The Freudian Book Tag!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- Tag created by Tiffany at Hierarchy of Reads:
/ @hierarchyofreads
and Juan at Just Juan Reader:
• The FREUDian Book Tag ...
Books mentioned:
Barbara Levick's "Tiberius the Politician":
www.amazon.com...
Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"!
Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation"
Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology"
Robert Burton's "The Anatomy of Melancholy"
Bill Buford's "Among the Thugs"
Garrard Conley's "Boy Erased"
Thomas de Quincey's "Confessions of an English Opium-Eater"
Bernd Heinrich's "One Man's Owl"
Alan Weisman's "The World Without Us"
I had a dream that your subconscious was trying to subconsciously tag my subconscious while I was smoking a cigar.
This was tremendous. Now I'm hoping someone make a Bob Dylan tag and tags you.
NOoooooooooooo!
So happy you did the tag, Steve! Thank you, it was great. Of course, being BookTube’s biggest Freudian and Freud supporter, I audibly gasped throughout the entire video 😂 but it’s perfectly fine to disagree. I would of course agree that the idea of “wanting to kill the father in order to have the mother as a sexual object” sounds (I guess) obscene. The Oedipus complex is not really that, it’s a much finer and, let’s say, subtle idea. Now that being said, I recently read some incredibly interesting research on Stone Age tribes and their rituals which directly correspond to Freud’s thinking. Stuff like that amazes me.
Hello Steve. Thank you for doing our Freudian Tag! I would like to make it clear to those who might not know: modern psychoanalysis is a far stretch from its original roots. I agree with a number of your arguments: "Theory" is misleading even if it is the traditional language used to discuss his ideas. His investigative processes do not hold up to the modern standards of the word, though its also important to note that Freud was not a scientist by modern standards either. You're also correct in your statement that Freud was not, in fact, the first person to suggest a subconscious--even he understood that. He was however, the first to develop the idea as he did and popularize it. I think it is important to note that one can appreciate Freud for his contributions to modern psychology and still recognize that many of his ideas were extremely flawed. No reasonable person studying psychology believes that Freud's speculative claims such as penis envy, Electra complex, etc. are valid--particularly not in the way often described by those unfamiliar with the more subtle connotations of his his work. Beyond this, I suppose I could have done a better job of giving this tag a bit of context (Juan did a much better job with this). I preferred to refrain from any kind of personal judgment and speculation of his character/intent. The goal was to generate psychological discussion--including criticism--and inform people of his contributions to modern psychology. :) I do not feel it my job to tell Booktube what to think. I believe viewers of this tag intelligent enough to form their own ideas and opinions. To have painted a picture of Freud as "good or bad" (which is a silly oversimplification either way) would have been to frame the discussions people might have had and that was not the goal. Like him or not, he did contribute many things to modern psychology. I think there are a number of oversimplifications present, but I truly appreciate your take on this tag.
This was better than Eminem's diss album xD
God (dog?) bless you Steve Donoghue. I thoroughly enjoyed your thorough roasting of Freud (Fraud).
What evidence do you have that man was not sincere and was a crook?
Reading Nomad I mean there is everything that Steve pointed out in this video. I don't know if he was a crook, maybe he was, but it seems apparent that t he was just wrong.
My evidence is his own undeniable brilliance! He was extremely familiar with how science is conducted. He HAD to know that the extrapolations he was doing were fraudulent when applied to humanity-at-large.
Who knew slaughtering Freud could be so delightful and entertaining. 😊 Also, very interesting reading suggestions, thanks for that.
Steve...I simply adore you,and your channel! I learn SO SO MUCH! This is probably my favorite video from you. Now on to that Bob Dylan tag???
someone needs to make a song out of this video called "he made claims"
Oh man, I got ready for a wonderful rant but I had no idea how good it was going to be. Added Animal Liberation to my to read list!
This teaches me that I have no business doing tags
thank you, Steve. I'm one minute in and so glad that someone is calling Freud out on his rubbish. 😂
About dreams- I’ve always wanted to see a machine invented that could record dreams like a movie. It would be fascinating and frightening.
In my own case, it would be extremely boring!
I love hearing Freud getting demolished on a Sunday morning with a Frieda bomb!
Ah, The Anatomy of Melancholy. Some day I will read you. Some day.
Can't understand how this video slipped me by
Oh, Steve. It isn’t them, it’s you...in regard to length.
But boy, this is a fascinating video. So many complex ideas and books discussed; I stayed up past my bedtime.
Sorry! This one went on a bit long!
You're not going to believe this. "The anatomy of melancholy" is about to be released as a penguin classics in a few weeks (early December). (And its ebook in September 2019?). Anyway, just checked. Back to the video! Keep going!
Yeah, Freud had some interesting insights based on his intuition, but he couldn't do science to save his life and the details of his thought are bogus.
Actually, he started off as a very credible scientist and did do some science. He was genuinely a Neuroscientist. He did some useful work on Cerebral Palsy.
