Freud,the neglected philosopher?
I see Freud as the most useful thinker for philosophical problems. The most useful thinker to grapple with and overcome despite his obvious limitations.
Freud addressed the deepest philosophical question. What motivates and drives humans and why?
Aside from his holding a mirror to the ugliness of many peoples motivations ,why do you think he is neglected as a thinker?
Freud addressed the deepest philosophical question. What motivates and drives humans and why?
Aside from his holding a mirror to the ugliness of many peoples motivations ,why do you think he is neglected as a thinker?
Comments (55)
He addressed them as a crass materialist and prototypical advocate of ‘scientism’. I agree his general essays are an important part of today’s humanist curriculum but his philosophical analysis was mediocre.
I think that Freud is an extremely important thinker and I even created a thread on his ideas about 6 months ago. Generally, he made such an important contribution to culture, and brought sexuality into focus. But, a lot of people, especially feminists, disagreed with the idea of the Oedipus complex. In addition, a lot of philosophers think that the models of both Freud and Jung are not compatible with current scientific knowledge.
However, my own view is that Freud is worth reading, and makes important contributions to the thinking about the life and death instincts, as well as contributing to discussion about religion. Personally, I regard his, 'Origins of the Uncanny', as well as, 'Totem and Taboo' as important.
Nevertheless, it may be that many philosophers, and mainstream psychologists, do not rank him highly. But, I did courses in psychotherapy and art psychotherapy a few years ago, in which the opposite perspective holds and, Freud remains as the king.
And, of course, some of his theories, like his theory of dreams, do sound a bit far-fetched and not particularly scientific. Are dreams really just an expression of unfulfilled or repressed wishes? Seems doubtful IMHO.
Jung’s criticism of Freud’s theory of the unconscious, and of the excessive importance he gives to sexuality as a key determinant of behavior, etc., seem to be justified.
I don’t know about others, but I for one, tend to find Jung’s ideas far more appealing than Freud’s. Though, from a philosophical viewpoint, even Jung need not be accepted wholesale or uncritically.
I think that there are probably differences of opinion about Freud's ideas within philosophy. Personally, I think that his ideas and Jung are very useful, but I do have a lot of sympathy with psychodynamic thinking really because I do have some background training in this approach. I don't believe that I write as an apologist or propagandist. I just am aware that this is a philosophy site so I try to think of ideas in the context of this, even though I am interested in the borders between the two disciplines.
I can also see the basis of so many criticisms of both Freud (and Jung). Basically, I think that Freud's ideas are useful but see them as having partial but not a full knowledge. This is because I prefer to integrate many diverse ideas about psychology, including the ideas of the cognitive behavioral thinkers.
Yes,I take on board and agree with a lot of what you are saying here. I think he is the most important modern thinker to grapple with,as his work broaches religion,science,culture and biology.
As you mention there are problems with his understandings and several criticisms of him but I think too many throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I think the reason for the visceral reaction against him is that he exposes the depths of certain human psyches and that is too close to home or too frightening for many.
Most people have barely read him,and politically I think he has been marginalised nowadays because he expressed some extremely important truths.
Namely,man is Not a rational animal but in fact is a creature of desire...Of course philosophers and scientists will grumble because it undermines their whole "rationality narrative". Freud inadvertently pops the fairy tale of rationality.
When I was undertaking art therapy training, I did have some personal therapy which involved lying on the couch, and it was incredibly wierd. Lying down in itself alters perspective and dreams go against reason, and this is captured within surrealism. Dreams can be so strange and defy logic. A few days ago, I dreamt that threads on this site were lying on my floor as great reams of paper.
I think that Freud is out of fashion at the moment, but that may change, because ideas fluctuate so much. I think that what sometimes gets missed is that all these theories are only models. When they get taken too concretely the potential insights from them.
Those are very interesting symbolic dreams!
Yes,taking thinkers ideas literally is incorrect.
With imagination and tinkering one can take the good of freud and reject the bad.
I will be reading the totem and taboo soon. This book contains some tremendous insights and ideas,even though I disagree with freud in places on religion and a lot on sexuality,his basic ideas are exceptional.
Talking In general is wonderful therapy!
I don't regard myself as psychologist, especially as I am not a professional clinical psychologist. My background is mainly in psychiatric nursing but I have done some psychotherapy and art therapy training. But, I am not working at present and try to read as widely as possible, including philosophy, just to have the best understanding of life.
