Thoughts on Psychoanalysis

[battlefields]

You should all be glad that there are incredibly gifted people out there like myself and Devil. It is only through recognizing my awesomeness will you find salvation, I do not ask for much, a nod, a deep reverential bow or curtsy and, depending on gender, a headjob.

Also, shrines, monuments and statues in my honour.

[Anti-Oedipus]

So, uh, on the less clinical side of things, any thoughts on Lacan vs Deleuze or even Zizek? I saw "psychoanalysis" in a thread title and now I just don't understand how you made it to page 13 without even bringing up Lacan. I get that continental philosophers aren't highly regarded by the western analytical/clinical tradition, but really no Lacan? I mean, he's what makes psychoanalysis more than "pfft, Freud and cigars and collective Jungconscious." I mean, not really, but kinda.

For the record, my money's on Deleuze. I imagine that in the halls of Valhalla his schizoanalytic technique will orbit his shining head like a glorious halo.

[Omega Supreme]

So, uh, on the less clinical side of things, any thoughts on Lacan vs Deleuze or even Zizek? I saw "psychoanalysis" in a thread title and now I just don't understand how you made it to page 13 without even bringing up Lacan. I get that continental philosophers aren't highly regarded by the western analytical/clinical tradition, but really no Lacan? I mean, he's what makes psychoanalysis more than "pfft, Freud and cigars and collective Jungconscious." I mean, not really, but kinda.

For the record, my money's on Deleuze. I imagine that in the halls of Valhalla his schizoanalytic technique will orbit his shining head like a glorious halo.

Who the hell is Lacan? (That's rhetorical don't answer). Seriously, I don't really know much about him and that would probably be because of where I was educated and the emphasis. Your education is probably different than mine, but I went to college from '89-94'. I just can't see why you would think he's so pivotal.

Also I find it ironic that you mention Valhalla in your little rhetorical proclamation.

[Devil]

So, uh, on the less clinical side of things, any thoughts on Lacan vs Deleuze or even Zizek? I saw "psychoanalysis" in a thread title and now I just don't understand how you made it to page 13 without even bringing up Lacan. I get that continental philosophers aren't highly regarded by the western analytical/clinical tradition, but really no Lacan? I mean, he's what makes psychoanalysis more than "pfft, Freud and cigars and collective Jungconscious." I mean, not really, but kinda.

For the record, my money's on Deleuze. I imagine that in the halls of Valhalla his schizoanalytic technique will orbit his shining head like a glorious halo.

Interesting. Do you have any thoughts you didn't learn from some philosophy professor who hasn't ever held a real job? Maybe some ideas you came up with all by yourself? Because that would be awesome.

[Anti-Oedipus]

Who the hell is Lacan? (That's rhetorical don't answer). Seriously, I don't really know much about him and that would probably be because of where I was educated and the emphasis. Your education is probably different than mine, but I went to college from '89-94'. I just can't see why you would think he's so pivotal.

Also I find it ironic that you mention Valhalla in your little rhetorical proclamation.

Ok, so I won't go into Lacanian shit. I got to college in '06, so no doubt my professors had a different idea of what constitutes the canon than yours. On the other hand, maybe I just studied with a different focus--my classes were oriented as much towards post-(modern, structuralist, etc) stuff as they were towards psychoanalysis, and I ended up with a mildly useless degree in Modern Culture and Media, for what that's worth. I will mention that I feel postmodern and in particular post-structuralist thinkers like Derrida (and, in a sense, Lacan) produce a certain sensation when read, there's a unique flow to the conceptualization of their writing--syntax, definition, deconstructions--that made me interested enough to major in that stuff, whereas basic Freud feels, if only because the language is more archaic, less relevant to my own thoughts. Also, what part of that's ironic? I guess it is in a few ways; for one thing, Deleuze killed himself, and you need to die in battle to go to Valhalla, as I recall. Or is it mentioning gods? From a Deleuzian standpoint gods are about as valid as anything else, depending on how you're talking about what.

