybe figure out if you had experienced any traumas. However with psychoanalysis I can give you a detailed reason why you are having the nightmares, eg repressed something or other. While it may not be true, it's a better story.

As much as his theories have been largely superceded, the right, especially the alt-right, keep providing cases of glaring Freudian pathologies, no matter how much we point it out to them.

Isn't this the ultimate vindicator of psychoanalysis. Freud could have invented case studies, made shit up, and done backflips with logic… but at the end of the day, if there is some real insight to the unconscious to be derived from psychoanalysis - then why does it matter?

The movie didn't show any confirmation any of his hypotheses other than that people have unconscious or subconscious desires which is well accepted anyway. (I think it was even before Freud, but that's just a guess).
I don't know what insight you think was shown, the successes seem to be more from strategy (which are theoretically consistent with both folk psychology and behaviorism) than theory.

Psychoanalysis is like idpol. It's only leftist because the right hasn't figured out how to weaponize it yet.

How would the right weaponize psychoanalysis?

Would this be it?

You could say it was/is weaponized by the capitalists to produce consumer culture.
youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04

That makes sense especially considering how Walter Lippman referenced Psychoanalysis in Public Opinion. What do you think the sort of "motivational" figures like Norman Vincent Peale.

Can't really comment on Norman, but motivational and cognitive therapy that take the approach of "try not to think about it" tend to fall a bit short.

Well, if we are simply talking about one of the films of one of Freud's fans, we have already moved quite a few steps away from Freud's psychoanalytic theories. When it comes to Freud, I'd consider myself still learning on the topic, but from my knowledge Freud was amongst the earliest to say in his clinical practice that homosexuality was no less than heterosexuality, even citing practice of homosexuality amongst the ancient Greek philosophers.

If you think discussing them seriously is a waste of time why bother post in a thread where people are clearly intent on doing so. Even if you set out to discredit Freud and those that came after him, you should aim to do so seriously, if you are expected to be taken seriously

Why must I appreciate baboons? Can somebody answer this from a psychoanalytic perspective? I don't care about baboons they may eat bananas while burning in the fiery pits of hell!

Burn in hell baboons!

Nothing.
In fact, many of his theories went on to support the capitalist superstructure due to his nephew using his theories to help create the public relations industry.

Wrong.
I will admit I'm only now starting to read some of Fromm's books but he is very clear that while Freud was a liberal reformist his ideas have enormous revolutionary potential and marry well with Marxism because both see the truth beyond ideology in society.
Too many people who only watched The Century of the Self up this bitch.

People who went on to draw their own conclusions after the fact?
Point being, there's nothing inherently leftist about him.

Can you please elaborate on what Fromm got from Freud?

Lol

Yes, absolutely. With the exception of someone with some prior knowledge, eg a Star Trek style time travelling energy being with infinite knowledge.
And that 'bone' would be he's muscled in on what is now hard science, and people are taking his pseudoscientific conjecture (meaning he just sat around making stuff up, and we have data that now discredits the total bullshit he was JUST SITTING AROUND AND MAKING UP, probably whilst actually on psychoactive drugs) seriously well past its expiration date

Did he? Did Freud do that? Psychoanalysis as a discursive process doesn't seem to make itself pretender to some predictive normality, and science is not ever going to foreclose upon the human subject so I find it very hard to believe that you're honestly engaging the legacy of the work of Freud. He served catalyst to the challenge of cognitive science to exist as matheme, that the erstwhile conception of the human consciousness had to necessarily proceed and develop as such. That one should find it within themselves, absent some irreconcilable ideological compunction, to shape some amorphous discontent with the intervention of psychoanalysis into the real nature of relations between subject and reality, such that you could say that Freud need be discarded, is a terrible shame. I bemoan this loss that you present yourself as a gain, that you won't even afford thought to all that which was and will be borne of the work of Sigmund Freud

Dude, they just weaponized idpol. That's what the alt-right is all about.

This is why no one likes Freud faggots. Write to be understood, not to impress people.

Considering that what I said was within the basic realm of understanding for psychoanalysis and the other half was insulting you, I'll just go ahead and say you don't actually know much about Freud or his work or its legacy.
ha, someone takes posting very seriously

Savage.
Also bump.

Psychoanalysis is an unscientific and outdated branch of psychology. Studying that is as useful as studying Marx when it comes to economics

The greatest leftist icon today.

