To me , freudean phycoanalysis has some value, however does not provide you with the tools to move forward. Plus, analysts think they hold an ultimate truth and cannot, will not give any other interpretations at the expense oftheir patient
It's like saying that the Wright Brothers came with very dangerous and unsafe planes!! Which they absolutely did.......but they created the initial framework that was further worked upon and significantly changed that led to today's highly sophisticated and safe airplanes. This seems to be a personal vendetta against Freud (which is ok) and not so much against today's modern and highly evolved field of psychoanalysis.
It would be equally curiously intriguing to listen to the critique of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity by this Phd Professor in "English Literature."
There are so many therapists in the world. There are even more patients of theirs, who seem to never get well. It is as if this therapy thing were designed to keep those poor clueless patients in bondage. I'd suggest going to the One who made you. He will set you free by giving you a new heart and mind; by giving you the kind of peace that transcends all understanding ❤
Freud abandoned his patients. Women who he realised were likely sexually abused by their male family members...some of whom were his colleagues' families!.. Dilemma. By the time he was about to present his paper on this, he was being pressured not to by the Viennese (not religious) Jewish upper 'circles'. He acknowledged that he'd been sexually abused when he was a toddler....Letters currently still hidden are thought to include his concern that his father abused him as well...At about this time, he rushed off to Italy for a break...He had a writing block and was likely on the brink of deeper awareness of himself. His brother hastened to join him in Italy and there's nothing like a family member in denial to shut down realising of any unhealthy family secrets. He returned to Vienna? withdrew his paper from presentation. He had a colleague with whom he'd been collaborating on his first more truthful observations about his patients, who went ahead to present more brave paper and went on to have a heart attack a week later. It was then that Freud came up with the utter tripe of the Oedipus complex..basically finding babies as you have outlined. Basically Freud and Jung were oriented around fame and Bering clever, with backgrounds in experience of neglect and sexual abuse and the arcane respectively. They fell out because Jung found Freud's scrutinization around sexual matters too cruddy and Jung's occult connections frightened Freud. Their ginormous egos clashed. There was quite a cultish and certainly boys club feel to the 'professions' of both. Freud's nephew? went on in America to design mind manipulation advertising psychology to capitalism and herstory, truth and suffering was dumped for the boys of course puffing self defining themselves. Both freud and jung actively denied the reality of sexual abuse by individuals and groups and left millions across the world who could have had their reality and needs addressed sooner, lived longer and suffering less. I'm not bothering to do an academic treatise, with references and polish as I don't think these guys did much that people already knew.. They were clever and lifted each other as academics and men often do..egos and need for prestige etc being what it is for many who could not access healthy connection enough as children.. Many people have taken their lives as patients of psychiatrists and analysts because they were subject to the dribbling nonsense distracto-diatribe of some of Freud's very theories with no reference to real life harm of children within families. Elite groups who abuse children were likely connected with Freud and likely still are with the Tavistock, London etc. These establishments or rather good and often naive practitioners and academics do good solid work also in these establishment and the confusion adds to the cover up. There is much more to the Freudian slips and slipperiness..than we have yet to realise. Sorry you overlook the reality of repression, children drugged, threatened, and fragmented into parts who may present as forgetful. That's quite a twist, because you seem more interested in Freud's lies, than the pain of survivors and how perpetrators cover that up.
I find it hilarious that Bertrand Russell (an actual aristocrat who benefited his whole life from centuries of privilege) objects to Nietzsche’s aristocratic view of the world.
32:31 Here’s why the analogy doesn’t work. If the suspect says “I’m innocent.” That proclamation is not then taken as EVIDENCE that he is in fact guilty, which is what psychoanalysis does with the concept of “repression”.
the 20th century was such a wounded century so many genocides, so many atrocities and in the realm of psychiatry the most successful pseudoscientific charlatan of all time-Freud A man pulling out ideas from his ass, with no evidence or attempt to validate if his speculations are at least somewhat true Basically, if I said this (Freud) then you have to do what I say Psychoanalysis was also extremely abusive-just remember the whole refrigerator mother hypothesis Yet only few ever stood up Alongside this, throughout the 20th century, intellectuals often cited his ideas and analyzed the world through a Freudian lens-doing this non-sense actually gave them an air of sophistication yet in retrospect Freudian thoughts are just meaningless babble Bizarre actually that this happened but the again it was such a bizarre, wounded century Mankind had a rage inside that was building up and it got expressed on the battlefield, in death camps and in the field of psychiatry in the use of Freudian therapy "i feel depressed- you feel depressed because you want to suck your fathers penis which I detected, if you reject this you are in denial now pay me the big bucks" (Freud actually pulled off this stunt) "my child is autistic-your child is autistic because you never wanted him and he detected thar" (the refrigerator mom hypothesis) A cruel century
Brian Leiter is like Jasper's in the respects that he doesn't recognize that the interpretation is his own and who avowedly repudiates Walter Kaufmann's interpretation insofar as it's stronger.