Are you trying to get hashtagged again, Steve? Charles Darwin, Freud, theory vs claims, speciesism: the internet can't bear this kind of discussion! 😂
hah! No, I swear I'm not trying to get hashtagged! This video just turned out to be more argumentative than I expected!
This was great!
♡
So with your criticisms of Freud I take it that your prefer to be seen as a "Jung man?"
28 years Jung!
You and Freud? I must be drunker than I thought..
Dislikes philosophy... has issues around dogs... could not finish a gay love novel set in Venice. Apply Freudian Logic. Answer: Was probably overfed Rambutans at a young age. Freud was interesting, he was literary, he was exploratory. I really like some of his ideas and the way they are formed, despite lack of any evidence and difficulty to prove: Oedipus complex, Penis Envy, Libido, the Zone, the 3 Egos.
Once again, I am completely unapologetically specie-ist. Anything else is just ridiculuous.
Any alternative to a bigotry that causes incalculable worldwide pain and misery is ridiculous? I disagree. "Anything else" is preferable, not ridiculous.
@@saintdonoghue We breed a few species to eat. And if the animals are stunned, virtually no pain. Humanity is at heart ethical and improving. It is all very well for rich Westerners to sustain themselves on plants and then calculate that an African hunter has the same moral value to its prey. And then when one maintains a pet dog by feeding it dead animals...
Once again, I am completely unapologetically specie-ist. Anything else is just ridiculous.
Human superiority was not predicated on ability, but on the religious ground that man was made in the image of God and that the rest of the species was put under mankind's dominion (Genesis). If there is no Creator, and human beings are not made in the image of a higher being, but are product of the propagation of genes that enabled our survival, then it should be inferred we are like any other creature. If we are just animals shouldn't we behave like any other organism and preoccupy ourselves with whatever it takes to ensure we continue to exist and to hell with everything else? If that is the case why do we have any moral obligation to other animals? Survival of the fittest right? Let's just carry the whole evolution thing to it's inevitable conclusion shall we? Except we can't or society would probably collapse. Maybe that's what someone who considers a pig inherently more valuable than a child would want because of their secret contempt for their fellow human beings. The comparison is reprehensible.
I tried to follow your argument. But where did the "secret contempt" come from?
So let me get this straight, saying a pig is worth more than a retarded human child doesn't sound like contempt at all to you? We're moralizing human eating animals, but no one moralizes a lion killing his prey. According to Singer's logic we're the same, yet humans who eat meat are vilified. Why are we held to a different standard? Are we superior to animals or not then? And following the same logic of the aforementioned disgusting comparison, then by implication any normal human is worth more than animal, because last time I checked the range of human emotions is far more sophisticated than any other species. Speciesism is bullshit.
Ha! You raise a few good points.
I agree that it would be unfair to expect 'higher' ethical standards from humanity than from any other species - self-interest is the basis for all animal behaviour. Not acting self-interestedly is pretty much the definition of insanity.
But I don't see a human/pig comparison as reprehensible, since it seems to me that would require unwarranted contempt for the pig. Maybe, rather than assuming humanity's superiority (and creating religions to worship ourselves), we could just as easily see humanity's uniqueness is in being a disease of our planet (evolution gone wrong), so that we're now threatening the Earth's health on a global scale. Not that we can be blamed for that, any more than cancer cells can be 'blamed' for doing what they do.
'Animal Liberation' is a great book.
@@parlabaneisback Regardless of whether cancer cells destroy the human body purposefully or not, what do we do to them? Don't we eradicate them? Let's watch our analogies better. Despite my multitude of negative experiences with other people I haven't become so resentful of mankind enough to reduce my concept of them to a scourge upon the earth. Once again, let's be intellectually honest here, if we're going to use evolution as a moral guide, then extinction of one species by another species is completely natural isn't it? It's simply one species losing the survival competition against another. Atheists are free to believe whatever they want, but what they are never going to fully argue that evolution can be applied as a system of morality.
I like your confidence. But the 'unconscious' is far from ridiculous. So how exactly are you going to explain dreams, feelings, emotional complexes, phobias and even thoughts? You dismiss the notion, then ironically went to explain precisely that when talking about dreams!
Fraud means wilful deception... why do you regularly use this word? Evidence?
In this video, I tried to 'explain' dreams: they're just the brain's haphazard way of sorting out strong impressions, worries, etc. accumulated during the day. The brain can only do that using information it already has, and since we're talking about the sleeping brain, most of that information will come from long-term memories - including, frequently, memories from the past or distant past. So if you stub your toe really painfully at 8 in the morning, then the pain goes away and you go on with your day and forget about it, your sleeping brain much later that night might process the very strong (but temporary) impression that pain made on your mind by 'replaying' a childhood memory of breaking your arm while out camping with your family. A Freudian analyst would jump on that and 'help' you 'work through' the fact that you associate pain with your family - when in reality, your sleeping brain was just processing one temporary recent pain with something it already has 'filed' under 'pain' - no trauma, no connection to the family at all. Just one part of your brain reacting to - and then forgetting - something that registered on another part of your brain.
@@dusgaw5286 @19:30 I guess you must not have been watching carefully.