+- Lookism (https://bookism.net)
+-- Forum: Lookism Forums (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Shitty Advice (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah (/showthread.php?tid=26852)
Pages:
1
2
damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - eldajaal1488 - 29-08-2024
![[Image: platos-tripartite-soul.jpg]](https://voegelinview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/platos-tripartite-soul.jpg)
probably freud stole it from him jfl
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr - eldajaal1488 - 29-08-2024
not like i would ever want soulvaki nigger excuse of med bvll, of @kathisterima kind to validate me but here we are
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - Honest - 29-08-2024
no idea what op is trying to say
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - n9wiff - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 04:32 PM)Honest Wrote: no idea what op is trying to say^^
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - eldajaal1488 - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 04:32 PM)Honest Wrote: no idea what op is trying to say
(29-08-2024, 05:07 PM)n9wiff Wrote: ^^does he or fre*d have to say damn blackpilled again its over or what? same concept as 3 pills but centuries ago, while basement dwelling schizos think they hacked the matrix, same things have been nooticed ages before
freud obviously did better cuz he added cope in it(ego defense mechanisms) which i actually discussed with few users on lookism myself kek, without knowing shit about his theories. how people werent intentionally evil or sabotaging, but just saying what they felt was morally right.
its obviously okay to feel pride about it
yeah i get it his reasoning was all logic with fuckall facts, but main concept obviously is pretty reasonable
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - eldajaal1488 - 29-08-2024
sattva (goodness, calmness, harmonious), rajas (passion, activity, movement), and tamas (ignorance, inertia, laziness).
@
ur brahmin badboy ancestors had their own version of this too
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - slop slinger - 29-08-2024
Freud didn't steal directly from Plato.
The idea of a tripartite soul is everywhere in Western thought. Nonetheless every thinker that touched on it had an original take on the boundaries of each part, the way they interact, etc...Freud just gave us the most recent articulation of it couched in the language of fin de siecle psychology. It's like saying every philosopher stole the idea of metaphysics altogether, the idea of thinking about the structure of the world outside the human, from Heraclitus.
In any case, are you meaning to suggest that logic = superego, emotion = ego, and desire = id? Or emotion = id and desire = ego? Freud nor Lacan would say that emotion is cleanly within any of these things, let alone assign discrete individual emotions to each part of the soul as is suggested in this chart. Emotions aren't just pure bodily responses, they are shot through with language, culture, and identifications. There are ways the superego, ego, id can display pride, courage, moderation, or what have you. Psychodynamics are not nearly as schematic and predictable as this chart passes off.
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - Altruist - 29-08-2024
Legit
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - Honest - 29-08-2024
ah, i see.... plato thought the soul could be divided into 3 parts, which is just like the 3 pills. makes perfect sense
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler![[Image: okay,-Cheryl-Cole.gif]](https://h2.gifposter.com/gifs/reaction/okay,-Cheryl-Cole.gif)
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - n9wiff - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 06:39 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote: sattva (goodness, calmness, harmonious), rajas (passion, activity, movement), and tamas (ignorance, inertia, laziness).
@n9wiff
ur brahmin badboy ancestors had their own version of this too
@"KnightOdds" I think this is northern Vedic stuff. I am Tamil.
Interesting though
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - eldajaal1488 - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 07:26 PM)Honest Wrote: ah, i see.... plato thought the soul could be divided into 3 parts, which is just like the 3 pills. makes perfect sensei mean lineup is pretty much the same. who gives shit if u call it pills or parts of soul
both freuds and platos models are better than pills since they actually state things and dont intercharge socially conditioned stuff with default pleasure desires
(29-08-2024, 07:13 PM)HaughtyHotty Wrote: Freud didn't steal directly from Plato.id give logic to ego, good boy points and emotions to superego, and desire id obviously. btw isnt superego social conditioning or im wrong? guilt sense of wrong and right etc
The idea of a tripartite soul is everywhere in Western thought. Nonetheless every thinker that touched on it had an original take on the boundaries of each part, the way they interact, etc...Freud just gave us the most recent articulation of it couched in the language of fin de siecle psychology. It's like saying every philosopher stole the idea of metaphysics altogether, the idea of thinking about the structure of the world outside the human, from Heraclitus.