Heh

They already did. The PR industry is essentially a right-wing apparatus that Freud inadvertently helped create.

Is there any actual work incorporating psychoanalysis into Marxism in a completely comprehensive way? I just want something with the political, historical and economic weight of Das Kapital, but interwoven with the insights gained about how humans function from Freud and Lacan, that Marx wouldn't have had access to. All that has been done just seems like philosophers taking what they like and playing around with concepts from either.

Basically anything by Zizek would work.
If you want some entry level stuff, Mark Fischer often brings up Lacanian ideas and explains them in layman's terms.

You should read RD Laing, Ernest Becker, and Gregory Bateson. Also, you should read Morris Berman, who cites all three in his books on the history of consciousness.

Here's a quote from one of Berman's first books: "The sociologist Peter Berger was correct when he said that ideas 'do not succeed in history by virtue of their truth but by virtue of their relationships to specific social processes.' Scientific ideas are no exception."

This really hit home for me, because Berman explains why modernity and industrial society exist in the first place as the outcome of a union between powerful capitalists and the scientific worldview.

Here's a list of books by Berman which are heavy on psychoanalysis and sociology:

Reenchantment of World
Coming to Our Senses
Wandering God: Study of Nomadic Spirituality

Here's a list of books by Berman on the American Empire, which are heavily based on the French Annales School:

Twilight of American Culture
Dark Ages America
Why America Failed (Capitalism and Its Discontents)

Freud is unscientific garbage. Read vygotsky, luria and vaziulin

Science is just one ideology. It does not have a monopoly on truth.

opinion on Jung and collective unconscious?

t. I dont have a clue what I'm talking about.

Read a real science book you imbecile. Can you even integrate the exponential function?

And just in case you don't understand why your statement is fucking stupid to the core, it's because science is a process of elimination of theoretical models representing the world. Models of the world are rejected based on whether they agree with experiment or not, if not rejected, developed further and tested again, in an endless cycle.
Obviously there are strict rules on how this is done. Read the short article by Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science" on more about the method. And seriously, don't post your ignorant bullshit again, you just look like an idiot.

mysticism

Spinoza (once again) brings an interesting outlook : any large composition of bodies will develop its own subjectivity and (therefore) consciousness of the self. So it's not crazy to think of the proletariat as of today as a largely unconscious body composed by smaller bodies. If it exists but is unconscious, therefore it's not unlikely the proletariat is dreaming right now. One could be make interesting parallels with Zizek's concept of ideology integrated within the subjectivity itself like tinted goggles.

lmao Not everything lends itself to experiment, and science has been a net negative on the world. It's a destructive force, which has done great harm to the living earth. Science has its place in history, but you have to understand that it's an ideology which emerged historically (basically a passing fad) and that it will be replaced eventually. You have this myth of progress, but science is at most the newest representation of one school of thought. It has no superiority over the alchemic worldview which it replaced.

>Not everything lends itself to experiment

If it can't be disproved experimentally it isn't a scientific theory.

It has also been a great positive force. No other human activity has managed to bring us as close to post-scarcity as much as science. I'm not going to disagree that it has caused much grief and destruction, and I definitely think that we need to think about what we're going to do with our superpowers, but for every bomb there are vaccines, food technology and reduction of necessary labour.
You cannot actually calculate whether it's been a net negative or positive.
And I also think here is where your fallacy lies- you use the concept of "net negative" a scientific concept, while arguing against science. You actually misunderstand fundamentally what science is.

Science is a method, a process of investigation, not an ideology.

No, it's the way people think to understand the world around them. Science evolves, fundamentally changes but is still science.

Yes it does. Alchemists didn't know how to make anything that flew, did millions of calculations per second, heat and light entire cities, improve agriculture, make medicine, and I could go on.
Alchemy was an earlier stage of science, not something it replaced. This is your misunderstanding, science is not one set of rules that stays forever the same; it evolves, and using it we have the wonders of today.

And I repeat, you misunderstand everything about science. Perhaps you should study it a bit before expressing another stupid opinion? Like seriously, can you even into basic mathematics?

And now that I came into your arguments while they squealed with ecstasy, I will ask you:

Is quantum mechanics just a fad? What about the theory of relativity? Mathematics too?
Does the uncertainty principle not exist, because you think this entire way of thought is a fad? Do you really think we could go forward by closing our eyes to these phenomena? Because you're not presenting any alternatives to understand the world around us with the accuracy and predictive power of science.
If anything, we will create scientific theories that contain these other theories as limiting cases (as newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity are to each other).

