>>7634511 I agree with her the Freud is pretty not-god-tier but the point of id ego and superego is that it's an unprovable theory, it's basically a belief. Plus it's been around for way longer than Freud has
Sort of, but for the the wrong reasons, so she's still an idiot. Peter Gay is right that any approach to understanding Freud should be a developmental one. You can't understand the earnestness of self-awareness of his approach to mental topography/dynamics (id, ego, superego are a late phase of this) without understanding how he got there.
With the therapeutic practice of psychoanalysis itself, like all things with Freud, it's hard to pick apart the very diffuse but very far-flung ripples of its influence, which are the most significant ones. Repudiating Freud's explicit topographical ideas or explicit therapeutic methods is one thing, but repudiating their effect on the evolution of fundamental conceptions in psychology and practices of therapy is another.
Also, Freud has to be understood as embedded in the pre-war medical profession, which was very different from what we're used to in hyper-regulated post-post-post-meta-positivist postwar "modernity." He comes from an era where some guy making rubber derivatives comes upon a molecule that kinda looks like one that is currently given to seizure sufferers (and later turns out to be what we use as cough medicine), gives it to his friend with all the harebrained quack theories about the structure of the mind and the origin of jock itch in childhood trauma, and the friend tests it out by dosing himself for fun and writing papers about it, and in hindsight we realize he was just on mescaline 24/7 for eight years. It's kind of unfair to ask Freud to be a meticulously careful (and fucking boring) modern philosopher of mind or to conform to orthodoxies that didn't exist in his time. He came up during the wild west of drugs, medicine, and psychology developing as things
>>7634511 "(20 years ago!!)" Gives away a pretty painful presentism. Of course someone that things new science is all-knowing is wrong, as is anyone who completely devalues an entire author's work because they think it's been disproved
whatever Freud meant by id, ego, and superego back in the day is vague gobbledygook, period. just because somebody decided to untangle and sharpen these Freudian notions later on doesn't mean that Freud was right 'all along'; the guy--if there is one--who performed conceptual clean-up on these notions, as to yielding actual, phenomenologically perceivable and discernible-into-3-kinds of internal phenomena, should be taken seriously, NOT Freud.
I like that, in that sentence, 'academia' could be replaced by any group of people perceived as the possessors wisdom of a given time. She just uses it as a ultimate factor in discussion and that's that, if the 'academia' reaches some raw X conclusion then it is finished, regardless of how and with what methodology such a conclusion was reached. I'll be direct to the point: said methods and forms are, in any class of knowledge, whether psychiatric, empirical or philosophical the MOST important, and NOT 'finished, pure facts' (those are merely temporary and dependent on its varied uses, for most of the time), that's what differentiate boys from men, you can complain and disagree what you want about Freud but at least he had a clear system (if you don't accept this empirical 'scientific method' as the only one) to reach his conclusions over time with his WORKS, those might completely WRONG, but at least this hard work that he put forward will have the potential to be a form of immediate, primitive matter from which better, more sophisticated works will be the product from. By bumbling out a bunch of disconnected term you don't know the meaning of on Facebook she has done what? Nothing.
>>7635370 He started serious scientific inquiry into the psyche which had by and large been glanced over in the medical field at the time. Of course, many of his theories were incorrect, but he got the ball rolling. It'd be like saying Thales and Aristotle were all worthless because many of their ideas were later discredited or revised.
I'm actually done with this class. There is no empirical evidence that the Hydrogen atom is flat. Bohr's work is ovosexist and as been debunked by the majority of Chemists. chemical science said in 1820 (20 years ago!!!) that "maybe we should be concerned about electrons not existing between shells"
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.