BEWARE: Thinking Starts Here

[LionofTepelenë]

Sorry for the weird name, but anyway I have a lot of questions I want to ask you guys. Its been a while, but I have a lot of questions so feel free to reply.

1. Psychoanalysis

VERY polarizing in this board, but my question is: Is it any good? I mean I've read the basics and while there is a lot of bullshit (cough Oedipus complex/Penis envy) I can at least understand many of its points and analyze myself with its theories. Meanwhile, there is the intriguing Freudo-Marxism, which interestingly tried to bridge marxism and psychoanalysis together. Is this legitimate in Marxian theory? Can it actually be of any use as an idea or in a revolutionary sense, because of course

2. Sociobiology & Anthropology

Not much to say about this, but apparently this is supposed to be an alternative to Freudian Psychoanalysis. To me, it just seems more like scientific racism and the like. Anthropology is also something that I've wanted to ask about, but it seems like its very similar to sociobiology in that it is relating to differences in ethnic intellect.

3. Anti-natalism

Personally this is the most conflicting thing in my mind. Now there is a lot I must clear up for this since its reasoning depends on the belief of whoever is espousing it. For the sake of this board, I'll use the happiness arguments, which is basically that happiness inevitably overpowered by sorrow because it's a more powerful emotion.

[TheIrrationalist]

reactionary rot. don't waste your time with any of this bullshit.

i don't think there is anything in psychoanalysis that would be applicable for marxism in the 21st century. its originators were reactionary, its premise is reactionary, and above all psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science. maybe you can still find few bourgeois academics who will spout this bullshit today, but for marxism and the revolution psychoanalysis counts as a zero. same with the lacanian or postmodern versions of psychoanalysis. just don't.

about anthropology, i have always thought about anthropology being an especially eurocentric field of the humanities. 'bunch of white dudes going to record how some primitive colored people live in the jungle'; i just find the concept repulsive, a remnant of the european settler and racist mentality. also anthropologists seem to be connected with either the colonial or the opposite, i.e. cultural relativist view of indigenous cultures, both views being very eurocentric and reactionary in nature. i think purpose of many of these fields of science concerning humans and human culture is indeed racist and imperialist. it is no coincidence these disciplines formed at the start of european imperial expansion into africa and asia.

antinatalism, an ideology for self-important sadsacks; only reason they just don't kill themselves is their belief in their self-importance.

[wehbolno]

Well Zizek seems to think that Lacanian psychoanalysis does have a great importance to us today. In fact he says that in order to be a communist today, you have to go through Lacan. Lacan says "Since Freud, the center of man is not where we thought it was; one has to go on from there." Isn't this true? How could the further study of human consciousness not be of interest to a communist? Or anybody? Specifically today, now that human actions are being more and more causally attributed to genes, DNA strands, chemical processes etc., isn't psychoanalysis worth defending?

[Hermes]

reactionary rot. don't waste your time with any of this bullshit.

. . .

about anthropology, i have always thought about anthropology being an especially eurocentric field of the humanities. 'bunch of white dudes going to record how some primitive colored people live in the jungle'; i just find the concept repulsive, a remnant of the european settler and racist mentality. also anthropologists seem to be connected with either the colonial or the opposite, i.e. cultural relativist view of indigenous cultures, both views being very eurocentric and reactionary in nature. i think purpose of many of these fields of science concerning humans and human culture is indeed racist and imperialist. it is no coincidence these disciplines formed at the start of european imperial expansion into africa and asia.

Could you explain why you think anthropology as a field is inherently flawed? It obviously has some pretty huge pitfalls that, historically, it has failed to avoid, but so have most other academic sciences when they've been paired with the racism/sexism/etc. I don't see why anthropology itself has to be discredited because of this, though; physical anthropology is still pretty important, and cultural anthropology just serves to find/examine cultural practices/differences.

[Hit The North]

Anthropology certainly emerges in the European colonial period and carried many of these assumptions. But anthropology is an attempt to study human cultures and has developed important tools of social inquiry and has largely escaped the ideological prejudices of its origins. Both Marx and Engels were indebted to the materialist anthropology of L.H. Morgan and a Marxist anthropology emerged during the Twentieth century.

[Homo Songun]

Well Zizek seems to think that Lacanian psychoanalysis does have a great importance to us today. In fact he says that in order to be a communist today, you have to go through Lacan. Lacan says "Since Freud, the center of man is not where we thought it was; one has to go on from there." Isn't this true?

This is why 'Critical Theory' makes me want to scream. What the hell does this even mean? And why are these sorts of sentences always book-ended in fragments like "Of course, ..." or, "... Isn't this true?" How am I supposed to evaluate the truthfulness of that sentence?

[ckaihatsu]

i just find the concept [of anthropology] repulsive, a remnant of the european settler and racist mentality. also anthropologists seem to be connected with either the colonial or the opposite, i.e. cultural relativist view of indigenous cultures, both views being very eurocentric and reactionary in nature.

Okay, I'll bite -- how is cultural relativism 'Eurocentric' and 'reactionary' -- ?

(As I recall conservatives usually *fume* at anything 'cultural relativist'.)

it is no coincidence these disciplines formed at the start of european imperial expansion into africa and asia.

Hmmmm, this is practically a glass-half-empty take on such historical developments -- sure, the bourgeois social sciences have hardly been value-neutral, but we might at least acknowledge the general *progress* of scientific-minded investigations into the social world (etc.) in the 19th century, as with Marxism itself.

