Philosophy Discussion Forums

Freud's writings over 50 years corrected themselves and changed systematically from a clinical/scientific approach in relation to the analysis of patients with mental illness to a more philosophical approach to the individual, society and culture. I use the word "systematically" to demarcate the fact that in the move from his earlier approach to his later theorising there is no contradiction. Indeed although Freud systematically moves toward a Platonic view of the psyche I would argue that Freud's theories are more Aristotelian, i.e. in many of his comments such as the ego contains the idea of the body, the ego is composed of precipitate of lost objects, there is a hylomorphic foundation working. Now I am not sure that Freud was familiar with the works of Aristotle but we do know that he was a vociferous reader and that he was very familiar with the works of Kant and even claimed on one occasion in his later works that his Psychology would be the Psychology that Kant would have written had he interested himself in the area. We know Kant wrote a work entitled Anthropology and this work had clear Aristotelian affiliations.

Now we also know that Freud did not have much time for the philosophers of his day who were much influenced by the concept of consciousness that had been developing since Descartes "epistemological revolution" in Philosophy. Some commentators superficially believe his opposition was grounded simply in Freud's "re-discovery" of the realm of the unconscious mind but I believe his opposition ran deeper. That is, I believe that in spite of his claim to be a "scientist" we see in his later work, if I am right, that the metaphysical hylomorphism of Aristotle was steering his choice of concepts and his famous three principles of psychology: the energy regulation principle, the pleasure/pain principle and the reality principle. From a Kantian point of view he was working in the area of the mind Kant thought of as sensibility, in the area of self -love, but Freud's theories have a grasp of the function of understanding and reason which is also, I would argue, Kantian. His reasoning, of course, falls into the arena of practical rather than theoretical reasoning much of the time but we should really pay attention to the Freudian mechanisms which are psychologically causal, e.g. repression, identification, sublimation, projection, all of which fit very neatly into the very practical idea he has of the reality principle. His idea of "object" is clearly Aristotelian, rather than scientific in the narrow sense, and not just backwards looking to the causes of physical events but teleological, forward looking to the end which an action is striving toward. Now there are speculations in some of his later works such as Civilisation and its Discontents which seem unscientific because unverifiable, e.g. the band of brothers thesis. He sketches a Hobbesian scenario of a state f nature in which all are at war against all and even the band of brothers kill the tyrannical father but regret their action and establish a rule of law and perhaps the dawn of self-consciousness, to move civilisation forward.Now these are his "scientific speculations": looking backward for the causes of phenomena and perhaps he does so without sufficient care for marshalling the totality of facts. I am not saying that this is necessarily so, because even today I do not believe we are anywhere near accumulating the necessary facts which would allow us to pontificate one way or the other but I do think that those commentators that fixate on the Oedipus complex and see this scenario as the blueprint of his speculations in this domain are reading Freud too narrowly.

Freud bashing in the name of science has become a professional activity for some academics and a hobby for many others who have views of science that in the urge to purge our thought of all things metaphysical and ethical would in Freudian, Kantian and Aristotelian terms be regarded as "epistemological" in a pejorative sense. The sense that has dogged Philosophy through all the modern "isms: postivism, naturalism, materialism, pragmatism, behaviourism, utilitarianism.

Didn't Karl Popper do everyone a great service in explaining why psychoanalysis was not a science because it could never be disproven? Anything that happens, could always be "explained" after the fact by psychoanalysis, yet, the theory sucks at making accurate predictions. Sort of like conspiracy theorists who can always "explain" something after it happens but can never make any non-common-sense predictions before hand.

The child seduction theory was disproven to Freuds satisfaction and abandoned. The topographical model was deemed to only cover the ailments of ca 50% of his patients and was complemented with the structural model(disproven not in terms of special applicability but in terms of universal applicability)). This model could only explain ca 70 % of his patient's ailments. The sexual instinct also was deemed to be insufficient to explain obsessive compulsive patients ailments and was complimented by the death instinct and aggressive processes. It seems to me that this meets Popper's own falsification theory and the schema p1---ts--ee-p2. Not that I am a fan of this watered down positivism which disappeared from the philosophical scene in Europe after ca 30 years because of its inability to speak coherently about ethics, aesthetics, politics, psychology etc . The Nobel prize winning brain researchers Edelman and Candell to different degrees use Freudian theory to make predictions that are reliable for their research. I believe the story Wittgenstein's poker well illustrates the general frustration of the academic philosophical community with Poppers theories.

