Freud absolutely believed in what is in the UK now called "sectioning" people.
And he would have sectioned me into several pieces no doubt.
:)
And he would have sectioned me into several pieces no doubt.
:)
SIGMUND FREUD HAD NOTHING TO SAY!
It needs to be said. It can't be said enough. Not only was Sigmund Freud not one of the greatest intellectuals of all time. He was furthermore FULL OF SHIT! All of his writings are nonsense - without any import. Nothing that he said had any lucidity and nothing that he said is of any benefit to science or philosophy.
The Most Successful Charlatan of the Twentieth Century.
Sigmund Freud was "the most successful charlatan of the 20th century".
Thomas Szasz.
Thomas Szasz.
Imputation
Freud worked by IMPUTATION, ASSUMPTION and INSINUATION.
You may think that there is some ulterior reason for my disliking the "ideas" of Freud.
But this explains why I do not like his ideas.
Because the reason that I dislike his ideas is that I believe he discovered nothing whatsoever.
And if you think that there is another reason then this is IMPUTATION, ASSUMPTION and INSINUATION.
Imputing ideas and beliefs to another is NOT SCIENTIFIC and is the ESSENCE of all of Freud's thinking.
And it is the reason why I dislike his ideas and seem to do so with such fervour.
You may think that there is some ulterior reason for my disliking the "ideas" of Freud.
But this explains why I do not like his ideas.
Because the reason that I dislike his ideas is that I believe he discovered nothing whatsoever.
And if you think that there is another reason then this is IMPUTATION, ASSUMPTION and INSINUATION.
Imputing ideas and beliefs to another is NOT SCIENTIFIC and is the ESSENCE of all of Freud's thinking.
And it is the reason why I dislike his ideas and seem to do so with such fervour.
Karen Armstrong on Freud.
"Freud has been called the last of the philosophes. In one sense, psychoanalysis can be seen as the culmination of the Enlightenment project to bring the whole of reality under the control of reason."
(Karen Armstrong on Freud).
Nonsense!
Psychoanalysis has nothing whatsoever to do with reason.
"Thanks to Freud's pioneering work, dreams could be interpreted, subconscious impulses brought to light, and the hidden meaning of ancient myths laid bare."
(Karen Armstrong on Freud).
There is no "work" of Freud - pioneering or otherwise. Dreams cannot now be interpreted thanks to him. No "subconscious impulses" have been "brought to light" thanks to him. And no "meanings" of "myths" are revealed thanks to him.
It is easy to demonstrate that none of these comments of Karen Armstrong on Freud are true.
It is all very well to be charitable to all, even your intellectual opponents but this is simply fawning and over-conventional nonsense and falsification.
Freud did not demonstrate that "reason comprised only the outermost rind of the human mind". Nor that it is "a superficial crusting on a seething melting pot of primitive instincts over which we have little control", as Karen Armstrong claims.
Neither did Freud show that the "mind was a battlefield on which we struggled endlessly with the unconscious forces of our own psyche, with little hope of final resolution."
This is all nonsense, and I repeat that Freud discovered precisely nothing at all.
She is right, however, in her criticisms of his analysis of religion.
.......
Present to me JUST ONE fact that Freud ascertained and I will take down this blog!
(Karen Armstrong on Freud).
Nonsense!
Psychoanalysis has nothing whatsoever to do with reason.
"Thanks to Freud's pioneering work, dreams could be interpreted, subconscious impulses brought to light, and the hidden meaning of ancient myths laid bare."
(Karen Armstrong on Freud).
There is no "work" of Freud - pioneering or otherwise. Dreams cannot now be interpreted thanks to him. No "subconscious impulses" have been "brought to light" thanks to him. And no "meanings" of "myths" are revealed thanks to him.
It is easy to demonstrate that none of these comments of Karen Armstrong on Freud are true.
It is all very well to be charitable to all, even your intellectual opponents but this is simply fawning and over-conventional nonsense and falsification.
Freud did not demonstrate that "reason comprised only the outermost rind of the human mind". Nor that it is "a superficial crusting on a seething melting pot of primitive instincts over which we have little control", as Karen Armstrong claims.
Neither did Freud show that the "mind was a battlefield on which we struggled endlessly with the unconscious forces of our own psyche, with little hope of final resolution."
This is all nonsense, and I repeat that Freud discovered precisely nothing at all.
She is right, however, in her criticisms of his analysis of religion.
.......
Present to me JUST ONE fact that Freud ascertained and I will take down this blog!
Except that he didn't do any such thing!
"A frequent criticism of Freud, both in his own time and today is that he "reduced everything to sex.""
Iain Ferguson writing in "Politics of the Mind: Marxism and Mental Distress."
Except that Freud did not do any such thing!
It is a very widely believed myth that Freud explicitly and clearly saw sex as the basis of everything. He never expressed such a belief.
Show me even the slightest evidence that Freud thought "everything was sex" and I will amend this posting.
It is my contention that Freud's theorizing was fraudulent in its entirety, and that psychoanalysis was a massive (possibly non-deliberate) fraud.
Iain Ferguson writing in "Politics of the Mind: Marxism and Mental Distress."
Except that Freud did not do any such thing!
It is a very widely believed myth that Freud explicitly and clearly saw sex as the basis of everything. He never expressed such a belief.
Show me even the slightest evidence that Freud thought "everything was sex" and I will amend this posting.
It is my contention that Freud's theorizing was fraudulent in its entirety, and that psychoanalysis was a massive (possibly non-deliberate) fraud.
Embarrassment
"Much to the embarrassment of most of his followers, Freud was a Lamarckian...."...Freud remained from the beginning to the end of his life what one must call an obstinate adherent of this discredited Lamarckism", wrote Jones (1957)."
Source "A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis" by Charles Rycroft.
This ridiculous belief was important to some of his (ridiculous) theories.
Much to the embarrassment of humanity, it can be demonstrated that Freud was full of shit.
Citizen Sofa.
Source "A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis" by Charles Rycroft.
This ridiculous belief was important to some of his (ridiculous) theories.
Much to the embarrassment of humanity, it can be demonstrated that Freud was full of shit.
Citizen Sofa.
Freud did not believe in non-sexual love.
Freud, admittedly in the name of science, did not believe in non-sexual love.
"Freud constructed a "model of human nature." This model was constructed in the spirit nineteenth-century materialistic thought. Man is conceived as a machine, driven by a relatively constant amount of sexual energy called "libido."
Eric Fromm, writing in his book "Beyond the Chains of Illusion: My Encounter with Marx and Freud."
Eric Fromm, to his credit, was not an unquestioning disciple of Freud, if he was a disciple at all.
Eric Fromm was a psychologist who worked from some of the perspectives of Freud, but who was definitely distinct from him.
Eric Fromm did believe in non-sexual love. But he was not religious and he saw himself as working in a scientific tradition - as did Freud.
I think it is obvious that on this question Freud was also wrong and discovered nothing whatsoever.
"Freud constructed a "model of human nature." This model was constructed in the spirit nineteenth-century materialistic thought. Man is conceived as a machine, driven by a relatively constant amount of sexual energy called "libido."
Eric Fromm, writing in his book "Beyond the Chains of Illusion: My Encounter with Marx and Freud."
Eric Fromm, to his credit, was not an unquestioning disciple of Freud, if he was a disciple at all.
Eric Fromm was a psychologist who worked from some of the perspectives of Freud, but who was definitely distinct from him.
Eric Fromm did believe in non-sexual love. But he was not religious and he saw himself as working in a scientific tradition - as did Freud.
I think it is obvious that on this question Freud was also wrong and discovered nothing whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)