[Heretek]

Hmmmm, this is practically a glass-half-empty take on such historical developments -- sure, the bourgeois social sciences have hardly been value-neutral, but we might at least acknowledge the general *progress* of scientific-minded investigations into the social world (etc.) in the 19th century, as with Marxism itself.

True science and its contributions are, of course, irrefutable. However pseudo-science, like psychology's predecessor phrenology or social darwinism, don't really make inroads at all, rather, they set things back. It was the justification of imperialism for the majority of the western world until the World Wars, and even now it still has holdovers, like stereotypes (the Irish are drunk potato-heads, the French are cheese eating, wine sipping, hairy and smelly cowards, the Slavs in general are a barbaric race of savages bent on conflict and vodka, Asians are hyper-intelligent and do math for fun while eating your dog, etc.) which are direct consequences of social darwinist and euthenics movements, and to some degree anthropology and psychology. Hell, euthenics is still apparently popular in some places in the supposedly developed world, too. Psychoanalysis tends to bias against women, and basically objectifies its patients and removes notions of free will or current material conditions, much like another backwards school known as behaviorism.

[wehbolno]

This is why 'Critical Theory' makes me want to scream. What the hell does this even mean? And why are these sorts of sentences always book-ended in fragments like "Of course, ..." or, "... Isn't this true?" How am I supposed to evaluate the truthfulness of that sentence?

I don't know exactly what Zizek means by this, I only put it forward to say that there are at least some communists who see psychoanalysis as something worth learning about. And regarding Freud, it's pretty well-known that his contribution dethroned this idea of the entirely rational man, master of his own thoughts etc. Lacan, as far as I know, attempts to continue from this position, further putting forward theories of desire, the unconscious, child development and so on. Whether or not there are radical implications in psychoanalysis, I don't see why it isn't worth looking at.

[Heretek]

I don't know exactly what Zizek means by this, I only put it forward to say that there are at least some communists who see psychoanalysis as something worth learning about. And regarding Freud, it's pretty well-known that his contribution dethroned this idea of the entirely rational man, master of his own thoughts etc. Lacan, as far as I know, attempts to continue from this position, further putting forward theories of desire, the unconscious, child development and so on. Whether or not there are radical implications in psychoanalysis, I don't see why it isn't worth looking at.

The most blatant criticism I can think of it removes the agency of man, and if we're simply such and such a way, with the only possible savior from that being a) the previous generation, or b) the men in control of your social upbringing, what's the point? This describes people as simply sick and excuses their own responsibility. For example, we revolutionaries are sick because our parents touched us or we seek to mate with our parents and never got to satisfy that desire, and therefore communism and everything we stand for is meaningless, except in the context of anomalies and failures. But when a bomb goes off killing hundreds, they are just a fluke to be corrected. Fix their parents with good western ones. It completely ignores the actual material conditions that bring about militancy, terrorism, and militarist extremism

[Homo Songun]

True science and its contributions are, of course, irrefutable. However pseudo-science, like psychology's predecessor phrenology or social darwinism, don't really make inroads at all, rather, they set things back.

It would be precisely the opposite. Hypotheses are scientific if they can be refuted through further testing. Psuedoscientific claims can't be tested so they are "irrefutable" ...

[Heretek]

It would be precisely the opposite. Hypotheses are scientific if they can be refuted through further testing. Psuedoscientific claims can't be tested so they are "irrefutable" ...

When I say irrefutable I do not mean the sciences themselves, or the scientific process. I mean the effect science has on society and the importance of continuing the practice

[Hit The North]

It would be precisely the opposite. Hypotheses are scientific if they can be refuted through further testing. Psuedoscientific claims can't be tested so they are "irrefutable" ...

If they are refuted through further testing then they are failed hypotheses. Your formula would result in all scientific hypotheses being false.

[Homo Songun]

When I say irrefutable I do not mean the sciences themselves, or the scientific process. I mean the effect science has on society and the importance of continuing the practice

It is quite impossible to counterpoise "science" against society though. Consider that "science" has given us several cures for male pattern baldness but can't prevent 3000 children dying of contaminated drinking water every day (UNICEF figure). And so on.

If they are refuted through further testing then they are failed hypotheses. Your formula would result in all scientific hypotheses being false.

Comrade, I'm talking about the scientific method in general. Science thrives on "failed hypotheses" .

a-lifters-guide-to-the-scientific-method-7.jpg

[ckaihatsu]

The most blatant criticism I can think of it removes the agency of man, and if we're simply such and such a way, with the only possible savior from that being a) the previous generation, or b) the men in control of your social upbringing, what's the point?

This is an *excellent* point since it identifies aspects of the 'psychological' worldview (hyper-individuated) as being identical to religious *predestination*.

It completely ignores the actual material conditions that bring about militancy, terrorism, and militarist extremism

Exactly -- we need to replace religious and psychological 'predestination' with a dialectic between individual self-agency and overall social determinism.


Worldview Diagram

---

[I]'m talking about the scientific method in general. Science thrives on "failed hypotheses" .

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19410[ATTACH]

Yeah, according to the graphic that only applies to *bodybuilding* -- !


= D

[Hit The North]

Comrade, I'm talking about the scientific method in general. Science thrives on "failed hypotheses" .

a-lifters-guide-to-the-scientific-method-7.jpg

Nowhere does your graphic say that the hypothesis needs to be refuted in order to be scientific. "Refutable", perhaps.