Mrdj1833 wrote:Now these are his "scientific speculations": looking backward for the causes of phenomena and perhaps he does so without sufficient care for marshalling the totality of facts. I am not saying that this is necessarily so, because even today I do not believe we are anywhere near accumulating the necessary facts which would allow us to pontificate one way or the other but I do think that those commentators that fixate on the Oedipus complex and see this scenario as the blueprint of his speculations in this domain are reading Freud too narrowly.

There, Mr. DJ, I see that you have summarized the validity of the basis of the major criticism of Freud's theory or theories.

You say that we are anywhere near to having enough info or data to pontificate either pro or con.

But in science you can only pontificate con if a proposition has been made.

You say Freud has made no proposition, since the data is missing.

This means that the ONLY valid criticism of Freud's teachings is to say that it is not sufficiently supported.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT the scientific community claims about Freud's theories.

-------------

So in effect you defended Freud as a genius, but only on emotional terms; your proof involves a complete capitulation to the critics, as per above.

The words "scientific speculations" stood in quotation marks for the reason of making a distinction between the hundreds of true propositions about human nature and action Freud has claimed to be true and the speculations about the band of brothers. Read my post again and I think you will see that what I am saying is true. The ONLY thing. according to you, the scientific community is in agreement with, if what I have said is true, is that Freud's "scientific speculations" are not sufficiently supported. But the whole point of my post was to evaluate the "philosophical speculations" about human nature that Freud is founding upon Aristotelian and Kantian grounds. I think you have missed the point of the post.

Mrdj1833 wrote:The words "scientific speculations" stood in quotation marks for the reason of making a distinction between the hundreds of true propositions about human nature and action Freud has claimed to be true and the speculations about the band of brothers. Read my post again and I think you will see that what I am saying is true. The ONLY thing. according to you, the scientific community is in agreement with, if what I have said is true, is that Freud's "scientific speculations" are not sufficiently supported. But the whole point of my post was to evaluate the "philosophical speculations" about human nature that Freud is founding upon Aristotelian and Kantian grounds. I think you have missed the point of the post.

"Scientific speculation" means "making a distinction between the hundreds of true propositions about human nature and action Freud has claimed to be true and the speculations about the band of brothers".

I shudder to think what "philosophical speculations" means.

Yes, I missed the point of your post, because you put down two words in quotes and expected the reader to see in that expression something only you could have seen, as expressed in so many other words, in much larger complexity that a simple adjective+noun coupling actually ever could express.

I repeat (not to you, but a repetition I'd made to other posters): Please write what you mean. If your wording does not reflect your meaning, then please don't expect anyone to psyche out your intended meaning. This is actually in the rules of this forum.

I suggested you read the post one more time in order for you to see that there was a clear distinction between these two aspects of Freuds works. Let me refresh your memory:

"Now there are speculations in some of his later works such as Civilisation and its Discontents which seem unscientific because unverifiable, e.g. the band of brothers thesis. He sketches a Hobbesian scenario of a state f nature in which all are at war against all and even the band of brothers kill the tyrannical father but regret their action and establish a rule of law and perhaps the dawn of self-consciousness, to move civilisation forward.Now these are his "scientific speculations""

The above quote came immediately after a discussion of Freudian mechanisms that are not speculative but are claiming real existence. Not only did I use the word "speculation to mark the transition in the argument I also put the words "scientific speculations" in quotation marks. So I did write clearly what I mean and I really think I have a right to expect readers to understand my meaning without the need to possess any curious psychic powers. May I also say that under these circumstances to accuse a new member of not following the rules of this forum can only mean one of two things: either this forum has very curious rules which disregard certain very basic academic conventions of writing or you are being rude. If the latter is the case then it is clear to me that this forum allows such rudeness and I will do exactly what you want me to do, namely reconsider contributing any further posts.

I had read all that you are reiterating. I read your initial post. Your writing it seems does not reflect your meaning. Or else your meaning is either superior or else incongruous with my comprehension.

I think my initial analysis and criticism was right. Now that you point out that my understanding of your text was most likely faulty, and I need to do a re-read, I throw my hands in the air.

Obviously you are not writing for an audience with my mindset and learning style. No problem, no hard feelings. I'll just go on to another topic which speaks to me.

The majority of my 17 and 18year old pupils can well understand the distinction between a truth claim and a speculation. That you cannot and are forcing me in the name of the rules of this forum to educate you in a very basic academic distinction suggests to me that the academic standards of this forum are far too low and I am just wasting my time participating.

