 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big recycle ...and 527 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is sex the most important thing in life? freud said so, and i believe him. the first cause of all human acts is his sexual being - wich includes not only the sex behaviour, but the male/female positioning in all his choices male / female discuss |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sex might be pretty fun but there's strictly nothing in life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You wrote this why? a, you'll get laid b, you don't have any friends to discuss your problem with c. you are really interesested in projecting crap at other people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'projecting crap'. i like it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think having sex with you, were it even possible with your atrophied genitals, would be the least desirable thing in life. I said so, and I believe me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't pronounce myself, do we have a picture of him? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not necessarily, like ants, a person can have a measure of 'fitness' by helping genetically similar organisms (same species) but not reproduce themselves. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I love you, but I fear, on this occasion, I do not understand the question, so I'll just do a non-commital "Yeaaahh... I suppose, not really, yeah... no... tsssh" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Freud was a hack. In psychology, if you reference freud you get laughed at. For some reason his ideas seem to carry a lot of wieght with the literature and philosophy crowd. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually, freud says we are fueled towards reproduction and the furthering of our species. it just so happens this is best achieved through the act of coitus. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sorry, I don't know what happened there, I kind of babelfished and I should go to bed. I can't decide whether I want to have sex with our young friend Stefano Azevedo. Do we have a picture of him? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
freud was also a coke fiend and used to pull his own teeth out. the guy was wack. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh I don't care if he's some bronzed Adonis, I just can't stick the thought of him coming up with some "Isn't insect society a lot like our own???" or "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the monoid, I dunno????" whilst he ineffectually rubbed his flaccid member against my thigh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he's still the father of modern psychology, even if his theories are almost all completely debunked at this point. read some of his case histories; while his idea's werent that sound, he knew how to fix people on some kind of intrinsic level. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its easier to run without big titties. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
claiming freud is a crack pot just because he was the first and got most things wrong is like defaming socrates or plato for the same reasons. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have found though that if you listen to Simon Callow's voice long enough, you do become gay, in a very gentle, even nice way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Except that, where Freud is fun, Plato and Socrates are pretty much dicks. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Freud isnt debunked in modern psychology...ALL modern psychoanalysis is based on Freud. Anyway I forgive all you haters but check out his Interpretation of Dreams and on Leonardo Da Vinci. Its well interesting just to see the connections he makes. Lots of imaginative links Where's Hanal when you need him? This thread needs lightning up!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
www.punternet.com I find the sex field reports on this pretty brutal... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm charging him |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
man this isnt about the lyfe jennings song is it :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats exactly what most of his work is: imaginative links. he never attempts to really test his theories, just picks things out when they fit within them. yes, a lot of it did work, and it is the basis for modern psychology, but without falsification, it's merely conjecture. in the end, it's just bad science. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't confuse being thousands of years old, dictated and annotated, and then translated from a near-dead language with dickishness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm surprised this thread hasn't caught on to Monoid yet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sex is dirty, raw and fucking rank! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Things might well be "the most important thing" in animals life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh Godddddddddddddddddd. Freud wasn't a proper Psychologist. He did barely any experiments or anything remotely scientific. He tried to make factual, scientific theories, using nothing to back up his theories. A lot of his stuff was completely unfounded, and people only obsess about him because of how much he spoke about sex. I guess this is why some Philosophers credit his work more than Psychologists, because Psychology attempts to be a science by doing experiments and statistical analysis, whereas Philosophers just talk and talk and talk and think, and it doesn't matter if there's no proof whatsoever for your arguments, as long as they are backed up well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh Gode. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Excuse me, but where are you studying philosophy? It's all just as empirical as anything else; a theory is formulated on the basis of something experienced, and, as in any other discipline, the theory isn't the empirical data, but rather seeks to explain it. This goes for physics, psychology, literature, linguistics, biology, every scientific discipline you can think of! How do you suggest one backs up ones arguments without relating to experience? How would a theory arise out of something not experienced? And to say that Freud didn't do experiments.. well, he may not have called them that, but he didn't just suddenly decide to apply his theory out of thin air, but rather he found that the common practice (which he practised and thus experienced) of using hypnosis was unsatisfactory, so he developed his psychoanalytical theory. Then, as he treated more and more cases (observed more and more cases), he invented more general theories to explain the phenomena he encountered. Also, many of his theories are still influencing today's psychologists, but, for instance, the notion of sex as the thing that drives everything has been abandoned (only to be picked up again by sociobiologists). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
