Sigmund Freud - Blog Posts
*walks into a psychology lecture wearing a tshirt with freud’s face on it that says “THIS GUY IS A FUCKING IDIOT” in sparkly bold type*
Sometimes I think about the fact that before Freud presented his Oedipus complex theory as an explanation of hysteria he was actually very invested in research on children sexual abuse and how that would be the cause of hysteric reaction during adulthood. He was in fact the one to advocate on “trusting the victim”. He himself stated that it would be impossible for the survivors to lie as they 1) mostly wouldn’t even remember the fact of abuse 2) when suggested by therapist that the incest or other form of sexual abuse might have happened during their childhood, survivors would do EVERYTHING to deny that form of possibility (because the memory of it would be too traumatic to even consider let alone to recall) 3) only after very specific form of therapeutic approach survivors would recall some aspects of the abuse and ALSO 4) it would be impossible for the therapist to induce this kind of memory because, as stated by Freud, suggestion never succeeded in evoking this kind of real reaction unless the abuse had happened.
And it’s so interesting that he dropped this because he thought that the statistics just COULDN’T possibly be true as the numbers suggested that the majority of women were taken advantage of during their childhood. Also he was a coward and was afraid that others doctors (men) wouldn’t approve this (and he was probably right).
And what’s the most fascinating aspect of it is how psychology would look like if he suggested the former explanation, if he presented it instead of the Oedipus complex explanatory which states that hysteria was all about the “natural children’s fantasies” and other bullshit. I mean we still use this theory even though we have a clear evidence of how it was a “substitute theory”. Ofc I’m well aware of other usages of this theory, but how the former theory would affect believing the victims? How much further we would be, even in psychology, if Freud hadn’t had dropped his former understanding of hysteria? Would the stigma around hysteria and being “hysteric” be any different? Would he be even famous if he presented the former theory?
Sigmund Freud, Franz Kafka and Bret Easton Ellis would have the most insane blunt rotation known to man.
"Pouco se fala nessa ciência, mas na realidade somos diariamente confrontados com essa técnica através dos meios televisivos. Expostos, denunciados pelo zoom, qualquer olhar, postura, gesto ou tom de voz diz mais sobre o que somos e pensamos do que um elaborado discurso. Pode parecer ficção aos olhos de muitos, vidência para muitos outros, mas é uma temível ciência muito procurada por figuras públicas (normalmente ocupantes de posições mediáticas elevadas). Nenhum disfarce resiste ao escrutínio dos (verdadeiros) especialistas. No fundo, se é possível fazer uma leitura correta desse conjunto de códigos, a sua escrita torna-se então possível. Isto é, entender essa mecânica a partir das fontes naturais permite-nos trabalhar nela de forma artificial, limando, subtraindo ou acrescentando. Porém isso não é assim tão fácil. O resultado fica largamente dependente das capacidades reais do analista tratante e das capacidades de adaptação de quem procura estes serviços. Modificar tendências naturais e/ou controlar impulsos não está ao alcance de todos. O tratamento pode ser extremamente violento e penoso. Quer se trate de um artista, político ou futebolista, existem indivíduos cuja mecânica natural não permite grandes manobras..."
Everytime you watch family related porn or call your partner "daddy or mommy" your just proving Sigmund Freud right and that's just ain't it right that, I ain't taking the L that is Freud winning.
“C'è una storia dietro ogni persona. C'è una ragione per cui loro sono quel che sono. Loro non sono così solo perché lo vogliono. Qualcosa nel passato li ha resi tali, e alcune volte, cambiarli è impossibile.”
- Sigmund Freud
FMK Darwin Marx Freud. There is a correct answer here.
the correct answer here is going back in time to show Thomas Jefferson this classic
"We need to go back in time to show Gorge Orwell the state of the internet." "We need to go back in time to show Marx modern capitalism." Man up and go back in time to show Sigmund Freud Omegaverse.
Penisneud
"You were born broken."
"That is your birthright."
-Beatrice Horseman
I was born small, swollen, and suffocated
Ive grown ten times in size
But alls the same
That ends the same
I edge near suffocation
When my partner suffocates me
To take the edge off me
Squeze harder please, it feels better for me
I want desperatley to be grateful for my life
And not swell myself on food and folly
I want to be small, carried by you
Why am I so small if im so big?
You tell me you love me all the same
But I'd change it anyday, anyway I could
If I could I would carry a wood worth its name
Instead it is life that is hard
And longing...
Eren and his Id: Some Further Observations
Since publishing my meta on the idea of the ‘id’ in SNK, I’ve noticed some more examples of it manifesting throughout the series.
Mikasa
What Eren attributes to Ackerman mind control is really just the nature of Mikasa’s id. She acts without seeming to realise she does so, with vacant eyes in the first panel and confusion in the last. This is just like Eren’s experience in defending Ramzi: not being mentally present in the moment, his id takes over his body like an alien and controlling force.
Keep reading
Ever Since I Was Born: Eren and his Id
Ironically, after writing a very long critique of the ending, I believe I have found a way to redeem it. Isayama’s comments on the manga ‘Himeanole’, as well as the analyses put forward by @twilight-paradise88 and @cosmicjoke, led me down a very interesting path of interpretation that makes the ending - thematically, at least - justified.
In the 2017 Bessatsu Shonen interview, Isayama says this about ‘Himeanole’:
Ultimately, I don’t think the series [SNK] passes judgment on what is “right” or “wrong.” For example, when I read Furuya Minoru’s “Himeanole,” I knew society would consider the serial killer in the story unforgivable under social norms. But when I took into account his life and background I still wondered, “If this was his nature, then who is to blame…?” I even thought, “Is it merely coincidence that I wasn’t born as a murderer?”
Does this sound familiar?
Eren, like the protagonist of that manga, is presented as being a certain way since birth. From the Attack Titan’s power to see the future, we know that Eren bringing about the Rumbling was an inevitability.
The kernel of this idea is preserved in the ending. Although Eren’s motivations become more complex, the core of his being still compels him towards that act of destruction. He cannot understand it, because it is not a logical demand. It is simply the nature of who he is.
Keep reading