I have read a fair amount about Freud but don't claim to be an expert at all. Anyone on this site who has an expertise in Freud's ideas may contribute far more than I have done.
Freud has always gained my respect as a psychologist who, as wacky as it may seem to some, brought to light the many interesting, strange, and dysfunctional elements of human sexuality. And as we know, there are many.
Just generally, if you were to explore some reasons why people get divorced or have arguments (I think the divorce rate is around 50%) you often come away with various romantic-love deficiencies or false paradigm's in one form or another from one's (dysfunctional) aspect of childhood environment/experiences. For example, in practical terms, you have men who are women-haters; women who are man-haters. And that often manifests through perceptions and behaviors associated with sexuality.
In a funny or practical way, here's another lighthearted take on the difficulties men/women have with being friends v. lovers (we get all twisted up over these things):
Quoting Apollodorus
I like Jung. What was his critique?
I know a number of people who are training to become clinical psychologists, and some who are qualified ones. In England, it is extremely competitive and takes a long time, involving a masters, experience of working as a psychology assistant and doing a doctorate. I often ask people I know about their training and it seems to vary so much from those programs of training which are experimental to those which are psychodynamic or cognitive behavioral. It is such a mixture of approaches, as diverse as philosophy, but with some emphasis on evidence based practice.
I do believe that the roots of psychology and philosophy were often more joined, as in thinkers such as William James. I think that an important link in the separation was psychiatry. I have discussed the ideas of Freud and Jung with a number of psychiatrists. I found that most senior psychiatrists had some affinity with Freud, although that varied, but as part of their registrar training they did psychodynamic clinical work. However, I did mention Jung to some junior psychiatrists and was rather startled to discover that they had not even heard of him. This is probably because they came from a science background, and there is a division between psychology as a science or an art. Generally, I think that approaches to psychology as an art, as opposed to that of a science, place more emphasis on the ideas of Freud.
I won't go into much detail because I don't wish to derail the thread but I think that evidence practice can be very shallow. On a short course I did, there was an emphasis on backing up ideas with evidence, which could include anyone's ideas which were in a published text. Due to the word limit of the essay, there was no room for discussion of the quality of the evidence, which I thought made entire mockery of the idea of evidence.
Going back to evidence based practice, I think that more research is being done into cognitive behavioral approaches than psychodynamic ones, but that is partly because these receive more funding. But, underlying this, one of the reasons is that psychodynamic approaches, such as those based on Freud, are not favoured is because they are not seen as cost effective.
It's nice to see a religious poster appreciate freuds thinking.
Psychology as per freud and James especially relates to the existential human being.
Childhood and traumatic experiences can have lasting psychological effects on some elements of perception and philosophy rarely addresses this.
Jung gets too platonic and abstract,but most of the neo-freudians had good things to add and good criticisms,especially Alfred adler.
Thanks P, you're too kind. I'm big on cognitive science. That's why I like philosophers like Maslow who started out in Psychology. They've used practical experience from their couch-sessions to formulate many of their theories. Not that they're perfect, but... .
I am hopefully your thread will enlighten those who unknowingly need to be enlightened in this area. :cool:
Maslow is a very interesting thinker as well. Especially his "peak experiences".
Which kind of cognitive science?
I don't expect miracles from this thread but let those with ears to hear hear!
He wasn’t critical of all philosophy.
Ernest Jones, a close friend and dedicated follower of Freud, recalls that Freud told him in conversation about that time [i.e. 1908] that Nietzsche was one of the 'authentically great men of all time' and that 'Nietzsche developed a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other man who ever lived.'
Freud [in his published 'Autobiographical Study':] "[Nietzsche's] guesses and intuitions often agree in the most astonishing way with the labourious findings of [my work]."
I think they should be confused, since there is so much overlap between them. Nietzsche called himself a psychologist , Husserl showed the close relationship
between his phenomenology and intentional psychology (calling his transcendental phenomenology the truely grounding science), psychologists like Gendlin and Kelly were also philosophers, using philosophical explication to make explicit what was implicit in their psychologies. To me making an inquiry more philosophical is just the process of turning what has been tacitly assumed into an articulated presupposition. Thus there are more and less ‘philosophical’ psychologies.
Correct. Perhaps he tended to be more critical of those philosophies or philosophers that were critical of of his theories. But that's another story.
Freud was and still is an important figure within continental philosophy. You’ll find mention of Freud or Freudian concepts built into the theoretical underpinnings of Woke political discourse. And of course , critical race theory is partly based on crucial theory , which incorporates elements of Freud.
