»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
What's wrong with Freud?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
What's wrong with Freud? |
|
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
What is everyone's problem witrh Freud? What did he ever do to anyone, besides describing everyones psycological problems... I have a serious problem with people criticising Freud without a valid arguement, and not many people have a valid point when criticising him. I know many criticise him for taking cocaine But it still has meaning today, and I don't see why people cannot see this. Freud was a great thinker, and should still be held in awe, for without him the diagnosis of many of the problems that people face today would not exist. I will agree that some of his theories are a bit over sexed, but think of it this way: many people still say that men tink about sex continually... which is true  ... and thus Freuds prognosis hold true. Maybe not the fact that they want to sleep with their mothers, but the fact that they still need the intamacy with another partener...Sigh... "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Donovan - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi -- Not everyone has a problem with Freud. You can always read Lacan if you want to truly mess up your mind... These suggestions are for starters: A problem with Freud is that his psychoanalitical insights came from a very limited set of analysands. Even if they are not fictional, they are not universal. A second problem is that his theories defy empirical analysis or demonstration. Freud's psychoanalytical work is actually a set of apriori assumptions used to bolster metaphysical speculation. His major insight was noting the complex relationships between the subconscious and conscious mind. The devil was in the details. Best, Jim |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
He did not give out a clear definition of love, sex, sane and insane. So when he developed his theory, the building shakes. A theory is a theory, one may choose to believe it or not. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I agree with the above and I'll add that he also diagnosed others based upon his own tendencies, such as: penis envy. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Since I brought up the Freudian coke slip I'll give my take on it. Now I probably don't know as much about Freud as you do, but I know enough I think, maybe not. "saying that men are in love with their mothers" That's kind of a big deal, at least in my mind. What a perversion of nature that is. "so that analogy had real meaning then." Yes I suppose that's true. The women back then were very, very shy; back when "leg" was a dirty word. But that's just the thing, it had meaning in a "no sex" era. Not today I think, not in an age where they sex up toothpaste. A person doesn't have to run far to find sex these days, it's sad. I mean hell, in this day and age many of the teachers kindly offer sex to their students, (there's my sick but true humor again). Thank God I was homeschooled but according to Freud, I'm not safe there either. Sex seemingly stalks everyone; leaving no man unpunished. Eunuchs have my praise and condolences. "Freud was a great thinker" I agree, he was a groovy pervert. His theory about four year olds going through an "anal stage" is pretty gross but hey, who am I to judge. I don't claim to have a photographic memory but I don't remember being fond of my butt when I was a lad. I liked cereal and still do; I wonder if that has anything to do with it? "I will agree that some of his theories are a bit over sexed" Well, would you consider a theory stating that all problems derive from sex to be "a bit over sexed?" "but think of it this way: many people still say that men tink about sex continually... which is true ..." Why do people always pick on dudes? It's not our fault we dig the ladies, lol. I've always thought of that statement as more of a joke than a fact. Personally I think about filming more than lovin'. Sex is a distraction that is easily overcome by a 16mm camera. Don't get me wrong, there's a time for gettin' your groove on... but all the time? Please... Freud didn't give dudes enough credit. Just because he thought about sexiness all the time doesn't mean we all do. "Maybe not the fact that they want to sleep with their mothers, but the fact that they still need the intamacy with another partener..." The thought of doing it with one's mother makes me ill. I had never even heard of anything like that until I started studying our friend, the good doctor. Good thing I wasn't a kid when I read that, would've scarred me for life. I would say yes there is a need for intimacy but that kind of "intimacy" is totally unhealthy and warped. I think Freud had a backwards view of intimacy. Sex is an act; anybody can do it. Intimacy is a state of being. Love isn't hopping in the sack with someone; it's something higher than that. That's all I have to blather about. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I lied, I'm not done yet. You said you're tired of people dogging on Freud without a valid point. Well, here's my supposedly valid point. This is a section of his Stages theory: [The stages As I said earlier, for Freud, the sex drive is the most important motivating force. In fact, Freud felt it was the primary motivating force not only for adults but for children and even infants. When he introduced his ideas about infantile sexuality to the Viennese public of his day, they were hardly prepared to talk about sexuality in adults, much less in infants! It is true that the capacity for orgasm is there neurologically from birth. But Freud was not just talking about orgasm. Sexuality meant not only intercourse, but all pleasurable sensation from the skin. It is clear even to the most prudish among us that babies, children, and, of course, adults, enjoy tactile experiences such as caresses, kisses, and so on. Freud noted that, at different times in our lives, different parts of our skin give us greatest pleasure. Later theorists would call these areas erogenous zones. It appeared to Freud that the infant found its greatest pleasure in sucking, especially at the breast. In fact, babies have a penchant for bringing nearly everything in their environment into contact with their mouths. A bit later in life, the child focuses on the anal pleasures of holding it in and letting go. By three or four, the child may have discovered the pleasure of touching or rubbing against his or her genitalia. Only later, in our sexual maturity, do we find our greatest pleasure in sexual intercourse. In these observations, Freud had the makings of a psychosexual stage theory. The oral stage lasts from birth to about 18 months. The focus of pleasure is, of course, the mouth. Sucking and biting are favorite activities. The anal stage lasts from about 18 months to three or four years old. The focus of pleasure is the anus. Holding it in and letting it go are greatly enjoyed. The phallic stage lasts from three or four to five, six, or seven years old. The focus of pleasure is the genitalia. Masturbation is common. The latent stage lasts from five, six, or seven to puberty, that is, somewhere around 12 years old. During this stage, Freud believed that the sexual impulse was suppressed in the service of learning. I must note that, while most children seem to be fairly calm, sexually, during their grammar school years, perhaps up to a quarter of them are quite busy masturbating and playing "doctor." In Freud's repressive era, these children were, at least, quieter than their modern counterparts. The genital stage begins at puberty, and represents the resurgence of the sex drive in adolescence, and the more specific focusing of pleasure in sexual intercourse. Freud felt that masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality, and many other things we find acceptable in adulthood today, were immature. This is a true stage theory, meaning that Freudians believe that we all go through these stages, in this order, and pretty close to these ages.] Stage one is stupidly obvious. Babies like to suck things, wow, what a genius. But my question is where did he come up with the other stages? How would he know what excites a little kid (past the baby/mouth stage)? How on earth would he know? Unless he gathered a bunch of kids and ran illegal and perverted tests, I don't know how he could claim that to be true. Does he claim these to be true because he remembers what excited him at 18 months and four years old and so on? His memory was that good? I'm not convinced of his sex-based theories. His theories on the conscious and subconscious are genius and many other theories as well. But many I do not agree with. ____________________________________ I give this thread a day before it's ousted by administration for obvious reasons, lol. Anybody else think the rating for the Discussion forums should be changed? Damn, I'm off the subject again... A.D.D., can't live with it, can't live without a rubix cube. hehe Ok now I'm done. Refute away. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Nothing now. He's dead. He did have a pretty serious cocaine problem though.  And as I stated elsewhere, it is interesting (to me) that he parted ways with Jung over the metaphysical and collective unconcious, and now he's become an archetype--symbolizing wisdom and guidance to the analysand. Yes--I repeat myself. Yes--I repeat myself. Yes--  |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Edster -- I see you've been at the Wiki again, you diligent scoundrel, you! I was just about to explain the whole thing (except the Jung part, of course since I promised not to do that) but if the thread is going to be pulled, well, the heck with it. Here's a seriously disgusting thought for today: I still love my mother, and she's dead. Your pal, Snarky. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I've got a new definition: Wikispert: noun (Wi'-kee-spurt') 1) Any sudden spout of textual information coming from a person who thinks that a few minutes on the informal "Wikipedia" site makes him an expert 2) Any person who bursts forth with such an expression  Ed, I just couldn't resist. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*wince* Oh Stephen. *laughing* You know how visual I am, too.   |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Stephanos! I love it! The Wiki seems to be the Cliff's Notes of the electronic age, and your NEW word is absolutely perfect. I won't even ask if it came to you logically, or just sort of popped up... Serenity: The Thomas Mann quote in your profile fits perfectly in this thread. I hope you will consider posting it. Best, Jim |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Steph, that's a pretty hoity-toity reply. I suppose I could say the same about you. But I'd never do that, haha. Well, ignoring the statement that attempts to make me out as an idiot, I didn't get my info from Wiki. I rarely use it. It's too inaccurate; too many of your historical revisionists play on there. It's like a negationism jungle gym, I tell ya.Here's a few sites where I got my info from. The quote in my second post can be found here: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freud.html I also perused these sites to brush up on my facts. Because yes Steph, I have studied Freudy Baby in school. Believe it or not, I did acquire an education past preschool. I know it's crazy! I'll never be as smart as you scholars but I'm proud that I can add. Or no, wait a minute. I can't add; Jim tells me that 2 + 2 = 10, I thought it was 4. Man, I can't even add, damn it. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/freud.htm http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/Kardas/Courses/GPWeiten/C12Personality/EgoIDSuper.html[/ URL] [URL=http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud2.htm]http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud2.htm Jimbo, maybe we can thumb through symbols of transformation later. I'll be Jung, you can be Freud and I can tell you what a headstrong genius you are. Cheers boys |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
For Jim: An art whose medium is language will always show a high degree of critical creativeness, for speech itself is a critique of life: it names, it characterizes, it passes judgement,in that it creates." --Thomas Mann " And um, YOU could have posted it too yanno. (I'm just frowning because I had to go hit "reply" on one of my own threads) I have a rotten memory, and I didn't wanna be a wikispirt!  (Honestly I really did forget it was there...sheesh) |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Serenity: Thank you for putting up the quote. I wasn't sure about the etiquette of putting it up myself, and I'm nothing if not a gentleman Edele, re: "I'll be Jung, you can be Freud and I can tell you what a headstrong genius you are." I don't know about the headstrong part... can't we just skip to genius? Any and all: Anyone interested in commenting on the underlying fallacies in the Kitheras original question, or is this thread getting too bizarre? Best, Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ed: quote: Can I now say, rarely, what you say quite frequently? Don't take me seriously. (this time) Stephen |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Lol, Steph, my reply wasn't exactly serious either. I'm going to attempt to go to bed now, just to get away from you circus animals. Edweird Grime |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
AAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please, anything but Jung!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way Ed, I do know about Freuds stages of psychosexual development (I thik I studied them for about 4 years ^_^) and I don't agree. Yes, Freud is sexual, yes sometimes he's sick (okay, he is there... happy???) and he was a cocaine addict... so? And please, don't tell me that it's not emperical... that arguement lost credibility long ago. I mean, the only way that we can discover cognitive thought processing was to crfeate new technology, so what is to say that technology won't be able to prove Freuds theories right. Ocean you should have done this in first year... I think, can't remember... but the very notion of cognitive thopught processing about 60 years ago was considered crazy... So there :P "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Wow, I never knew that something like this could get under my skin so much. (Think I should go for therapy?) But still, the comments made about Freud are just unfair. He has all the credibility in the world, and that's not just becuase I like him. Sure wanting to sleep with his mother is (notice not was) disturbing, but people relate to the expierience of your mother... ever heard of the saying that you get married to your mother (someone who is son like your mother... can't remember how i goes now). These are all true insights, no matter if you won't admit them. I'll tell you, yes I never wanted to sleep with my mother, but if we were to use abuse as an example you will see the value of Freuds theories. Case study A: A man by the name of E (Hmmm, Ed... nah,lets make it Emo Guy)was abused when he was about 14 months old (still in the oral stage if you will). Later in life, during his sexual relationships, he was very flash-in-a-panny (is that a word???) and often just when he was getting intamite he would break off the relationship and find a new one. he is freuds take on things: Since, during the oral stage of development you are learning to enjoy things by sucking on them. However, the realtionship built between the enjoyment and the sucking is a destructive one, as the child relates enjoyment to destruction. Now, since E (Emo Guy, not Ed) was abused, the relationship takes a turn for the worst. E now starts to relate anything that he enjoys to destruction, and harm... TA DA. Love Me P.s : This is the simplified version, cause i wanted all to understand. P.p.s : Yes I'll give in to the fact that psychoanalysis isn't as rock-hard as the other theories, but without it do you think that the thoeires of the unconcious could have developed? P.s.s : I love these things "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Kith! I love you too! I put up the first response to your question to start a conversation, which it did, and I think it's ranged from the funny to the serious, which is good.Three things: First, there was a lot of stuff that I learned in first year that I had to unlearn about the 30th. Learning goes on forever. Two: Can you see the underlying assumptions you make in the statement below,and how they might be skewing your position? "but everyone must remember that he staying in the Victorian Era, and thus many of the men did feel such feelings and so that analogy had real meaning then." Three, I hope you are not making the assumption that I am an analyst. Actually, I majored in Jesuitical casuistry and minored in self flagellation. (joke.) Best, Jim |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"Hmmm, Ed... nah,lets make it Emo Guy" hehe, well, you sound like a psychology student. Thanks for working me into your story, I enjoyed it. So is that why I like/need to suck earlobes? Lol, emo guy... too funny. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Teehee... ... ... .... .... ... "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Gee Guys, What's this about Freud? I'm sort of fond of the guy, though I'm more of a Jungian at heart. Freud died in 1939 and the theories you're talking about so angrily were mostly proposed around 1900. In physics, that's pre-Einstein (1905). Anybody running around talking about that idiot von Helmholz? (not an idiot, by the way) Physics has marched on and—believe it or not—so has psychoanalysis. Even some of Freud's more whacky sounding concepts will make some sense, if you think about them. Penis envy? Well, most women would laugh you out of town at the very thought, but ask them this way: Do you envy the almost automatic assumption on the part of men of the right of male power and domination? I'd bet the answer you'd get there would be very different. The fact that Freud hung this set of feelings on an anatomical structure is actually helpful (only) in using it for interpretation; it brings everyone's rage right to the foreground. I also think it distorts the message somewhat, as generations of women have furiously asserted. As for the Oedipus Complex, I think what I've seen of the discussion so far doesn't reflect Freud's discussion of it. All the previous discussion says that the very thought seems to make you ill, implying that you think Freud thinks differently. If you remember the play Freud bases his theory on (Oedipus Rex), Oedipus is so disgusted with himself that he rips his own eyes out. First, the self loathing you all talk about is there; and second, the not seeing, the blindness, the unawareness of the event is a necessary part of the action. Once you have any conscious awareness of these feelings, they are so revolting they must be plucked from your mind or madness will result. You don't have to be Victorian to feel queasy. Even today, the emotional impact of Freudian material is not for the fainthearted. The more modern Freudian material has to do with what's called Object Relations. That's Object as in philosophical or grammatical Object ; Subject and Object, as opposed to the frequently confused object meaning "a thing." It's about how people relate to other people and to the images of people they carry around in their heads. It also has to do with healthy and unhealthy narcissism. It's built on the foundation of the original Freudian theory. And there is some actual research on psychoanalysis, folks. Sorry to rock the boat on that. Looking forward to hearing from you, BobK |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