Devil: Well, technically, this is considered psychoanalytic or critical theory (often abbreviated as cultural studies or just "theory"). I know a lot of my professors held "real" jobs, often while teaching--some were engineers, some musicians, some writers, some practicing analysts. I was lucky enough to get into a pretty good school on a minority scholarship sort of deal. I don't know why you assume my ideas came from my professors, I spent most of my classes arguing with them, and they likely wouldn't sanction anything I'm saying here without going "hmmmm" and lifting an eyebrow professorially, at best, but that's the fun thing about studying this shit. Sure, you end up without a job, but you're really good at certain kinds of bullshitting.

[Omega Supreme]

Ok, so I won't go into Lacanian shit. I got to college in '06, so no doubt my professors had a different idea of what constitutes the canon than yours. On the other hand, maybe I just studied with a different focus--my classes were oriented as much towards post-(modern, structuralist, etc) stuff as they were towards psychoanalysis, and I ended up with a mildly useless degree in Modern Culture and Media, for what that's worth. I will mention that I feel postmodern and in particular post-structuralist thinkers like Derrida (and, in a sense, Lacan) produce a certain sensation when read, there's a unique flow to the conceptualization of their writing--syntax, definition, deconstructions--that made me interested enough to major in that stuff, whereas basic Freud feels, if only because the language is more archaic, less relevant to my own thoughts. Also, what part of that's ironic? I guess it is in a few ways; for one thing, Deleuze killed himself, and you need to die in battle to go to Valhalla, as I recall. Or is it mentioning gods? From a Deleuzian standpoint gods are about as valid as anything else, depending on how you're talking about what.

Devil: Well, technically, this is considered psychoanalytic or critical theory (often abbreviated as cultural studies or just "theory"). I know a lot of my professors held "real" jobs, often while teaching--some were engineers, some musicians, some writers, some practicing analysts. I was lucky enough to get into a pretty good school on a minority scholarship sort of deal. I don't know why you assume my ideas came from my professors, I spent most of my classes arguing with them, and they likely wouldn't sanction anything I'm saying here without going "hmmmm" and lifting an eyebrow professorially, at best, but that's the fun thing about studying this shit. Sure, you end up without a job, but you're really good at certain kinds of bullshitting.

This is one of those is it ironic or coincidental remarks. The facility I founded, run and teach at is named Valhalla.

[goodlun]

17 surprised it wasn't a bit higher actually.

Authority: 6.00
Self-Sufficiency: 2.00
Superiority: 3.00
Exhibitionism: 0.00
Exploitativeness: 4.00
Vanity: 0.00
Entitlement: 2.00

[Devil]

Ok, so I won't go into Lacanian shit. I got to college in '06, so no doubt my professors had a different idea of what constitutes the canon than yours. On the other hand, maybe I just studied with a different focus--my classes were oriented as much towards post-(modern, structuralist, etc) stuff as they were towards psychoanalysis, and I ended up with a mildly useless degree in Modern Culture and Media, for what that's worth. I will mention that I feel postmodern and in particular post-structuralist thinkers like Derrida (and, in a sense, Lacan) produce a certain sensation when read, there's a unique flow to the conceptualization of their writing--syntax, definition, deconstructions--that made me interested enough to major in that stuff, whereas basic Freud feels, if only because the language is more archaic, less relevant to my own thoughts. Also, what part of that's ironic? I guess it is in a few ways; for one thing, Deleuze killed himself, and you need to die in battle to go to Valhalla, as I recall. Or is it mentioning gods? From a Deleuzian standpoint gods are about as valid as anything else, depending on how you're talking about what.

Devil: Well, technically, this is considered psychoanalytic or critical theory (often abbreviated as cultural studies or just "theory"). I know a lot of my professors held "real" jobs, often while teaching--some were engineers, some musicians, some writers, some practicing analysts. I was lucky enough to get into a pretty good school on a minority scholarship sort of deal. I don't know why you assume my ideas came from my professors, I spent most of my classes arguing with them, and they likely wouldn't sanction anything I'm saying here without going "hmmmm" and lifting an eyebrow professorially, at best, but that's the fun thing about studying this shit. Sure, you end up without a job, but you're really good at certain kinds of bullshitting.

