![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by madeline on April 1, 2006, at 9:42:25
The magazine proclaims that Freud teachings are definately not dead, although most of his ideas are.
For me, on one hand, I feel as though I owe a great deal of gratitude to Freud, because his concept of psychoanalysis has really helped me a lot. (I have a portrait of Freud in my living room).
On the other hand, it's hard to understand Freud outside of the time in which he developed his theories. Further, his whole notion of women as incomplete men is quite insulting.
But I am interested in what you guys think? Is Freud really dead?
Posted by zazenduck on April 1, 2006, at 10:42:07
In reply to Freud is on the cover of Newsweek!, posted by madeline on April 1, 2006, at 9:42:25
I started to ask you what exactly were the ideas of SigF because I really don't know although he's such a part of the culture. But I went to WIKI instead and this is their list.
Sigmund Freud (May 6, 1856–September 23, 1939) was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of the psychoanalytic school of psychology. The theories distinctive of this school generally included the following hypotheses: (1) that human development is best understood in terms of changing objects of sexual desire, (2) that the psychic apparatus habitually represses wishes, usually of a sexual or aggressive nature, whereby they become preserved in one or more unconscious systems of ideas, (3) that unconscious conflicts over repressed wishes have a tendency to express themselves in dreams, parapraxes ("Freudian slips"), and symptoms, (4) that unconscious conflicts are the source of neuroses, and (5) that neuroses can be treated through bringing the unconscious wishes and repressed memories to consciousness in psychoanalytic treatment....WIKI
Nope. Not alive for me. Sounds kind of bizarre in fact. Stripped down to the bones like that. But maybe I protest too much. I meant the theory stripped down not me really this is not about me ;)
I've known a couple of incredibly gifted therapists who were analysts as well as a couple of real nutjobs.
Have you been through a formal analysis? I haven't and wouldn't.
> The magazine proclaims that Freud teachings are definately not dead, although most of his ideas are.
>
> For me, on one hand, I feel as though I owe a great deal of gratitude to Freud, because his concept of psychoanalysis has really helped me a lot. (I have a portrait of Freud in my living room).
>
> On the other hand, it's hard to understand Freud outside of the time in which he developed his theories. Further, his whole notion of women as incomplete men is quite insulting.
>
> But I am interested in what you guys think? Is Freud really dead?
Posted by susan47 on April 1, 2006, at 11:35:23
In reply to Re: Freud is on the cover of Newsweek!, posted by zazenduck on April 1, 2006, at 10:42:07
...turned into a bit of a rant ..
but I had fun, no matter, and I don't think there's any triggers in this.
Well whatever has been proved or disproved about Freud's teachings isn't as important, IMO, as the perception he brought to the western world.. that human beings are multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, and have a spirit side .. that dreams have meaning ... that our sexuality plays a huge role in our being-ness, and it's okay to talk about that ... whether you agree or disagree, whether I'm right or wrong and I'm most likely wrong, these are only impressions, not knowledge I have, I mean, weren't there other's before Freud? Isn't it all a complex structure with building blocks upon building blocks? Doesn't every person who studies and works with people have something to contribute? I think so, and he just was gutsy enough to be wrong as well as halfway-right, or more than halfway ... he didn't live in fear, and I suppose his enormous urge for ego gratification is actually what made him contribute in spite of his errors ... hah.
Posted by zazenduck on April 1, 2006, at 12:53:50
In reply to Re: Freud is on the cover of Newsweek! Tangent, posted by susan47 on April 1, 2006, at 11:35:23
you're right of course
his influence is enormous
I was just thinking of his original ideas unrefined and moved into modern times
and his treatment of women
and his refusal to believe the stories of abuse they told him
and I think so many things besides childhood sexual feelings make people what they are
and i've never seen psychoanalysis cure anyone of anything....... ever
so my personal experiences are clouding my judgementbut I always gave him credit for the idea of transference and the repetition compulsion or complex or whatever although I don't know if he deserves it or not....that's certainly alive and well isn't it
and every time someone does something dreadful the tv commentators say he's "sick" nobody says he's a sinner....last night I saw a tv program about John Hinkley and he was given a quick analysis as having been loved too much by his mother etc etc without a blink of an eye
so SigF's ideas are part of the mainstream for sure
Posted by B2chica on April 3, 2006, at 9:39:00
In reply to Freud is on the cover of Newsweek!, posted by madeline on April 1, 2006, at 9:42:25
but even he supported some of freud's works.
