Why Freud?

Question

1. Why Freud?

2. In what way(s) is Freud still relevant to us at this moment in time?

3. How do you see yourself in relation of the Freudian heritage? --
that is, is you interest specific to his works, or are you devoted to
some consequent school or branch of psychoanalysis? what do you see as
good/bad useful/not useful in psychoanalysis after Freud? [Lacan,
Klein, Kohut, Winnicot etc etc]

4. Which Freudian texts do you find most compelling, original or
crucial?

5. What do you find most convincing in Freud's theory? least convincing?

6. Do you see psychoanalysis as relevant to politics? if so how? what
thinkers do you feel have made good use of psychoanalysis in the realm
of political analysis? if not politics, then fit "cultural studies"
into that spot and re-ask this question?

7. What are your thoughts about psychoanalysis' relation to science? is
it one? does it need to be one? are they at odds? does its status
vis-a-vis science have any effect on its truth value (if it has any)?

8. How does Freud or psychoanalysis inform your work or research? does
it?

9. How do you respond to those who say that Freud is nothing but a
turn-of-the-last-century pseudo-scientist with patriarchal values and
sexist attitudes who is irrelevant to the contemporary world?

10. How important is actually undergoing analysis? that is, can we be
satisfied with being "armchair freudians" or if there anything about
the actual practice which is still important?

11. What do you think about the fate of diagnoses like Hysteria or
Obsessional Neurosis? are they still valid and thus enduring
structures discovered by Freud - or - are they dependent upon their
time & thus now we have a need for new diagnoses to keep up with an
ever-mutating situation?

Answer 1

1) Freud was to first to suggest, and cognitively explore, the realm of subconscious emotions and desires in relation to how they affect the way people relate to others and to themselves. Not all of his theories are valid (Oedipus is misplaced) but the main suggestive point of exploration he brings up remains a strong starting point for any beginning psychologist/psychotherapist.

2) See above.

3) Every branch of psychoanalysis has as much to do with the examiner as it does with the patient. In other words, every psychoanalytical study tells us as much about the person making the statement as it does the people about whom such statements are meant to be relative to. Thus, the value of each area or cognitive approach is only as good as to the person upon whom the process works. It's kind of like being a carpenter, and each area is a tool at your disposal. One tool may be perfect for one job/person but completely inadequate to address the wants, needs and/or desires of another. The more tools one has at one's disposal, the more likely one is able to discover a solution to the problem/situation.

4) I find his exploration of the Oedipul complex to be the most fascinating, not only for how completely he got it wrong (its actually should be called a Laius complext) but how well he used the myth to understand a fundamental aspect of human psycho-sexual development.

5) Ibid.

6) It is relevant to the point of understanding how/why some laws are made (are they more emotional reactions than rational) and how/why some people feel the need to participate in the realm of politics. Do certain types of people gravitate more towards politics (or certain careers) more than others? What does the character of that type of person say about their ability to actually faciliate the functions of their position responsibly or not? Psychoanalysis can certainly create a profile of what makes a good politician, even if it is only a generalized portrait.

7) Science is based upon a realm of discernable and testable cause and effect relationships. As such, properly applied, psychoanalysis has proven that there are indeed certain established causes and effects upon a person's behavior when subjected to different social, emotional and psychological stimuli. Because these affects have been numerously documented, explored, and proven, the realm of psychoanalysis falls under the realm of science.

8) To the extent that I attempt to use and explore subconscious motives to ascertain possible answers to any situation that arises, so to do I use psychoanalysis to understand such.

9) Freud's relevance and importance to psychoanalytical study is something quite different from the personal impact of the person. Just as not every theory that Newton ascribed to diminishes the importance of his theory on gravity, so to do the 'failures' of Freud's theories fail to detract from the positive application of what was and continues to be useful.

10) The question about 'armchair' Freudians (of which I am most certainly one) can be applied to almost any profession: the presence of amateurs cannot diminish the effectiveness of professionals who apply their years of study and rigor in a way that many ameteurs cannot, and who thus have insight that amateurs do not. Of course, not every professional analyst can be considered ipso facto better than every amateur (one can only learn so much from books and teachers; there is a certain amount of plasticity needed as well) but the record shows that a well-developed use of professional analysis can be a positive tool for a person to use to better understand themselves and others.

11) Diagnosises are only as good as the amount of understanding and knowledge which is brought to them. Very often, social contexts have a strong influence on how people are analyzed. As such, as social constructs change, so to must the way the process of analysis change to gain a clearer picture of what is truly the problem. In addition, because of the authority with which the psychological profession is entrusted, it is not above speculation to say that a professionals diagnosis can be just as influencing upon a patient as the actual problem itself. As such, the context of an illness like Hysteria cannot be completely understood by simply stating that it does not, or did not, exist. Hysteria actually sounds like a neurotic response to a adverse social condition which was primarily experienced by women simply because women were unique in society at the time. One could argue that, labeled quite differently, it is possible for anyone to experience symptoms of 'hysteria' due to feelings of powerlessness or 'impotence' in the face of unyielding social expectations. Thus does hysteria become not just a relic of a bygone era but a valid point of understanding how a person might cope with broader social injunctions and/or pressures.

Answer 2

1) Father freud or daughter freud?
2) Freudian slips
3) Maybe to some. They use some of freud's work
4) Freudian slips and Dreams
5) Freudian slips. Not conviencing - Sexual stages of developement
6) No, No
7) None - not even scientific Method
8) No
9) He is still a "PhiloSOphist"
10) i THINK If you can do it naturally it's the best
11) Need new reseach

Answer 3

I've done research on Freuds works for years and I'd answer but it's all just a lot of text to be reading at the moment, maybe I'll come back to it when I'm feeling a little more motivated and awake