Michael Larkin
Member
Hi Ian, thanks for your links. I have no particular axe to grind about Freud and no particular expertise in psychology. It seems your point is that Freud was a seminal influence: he might have been wrong, but his way of thinking was useful and helped generate later schools of thought.
I looked up the timeline and history of psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_psychology#Nineteenth_century and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology) because at the back of my mind was the memory that centuries before Freud, in the Islamic world (significantly influenced by Sufi thought), we have such surprisingly advanced awareness as this:
Following up on Witelo (born c. 1230), I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witelo
It could be argued that Freud was well behind the curve: in essence, he was re-introducing ideas explored much earlier, and attempting to explain them in the context of his own more materialistic theories which seem to have revolved a lot around the libido and the personal unconscious. Dufresne isn't the only one with reservations. Here's another podcast you might find interesting:
http://media.ricochet.com/MiltCrews092713.mp3
Here, Frederick Crews on the Milt Rosenberg show offers another critique of Freud. Crews says what Freud believed in was his own greatness and destiny: he wasn't so much an outright fraud, as someone who failed to question his own theories; he apparently went to soothsayers who confirmed he was a man of destiny. Crews says it's impossible to scientifically examine psychotherapy. Being psychoanalysed, many claim, has helped them: but benefits don't necessarily prove the theory is correct.
Rosenberg describes the process of psychoanalysis as involving becoming familiar with a sympathetic figure (the analyst), and internalising that figure's voice, using it as a guide. I reflect that that happens in everyday life, too, when we internalise the voice of people we like and admire--could be a parent, a friend or teacher--and their interpretations of the world may influence us: all to the good if that helps us to cope better and be decent human beings, but that doesn't mean that their justificatory narratives are true.
Crews characterises the reported effectiveness of psychotherapy as a species of placebo: it may work to help people, but not necessarily because there's any real active principle in the remedy. As for the therapist, the improvement in patients' behaviour is taken as corroboration of Freudian theory: look, it works, so it must be true.
Crews says that the true significance of Freudianism is the shift from a moral evaluation of behaviour to one of evaluating on the basis of what makes people feel good or bad. I see that as a kind of shift in line with the rise of materialism.
The podcast is a good complement to Alex's. I enjoyed it quite as much and recommend it to anyone with 48 minutes to spare. Incidentally, Crews refers to the following book as the definitive critique of Freud: http://www.amazon.com/Freud-Evaluated-The-Completed-Arc/dp/0262631717/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
I looked up the timeline and history of psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_psychology#Nineteenth_century and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology) because at the back of my mind was the memory that centuries before Freud, in the Islamic world (significantly influenced by Sufi thought), we have such surprisingly advanced awareness as this:
Medieval Muslim physicians also developed practices to treat patients suffering from a variety of "diseases of the mind".[7]
Ahmed ibn Sahl al-Balkhi (850–934) was among the first, in this tradition, to discuss disorders related to both the body and the mind, arguing that "if the nafs [psyche] gets sick, the body may also find no joy in life and may eventually develop a physical illness."[8] Al-Balkhi recognized that the body and the soul can be healthy or sick, or "balanced or imbalanced." He wrote that imbalance of the body can result in fever, headaches and other bodily illnesses, while imbalance of the soul can result in anger, anxiety, sadness and other nafs-related symptoms. He recognized two types of what we now call depression: one caused by known reasons such as loss or failure, which can be treated psychologically; and the other caused by unknown reasons possibly caused by physiological reasons, which can be treated through physical medicine.[8]...
Avicenna, similarly, did early work in the treatment of nafs-related illnesses, and developed a system for associating changes in the pulse rate with inner feelings. Avicenna also described phenomena we now recognize as neuropsychiatric conditions, including hallucination, insomnia, mania, nightmare, melancholia, dementia, epilepsy, paralysis, stroke, vertigo and tremor.[11]
Other medieval thinkers who discussed issues related to psychology included:
Ahmed ibn Sahl al-Balkhi (850–934) was among the first, in this tradition, to discuss disorders related to both the body and the mind, arguing that "if the nafs [psyche] gets sick, the body may also find no joy in life and may eventually develop a physical illness."[8] Al-Balkhi recognized that the body and the soul can be healthy or sick, or "balanced or imbalanced." He wrote that imbalance of the body can result in fever, headaches and other bodily illnesses, while imbalance of the soul can result in anger, anxiety, sadness and other nafs-related symptoms. He recognized two types of what we now call depression: one caused by known reasons such as loss or failure, which can be treated psychologically; and the other caused by unknown reasons possibly caused by physiological reasons, which can be treated through physical medicine.[8]...
