the battle between the starks and the lannisters at the twins in got is actually a battle between the parenting of ned stark and tywin lannister.

this is the first battle to which tyrion brings his vale mountain clan soldiers and tywin places him in the left vanguard, essentially as a diversion/sacrifice. he does not share his strategy, as outlined above, with tyrion because he claims he doesn't 'trust' him. he assumes tyrion will fail and so when he succeeds, it upsets his plans.

he expects as little from robb stark, an untried boy. but what he doesn't understand is that ned has prepared his son for leadership. he hasn't hoarded his authority from him, desperate for dominance over everyone including his family. he's brought robb with him when he carried out his duties as a lord. he's educated him in battle strategy but more importantly, he has not glamorised war to him. robb is not eager to go plunging into battle and he's not battling for the sake of it. he knows the burden of his responsibility as a lord and he even knows when to delegate it: tywin's first shock was that the freys were in the stark host because robb trusted his mother to negotiate a hard bargain on his behalf. all of this contrasts tywin's neglect of tyrion and even his adulation of jaime's prowess - in the same chapter before the battle, he admonishes tyrion: "does the thought of facing the stark boy unman you, tyrion? your brother jamie would be eager to come to grips with him." ironically the kind of foolhardy behaviour he expects and criticises from robb, he encourages in jaime. this is because tywin doesn't actually want an heir to succeed his rule, he wants a shiny trophy to flatter it. only of course, tywin is not immortal. as this chapter foreshadows, his inability to parent or relinquish any power will be his undoing.

i'm reading "dostoevskij and parricide" by freud because unfortunately it's in my brothers karamazov edition and i must say, if based on what i studied in high school about him i thought he was just a person who was trying to find some logic about the topic of the human psyche but unfortunately arrived to some deeply unpleasant conclusions that were subsequently disproven (kind of a la greek philosophy), now i have the unwavering opinion that he was a callous man, and not even a very intelligent one.

one of the themes of brothers karamazov is that people are complex, they contain both the abyss of abjection and the highs of virtue at the same time. that doesn't make you either a virtuous person or a evil one. and yet freud opens this essay (essay written for an edition of brothers karamazov) by stating that since dostoevskij wrote about "people with violent tendencies" then he himself must have been a evil individual, and therefore all the (documented) love he had for other people must be fake and simulated, and of course, "symptom of neurosis".

another theme of the book is how doctors don't really know what they're doing at best, or at worst make everything worse by ignoring facts that disprove their preconceived diagnosis. and what does freud do? he talks about dostoevskij's epilepsy (which to me is extremely absurd because how are you even trying to diagnose a person you don't know 50 years after he died), which is promptly described as another symptom of neurosis because it doesn't follow the "official symptomatology", so it's not physiological but hysterical, and it must derive from some sort of altered sexual flux (because OF COURSE it does). it doesn't matter to freud that biographical data disproves his theory of "dostoevskij's illness only relapsed during periods of emotional stress", and it doesn't even occur to him that maybe dostoevskij had an atypical epilepsy, or that freud's "symptomatology" was incorrect or lacking, or that maybe he had a totally different illness but there still wasn't a name for it so he went for the closest one. no, all this doesn't even cross this guy's mind, because he's right and the patient is always wrong. he actively dismisses everything that contradicts his premade theory with a "the patient is neurotic and can't be trusted with anything he says. also people with mental disorders are always idiots and dostoevskij wasn't an idiot so he must be hysterical".

what's really laughable (read: tragic) about this is that dostoevskij wrote a WHOLE chapter about how you can't trust psychiatrists because they will diagnose you with kookoocrazy disorder just because you looked the wrong way in their opinion, not to mention all the other ways doctors outright don't care about patients, not to mention the absolutely respectful and loving way he talked about mentally ill people, and freud wrote a whole ass essay about taking pride in acting in that same reprehensible way. an essay that was meant to be published with the book. unbelievable. tone deaf, arrogant, callous and extremely stupid too.

The old systems of expression- for instance, the scripts of the most ancient languages- betray vagueness in a variety of ways which we would not tolerate in our writing today.

Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

do u ever think about the bit in scherzo where the Thing appears to charley looking and sounding so identical to the doctor she thinks its him and then it refers to itself as her daughter and charley tells her shes beautiful because i think about it every day. every goddamn day

it’s so crazy i think about it CONSTANTLY

what was the usage for 'death note' back in the 1800s i need to know

me when the background feeling of lonliness and father issues actually did have an effect on me :0

Succession drinking game idea: take a shot every time oedipus's complex is hinted or Freud would at least smirk a little

i often wonder how much of the vitriol directed at freud is a function of anti-semitism, i mean we are talking about a a man who fled germany during the nazi occupation, had his books burned by the nazis, whose contributions to psychoanalysis were modest at best, with much of modern psychiatric rhetoric being attributed to his writings years after their meaning within the field had been transformed significantly.

Felt incredible amounts of nostalgia this morning, so I bequeath unto thee a mass post of sketches and unpolished work of my OCs! Of no particular order, not even time, but all of it is from 2021 and early 2022   💖💖💖_(:з)∠)_💖💖💖

for someone who said that we should imagine discourse as "violence we do to things" foucault sure had a lot to say

if i'm ever desperate to feel something i will make a video with a list of my opinions on mental health that that would get me cancelled on tiktok

in reference to my prev reblog this is what the background was fbhdsfghdshj

They really couldn't have thought of a better example??? 😭😂

I'm using quotations for that one

my uni keeps making me read about Freud and it makes me want to Scream