In any case, are you meaning to suggest that logic = superego, emotion = ego, and desire = id? Or emotion = id and desire = ego? Freud nor Lacan would say that emotion is cleanly within any of these things, let alone assign discrete individual emotions to each part of the soul as is suggested in this chart. Emotions aren't just pure bodily responses, they are shot through with language, culture, and identifications. There are ways the superego, ego, id can display pride, courage, moderation, or what have you. Psychodynamics are not nearly as schematic and predictable as this chart passes off.
as basically blue would be superego, idealistic. red would be dominance oriented but within socially acceptable means, and blackpill just desire
obviously desire could be called emotion too but its def coming from different channel
i do agree emotions shouldnt be assigned to one. u could argue greed would be rather rational part emotion since money is just concept aswell
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - eldajaal1488 - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 07:13 PM)HaughtyHotty Wrote: Freud didn't steal directly from Plato.could u show me other examples of 3?
The idea of a tripartite soul is everywhere in Western thought. Nonetheless every thinker that touched on it had an original take on the boundaries of each part, the way they interact, etc...Freud just gave us the most recent articulation of it couched in the language of fin de siecle psychology. It's like saying every philosopher stole the idea of metaphysics altogether, the idea of thinking about the structure of the world outside the human, from Heraclitus.
In any case, are you meaning to suggest that logic = superego, emotion = ego, and desire = id? Or emotion = id and desire = ego? Freud nor Lacan would say that emotion is cleanly within any of these things, let alone assign discrete individual emotions to each part of the soul as is suggested in this chart. Emotions aren't just pure bodily responses, they are shot through with language, culture, and identifications. There are ways the superego, ego, id can display pride, courage, moderation, or what have you. Psychodynamics are not nearly as schematic and predictable as this chart passes off.
thats actually interesting
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - Honest - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 08:09 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote: could u show me other examples of 3?
thats actually interesting
allah is one of three
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - eldajaal1488 - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 08:21 PM)Honest Wrote: allah is one of threeyeah i obviously realized christianity holy trinity, but i thought it was in philosophy or psychology
doubt he meant religion tbh
RE: damn plato was silly inwel too, hes like me fr on allah - slop slinger - 29-08-2024
(29-08-2024, 07:55 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote: i mean lineup is pretty much the same. who gives shit if u call it pills or parts of soul
both freuds and platos models are better than pills since they actually state things and dont intercharge socially conditioned stuff with default pleasure desires
id give logic to ego, good boy points and emotions to superego, and desire id obviously. btw isnt superego social conditioning or im wrong? guilt sense of wrong and right etc
as basically blue would be superego, idealistic. red would be dominance oriented but within socially acceptable means, and blackpill just desire
obviously desire could be called emotion too but its def coming from different channel
i do agree emotions shouldnt be assigned to one. u could argue greed would be rather rational part emotion since money is just concept aswell
It's not that simple. Every emotion and every concept is all three at once. Freud's categories aren't buckets you throw different emotions and concepts into. The chart in OP is encouraging a rudimentary excel spreadsheet esque mode of thinking. For example, the second you feel a bodily intensity (Freud's id, Lacan's real) you immediately conceptualize it in your mind as an emotion and associate it with past events in which you have experienced a similar emotion (Freud's ego, Lacan's imaginary) and then the voice of conscience in your head immediately compels you to respond to the emotion in a certain way and articulate it through language (Freud's superego, Lacan's symbolic). By the time the emotion, or any thought or concept or anything for that matter, makes itself available to conscious reflection it's already been overwritten by all three. Therefore no emotion "belongs" to any one category.