Posted by pseudoname on April 4, 2006, at 19:36:35
In reply to Freud is on the cover of Newsweek!, posted by madeline on April 1, 2006, at 9:42:25
My response was a little different from Madeline's. I saw the article and thought, “Oh, no. Not again.” LOL! I was going to post the links but in the past I've been such a Freud-basher here that I just gave it a pass.
Frederick Crews, however, has posted his side of several email exchanges with the articles' author, Jerry Adler, 2 from before publication and 2 from after.
I personally owe Crews about $30,000, because that's how long it would've taken me without his help to figure out that psychoanalysis was hurting me, not helping. That's after the $40.000(?) I'd already spent. Crews helped me see that my mountain of doubts about psychoanalysis were not due to resistance or something that had to be tolerated or resolved. My doubts were something that should be endorsed on the basis of common sense, evidence, and rational thinking.
Of course, even then it took 6 months of talking about Crews with my analyst and being forcibly separated from him by a sprained ankle before I finally cut those ropes. Analysis is like quicksand.
Although Crews only posted his side of the emails, it's apparent that Jerry Adler saw lots of support for Freud's ideas in his (Adler's) own dreams. Crews tried to point out to him that there are plenty of other explanations for dreams, and they have fewer “gratuitous assumptions” than Freud's.
Crews was still upset about a Freud-praising cover story Newsweek did just two years ago titled, “What Freud Got Right.” Crews told Adler, “I do hope that Newsweek will recognize this time, as it didn't two years ago, that matters of psychological theory are best decided not by partisans like Solms and me but by the relevant scientific community, whose critiques of one another's hypotheses guarantee a certain level of rigor. As I've said, there is no longer any doubt about the standing of psychoanalysis among serious independent inquirers into mental processes. If your editors recognize that fact but persist, once again, in dredging up the perennial saws about ‘what Freud got right,’ they will have shamed themselves once more.”
I wish Crews had talked about Eric Kandel's astonishing and adoring remarks in Newsweek about Freud's contributions. It shouldn't, but it does, upset me when persons of scientific accomplishment (like Kandel) praise Freud.
Under Babble guidelines, I can't link to Crews' emails because they contain the word “bullsh*t”, but they're currently one of the article links listed at butterfliesandwheels.com. The recent Freud articles at Newsweek begin here:
• “Freud in Our Midst” by Jerry Adler. Newsweek, March 27, 2006: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11904222/site/newsweek/
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 9:47:12
In reply to Ooh! Crews’s emails to Newsweek author, posted by pseudoname on April 4, 2006, at 19:36:35
mmm.
is freud dead?
depends who you ask i guess...for all the psychoanalysts out there... i guess freud is their founding father just like descartes is the founding father of modern philosophy or frege is the founding father of analytic philosophy or whatever.
so there is a kind of gratitude someone got the field up off the ground but most will agree that things have moved along a hell of a lot since then.
so...
methinks cognitive neuropsychology (and psychology in general - social psych and evolutionary psych and attribution theory etc etc) is outstripping psychoanalysis with respect to explaning (and predicting) behaviour...
there is also good progress in philosophy of mind (IMO)
i wondered if the explanandum was different...
but i dunno.
so freud... was a founding father... but even within psychoanalysis his influence appears to be waning...
and thats good IMO because if a field (or anything really) isn't evolving...
then it will become obsolete.
onward ho.
Posted by susan47 on April 10, 2006, at 13:59:44
In reply to Re: Ooh! Crews’s emails to Newsweek author, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 9:47:12
from your last post, you said this "freud is their founding father" and how odd and hilarious, but I read "fondling father", what's that about?
Changing the subject..
If I were a guy, it would be understandable to make a mistake like that, it's sexually kind of explicit .. especially a police officer .. you know, their minds, as a rule, were always ALWAYS, in the gutter .. everything had a sexual connotation .. is law enforcement one of those fields that just attracts the nuts out of the woodwork, or are things changing? We're all nuts, aren't we, aren't we all kind of crazy though? I mean, there are people I would not want to be around, but the world's full of those kinds of people .. nothing has any meaning for people like that, shallow-end players ...
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.