Everything Freud and Jung got right has been so thoroughly ingrained into modern thought that all we ascribe directly to them now is their failures

I think Ayn Rand has solved morality.

Thank you!

Or the subconscious mind? or traumatic repression?

Yes, basically he wants human embrace their nature and have their own atonement

Maybe the real solution is not feeling "deep and profound moral disgust and outrage" in the first place? Wow, criminals (or people with opinions you don't like) exist, and they may have contributed to good things. What a dire conundrum. How will we possibly deal. Examine where your feelings come from and try to dissolve them, just like people usually do for any other feelings of disgust when they contradict moral principles.

I am a Nietzsche hater, so probably biased. But I don't view him as the Father of anything.

I used to hate Nietzsche a lot more, because I think his writing is a mess. But as I have gotten older I appreciate him more than I used to.

I still think his philosophy is trash as a whole. But now I see him more as a guy who was pretty smart and very creative and also had a way of writing that captured the imagination. Some of his stuff was where philosophy was heading anyway, and someone else would have said it or had already said but Nietzsche wrote it cooler. And some of his stuff is cool ideas that do not form a coherent whole and were poorly expounded on. But he did have a shit ton of cool ideas.

It makes him very thought provoking and a good seed planter. And easy for the philosophers (both good and bad) who followed to borrow bits and pieces from him.

So I see him as influential to a whole ton of modern thought-- maybe more than any other philosopher-- while at the same time the father of none.

The word wasn't "hypocrite" it was "virtue signaling" which isn't inherently bad, however it denotes a completely different type of framework for your ethics. I'm not arguing for the negative or that you are a bad person or anything, just that there is deception in your framing. You are framing it from an "ought" position that is grounded in ethical principles, but they are never adhered to like ever. You are trying to claim all the virtue of holding this ethical position that you never use which is dishonest.

I can't know your mind but from the outside looking in you are utilizing a type of moral egoism which explains why you are able to ignore this dilemma 99.9999% of the time. Though there are many forms of egoism they are all willing to tolerate immoral/harmful behaviors so long as you incur a commensurate benefit. This puts people in a compromised position so they seek out instances where they can be ethical or virtuous to gain a type of moral currency to protect against the scales not balancing in their favor. This last thing is where the deception is introduced because we want to present a grounded ethical position that's virtuous not some egocentric motivation. The principled you make your position look the worse it makes everyone else look if they don't follow it so you are gaining moral currency while causing other people to lose theirs. This is on reason we even in an egocentric model you still seek external moral protection.

my typical method is assuming any conclusions or theory is likely in error until demonstrated otherwise.

as an example, based on first principles, observation, and a little industry knowledge, i developed a theory regarding journalists falling into two camps: access journos who cultivate access, and ignored journos who seek veracity.

i thought it was just a tight until someone pointed me to the herman-chomsky propaganda model, a work i haven’t read (thank you multiple TBIs), where this is a component of it.

In the movie it shows animals and plants being eliminated

Do we not still use the concept of the id, superego and ego?

Those have bore out over and over in and outside of psychoanalytic theory. I just love how everybody has been jumping on the anti-Freud bandwagon for the last 30'40, years it's really laughable.

I'm so disappointed in the field that I wanted so to enter. It's obviously now driven by social trends and political party subgroups. Very sad.

Thank you. 🏅

So Hitler was an ok guy?

If I follow this line of thought.

I could never read Nietzsche. I can't tolerate his attitude. He's so pointedly bombastic, and even deliberately boorish at times. It just comes off as nasty and crude. I know that his sister distorted him; I understand that the right-wingers misunderstand him. But still, the aggression that repels me just emanates from his writing itself, constantly, even in good translations like Kaufmann's.

That said, I figure there must be some substance there, since so many postmodern figures took such interest in him. I'm interested to sometime read the Nietzsche interpretations from Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault.

I would say it may be worse: psychology today—particular it treats mental illness, the diagnoses of them, ect,.—seems to presuppose a type of equality of the psyche

Schopenhauer predates both of them, to be honest. Nietzsches draws a lot of his psychology—in particular his theory of drives—directly from Schopenhauer. And a lot of the concepts that both Nietzsche and Freud elucidate, such as repression and rationalisation, are found—albeit to a lesser developed extent—in Schopenhauers works. Not to speak that Freud borrows his theory of sex from Schopenhauer and develops it further.

Lol.

Lol at unmolested. What the truth is that a fertilized egg must "molest" a host to achieve anything. Leave it in a petri dish and see what happens, I'll wait.

Arguably, psychoanalysis does better with sociology than individual psychology.

I feel that way from reading Freud (and reading about Jung) - he describes patterns derived by observing his patients/friends/Greek myths (e.g. Achilles-Agamemnon dynamic in the Iliad is a great example of the OC dynamic) as universals, but in light of evidence that hunter-gatherers may not possess OC (or at least that they certainly appear to carry far less familial resentment), we should really consider that OC is a cultural phenomenon that catalyzed the development of civilization (less fucking the mother part, more killing the father / internalizing his tyranny / competition / forceful patriarchy) and NOT a biological absolute.

He makes a very strong case as to how an individual’s mental illnesses and neuroses are indeed largely a function of social factors.

Also, I’ve only read assorted Nietzsche (like 600 pages or so), I think he certainly thinks of himself as an individualist - the cure to the Death of God and the key to being an Übermensch being a willingness to create one’s own code of ethics and conduct, free of a need to be controlled by a powerful, universalizing source of ethics external to one’s self.

This is also why Adorno & Horkheimer call him an Enlightenment extremist in Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Lol.

you're really lashing out here, huh?

This still sounds like something that can be factored out.

I really should probably finish that lil book of his at some point...

What do you mean?

Is there any good reason for continuing to use the word "decadence" to describe our problems? Given its history, its importance to postwar fascist philosophy, and its current use as a right wing dog whistle for a range of culturally progressive things such as trans rights, I'd think we'd be moving past it, or searching for an alternative language to talk about cultural/social decline.