"J. Goard" wrote:
> How arrogant, at this point, for neurologists and
> pharmaco-psychologists to dismiss Freud, when they
> have so much trouble explaining concepts like
> self-identity, sanity, or even pleasure!
To put it mildly.
But, actually, the main thing that Freud is valuable for, in my
view, is understanding irrationality. For an extremely
interesting, philosophically rigorous account of the
psychoanalytic account of irrationality, see Sebastian Gardner's
_Irrationality and the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis_. I have a
few bones to pick with the book (which Jonathan Lear captured in
his review of it -- don't know where the review was published).
But it's the best defense of psychoanalysis I've seen.
The idea that Freud "has been proved wrong in nearly all of his
notions," as Usha Lee McFarling states, is absurd.
McFarling also writes:
> Freud's legacy has largely migrated from the
> scientific realm to the cultural.
And he's wrong in this realm as well? Or is it that he's right,
but this realm "doesn't count"?
Reminds me of people who say that Nietzsche (eternal recurrence)
will be "proved wrong" if the universe turns out not to have
enough mass to keep it from expanding forever.
I know Extropians and trans-humanists love this "3rd culture"
business, but sheesh, this Freud-bashing is utterly ignorant.
Mind you, some of my best friends are trans-humanists!
But when TOG comes knocking at my door, trying to take away my
constitutionally guaranteed right to free thought (by trying to
banish "2nd culture"), they'll be in for a big surprise!
I'll be packin a mean can o' philosophical WHOOP-ASS!!
Love,
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:19 MDT