posted
From an article by Donna Minkowitz, there was the following quote:
quote: The beginnings of the science of psychology are filled with false prophets like Jung and Freud, people who really set back the science of psychology and had a huge and sickening influence in our culture. They are among the great frauds and evils of our time.
I've been doing psychology for the past two semesters in the "gifted programme" school; the psychology teacher there is a Freudian, and we give her a hard time for that. I, for instance, do not believe in 'subconsciousness', I think of it as 'subperceptive'. Not something that controls your life through evil, immoral, beast-like emotions and cannot be dealt with unless you have a sick pervert like Freud that drives you bananas.
As for Jung, ever since I heard about the 'collective subconsciousness' I started resenting anything to do with that pack (including Adler and so on). I've read the beginning of Freud's first book ("The Meaning of Dreams", or something like that), and all sorts of Jung quotes.
Don't get me started on Ego, Super Ego and Id. The best thing that came out of Id was "The Wizard of Id", and I'm rather appalled at the theory that I was sexually attracted to my mother at age 2 or so because I was sucking her nipples for milk (I was breastfed until a very late age). I don't believe that telling a joke is an equivalent of onanism, and I always fought my father - but just to get away from the conceptualisation that I'm 'David's son' and be respected as 'Jonathan' individually, nothing to do with who needs to sleep with the mother in the house!
Psychodynamics is an atrocity. Thank you for being with me on this - kudos! And I'm sorry for the spilling of my heart out, but this is reheated ember in my heart. I hat Freud, and despise the fact that now I judge anything also the way he would. It's rational, and Freud's sick mind. "What would HE say?", and stuff... "They are among the great frauds and evils of our time", but "fraud" you can replace with "Freud" to cause a redundant statement, since Freud is evil.
He ruined my thought!
Jonathan Howard
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, am I the only one who's so bloody well utterly crazed by Freud? Am I the ONLY INSANE PERSON HERE?
I think I haven't contactd humans for about 3 days. My family aren't humans, the "giftd children" are MOST DEFINITELY not humans, an I only saw a few Wednesday morning... Only briefly, though.
posted
No, I'm with you. Freud is a big fat fraud. I thought it was understood as such and frankly I'm rather surprised that people still find any measurable validity to his "teachings".
'My hat for Freud know no limit.'
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freud isn't necessarily completely worthless. I found most of his observations to be hilarious. Of course, I never really could take offense at a man that lived on cocaine and feared ferns.
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We had this discussion on a thread om the other side. Needless to say, there were opinions differing from those expressed here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike many of Freud's theories, but one good thing about him was he didn't consider homosexuality an affliction. Jung is rather fascinating in a way, I do like the collective consiousnes concept but several Freudian ideas are just illogical. Especially since everyone's development varies so much individualy and culturally that you cannot have just one unifying theory.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget ID software. Thats something good that came outta Frued.
Course, I suppose if there wasn't Freud, ID software would be called something else like "Violent first person shooter company"
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freud had some very good ideas, his tripart conciess apeals and makes sense to me. Some of his other ideas may be wrong, but he laid the groundwork for modern phsycology.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, there hasn't been anything new to psychology since Freud. Until Terry Warner wrote "Bonds that make us Free."
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One could argue that, far from laying the groundwork for modern psychology, Freud hijacked the whole field and took it off on an unproductive and often harmful tangent for fifty years or more. There were serious psychologists before Freud who actually acted like scientists, making sure they had evidence before they pronounced dogmas. If they had prevailed instead of Freud, it's possible that psychology would have become a science much sooner than the rise of the molecular psychology movement of the 90s.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freud had his own problems which are reflected in his work, but he was a good philosopher, if not a scientest, and an extreamly elegant writer. His work, combined with that of Jung, may not be cutting edge science, but it is still meaningful. I think Freud had a lot to say about humans, and if most of it was wrong, some of it was still right.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has to be understood that Freud is revered not because his theories particularly stand the test of time or reason but because he is that father of modern technology.
Still a loon though.
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
He was creative, but that's it. I still don't think my sister is jealous of me because I have a penis - which bulges out of the body, while she has a vagina - which is basically a hole. Since hole isn't whole, she'd be jealous that my organ is one of "existence", and hers is of "absence".
posted
Freud said some women with an emotional disorder had this problem. I doubt it's common enough to need much commenting on, but there are certainly weird people out there --
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One could argue that, far from laying the groundwork for modern psychology, Freud hijacked the whole field and took it off on an unproductive and often harmful tangent for fifty years or more. There were serious psychologists before Freud who actually acted like scientists, making sure they had evidence before they pronounced dogmas. If they had prevailed instead of Freud, it's possible that psychology would have become a science much sooner than the rise of the molecular psychology movement of the 90s.
That's one of the wonderful things about arguments. You could argue so many things, like the moon is a ball of cheese and the sun a bowl of butter, or in the Garden of Eden myth, God is the villian and the snake is the hero, or that knowledge of a topic is not necessary for a valid opinion of a topic. While we may form impressions of what's likely to be the quality and content of arguments based on their initial premise, we can't really know until someone makes it.
I'd be interested in seeing someone make this argument, as it disagrees with my opinion about a field I know a great deal about. It possible that the argument would far exceed my low expectations as to it's likely low quality and content and expose me to valid perspectives and information that I have as yet not encountered. So, OSC, are you willing and able to make this argument? I believe that either it way it turns out would be quite instructive.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