It's as if the texts which you need to read - in your confusion over the nature of human beings with empirical things (which is what the natural sciences, incidentally the only sciences whose investigated phenomena you point at in your examples) - are all available to you on some other corner of the internet. Or do you want me to fucking drag Reza Negarestani, Zizek and even 'Rafiq' over here?

IF YOU WANT TO BE FUCKING VULGAR, WE CAN PLAY THAT GAME AND EXHAUST ITS 'FUN'. YOU MISTAKE MODELS - CONSTRUCTED USING HEURISTICS - WITH REAL FUCKING THINGS. YOU HAVE MADE THIS JUMP AND DECLARED THEM TO BE 'OBJECTIVE' WHEN THEY ARE INDEED WORKED OUT FROM WITHIN THE SOCIAL SPHERE AND USING LANGUAGE. THIS IS LACAN'S 'BIG OTHER'. FUCK'S SAKE, ARE YOU, A DISGUSTING FUCKING ANGLO-EMPIRICIST SHIT, GOING TO IGNORE LACAN, POST-KANTIANS AND THE GERMAN IDEALISTS AND INSTEAD ADOPT A YOUNG-WITTGENSTEINIAN, 'TRACTATARIAN' STANCE? THE MOMENT THAT YOU CLAIM THAT THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND SUCH MODELS 'EXIST' IN OBJECTIVE REALITY - WHICH YOU HAVE JUST FUCKING DONE, THERE IS NO STRAW MAN HERE - IS THE MOMENT THAT I EXPECT YOU TO FUCKING JUSTIFY YOUR SHITTY PHILOSOPHY TO ME. FUCKING SHIT, FUCKING WORTHLESS LITTLE BOY. IF YOU MENTION SELLARS EVEN ONCE, REACTIONARY BASTARD, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH RORTY.

MOTHERFUCKER, I AM WAITING FOR YOU TO CLAIM THAT DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM IS BUNK FOR THE SAME REASON (unless you are one of those 'analytical marxists' who miss the fucking point about dialectics being practical while masturbating over that same scientism which you're employing in your haphazard reasoning). THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH YOU AND YOUR VILE, UGLY 'PHILOSOPHY' CAN REACH. THAT IS ALSO WHY THE IMAGE IS RELEVANT, HERR POPPER. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO RETORT WITH, YOU FUCKING SWINE? 'DA EBIN BEETEE-EFFOH'? ANOTHER SHITTY CHARACTERISATION OF ME, HINTING THAT I AM 'RAFIQ' (when the man behind that online extension would not even go near a cancerous imageboard like this)? SOME AMAZING SNARK? YOU CAN DICK AROUND ALL YOU LIKE HERE BUT IT DOES NOTHING TO EXCUSE YOU FROM SPOUTING THIS ABHORRENT SHIT. GO ON, TURN THIS INTO A COPYPASTA; SOME OLD SAP MIGHT EVEN READ IT!

And no, before I forget, your 'predictive power' shit is not going to work precisely because you reduce the social and the mental to the biological with no fucking basis whatsoever to establish CAUSAL LINKS. I can only go so far in my explanation; I have already mentioned people whose oceans of text and speeches you would do well to interpret for the sake of learning regardless of whether you falsify your current worldview or critique theirs.
I will make this clear to you: you are unlikely to run away from this without a struggle on your hands.

If this is true, than why did Rafiq made these >>2355964 posts? You will have to explain yourself here.

NO FUCKING EVIDENCE OF THAT CLAIM WHATSOEVER, CHILD. RUN BACK TO WHATEVER FUCKING HOLE YOU CAME FROM.

Not every claim to knowledge is scientific. Facts about ethics, for example aren't scientific facts- but they are claims to something that is true. I think even Lacan was pretty adamant that psychoanalysis was not a science (I've even read that he said it was opposed to science). But even psychoanalysis is testable and refutable… it is a clinical method. And if in treatment, it was found to be ineffective, then we could throw the theory out. But in fact, it is effective and there are plenty of practicing psychoanalysts in Europe and America.

Quantum mechanics is a "science" which doesn't follow scientific ideology. Take for instance the act of looking through an electron microscope and changing the position of the thing you're measuring. This process involves the experimenter in their own experiment (like alchemy).