YOUR VIEWS ON PHILOSOPHY ARE OUTDATED |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course not |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That said, I think the reason why he's so often used in philosophy is that his theories give a sort of insight into the human mind, even with the attitude I take towards some of his theories, that they are the direct cause of certain mental illnesses that didn't necessarily have to exist before he "invented" them. It tells you how people function when they are told they have an unconscious and then suddenly they do.. when they experience something they think they should be traumatised by, they are, and then you can't really say that they aren't, but you could also ask if they would be if they hadn't known they could be. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not to mention that the idea of a subconscious was constructed by freud and jung. theres nothing really to say that the subconscious is real at all. its just like a box where we assume the things we cant immediately find must be hiding. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm sorry to say that, i studied psychology, and he's not the father of (modern) psychology, he was not a psychologist (he was a psychiatrist) and the majority of his theories are extremely flawed. wilhelm wundt and william james are most often credited as the founding fathers. his theories sounded fresh when first published (and still attract people), especially among artists. that's probably why he's that famous... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im sure thats no new news to the psychologically savvy, but its something that carries weight for me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Freud abandoned the idea of the subconscious for the superego, ego, id trinity. I don't really believe there is a subconscious, as such, but that one can (really) exist if someone believe they have one, in a way. What it is, then, is the person actively and successfully hiding from himself what he knows. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i remember that also. thanks for your corrections by the way. i actually ditched philosophy a number of years ago because i stopped seeing value in it. so all of my knowledge is a bit old and rusty, although my point of view now is also a lot more accepting! i know what you mean about the possibility for a subconscious to exist. all a person would need to do would be to make room for it. but if one makes that space a closed and unlit room then its probably not the most constructive decision ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I get laid at least three times a day |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thank god for drunken mastah!! Look I think theres a bit of confusion going on here...First off a basic thing you have to understand: PSYCHOANALYSIS and PSYCHOLOGY are art forms not precise sciences. It is also clear from this board that very few of you have actually read ANY Freud. He wrote a huge amount, you have to read it first. The point about Freud is he was the one who really initiated the idea that childhood was very formative. That your parents had huge influence on your later life...That was a very important idea that had not existed before. ps ANyone know WINNICOTT while we're on children? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh. of course - nothing is more important. in fact: life has no meaning without sex. i can't imagine life without fucking. you should fuck all the time. if sex is not important what's important? work, art, love, nature, literature... nah... we all can manage without these ridiculous, phoney shit. (out of topic: does Justin Timberlake sing in his "futuresex/lovesounds" something like: "i got to rim my zone, i think he's ready to blow"? :D ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whats important is knowing how to get by without any of those things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If Philosophy only covered things we experience then it wouldn't deal with metaphysical concepts such as God, which by their very definition are transcendent and beyond our experience and comprehension now, would it? Philosophy and science are not the same. If they were then you would be able to do a BSc in Philosophy and you can't... anywhere, as far as I know. Just as you can't do a BA in Physics or Chemistry or Biology Also, nend, Psychology isn't an "art form". It is classed as a science. If I wanted to do just Philosophy then it would be a BA, and if I wanted to do just Psychology it would be a BSc. I do both and so had the choice of which I wanted to do and so chose a BSc |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're missing the point. Firstly, dealings with god are theological, secondly, theology is also another science. Thirdly, taken as such, god would be analogous to a theoretical element: he's a "model of explanation" for experienced phenomena, as you would encounter in any science (Note that I wouldn't call god a theory in anyone's religious experience, only in theories about things). Take for instance gravity: no-one has experienced gravity (as such), but it's still a theory trying to explain what is experienced (that mass attracts mass). It's as metaphysical as any other theory. Many theoretical elements are beyond our ability to experience them (those linking two phenomena, for instance), but they're still scientific. Science means "knowledge of something acquired by study." Appealing to your university's naming routines doesn't help you much; A rose by any other name is still a rose; my bachelor is, technically, called something like "bachelor of history and culture," but that's just its title, and about the only title you can have on a number of different subjects at my university (it's some traditional thing I guess). That doesn't change the fact that I study philosophy, which is a science (it concerns knowledge of things, and these things are, invariably, experienced by me or anyone else; you can't even really discount someone's religious experience as not having been experienced by that person, you can just choose a different way of explaining it). Also, even in the english language, people are starting to realise that they have to specify, when they're talking about natural sciences, by calling them exactly that, natural sciences (as opposed to the other sciences which are all sciences). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Science means "knowledge of something acquired by study." i've already had it out with you over this in another thread, you're completely wrong. So, when studying history, you're studying a science? the same with studying art? since you're acquiring knowledge by study? c'mon man. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Come to think of it, with your reasoning and flawed understanding of the meaning of "science", EVERYTHING in university is a science.... So why is there such a thing as a faculty of arts? Why does it exist? Why does the distinction exist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Where's Fleetmouse in all his wisdom to come and put a succinct end to this. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, I think if you think about it you will find that you are wrong. Even in normal day life, when you're learning something, or, rather, acquiring knowledge about something, you can be said to be in a scientific "mood," in a way (this could also commonly be called an inquiring mood, but this doesn't really matter as a scientist of any kind is always engaged in inquiring activity). It's also interesting to note that what is today called science once upon a time was all called philosophy. However, does this change what the practice itself is? Was it philosophy or science when someone gutted a fish to find out what its internal organs looked like? The distinction between two sciences is nowhere but in the range of objects to be examined. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
