What is your opinion on the following text (about Freud and psychoanalysis)?

Question

Freud is momentarily downplayed as the rage (and hope) nowdays is neuroscience, that is using fMRI and PET to search for the mind's workings and faults. This conception is a kind of biological reductionism that is reviving in psychology after seeming to have been abandoned. Predictably, it will swing back in few years after the intial enthusiasm wears off and the "great expectations" will be replaced by frustrations. As to psychoanalysis there are many problems with it but the last generation of critics doesn't help sorting out them out. They all seem to agree only on character assassination : Freud was a charlatan and psychoanalysis is a fraud of gigantic proportions. For the rest each as his own pet theory/interpretation to promote. And they do it as cocksure and blind to self criticism as Freud did but they do it while having far less of substance to offer. For MacMillam and Shamasdani it is all suggestion and imagining things [ nevermind that the charge of suggesstion is as unfalsifiable as that of repression : once laid down there is no defense against it since anything working can be explained as working because of suggestion ]. For Borch-Jacobsen it is "mimetism", for Esterson it mixing facts with interpretations, for Crews it is pseudoscience as opposed, perahps, to English literature which is his field of expertise, for Cioffi it is "pseudo-heremeneutics" [whatever this may mean], for Szasz it is all ethics, politics, and religion. Even Sophia Freud has an opinion : it is essentially similar to Mein Kampf. Freud would be overwhelmed to know how many possible meta-interpretations he missed to consider as alternative explanations. However in truth Freud did often overstate his case-- perhaps a necessity if you want to have your points considered at all-- and it now fires back in some good critical points to be made. But none of them warrants the bashing attitude and the "final" conclusions that these new anti-freudian scholars try to promote.

Answer 1

I tried to read all that but fell asleep and had a dream about canned tuna and a blow up sheep. what does freud say about that?

Answer 2

I commend you on such a well versed statement.

I am by far simple, but I hope my point is well received.

Freud was brilliant! Yet, he did not have "all" the answers. But, he had the vision to see it's start. I imagine that the Wright Brothers would appear much the same way. Their "Flying Machine" has been greatly improved upon, but they too had the brilliance to have vision and initiate a hard sought concept.

A better way to view Freud and all those you had mentioned is this... Their concepts are like broken pieces of mirror. Each reflect a small bit of truth, but none are truth itself. It is the sum of all the pieces that make up truth. However, at this time the sum is still incomplete. There is so much more to be learned in regards to the human mind. Each great visionary will continue to add another piece to the mirror until someday the mirror will become whole.

Take from each piece thier truths and let go of thier fallacies. And develop your understanding from the things they have taught us.

Answer 3

the human mind is infinitely complex. that's what i think.
as for the suggestion (which is what about this that i really have any feeling about): mimetism, mixing facts with interpretations (and therein lies your problem with psychology...every single person is different. how can anyone exact a science around an infinite number of possibilites?)....hey, sometimes opinion holds truth. it's important to not prey on the weak minded and sad that that will always happen as long as evil exists. (which will be until the end of time) of course there will always be stupid people, incapable of analyzing themselves and prone to any kind of suggestion or manipulation. but some might argue that this is just another form of natural selection. the intelligent (and manipulative) prevail like the strong do. oh, if only that were true. but let me keep some hope because right now, britney spears has me beat in the prevalence department.

Answer 4

In Freud's day countless the psychology that he got here upon changed into appropriate to unusual kinds, that's purely a small component to what's customary precise this second. Your photo description is a moderate exaggeration, not in any respect the a lot less that's truly on the fringe of different fact. The sexual thoughts of a small baby to his/her mom starts with the exhilaration being on the fringe of a warmth gentle comforting breast and feeling the heart beats, then of breast feeding and progresses to getting a kick out of urination and defication. None of those small little ones comprehend that their sexual organs will enable them to cohabit and produce little ones of their own, yet for a small boy to get an erection is amazingly straightforward even, without understanding why. females are better diffused yet honestly favor to marry their fathers earlier pondering the prospect of a much wider field of decision.

Answer 5

Freud helped start the ball rolling when psychoanalysis was in its infancy. As most beginnings, a foundation was laid for others to stand and build on. Help has always been around, whether just talking to family and friends or classics such as Shakespeare with revelations of human nature. People go to psychologist and psychiatrist for years. Most people change when they want to change. As Abraham Lincon once said, "People are only as happy as they make up their minds to be."

Answer 6

Well, in my mind, Freud missed morefolds than he hit, and psychoanalysis is being abused by some psychoanalysts. Nevertheless, I just can not strip Freud from being accredited, neither can I accept all what he said.

The text mentioned above has truth in it, though it should have been tuned-down. Showing linguistic muscles can spoil the intentions.

Answer 7

Interesting ;)