This inclusion of the experimenter in the experiment is what the ideology of science denies, but which alchemy includes. To move forward with this realization would be to go past the ideology of science, which as I said earlier is a passing fad.

It's kind of silly to say you would defend science when 150 species of plant, insect, bird, and mammal go extinct every day.

huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.html

Actually, I don't. Scientists are completely aware they are using imperfect models. I mean, did you even read my post? Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of relativity and quantum mechanics, since we figured this out there is no self respecting physicist who doesn't understand this. You are insisting on this straw man misinterpretation of what science is.

They are objective to the level that if I drop a brick on your head it will fall onto your head. If you disagree with this, jump out of the window. Again, I stress, you have confused science with some sort of religious cult of science. Did you read the piece I told you to read? I'll say it again: "Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman. This will give you a basic introduction to the actual logic scientists use, and not what your shitty philosopher friends say we do.

THE SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGY OF THE FUCKING 19TH CENTURY ISN'T HOW SCIENTISTS THINK TODAY. THIS WAS CAUSED LARGELY BY QM STOP FUCKING STRAWMANNING.

What the fuck does this have to do with whether we can use our mental capabilities to better understand and manipulate the world around is?
We're not discussing ethics here, we can, but we'd probably be on much more on the same page there, so I can't be bothered to discuss that.

This thread just proves that a lot of people here are actually idealists and dress up the world around them in fancy shit. Science just looks at it, plays with it, sees what happens, writes it down, and tries to predict the outcome in other situations using what it saw, and testing these predictions to experiment.

Not sure why that one guy speaks for everyone here. But also the point remains that psychoanalysis is tested. Maybe not in a way you want, but it is a clinical practice. As in… the theory is put to work in thousands of clinics around the world and has been effective. So even though the user has some weird views about what science is, it doesn't really seem relevant to the thread. But literally "science does not have a monopoly on truth" is an accurate statement - otherwise we could throw philosophy out also.

I don't consider ethics in the same category because it is not objectively the same for everyone. I see where you're taking this though, and I can live with it.
I'm fine with psychoanalysis because there is no other effective way to deal with these issues at the moment, and as you said, it is refutable. The thing that pisses me off is this misunderstanding of science in order to express some sort of edgy opinion.

Also can I note that it's funny how you think I have gotten all my ideas about the subject from shitty philosophers (like you have), who I have never actually given a shit about (except maybe Wittgenstein).

I have not, because I am an actual scientist and have dedicated a large part of life to think about and understand my job. I do my own thinking, unlike you it would seem.

Look, I have mentioned maybe 10 times that this is a straw man. Science is not "truth", just as we know that Newtonian mechanics isn't actually accurate but we can send rockets to the moon using it. Read my fucking posts.

But let me get this straight- if your statement doesn't stand up to experiment, it's bullshit. That's the one rule.

I think we're just gonna have to disagree there. I think plenty of true statements can't be experimented on. Including truth about history, ethics, etc. But I will say the other user who called science a net-negative doesn't represent anyone but himself.

Didn't the guys who came up with this shit abandoned it pretty fast?

Ethics aren't truths in the way the the law of gravity- or better "if I let something go it falls down with an acceleration of about 9.8m/s^2"- is a truth, because not everyone shares the same ethics.
As for history, there are things that can be deduced (from say DNA tests ad the like), but I think you have an interesting point here. I am perfectly willing to accept that there is are historical truths, and that in many situations they cannot be verified, at least not with our current technological capabilities.
Kind of amusing that christfag has a better understanding of this than the self declared materialist.

No, their intellectual descendants still use this method today to detect bullshit while also making chunks of metal fly and do maths, so it's probably a pretty good rule of thumb.

Your characterization of science as a neutral or benign entity is probably the most dishonest thing so far. Not being able to see that the science & capitalism which create industrial society are the cause of these extinctions is why science is so myopic in its scope.

It can't see its effects on the world or its place in history. It imagines itself as detached from the world it's destroying, just as quickly as it praises itself for technological advancement. Take for instance the creation of small drones to replace bees. This basically sums up scientific ideology. It seeks to reduce nature to mechanization (cause and effect), thus creating a dead, mechanical world. This tautology is science's excuse to destroy anything under the guise of "progress."

Heavy sigh.

