Post a truth that denies Freudian theory. Here’s one that I came up with:
‘Those who are not bisexual possess an unhealthy body without organs.’
I think the title of this thread might be a freudean slip.
hahahahahahaha, that’s a good one.
So, you deny Freud’s contributions to a psychology based on experimentation and scientific method because of a quote you really don’t seem to understand? Give us the context of the quote. See Doidge on Freud.
-
It’s not a quote.
-
What is there to suggest I don’t understand it?
If it is not a quote, what’s it doing in your Freud refutation? Read Walter Kaufman’s “Discovering the Mind”, Vol 3. So many sensible scholars have stood by Freud as to make your invitation to ridicule his ideas suspect, to say the least.
Oh my god. A lot of researchers/scholars have taken freuds ideas and warped them to fit into modern science. that doesn’t mean thats how freud originally MEANT his theories to mean. Secondly, even if some things freud said was supportable by modern science a massive deal of it, a great deal of it, most of it, is flat out incorrect and modern researchers don’t take it seriously.
The id, ego and superego has no place in modern psychology, showing the massive amount of adaptations and mental mechanisms that we do have in the brain, have painted that as a nonsensical, simplistic doctrine that doesn’t make any sense. great advances in genetics and understanding of disease, have also made some of his ideas about mental illness, incomplete.
The idea that family member swere attracted to other family members, is not really true either. His explanations of how the brain worked in certain ways were dead, dead wrong.
coming from someone who spends most their posts in the religious forum, its not a surprise that you’re such a freud fanatic.
But here are the facts. no matter what freud got right or wrong, talking about freud as if his work isn’t outdated to the point of being almost useless (compared to modern researchers) is bullshit.
Whatever freud said that was right, we have modern researchers explaining in better detail and more clearly the mental mechanisms at play, with modern research devices.
Most of what he said was wrong, but even what he did say which was right, is better explained by modern researchers who have the evidence to outline/fill in what their talking about.
Considering the state of psychological sciences (at least a lot of them) its also not surprising that a lot of scholars support freud, since, a huge amount of people in the psychological sciences don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
An example is that antidepressants, new generation ones, don’t meet clinical significance. they were handed out to thousands of people anyway. They only show any effect for people so depressed, that they no longer have a placebo effect to measure against.
As in, when you give someone a sugar pill they get slightly better at least on average, Once you reach a certain level of depression, this biochemical reaction somehow doesn’t operate anymore. So not only does the medicine not work, but there is no way to measure how it works, because the placebo effect isn’t working anymore.
I could give you millions of examples, at least thousands of examples, of modern researchers in the psychological sciences, pursuing ideas so irrational that they might as well be called religion.
Luckily, since the cognitive revolution, theres dozens of other sciences that have actually become scientific and unified.
On the contrary, Deleuze (and Guattari) discredited Freud’s theory so thoroughly that for a scholar to suggest he was right is quite scandalous.
No discrediting is acknowledged by any reputable scientist or sociologist. You do not even clarify which theory has supposedly been discredited. Freud was not a one trick pony. His main handicap had to do with limited knowledge of endocrinal and genetic influences on human personality at the time in which he wrote. Yet, despite this handicap he was able to make reasonable assumptions, many of which still stand up today. Have you read any Freud? Have you at least read “Civilization And It’s Discontents”? Lack of first hand knowledge of who said what, when and why is the chief cause of most biased and discreditable philosophic assumptions.
Freud contradicted ideas we know to be correct today. In some ways he was behind the curve of science in his day, and a lot has been contradicted as well. he did have some worthwhile ideas, but freudian psychoanalysis isn’t real science but oftentimes baseless conjecture with no predictive ability.
I’m referring to such things as his theory of the subconscious, penis envy, the oedipus complex- in a word, psychoanalysis. American academia is still philosophically backwards - neither Nietzsche nor French philosophy have ever been well received by it - so it’s no surprise that your so-called ‘reputable’ sociologists have yet to see eye to eye with Deleuze.
PS I have read some Freud (a reader comprised of a selection of his work), and it made me spit.
Well, sir, I’ve read much Freud along with reputable secondary sources and find your opinions not only ill-researched, but mostly private opinion. Deconstructionism applied to psychoanalysis is bunk. It negates the actual scientific contributions Freud made and is a pick and choose attack on credible reason. If you could read Doidge"s “The Brain That Changes Itself”, one of the most current works about the mind, you might see another side of the story. My guess is you won’t read any rigorous arguments that go against your opinion and perhaps even your misinterpretations of Deleuze and Guattiri, whom you fail to quote here. The French have no philosophy which can be considered as a definitive rebuttal of Freud’s ideas. Deconstructionism is nice; but what does it really contribute to philosophy short of scraping barnacles off the boat? Worldwide accptance of Freud’s contributions to theories of the mind is not challenged here. Also, your inabilty to consider how Freud used mythology as analogy boggles my mind.
What does that even mean?
hey siggy: “word to your mother”
-Imp
Freud’s entire philosophy was an attempt to destroy the (specifically Judeo/Christian) concept of God, by eliminating the concept of “guilt” from a moral realm, and moving it to a physical realm.
By placing man in such a central role…Freud represents the culmination (and utter failure) of enlightenment thought.
See my review of Rushdoony’s book “Freud” here:
shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com … rushdoony/
I’m sure you’ll all just love it to death!
As for the original challenge, to post a one liner refutation of Freud:
“Guilt over his sin is one of man’s central problems in life, and the only way to rid ourselves of it, is not by dismissing it, or accepting it, but rather by receiving atonement for it through the saving work of Christ.”
That’s it, you’re on ignore.
Thank you. Im most happy to be ignored by one who knows little of philosophy and less of debate. Ignore anyone sensible enough to offer rigrous objection and you win by default while losing by intelligence.