How come he hasn’t been debunked in over 100 years?
it's not scientific there's nothing to debunk
>>25299619>denial
jung debunked him by saying it's jewish psychology and only applies to jews
>>25299639He was correct. However, we might come to understand that jewish psyche would be very different if they hadn't tortured their own babies and raped their toddlers for thousands of years, lied about their identity and used their friends and supporters as scapegoats. Well, they made a covenant with evil. The fruits are as you'd expect.
Freud was unironically right about a lot of things, and a great writer. Jung otoh was a schizo
>>25299639factual>>25299615freuds innovation was to claim that the subconscious comes with unnatural concupiscence preinstalled while thomas claimed that the passive intellect only comes with natural concupiscence and needs unnatural concupiscence to be installed to it from the active intellect through force of habit. this invention of the subconscious allowed jews to try to impose habits of unnatural concupiscence by rote in schooling and claim to be just trying to help children fully express their authenticity
>>25301311Is concupiscence the word of the day in your desk calendar?
>>25299619freud can only be superseded as the aristotle to the newtons of modern psychology if the world agrees to forget thomas
>>25301320
>>25301278Freud‘s theories are correct about neurotic fagsJung‘s theories are right about functional people seeking deeper linkage to the primal mind.
>>25299619This. Or more precisely, psychological science isn't yet at the point it can debunk Freud. It's held back by a lack of systemic testing and experimentation due to ethical reasons, so it's doubtful we'll ever make any serious progress on it as long as human rights are a thing.
>>25299639Funny I just finished reading his letters where he said exactly that.Do we count this as synchronicity?
>>25301325The thing mainly superseded is a sort of half-assed pop-psy picture of Freud that got standardized by midwitted American psychologists during the 50s. For example, superego is not 'reason', the whole model really does not work like the stereotypical picture of superego as an angel and the id as a devil on your shoulder and ego in the middle it is often presented as. Superego is the expectations of society that get made part of the personality. It is partly conscious and partly unconscious. Vanity is often a very super-ego-driven unconscious desire: its wanting to be perceived as handsome in the eyes of society, and thereby following all the expectations of specific cultural beauty standards. Whether people pay money to stay pale (as in Asia) or pay money to get tan (as in America) is a desire formed by cultural norms, the superego. The Ego is in fact the rational part, its the part that has to manage the best way to fulfill the irrational desires of the id while managing the expectations of reality (including the demands of society/superego), and it is this managing function of having to deal with and figure out reality (the reality principle) from which rationality arises according to Freud. The superego is only rational in so far that the society norms it reflects are ones that expects/pressures its members to be rational. ( For example, a student in university might feel a higher pressure than in everyday life to make a rigorous argument in his assignment)
>>25301521Jung is for boring white guys who want to feel like they're living out a mythopoetic struggleThe funny thing about all this is that if some of you guys would just read Freud, you would actually find a lot that you agree with. Read Civilization and Its Discontents, at the very least
>>25301816pretty well said, though from a general perspective i think 'rational' just means the ability to connive to get stuff and is less a marker of reason as a positive quality
>>25299615Anon, I...
>>25301816> no you have to try to start with PSYCHE LOGOS of this dipshit freud from the 19th century or youre not a scientist> holy fuck i love science!freuds follower 150 years later jordan peterson also wanted to fuck his grandmother. expectations of society that get made part of the personality is what psychoTheRapist does to little boys to make eunuchs to dress up as women and mock
fpbp, stop coping
>>25299615he literally just started making up shit to "intellectually" justify his sexual deviance then other deviants used him to do the same thing which gave him legitimacy
>>25301521Nah, Jung is crap.
>>25301831>Jung is for boring white guys who want to feel like they're living out a mythopoetic struggleYou say this as if it's a bad thing.
>>25299639This is true. Jews start their lives by getting their genitals mutilated so it makes sense their thoughts lean toward the sexual
>>25299615The start of my intro to psychology class involved talking about how no one takes his ideas seriously anymore.
Literally the entire Freudian tradition is about debunking Freud. Half his shit got debunked by his immediate successors.
>>25301528>This. Or more precisely, psychological science isn't yet at the point it can debunk Freud.You've got things the wrong way around. The burden of proof is on a Freud proponent to provide evidence that supports the theory.
>>25302936It is and I say this as somebody who likes Jung.idk about the mythopoetic part but I find him to be a very legit way to continue from Freud but without the limitations of the latter.
>>25299615Because he's right fundamentally.
>>25301831You say this as if it isn't obvious.
>>25301003The synagogue of Satan. And they do not deal in the real world.
>Freud>JungJust read the sutras you stupid westerners.
>>25301831>Jung is for boring white guys who want to feel like they're living out a mythopoetic struggleStop being anti-white.
>>25299615Adler is fundamentally more correct than any other psychologist I've encountered, but Jung and Freud are not incorrect either, and they at have the advantage of being far more entertaining writers, especially Freud. The issue with Freud as a thinker is that nothing he says stands up to any logical scrutiny, his thoughts don't build linearly on each other, and he is as likely to drop a genius poetic idea as he is liable to justify it with the most moronic bumbling resultant of the great blinders put on by his fetishes. My favorite example of this is his theory on the sexual recession of 5-10 year olds presented in Moses and Monotheism. I know little about anatomy but he states that children sexually develop until that age physically, and then slightly recede until puberty. He argues this is due to an evolutionarily instilled fear of the father, and the need of the species to delay sexual competition as much as possible with the sexual dominion of the primitive father, who supposedly raped all the women of the family and killed any sexual competition that might occur. I think it's an interesting enough idea, and he argues for it first by pointing out that humans are the only species with such a stagnated development. This obviously isn't full proof evidence, as chimp and gorilla fathers commonly behave in the manner he suggests the primitive human father did, but have not evolved such a defense mechanism, but it it still a fun progression of the idea and at least reinforces that the evolutionary aberration is a response to neuroses. Where the thread unravels is the next point of evidence offered -- that infants have a fundamental fear of large animals (which is largely untrue, but in so far is it is true, is explained by the same simple evolutionary concepts and/or mystic epigenetics that Freud employs to justify the fear of the Primitive Father), and that this fear is largely a misappropriation of the evolutionary fear of the father into abstractions.This is obviously the stupidest train of thought one could imagine, and I would like to assume most readers minds are incapable of such blundering idiocy. When I came to that point I was unimaginably ashamed I had made it that far in the book, but I continued reading and experienced the same rise and fall two or three times more in the remaining 30 or so pages.This is all to say that Freud is likely more disprovable than any still relevant thinker, but he still contributed a great deal of excellent poetry and furthered thought in the process
>>25299639That is true but Freud is also rather explicit his theories apply to more and more complex civilizations and cultures, parts of the Jewish psyche are progenitors of the germanic nations psyches given the worship of the Old Testament by protestantism, and the English consciousness has inextricably homogenized the rest of the worlds cultures due to the gravity of Anglo-American culture and empire. The whole worlds resources are monopolized by Babylonian-Jewish banking and distributed by its 3000 year old value system, it would be absurd to pretend we don't have some of the devil of the Jewish psyche within all of us. Freud offers some opportunity to step back and see our cultures perversions as a first step of escape, his psyche being more fallen than the average gentiles means he cannot be completely correct but he makes for an excellent canary for people with the removal to avoid blind orthodoxy
>>25301521neurotic fags are the only people who have contributed great works to culture though, I just think Dostoevsky or Wagner are way better for neurotic fags than Freud