And here we have an idiot of the opposite kind: one who wishes to gaze at nature in delight while evil, evil man with self-mastery and mastery of all in hand tries to ravage Nature, the poor defenceless thing!
NATURE IS TO BE NOTHING TO MAN AND SHOULD BE FROWNED UPON AS A NUISANCE WHERE THAT APPLIES. YOU ARE ACTUALLY DESCRIBING SOMETHING WHICH IS CLOSER TO COMMUNISM AND FROM THIS, I CAN TELL THAT YOU TOO ARE A REACTIONARY. NATURE - YET ANOTHER DECEPTIVE IDOL - IS TO BE BUTCHERED AND CRUSHED UNDER THE KNIVES AND THE HAMMERS OF MAN BEFORE BEING SINGED BY MAN'S ARRAYS OF PLASMA TORCHES.
That is not to say that we are to be without passion as your dystopian vision claims, no, human experience will not die and nor will the social domain. I don't doubt that it will evolve, but that is not to say that it will die as you imply it will.

Okay, this is definetely Rafiq.

Rafiq?

Gee… I wonder if someone is looking for attention.

Hating nature doesn't mean you don't rely on it for sustenance. This idea that it's something that should be "mastered" implies a negative identity. I don't have any use for that. Man's relationship to nature is as part of it. We cannot separate ourselves from it any more than we could separate ourselves from the earth which we depend on, as that too is nature.

Also, who's rafiq?

How sad.

He's a revleft user who writes like he's the next Fredric Jameson. Holla Forums suddenly became enamored with him within the past year. He's basically the new hot item after Stirner and Bookchin.

I want the guy using all these different font colors to fall off a bridge. He's trying too hard to be edgy.

Most of Freud is totally misunderstood due to today's media. The message of Freud has been distorted by an orthodox reading. Lacanian readings of Freud are more generous readings of his work and they stand better as a serious philosophical idea. The meaning of Freud is disputed. Just as Zizek puts it, the meaning of Freud isn't that everyone is secretly thinking about sex all the time. It's that *when* people are talking about sex this is just a screen for a deeper asexual thought that is more in touch with the ideas and desires that shape our egos. Things like the Oedipus complex, people take to mean simply wanting intercourse with one's mother! Learning about psychoanalysis teaches you many skills useful in order to becoming a better leftist, there's a reason Lacan suggested that analysts do cryptic crosswords. Freud was excellent at explaining the inner mechanics of propaganda on the clinical structure of the brain.

Thanks for all these resources OP. You're absolutely right.

I'm talking about actual scientists not pop culture icons you nitwit. I seriously doubt you've ever read a real physics paper. You are completely detached from science and scientists and thus this distorted view of yours has arisen.

You again straw man, telling me to "look at the attitudes". Think about this for a minute. You, a non-scientist is telling me, a guy who works in high energy physics, what the attitudes of people working in my profession are.
If this was a Greek tragedy you are at the stage of hubris. Watch your ego, it's eating you up. And this is also the reason you choose to write in that ridiculous red text, it just makes you look sillier.

I'd love to talk about the Higgs field and GR, though you'd need atleast 3 years of university level mathematics, which from the sound of it is way over your head, but you have started to become quite incomprehensible at this point. State exactly what you want me to elaborate on, and we'll take it from there.

I don't do fancy words, I solve math faggot. Now, if you're saying mathematics is a human construction, sure. But I'm pretty sure animals have the same understanding of basic mathematics, they just haven't developed it further. It's just the best, as in most accurate way to describe physical phenomena.

Again, "the bulk of philosophers". I don't give a shit what they are saying, I am an actual scientist and I know what the fuck I'm doing without them expressing their shitty opinions. I do not represent them, I represent myself and anything I've said in this thread.

I mean you've taken straw manning to the level of mentioning random philosophers, implying I know of and support them, and attacking them. What the fuck are you even on.

But hey at least we agree that the other guy is an idiot. Now tell me, what method would you use instead of scientific research to understand and better manipulate the world around you?