The American psychological and psychiatric communities tend to be interested only in the narrowly clinical aspects of Freud’s writings. This tendency goes back to the first translations in English of his work, which shows the American bias for empiricism over the humanistic elements. For instance , ich was translated as ego esther than ‘I’.
You are right. I would say however the use of freud for woke discourse or critical race theory or feminism is something I generally deplore.
I prefer some of the continental thinkers who used freud from the frankfurt school,and best of all Jaques Lacan. He really added some great additions to freuds work.
Excellent insight on the translation!
“I think they should be confused”. A bit of poetic license here. I was trying to ward off attempts to distinguish between the two ( or between philosophy and literature , science, politics or religion) in rigidly categorical ways, as I’ve seem done often. But certainly all the writers I mentioned make a fundamental distinction between their philosophies and their psychologies. Husserl allows us to bracket off empirical psychology along with the physical body and the natural world, yet leave the philosophical grounding intact. The same is true of Heidegger. Their psychologies are relative and contingent derivations of their philosophies , but the reverse is not the case.
I just read through your thread on "Freud the great philosophical adventure." A very interesting and relevent thread.
Do you or anyone know how to link that thread to this one?
I tried to create a link but couldn't do it because I think that I would probably need a mouse, to save it to my device.However, I don't know if anyone would wish to look at my thread again anyway. It is only 4 pages long, but for anyone who is interested it is called 'Sigmund Freud: The Great Philosophical Adventure.' I am hoping that your own thread is successful, and it may go further than mine did because there are a number of new members to the forum.
It's a very good thread. Hopefully someone can link it for further discussion on this thread.
What's your take thoughts on the totem and the taboo?
What insights do you take from that book?
Cheers!
In freuds later work he talks about telepathy.
In the modern day of science this is taboo. Witness the treatment of Rupert sheldrake.
Got a reference for that? He was an extreme sceptic about paranormal to my knowledge.
I am just following up the discussion about 'Totem and Taboo' briefly. I read the book a long time ago on a religious studies module. My understanding of the book was that it examines the way in which the taboos are projected onto the father, and onto leaders. It also explores the nature of guilt, especially in relation to the development of neurotiism.
I found the analysis of guilt in relation to the way people develop anxiety very interesting, but, personally, I think that there have been a lot of developments in psychology since the time of the book, and I find Jung's ideas on religion to have more substance than Freud. I think that Freud opened up areas of thought which have been developed much further.
The one aspect of Freud's thinking which I feel is not paid enough attention outside of psychotherapy is that of projection. I think that is because we all do in so many ways, and it can be a blindspot in social interaction. We see the faults in others, failing to see that this fault may lie within ourselves. It is hard to see our own faults and it is in connection with this need for self analysis that anyone training in psychotherapy is expected to undertake personal therapy. The nature of projection has been taken up further by later psychodynamic thinkers, especially Melanie Klein. It is an aspect of psychotherapy but I do think that the concept is worth thinking about in philosophy too, because projection occurs as a subconscious aspect of life and, it may often occur in the exploration and exchange of ideas.
Freuds book "new introduction to psychoanalysis" is seven essays. One of the essays contains talk about telepathy. It's free online.
The second Essay of that collection is called "dreams and the occult".
What about jung on religion do you find beneficial?
Projection is a very interesting concept,but I think it's used incorrectly.
Guilt,taboo,anxiety and the "super ego" are interesting pointers in freuds thought.
What about Klein do you find instructive?
I really like Jaques lacans analysis that the unconscious is structured like a language.
When you say freud wasn't scientific,could you elucidate?
Because his ideas were obviously based on and backed by extensive hands on clinical practice with real clients.
I think that Klein's discussion of the processes of projective identification, as well as her idea of the depressive and schizoid position are important. Some people experience clinical depression or mental illnesses of a schizoid nature, but Klein sees the positions as being central to humans. However, this area is more about psychology than philosophy.
I have a thread on 'Jung's Ideas on God' if you are interested in looking at it, and it is only from a couple of months ago. I have not read very much of Lacan.
I must say that I do find freuds emphasis on sexuality incorrect.
But his notion of libido if interpreted as desire makes his thinking much more accurate.
I read somewhere that freud said people understand his theories too crudely.
And maybe he adjusted his thinking on literal sexuality as he progressed.
For me freud has many mistakes in his thinking,but he gets a lot of the basics correct.