Avicenna, similarly, did early work in the treatment of nafs-related illnesses, and developed a system for associating changes in the pulse rate with inner feelings. Avicenna also described phenomena we now recognize as neuropsychiatric conditions, including hallucination, insomnia, mania, nightmare, melancholia, dementia, epilepsy, paralysis, stroke, vertigo and tremor.[11]
Other medieval thinkers who discussed issues related to psychology included:
- Ibn Sirin, who wrote a book on dreams and dream interpretation;[12]
- Al-Kindi (Alkindus), who developed forms of music therapy[citation needed]
- Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, who developed al-‘ilaj al-nafs (sometimes translated as "psychotherapy"),[13]
- Al-Farabi (Alpharabius), who discussed subjects related to social psychology and consciousness studies;[14]
- Ali ibn Abbas al-Majusi (Haly Abbas), described neuroanatomy and neurophysiology;[14]
- Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Abulcasis), described neurosurgery;[15]
- Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, who described reaction time;[16]
- Ibn Tufail, who anticipated the tabula rasa argument and nature versus nurture debate.[17]...
Witelo is considered a precursor of perception psychology. His Perspectiva contains much material in psychology, outlining views that are close to modern notions on the association of ideas and on the subconscious.`
Following up on Witelo (born c. 1230), I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witelo
Witelo's Perspectiva was largely based on the work of the Persian polymath Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham; d. ca. 1041) and in turn powerfully influenced later scientists, in particular Johannes Kepler...
Witelo's treatise also contains much material in psychology, outlining views that are close to modern notions on the association of ideas and on the subconscious.
Witelo's treatise also contains much material in psychology, outlining views that are close to modern notions on the association of ideas and on the subconscious.
It could be argued that Freud was well behind the curve: in essence, he was re-introducing ideas explored much earlier, and attempting to explain them in the context of his own more materialistic theories which seem to have revolved a lot around the libido and the personal unconscious. Dufresne isn't the only one with reservations. Here's another podcast you might find interesting:
http://media.ricochet.com/MiltCrews092713.mp3
Here, Frederick Crews on the Milt Rosenberg show offers another critique of Freud. Crews says what Freud believed in was his own greatness and destiny: he wasn't so much an outright fraud, as someone who failed to question his own theories; he apparently went to soothsayers who confirmed he was a man of destiny. Crews says it's impossible to scientifically examine psychotherapy. Being psychoanalysed, many claim, has helped them: but benefits don't necessarily prove the theory is correct.
Rosenberg describes the process of psychoanalysis as involving becoming familiar with a sympathetic figure (the analyst), and internalising that figure's voice, using it as a guide. I reflect that that happens in everyday life, too, when we internalise the voice of people we like and admire--could be a parent, a friend or teacher--and their interpretations of the world may influence us: all to the good if that helps us to cope better and be decent human beings, but that doesn't mean that their justificatory narratives are true.
Crews characterises the reported effectiveness of psychotherapy as a species of placebo: it may work to help people, but not necessarily because there's any real active principle in the remedy. As for the therapist, the improvement in patients' behaviour is taken as corroboration of Freudian theory: look, it works, so it must be true.
Crews says that the true significance of Freudianism is the shift from a moral evaluation of behaviour to one of evaluating on the basis of what makes people feel good or bad. I see that as a kind of shift in line with the rise of materialism.
The podcast is a good complement to Alex's. I enjoyed it quite as much and recommend it to anyone with 48 minutes to spare. Incidentally, Crews refers to the following book as the definitive critique of Freud: http://www.amazon.com/Freud-Evaluated-The-Completed-Arc/dp/0262631717/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Last edited: