»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Loaded Dice?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Loaded Dice? |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“Although the film portrays Kinsey as a flawed adulterer, conservative critics nonetheless contend it is too admiring. They argue that it omits unflattering details about Kinsey's interest in pedophilia . . .” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138281,00.html Through “A life of Jung” by Ronald Hayman, one can pick up enough about Jung’s and Freud’s lives to make you wonder: how much, if at all, should the personal life and character of a subject influence the judgment of his or her work in a field apt to have social consequences? John |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Methinks the entire question is loaded dice. What exactly do you mean by social consequences? Isn't there a difference between theorist and moralist? Lots of gray areas to the question, John. I'd like to see this more fleshed out, m'self. (no pun intended)  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
serenity blaze, “From Publishers Weekly Crews mounts a slashing critique of Sigmund Freud's mistaken diagnoses, sexist hectoring of patients, exaggeration of results, equivocation and attempts to cover up therapeutic disasters. According to this distinguished critic and professor emeritus (UC Berkeley), Freud ascribed to some patients repressed oedipal sexual desires after he had unsuccessfully goaded them to remember childhood incest or molestation. Furthermore, Crews maintains, Freud in 1905 retroactively changed the alleged seducers of infants to fathers, whereas in his reports of the previous decade, they were said to have been siblings, strangers, teachers, governesses. Freud's brainchild, psychoanalysis, was and remains a pseudoscience, in Crews's estimate. Its offspring, he asserts, is today's recovered-memory movement, which he believes is deluding countless patients, mostly women, into leveling false charges of sexual abuse based on supposedly recovered memories that, in Crews's opinion, are often manufactured through overzealous or incompetent therapists' suggestions." Amazon link “From Publishers Weekly "The S.S. men are being transformed into a caste of knights ruling sixty million natives. [T]here is no more ideal form of government than a decent form of oligarchy," wrote Carl Jung of the German Nazis in the mid-1930s. One of the many strengths of this candid and discerning biography is that Hayman (Nietzsche: A Critical Life) enlists such provocative, alarming material to build a careful, nuanced portrait of his subject that neither excuses nor excoriates his actions and words. After studying psychiatry in Paris at the turn of the century (while also investigating the supernatural via s‚ances), Jung became an ardent admirer of Freud, with whom he agreed on many things (though Freud's emphasis on sexuality was a notable exception). Meanwhile, Jung pursued his own theories of the unconscious, using myth and archetype as models. His break with Freud before WWI was a defining moment in the development of his theory and his career. Without losing sight of Jung's total oeuvre, Hayman examines the enormous advantages Jung gained by maintaining ambiguous views of National Socialist policies. Indeed, Hayman shows how Hitler's attack on Jews gave Jung a chance to promote his own psychological theories (e.g., the defamation of Freud and other Jewish psychoanalysts led to the possibility for the ascendance of Jung's analytical psychology). Placing Jung's anti-Semitism in a broad cultural and professional context as well as exploring his other influences, including his complicated relationships with patients and disciples Hayman has produced a vital and moving portrait of the man and his time. While not detailed enough for scholars, this is a fine work for the general reader.” “From Booklist The man who boldly proclaimed a new understanding of how the collective unconscious preserves humanity's archetypal memories, Jung shrank from the truth about his own convoluted psyche. Long hidden behind a shield of falsification and self-apotheosis, that deeply disturbing truth has at last yielded to Hayman's painstaking scholarship. From Jung's lonely boyhood of secretive rituals to his old age of grandiose delusions, Hayman limns the pioneering psychologist's solitary and erratic life. Deep in an intellect of rare capacity, Jung's private ambitions bubbled over with perilous desires. To illuminate the darker impulses in Jung's life, Hayman ferrets out the childhood beginnings of schizophrenic tendencies, chronicles his descent into near insanity, documents his flirtation with fascism, and details his abusive treatment of women. And although only specialists will comprehend the technical issues at stake, Hayman fully captures the human drama in Jung's rupture with his acclaimed mentor, Freud. Deflating a self-anointed god, Hayman gives us--once again--the ineluctable mystery of man.” Amazon link I’m sure you can find something similar on Kinsey. http://mysite.users2.50megs.com/coverups/reisman.html http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=866&department=CWA&categoryid=education John [Edit - fixed long, scrolling links - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (11-12-2004 03:32 PM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, thank you John, for the info. (I'm into Jungian studies, so I did find it interesting.) I'm still having trouble however, trying to figure out what your stance on this might be. Are you suggesting that we have a model of behavior to use as a reference before we can judge the value of someone's contribution to their field of study? That rather frightens me, I believe. (I could, perhaps, understand this with, say, a POPE.) Tell me more about what you're getting at here, please. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
serenity blaze, I asking can and should the character and life of an originator in such fields be taken into consideration when determining whether to rely on his conclusions and proposals. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
What are you trying to judge? Why should something other than conclusions and proposals be relied upon to establish the credibility of conclusions and proposals? Ideas speak for themselves and must stand or fall on their own merit. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, We in our lives rely on “experts” for the validity of many conclusions and proposals, not having enough experience or education in a field to confidently do otherwise. That reliance is based on a faith that the “expert” has no flaw, reason or agenda as would consciously or unconsciously influence the conclusions and proposals derived from his investigations. In an objective science where conclusions can be independently tested and verified, the originator’s character and it’s motivations are no grave issue, but in a field such as that Freud, Jung and Kinsey were engaged, I am wondering if their character and motivations should be given weight in determining said reliance. John |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I would like to think, John, that we understand, in common, the common humanity of our flesh. I would like to begin to not only feel, but fully comprehend that we are constant only in our evolution. I'd like to think that I can type this statement without some accusatory fact from the past thrown at me: "Isn't it true that you fell down at age three?" (pictures on page eight) I would hope that the value of my life is decided in context, and not in five-second bytes of presumed attention span, snap-shots of bad lighting and unbecoming slant. So, no, John, I don't wish to know the deepest recesses of every learned mind. (Or even the bag lady swatting at non-existant flies on the corner) *smile* (That's not entirely true--wicked smile now--I'd love to know the details of every oiled palm in the shadows--but? No, I don't think it significant--just interesting. And I'd like to add that even my 'immoral' curiousity is still defined by the absolute rule of consenting adults.) And speaking of shadows? Somewhere along the way in my meanderings, it did occur to me that someone who could so aptly describe the territories of war with one's shadow (Jung, as well as, to a debatable lesser extent, Freud) surely must have been in some intense combat therein themselves. I don't mean to have a dismissive tone either--I was disappointed a bit in that you didn't take more decisive posture in your proposition. I am sincerely interested in what you and others think in how this same proposition filters down to how we determine our popular authorities--most particularly our religious leaders (and would this were a seperate entity) but also, most especially, in today's climate, our political leaders. So...tell us what you think? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 (I almost forgot to smile.)  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
serenity blaze, After reading of their lives and characters and how they influenced their methods and conclusions, I personally would have no more reliance on their notions than I would on those of a self-serving politician or priest. Further, I would say as much to anyone who asked, or whose life I thought vulnerable in placing faith in those notions or their preachers. John |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Never been much interested in psychology to be honest, but isn't there something about this comment that's just, well, funny? He gives us the mystery of man by showing how Jung projected his personal and private hangups on others? We are given the mystery of man though a psychological study of the man himself? I won't go into Jung's archetype theory (Hint: it's metaphorical through and through), but Freud's contribution seems to be more or less in place by the very reviews you quote. Freud's contribution wasn't really about sex (Gee, who didn't know that?), nor was it that it is sometimes difficult to control dominant drives (anybody read Aristophanes recently). No, Freud's contribution was much more that the unconscious isn't our beastial nature, drives or whatnot, but that the unconscious wasn't just our animal side, but that it was also rational, it could convince you of something without you being aware that you were actually being convinced of something (thus, the rationalization process was 'not conscious'). Recognizing this and being able to recognized this when it happened was considered the first step toward a cure. I once wrote the idea that all writers (and by extension thinkers) secretly want to become extinct. That is, they want their ideas to be a part of 'common sense' instead of associated with their name. It seems Freud has one that battle even by those who villify him. Ron is right. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think Ron is right about ideas, they stand on their own merit ... being true or not. Advice and counsel is the same way. However I think John has a kernel of truth here too. Personal character is something that can either give us more confidence as to whether particular theories and ideas are sound, or give us a healthy dose of doubt about just jumping right in to what might seem obviously okay. The heart IS separate from the head. But then again, it's only a few inches away. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, “I think Ron is right about ideas, they stand on their own merit ... being true or not. Advice and counsel is the same way. “ And how does your average neophyte determine that? John |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ever heard of a second opinion? No idea, interpretation or whatever is produced in a vacuum. Look at the field and make up your own mind. Test, test, test, oh yeah, and test. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Actually, our reliance on expert opinion ("ethos") is based on the transaction that takes place between speaker/writer and auditor/reader. It's a blackmail/bond relationship - the appellant to one's own authority seeks to limit the reasonable options of his audience by offering his expertise as a sort of rhetorical security. If the ethical appellant is found to be abusing his authority, inconstant, or his argument is proven wrong, then he loses credibility. Since credibility is difficult to establish and even more difficult to recover once it is lost, the auditor/reader can usually rely on the authority's opinion in arriving at a reasoned conclusion because one can surmise that one who can speak authoritatively on a given subject does not want to lose face. In short, it is not so much faith as transaction. Interesting, though ... makes me wonder what ramifications arise from recognizing the blackmail/bond transaction - are "appeals to authority" logical fallacies? Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, on whose authority do we accept the "blackmail/ bond" relationship as truest description of appealing to authority? "does not want to lose face" is certainly no guarantee of soundness of argument. For that much is true of everybody, right? Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: quote: Mine, of course. But in matters that cannot be empirically proven or disproven, we need some means for vetting different opinions. Since we, individually, cannot be experts in everything, relying on the disciplinary expertise of authorities is an important and practical practice. We all do it. Even you. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, Of course I do. I'm just saying that I find it hard to believe that my acceptance of authority is based on some kind of reasoning that they "want to save face". Or maybe I misunderstood you? Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
‘I'm just saying that I find it hard to believe that my acceptance of authority is based on some kind of reasoning that they "want to save face".’ Nor applicable as we’re talking about a field difficult to prove or disprove a view in. Both Freud and Jung had and have their adherents, (which I don’t think would be the case in a physical science where a conclusion is subject to test and confirmation). John |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Huan: quote: Read Isocrates' Dissoi Logoi, Aristotle's Rhetoric or Cicero's account of his defense of Sulla on charges of conspiracy. Originally, you asked: quote: All those above would count the personal life and character of the subject to be eminently important to the task of persuasion - and in fields where theories are difficult to prove or disprove, persuasion plays a paramount role. Arguably, it was Freud's influence rather than the substance of his theories that were important landmarks in psychology - he was wrong more often than he was right, but psychology as a field benefitted from his influence. Stephen: quote: Well, I don't know on what basis you accept authority. For me, knowing I do not have the time to devote to building expertise in multiple disciplines forces me to rely on the expertise of others in arriving at many conclusions. For the expert, there are consequences to being wrong, being found inconstant, or abusing his authority. That hard-earned authority is a valuable commodity to the expert. This doesn't suggest that we should not vet expert testimony, but I think it does suggest that, if the expert stands to lose something by asserting his authority, I can reasonably ascribe more clout to his testimony. Just curious - on what basis do you accept authority? Jim |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