With his mistakes I reinterpret his literal meanings to accord with my own experiences.
My saying freud is the most important thinker to grapple with is because he is right in so many things,yet wrong in a lot of things as well.
But he,unlike most thinkers,addresses the most important issues in a practical realist way.
His book Totem and taboo,
And his new introduction to psychoanalysis are both extremely good.
Freud wrote a lot of stuff!
I think a lot of people don't engage with freud sometimes for the reasons you mentioned,but people should at least know the crux of his basic stuff and the crux of his cultural writings.
What you say about klein is very interesting. I think a lot of "sane" people experience a schizoid anxious type of awareness and project "masked" personalities.
What's your reading of the oedipus complex?
The Oedipus complex is a complex and questionable idea. It has a basis in the mythical ideas of 'Oedipus Rex', but it is so hard to know on what level we can apply it to humanity. I don't know where we start to qualify it. This may be one of the problems arising in Freud's philosophy. He makes sweeping claims, which are so difficult to verify.
I don't believe the oedipus complex literally,and I believe freud,as on many concepts,was too dogmatic.
With that said,and this is why I really enjoy reading his ideas,there is a related reality to what he was trying to describe.
My take is that he wrongly interpreted the phenomenon of the ambivalence of people towards authority figures.
Nothing to do with sexuality really,but power.
With all of freuds stuff I verify with my personal experience.
"There is no way to overlook the complicity between Psychoanalysis and the metaphysical tradition of the presence in the substantiation of its metapsychological instances. Many Freudian concepts fall within the logocentric repression system that are organized in an exclusion of the body of the written trace and are constructed supported by internal-external and subjective-objective oppositions, among others. However, the interest of Derrida is not focused on the 'great Freudian conceptuality', although he admits that this conceptuality has been necessary to break with Psychology in a given context of the history of sciences. The great machines such as 'self', 'ideal self', 'id', 'superego', states Derrida, are nothing but "provisional weapons, rhetorical utensils assembled against a philosophy of consciousness, of the transparent and fully responsible intentionality" (Derrida & Roudinesco, 2004, p. 207)."
Claudia Braga Andrade: Derrida's writing: Notes on the Freudian model of language
https://www.scielo.br/j/pusp/a/rgk6NQkYL9D8DDccKGw6yWR/?lang=en
It seems a lot of continental philosophers are interested in freud,whether affirmative or critical.
My interest is that his thinking is important to critique as of all the cultural thinkers who wrote,his ideas encompass
culture most fully and existentially.
For sure freud was a bourgeois propagandist and Elitist,but his influence is palpable through politics,culture and advertising,via the use of his work by his nephew Edward Bernays and others who updated and used these principles.
And in truth freud was not at all the discoverer of this type of psychology,but he was a cipher used to publicise this method.
The fact his work is neglected in mainstream culture nowadays is a testament that the powers that be don't want this narrative back out in the open again.Because these powers and the media use his psychological principles extensively.
@Joshs You may have some useful comments on this subject area.
An excellent summary of freuds work.
All freuds value as a thinker and writer are on display here.
His value as a social critic is exceptional.
In the area of sexuality and women freud is a procrustean clown. A real idiot.
But as a critic of organised religion and culture he is way better than nietzsche and marx.
But freud the myth maker,the illusionist,the propagandist is on full display reading between his lines.
One must psychoanalyse the psychoanalyst...
A very interesting four essays in this book. Freuds obsession with his concept of the oedipus complex is on full display here.
He spends most of the book trying to prove that religion,culture,history and politics are all the result of the oedipus complex and a murder of a dictatorial father by his sons to gain access to his women!
His research of anthropologists like frazer illustrates how racist,clueless and dirty minded those old academics were in studying other cultures.
Essay 3 is a corker. A great piece of psychology,though once again used as propoganda.
Every criticism freud has of indigenous tribes and neurotics also applies to freud!
Freud really knew his neurotics! That's because he was one!
Next up; moses and monotheism. Promises to be a great read. Was freuds last cultural work before he died.
@Jack Cummins
A tremendous read. The best book by freud I've read so far.
Shows how Judaism emphasises intellectuality,and what freud thinks have been and are the benefits of Jewish monotheism.
He claims the origin of religion,Law and modern culture is from the murder of a despotic father and regicide,and the subsequent guilt.
Freuds various psychological theories are cheekily used to explain the progression of history and culture.
The thing about this book is not the conclusions but the avenues for exploration and elucidation.