Damn. What a windbag. You'll make a great philosophy professor one day.

[Omega Supreme]

Cognitive Behavior Therapy seems limited, kind of a quick fix. It is really good for people that can't function in society but less helpful for white girl problems...

*Facepalm

[Omega Supreme]

Did you miss on the high five you were trying to give me?

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...jpg?1240934151

[wetware]

Cognitive Behavior Therapy seems limited, kind of a quick fix. It is really good for people that can't function in society but less helpful for white girl problems...

CBT is only a "quick fix" because CBT has a concrete agreed-upon end goal from beginning of therapy until therapy is ended, is results oriented and takes much less time than many other forms of therapy. CBT doesn't fit the typical definition of a "quick fix" in that it is typically very effective and usually has low rates of recurrence among those treated with it.

Perhaps what you're having issues with is the idea that you don't need to know where a maladaptive process comes from in order to change it into something more beneficial.

[ChuckWepner]

If you don't have one already, you should immediately buy a copy of the Nicomachean Ethics. You need to be an Aristotelian.

Instead of being a deadly sin, Aristotle considered pride (Greek: "megalopsychia")to be a great virtue (Some scholars argue that he considered it the supreme virtue. In NE IV.7 he called it the crown of the virtues). But it is a very specific form of pride. Aristotle says in NE IV.3: "The man is thought to be [megalopsychos] who thinks himself worthy of great things, being worthy of them." So the megalopsychic man thinks himself to be supremely awesome because he is in fact supremely awesome.

"Pride" is a very misleading translation here, as we see in your later comment when you suggest that Aristotle's ethical system advocates selfishness. The Greek term is better rendered as "great-mindedness" or "great-souledness." The Latin-based equivalent word in English is "magnanimity," which also derives from "great-souledness." Aristotle's view on this is that a truly excellent person, one who lives well and does well, will have all of the virtues (including intellectual virtues and moral virtues), and will thereby be deserving of reputation, success, honors, etc. Given that such a person has an honest and accurate self-appraisal, the person will recognize that they are worthy of these. But this doesn't mean that they will be arrogant about it. This would be what he calls "empty vanity" and it is the vice of excess just as undervaluing yourself is a vice of deficiency in Aristotle's view.

[ChuckWepner]

Whose place is it to say when a healthy ego crosses the line and becomes inflated or when it becomes a "mental health issue?" It's just a matter of opinion. Being different or having more pride than the next man doesn't mean you're ill.

No, just being different from the next person or having more pride than the next person doesn't constitute mental illness.

Please Note: Just to be clear, the following are general theoretical points, NOT an attempt to comment about any person in the thread or on the forum:

However, when someone's assessment of their own abilities, perception of their own behaviors and those of others, and understanding of their relation to other people and institutions tracks reality poorly, those are good indicators that the person may be suffering from a disorder.

In addition, when someone's narcissistic inclinations interfere with their being able to function in away that allows them to pursue their goals and to interact with the people in their life with whom they want to interact, etc., that seems to me to constitute good grounds to think that their narcissism is at the level of a disorder.

I'm not attempting a medical definition here. Rather, I'm suggesting that if one's "ego" (not in Freud's sense but in the popular sense) is bloated enough that it seriously distorts how one experiences and remembers things or interferes with one's ability to function, then that's a problem worth getting help with.

[lordbd]

Lacan has never made any sense to me.

I don't think that CBT is necessarily a "quick fix." The way that CBT plays out in research literature is to some extent an artifact of research design (e.g. a well-controlled trial has to have operationalized goals and a set "dose" of therapy etc.). In normal practice a person might see a "CBT" therapist for 8-12 sessions or for a year or more, depending on what the individual might need.