OKAY, YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS WAY, FROM YOUR SCHOLASTIC HIGH-GROUND OF PRIVATISED KNOWLEDGE, YOU FUCKING APE?
You again straw man, telling me to "look at the attitudes". Think about this for a minute. You, a non-scientist is telling me, a guy who works in high energy physics, what the attitudes of people working in my profession are.
==BUT ARE SAID SCIENTISTS DEALING WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, YOU GIANT CRETIN? FURTHERMORE, ARE THEY THE ONES WITH A GIANT FUCKING MOVEMENT AIMED AT BEING 'RATIONAL' AND 'OBJECTIVE'? THAT IS THE FUCKING FOLLY WHICH I SEE HERE: YOU APPEAL TO 'DA SCIENTISTS' WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING MOVEMENT.
AND I CHOOSE THIS FORMATTING BECAUSE I WISH TO CONVEY IT AS A SIGN OF MY SHEER EXASPERATION IN REACTION TO YOUR FUCKING STUPIDITY. YOU DON'T SEEM TO WANT TO ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF MY CLAIMS; INSTEAD, YOU CONTINUE TO MASTURBATE TO YOUR SHODDY THOUGHT.
AND AGAIN, YOU MISS MY FUCKING WORDS. "AND SO MUCH FOR 'NO THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS' WHEN MAXWELL IS USING SOMETHING WHICH IS DERIVED FROM HUMAN THOUGHT AND FORMAL, DEDUCTIVE CONCEPTS WHICH ARE MADE AND APPLIED BY HUMANS! YOU WANT TO CLAIM THAT MATHEMATICS IS OBJECTIVE? THAT IS THE CONCLUSION WHICH YOU ARE FORCED TO ADOPT." I AM SAYING THAT YOUR NARRATIVE WITH REGARDS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE KILLS ITSELF. ONE MOMENT: 'IT'S JUST EXPERIMENT AND EMPIRICAL SHIT!' ANOTHER: 'IT'S MATHEMATICS!' GO AND UNFUCK YOURSELF RIGHT NOW OR I WILL CONTINUE TO FIRE THESE FUCKING WALLS AT YOU. JUVENILE SHITS LIKE YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ARBITERS OF TRUTH IN YOUR THINKING BUT EVEN SOME PLEB LIKE ME CAN TURN THEM INTO DUST. YOU ARE DESPERATE TO TELL ME THAT IT'S 'NOT DA TROO SCIENCE xDDDDDD' BUT I HAVE ALREADY EXAMINED YOUR LOGIC SEVERAL TIMES OVER AND IT'S THE SAME BORING EMPIRICIST SHIT THAT I'VE ENCOUNTERED FROM THE LIKES OF THE RACE REALISTS, THE SARGONITES AND THE ANALYTIC SWINE WHO BEND RIGHT OVER FOR THE GIANT PENIS WHICH WE KNOW TO BE BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY AND 'CERTAINTY'.
IT APPEARS THAT I AM SEVERAL STEPS AHEAD OF YOU, REACTIONARY MONKEY. I MENTION THEIR NAMES BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PHILOSOPHERS WHOSE WORKS ARE RELEVANT TO THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH YOU HAPHAZARDLY SPRAY EVERYWHERE. FURTHERMORE, I MENTION THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND THE PLACE OF SCIENCE IN THE HUMAN WORLD AND IN FACT SHARE YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
NOTHING FROM THE NATURAL SCIENCES AS YOU SEEM TO WANT TO USE THEM, TWAT. INSTEAD, IT WOULD BE AN IDEA TO CONSTRUCT AND USE ABDUCTIVE HYPOTHESES FROM DIALECTICS AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES.

Is this the power of psychoanalysis? These posts look like schizophrenic ramblings. You obviously need to take your Seroquel because Lacanian sessions are apparently not effective enough.
No amount of uppercase letters will make you more right than the user you were arguing with. You are just making yourself look like an immature teen throwing a tantrum because his mom told him to stop playing Counter Strike and go to bed, and you are making "continental philosophers" as a whole look bad.

Ok, but what is the bulk of his argument though? Most of us here are not versed in post-Deleuzean philosophy, and Negarestani is notoriously hard to comprehend.
Personally, I don't see any reason why applying falsifiability to the analysis of social and mental phenomena would be harmful.

Do they? Any serious scientist is aware that we can only experience the world directly through your limited brain and senses, and they are trying to mitigate their own possible biases as much as possible. My uni professors went at great length to remind us to be extremely cautious when designing an experiment. Self-criticism is also a fundamental part of the "discussion" part of most academic papers.
I shall also remind you that logical positivists have been BTFO'd almost a century ago now.

Falsifiability is just a epistemological theory, and I'm pretty sure it will be made obsolete at some point. It is just the best way of carrying experiments we have currently, and it has worked pretty fine for the most part.
I personally believe that intellectual works who follow this methodology have more chance to describe reality more accurately and so on than those who don't. That's all, really.
And you can be more in life than a radical skeptic idiot and an autistic continental philosophy fanboy. You can appreciate both analytic philosophers and Marxist theory. You can be critical toward both psychoanalysis and modern psychiatry. It's definitely possible.