With all due respect, your pupils are vying for marks, so they will put anything in their papers that you ask them to regurgitate.

Here the teachers lose their otherwise automatic privilege of being unquestionably right, and on this forum the only way to merit understanding is clear presentation of ideas.

You are not the first teacher who is baffled by the stupendous incredulity his or her words generate in response from the audience on this forum.

If you want to be happy here, you don't have to come down to our level. But you have to force yourself to be clearer in your compositions. You can't assume prior knowledge of technical terms, and you can't assume that just by simply putting expressions in quotation marks will generate the same meaning for others as you have intended. In other words, if you don't spell out in clear and unambiguous ways your messages, you will get more and more flak and you will be more and more exasperated. If, on the other hand, you speak in your writing as if to humans, in proper, clear, unassuming humanese, then you may find yourself engaged in healthy debates.

Let me with my Parthian shot in this forum just point out that you have no idea what kind of teaching goes on in my classroom never mind all classrooms. You are speculating without evidence. Neither do you know in particular what kind of answer my students write in their exams(which are marked by external examiners). Again you are speculating without evidence.Nowhere have I insisted that anything is categorically true. Read the post again if you do not believe me. I very clearly see that my ideas are not clear to you but I am wondering whether you are speculating again when talking for everyone on this forum. I am going to assume you are and that this is not the place for my posts.

Your very first sentence in the opening post claims that Freud did use a scientific approach. This is false. He never did, as Popper pointed out long ago in addressing the demarcation problem --- the distinction between science and non-science.

I am thinking here that you are speculating about my ability to comprehend, analyze, synthesize, and generally do things with an IQ. You said, "The majority of my 17 and 18year old pupils can well understand the distinction between a truth claim and a speculation. That you cannot" etc.

This is what you have come up with. Why are you so surprised that you are charged with not making sense? Your only response when asked for further clarification is doubting the intelligence of your audience, and voicing it so. Nary a practicable or commendable philosophy for an educator.

All you are doing is insisting that you make sense, and I am just simply saying, you are not.

You can't get over the shock of this. THAT is not my problem. If you don't want to admit that you can and must improve, because your composition is incomprehensible, then it's an ego thing, and like I said, a proper educator will not call his pupils stupid, but will try to explain things so they understand.

Then you say I have no idea what kind of teaching goes on in your classroom. You set the tests, don't you? you give the TAs guidance as to how to mark the tests, no? If my assumptions as here are true, then you may as well be marking the tests.

You have no idea of my background, of my proximity to a teaching environment on several levels of education, but you are quick to pontificate, make an estimate about my IQ, and call me ignorant as to how instruction and evaluation happens in the current teaching environment.

You are not very kind.

But if you don't see what the dickens I am trying to say, then please consider this:

Forum user A makes a proposition.
Forum users A2, A3, ... An join the debate or discussion.
There are many instances of this in these forums.

Forum user B makes a proposition.
Nobody joins the debate.
There are many instances of these as well.

You will notice that the propositions that nobody else has an opinion on except the original poster, are usually nonsensical.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and did not declare your post nonsensical, I said instead that I don't get it. You said your 18 and 19 year old students get it.

I am not the only one who does not get your proposition, many others also don't. If they did, they would say something about it. Pro or con, but something. We only leave propositions alone if they patently make no sense to us.

This I wish you will consider.

--------------------------

I noticed that someone else has put in a remark. I can't read their posts. So he or she may have blown my charge here, I don't know. I'll never know.

The difference between a truth claim and speculation? That makes no sense. A statement is either true or false, and makes a truth claim. So, the statement that today is July 28, 1776, is a statement that has a truth value, which is false. Since a truth claim may be false, why are you contrasting truth claims with "speculation"? One may speculate while making a truth claim. Newton's law of gravity makes a truth claim, and is false. Did Newton "speculate" in making his truth claim? Not at all. He drew some inferences, and made some thoughtful insights into what was going on, he just didn't have all of the facts yet. On the other hand, one could speculate what the winning lottery numbers are and turn out to be right. So, you are not making sense by contrasting truth claims with speculation as they are not concepts that are at odds with each other. A logician, mathematician, or philosopher would know this. So, what do you teach?

Can the subconscious mind be explained in terms of Science. Yes I think it can as nonlocality or the non changing constant in a changing system by which all scentinant life gets its consciousness or observation. So local observation is a constant by virtue of its Connection to the nonlocality of the subconscious mind.