>> ^Trancecoach:
use cognitive behavioral therapy, Luke.


Freud would never say such a thing! Maybe Skinner.

Go for pure Freudian Analysis!

seems freud was correct.

People don't change. Makeup was more important to women than food 6000 years ago.

Freud had some good insights as did the other guy, but neither IMO had an all-encompassing understanding of human nature and their psychobabble remains less effective and important than religion, tradition, both.

The companies don't get it right as much as the conspiracy theorists believe. There is no golden formula that works 90% of the time. If one could measure how many businesses fail today as a percentage versus in each of the past 6 decades, the assumption could be made that the fail rate was/is fairly constant.

choggie, it's OK to admit now that you're really Tony Robbins. I promise not to rip you a new one for the chapter about "food combining" in your bestseller Unlimited Power.

Guess what word was found through surveys to be the most annoying: "whatever" (BBC Oct 13, 2009). As a psychotherapist, I respect Freud's success in exposing the fact that there is an uncounscious, something not realized before. That he fucked up a great many people's lives is news to me. Was the number of fucked up lives in the tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. ? In what manner were they fucked up. Just wondering.

Grats on the diamond! Your avatar has always been one of my favorites (along with pink freud, for obvious reasons).

adversarial? yeah.. and you're not patronising in the slightest huh?

i think i understood full well your point. but then i also think you've misunderstood why i originally quoted rougy's comment, and why i subsequently mentioned the ridiculous ideas of FSM, IPU, teacup etc. they are all untestable, outside the realm of science. hence for someone to say 'science will never explain the soul' is absurd. of course it won't. it can't. just as it can't explain an infinite number of other hypothetical things -- which IS a useful point. they are all equally ridiculous. the soul is as likely as god is as likely as FSM etc. this boils down in the end to an argument on ontology, which if you are a rational person, brings you to science as the best method we have for testing reality. that method relies on evidence. evidence for all those things == 0. therefore, likelihood of those things being real approximates 0. which means you should apply the same reasoning to the existence of a soul as you do to unicorns, fairies, and a magical cupcake with feet that created the universe.

does that explain how i responded to "prove that the soul does not exist" the way i did?

i really do apologise if my views on freud or jung are upsetting, but i feel strongly about it because i have learned of the damage freud's ideas have inflicted.

now let's have a hug and talk about how we want to fuck our mothers and kill our fathers.

berticus,
whats with the adversarial tone bud?
all i was saying is that you cannot prove or disprove either argument concerning the validity and nature,or even existence of a soul.
your counter was,lets just say,less than creative.
and then you admonish me for making the conflation of jung being the father of humanism,well...i have the textbook right in front of me and the title of the chapter is.../drum roll
carl jung, father of humanism
if you disagree with that title take it up with the authors,all i was suggesting
was some reading,which i gather you have already done.
i also gather you found freud and jungs work ill-thought and crazy.
ok..thats your right..i dont.i guess psychoanalysis really IS dead,and the super ego was just a "fad".
i find neitzche nihilistic and depressing,but thats my opinion.i do like hegel though,you may not.
psychology is NOT an exact science,and anybody who says it is,is talking out their collective ass.
but all this is not the point,the point of my comment,one you conveniently ignored...is that arguing about the existence of a soul is a dead end argument.
you are free to feel and believe what you wish my friend,i am not your enemy,and my comment was not of a antagonistic flavor.it was just a statement,and an accurate one at that.even richard dawkins will concede the point i made.
but i do thank you for your contributions to this topic.
and BTW..
the answer is:socrates,kung fu tzu

>> ^enoch:
prove that the soul does not exist.
cant?
then chalk it up to the "i dont know" factor,and dont even try the "prove it DOES exist" because i cant either.to even attempt that futile argument is an exercise in wasted time.
i will suggest reading about the father of "humanism" the collective unconcious,carl jung.if you have taken any psychology courses you have heard of him.

prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist.
prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
prove that the orbiting teacup does not exist.
prove that god does not exist.

prove, prove, prove.

i've taken plenty of psychology courses, actually, and if you had too, you would know that you learn very early on that jung (and freud) had some fun ideas... but they were just that. they are not science. they are ideas, and unfortunately some of them have been quite damaging. they are outdated and the fact that people still give credit to either freud or jung's untestable unprovable psychobabble is scary.

how you came to the conclusion that jung of all people was the founder of humanism boggles the mind. if you take 2 minutes to look at what jung espoused and then compare that to what humanism is... quite different.

Not only does Buddhism offer a sound and practical approach to understanding the human mind and its functions, but compared to Western theories such as those of Freud, you could say that it has also stood the test of time, offering as it has for thousands of years methods for alleviating mental distress, whereas one could not say that Freudian concepts are as useful today, as they appeared to be when first established.