Do you guys still live in the 1930s or what?

^the most based user

This thread has gone to shit, sorry but Iit'll have to be saged

Despite its entertainment value, that is probably for the best

This board just keeps shooting itself in the dick.

I agree. I can't believe it's lasted this long.

ZIZEK ISNT A FREUDIAN HE'S LACANIAN THEY ARE NOT THE SAME READ ANTI OEDIPUS JESUS CHRIST aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You mean the book that Zizek called Deleuze's worst? The one that, according to Zizek, transforms Deleuze into an escapist ideologist of capitalism?

Read Organs Without Bodies for fuck's sake.

Have you actually read anti-oedipus? If not, please don't comment.

You say Zizek isn't a Freudian but Lacanian (even though to some extent he is both), say they are not the same (even though nobody said they were) and tell people to read Anti-Oedipus (even though Zizek defended Freud's Oedipus against D&G).

Mind explaining what your angle is here? Do you even care what Zizek's position here is or are you just here to promote Guattari and namedropped Zizek for no reason?

My angle is that you're giving someone's opinion. I don't really care what Zizek thinks. I would rather read Deleuze & Guattari than have my mind made up for me by Zizek. If you could summarize Zizek's argument as refutation of key ideas without the posturing, then that would be insightful, but you clearly think opinions are arguments. Try this format: "D/G theorize this, but Zizek argues for that."

Every single one of my opponents in recent times has turned into the same sort of gibbering wreck: a cowardly juvenile who projects their infancy onto this idea of me. Yes, you have an idea of me even as I sit behind this 'anonymous' face. It is telling that you have run out of steam even before I see the sorry state of your arguments.
THIS WAS ALREADY EXPLAINED, CERTAINLY NOT JUST BECAUSE 'MUH REZA'. DO YOU NOT EVEN HAVE THE FUCKING DECENCY TO READ MY RESPONSES TO YOU, FILTHY FUCKING APE? DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE DIVIDE BETWEEN CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM PHYSICS? DO YOU SEE HOW THERE IS A CONCEPTUAL DIVIDE WHICH UTILISES DIFFERENT CONCEPTS WHICH MAY ONLY BE RECONCILED IN SOME LOSSY WAY THROUGH ANALOGIES? THAT SAME PATTERN APPLIES TO THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE SOCIAL AND THE PHYSICAL. THE HEURISTICS ARE DIFFERENT, AS IS THE METHODOLOGY. EXPLAIN HOW 'FALSIFICATIONISM' CAN EVEN WORK WITH THE EXAMINATION THE GRANULAR PARTICULARITIES OF LANGUAGE, CONTEXT AND ALL. IT CAN ONLY RELY ON THAT WHICH IS COMPLETELY INTERSUBJECTIVE, BECAUSE ONLY THEN CAN IT BE INTERPRETED TO BE 'FALSE' AT ALL.
HERE WE GO AGAIN, A COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING REGARDING MY FOCUS.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION AND 'SELF-CRITICISM' WHICH YOU SAY SCIENTISTS PERFORM, FUCKING IDIOT? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PROBE THE DEPTHS OF PHILOSOPHY TO UNDERSTAND THE IDEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF, SAY, THE METHODOLOGY BEHIND THE DERIVATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF THE HIGGS FIELD? EXTREME CAUTION REGARDING AN EXPERIMENT - IN THE EMPIRICAL DOMAIN! - IS NOT THE SAME AS IDEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS REGARDING METHODOLOGY.
We agree here..
But, but, but, Popper, you haven't shown me how that can be applied to the social domain. You have tried to pull off this amazing fucking jump but I am not even smacking you down in that respect, for your feet haven't even left the ground!
I am talking about 'the state of analytic philosophy' and the disgusting theories which have been proposed from multiple understandings of the thought expressed in this trend.

Yes, call yourself a FUCKING RADICAL. Keep at it, little boy. Meanwhile, I am sitting here behind my keyboard, exasperated at your insolence and retardation.
I commit myself to this discussions because I believe that it will help me, perhaps it is indeed my error to continue to try and discuss things with the likes of you.

You're the reason this thread is saged. Also, you didn't respond to my earlier post

I assume you admit defeat? Say it for the masses: I have overcome your ideology. I am your god and I do not care if you live or die!