I'll take 20 minutes of meditation a day over any old Freudian psychoanalysis, thank you. Psychology is the business of any dedicated Buddhist.

>> ^peggedbea:
the turning point came when i had to do a bladder study on 2 boys 2 weeks in a row, both were under 7, both had not been circumsized and both had chronic bladder and kidney infections. when i went to cath both of them their foreskins were filthy and crusted on, i dont think their parents have EVER pulled that stuff back and cleaned it properly.

WTF, are you an idiot? This only shows the mental damage American society (or whatever society you're in) has had from years of unwarranted circumcision : bad genital hygiene. The Chinese/Japanese/Indian/Latino-American/European are for the majority uncircumcised and lo, they wash their foreskin and don't get any more infections than the circumcised. And why would what other parents can't do influence your choice? Because they're so dumb they can't wash their child's foreskin you're going to lower yourself to their level and not wash your child's foreskin too? What if they jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?

The generalized correct reasoning here is this: don't wash foreskin = infection. Wash foreskin = no infection. Everything else is pure bullshit (because as we all know bovine feces is sterile).

i interviewed all my male friends both circumsized and uncircumsized, and one friend that had not been circumsized as a baby, but chose to be later on in life, everyone says circumsicion. so we did it.

And so you're a hypocrite and a sheeple. Not surprising coming from an idiot. Ask a Sunni if Shiites are bad, of course he'll say yes. Ask an evangelical church-goer if atheists are bad, of course he'll say yes. It still doesn't mean their opinion has any value outside of their little micro-society.

he was 6 hours old, they numbed him and gave him a chocolate sucker to suck on. nowadays they circumsize babies by putting this plastic bell over their penis, it cuts off circulation to the foreskin and it falls off in about a week. we had no problems and he doesnt seem to miss it and i dont feel bad about it now.

Glad the experience didn't give you PTSD.

foreskins have been shown to carry disease and a contributing factor the aids epidemic in africa, but still as nature intended.

False, false, false, and you're an idiot. The "study" that "proved" a "link" between foreskin and AIDS was a "study" that looked at the prevalence of AIDS vs the prevalence of circumcision, and ONLY in some regions of South Africa. More that 30% of South Africans have HIV. Correlation is NOT causation, not even link. Do some statistics: you'll be scared by how easy it is to find correlations between non random normally distributed sets, which includes nearly everything that has to do with human life.

its also interesting since ive grown up in a culture of male circumsicion, im intimidated by foreskins and prefer that stuff cut off if im gonna have sex with it, all my female friends feel the same way.

Yes it's interesting, but not the way you think it is. It's interesting in the same way the neurotic women Freud psychoanalyzed were interesting : they were mentally ill.

how do the men feel about their foreskins, or lack there of?

Coming from a now mostly circumcision free society, we do not feel much of anything about our foreskins unless they give us trouble, like any other part of our body.

also, to this day the smell of chocolate dumdums reminds me of the day my son was born.

Proof of your neurosis? You tell me.

Finally, I think the Ancient Greeks had it right : a man is not naked until his foreskin is fully retracted. Maybe circumcision is why so many Americans are still so prudish regarding nudity?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, hugh laurie, rowan atkinson' to 'stephen fry, hugh laurie, rowan atkinson, craig ferguson, emma freud' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^SSIops:
I think it was Freud who said God was made in the image of man, not the other way around.
That's no reason to put down or lay hate on people, regardless what they believe or don't believe.
Can't we all just get along?
I guess bombs and guns are easier to use than understanding and tolerance (within reason).


I'm more than happy to let religious people practice their faith... until they start passing laws based on the bible (or their narrow view of it).

I think it was Freud who said God was made in the image of man, not the other way around.

That's no reason to put down or lay hate on people, regardless what they believe or don't believe.

Can't we all just get along?

I guess bombs and guns are easier to use than understanding and tolerance (within reason).

Title should read French Game Shows: Better than anything!

Freud would have a field day.

>> ^MINK:
how so?
In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
^Snubbing books that aren't regarded as high literature by literary academics isn't as condemning as it might seem.


Literary academics belong to a homogeneous culture that's isolated in some ways from much of the larger intellectual community. Freud is still taught in literature departments as if his ideas were a reasonable representation of the field of psychology, which hasn't been true for a number of decades.

Literary academics' culture values books like Joyce's Ulysses and Proust's In Search of Lost Time or Remembrance of Things Past (which is a top contender in lists that include books in other languages), but to more utilitarian cultures, like those related to economics and science, these two books seem to be about how to live a mediocre, useless life (Ulysses) and how to live an indulgently nostalgic, useless life (In Search of Lost Time).

Books from readers' top lists like the Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged aren't written from or for that specialized academic literary culture, and we want thinking people from all of our sub-cultures to have reflective literary works that speak to their values.

(Please share your thoughts, anybody.)