Who is this idiot? I fell asleep and thought he was a casual aquIntantance who had a pysch degree and thought he knew about psychology. Apologies if I was too hzrsh. Is he renowned? I was unaware. 😞
This entire discussion is a waste of time. Freud and Jung were both conflicted men who were in a power struggle for fame. The reality is that Freudian theory is far more accessible than Jung. Is a cure possible? Yes, yet psychoanalysis MUST be updated. Empathy or attachment theory was not known during Freuds prime days. Much has been discovered that will move psychoanalysis forward. Keep in mind that psychoanalysis is most appropriate for those who have above average intelligence and much curiosity. It requires time, drive, and persistence. The lives of neurotics can be functional yet miserable. Good candidates for psychoanalysis are NOT psychotic or pathological. Psychologists are more relevant for typical mental health problems that cannot be helped by analysis. Fact.😢😮
" Is a cure possible? Yes" why doesn't it cure anything that is a real mental health issue, only imaginary problems? I mean, in a documented way, not the lies they tell?
‘Christian’s have a soft spot for suffering’ - deeply ignorant comment from a so-called eminent philosopher. I enjoyed the talk till that point, really disappointed in such an intellect. I think Simon is a great philosopher and he’s such a knowledgeable guy but he should stick to his areas of specialism. If anything the Christian has a way of saying suffering is objectively wrong that Simon doesn’t - God grounds objective moral values. Simon needs to bite the bullet and accept there are no rights or wrongs on his atheistic world view - everything is permitted.
The description says he wrote many books on Freud, what I am more interested in is what has he read of Freud? And he wrote about Freuds life, but what is his framework for criticism of his theories? That he wrote about his life and he concluded that he was a liar high on cocaine and a pervert, thus he actually has no merit?
he quotes from Freud enough to dispel any suspicions of the kind you're voicing. also, do you realize that it's been established with archival documents, that Freud lied about every single of his supposed cures? Invented whole cases? Beat his daughter and then "analyzed" her sexual fantasies for four years?
They are so hard to spot becuz they mirror people. I dated a covert narcissist sociopath and they can turn into a malignant narcissist. Also known as Narcopaths. I’ve been studying this for 3.5 years. Google my name. Kara Thobe. Boy do I have a story. I didn’t know this and was not told this. And I know the outcome of how this ends. It’s almost like a scary movie. I kid you not.👈🏻
An important point about psychoanalysis: Most ordinary people equate the term “psychoanalysis” with “psychotherapy”; however psychoanalysis is more properly a specific treatment mode/choice in the psychotherapy toolkit. Psychoanalysis is not a treatment for major mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These conditions require treatment by medical doctors.
Yes, Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis are two terms often wrongly used interchangeably within the public. Psychoanalysis should really not be considered as just another variant of psychotherapy. It really has nothing in common with treatments that built on research and evidence-base. PA is more of a mythological, philosophical exercise that can generate a sense of insight into one self, but ultimately is a waste of time, since it lacks the capacity to treat cause and effect of cognitive malfunctioning or mental disorders. Its an esoteric entertainment for people with no genuine problems in life apart from the typical "struggles" of overprivileged, wealthy metropolitan inhabitants.
@esahm373 psychoanalysis is not understood. People therefore make silly comments about it to make themselves look intelligent. It's laughable, almost.
When you listen to this fella it becomes obvious: he is really “con” . It’s always happening after someone opens the door. And then the crowd begins the smear campaign. Look what happened to C. Darwin ,G. Galileo , Paganini , Einstein and many others . Freud’s genius is That he only telling the world that human mind is a specific field that requires a specific tool box . He himself wasn’t sure how to describe it . He merely found the door and understood where it leads. I think just for this he earned a credit !
@@esahm373 yes, it attempts to in a superficial way. In any case, I now see your original point- that it appropriates analytic elements and then calls itself CBT. A case of putting old wine in new (inferior) bottles. Vey common practice, unfortunately.
"We dont know of any of Freuds (patients) that were cured" therefore hes bad and wrong. Mf, aint no one out here CURING MENTAL ILLNESS. there has been zero cures for mental illness in the 21st century. There have been a few pills released that claim to mitigate symptoms, BUT SAYING FREUD WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE DIDNT CURE MENTAL ILLNESS IS DISENGENUOUS
Nonetheless, what come from Freud and colleagues in the form of Pschodynamics, continues to influence basic assumptions about human nature, eg. the power of the Unc. mind, the profound importance of early childhood, and the fact that memory is fundamentally dynamic. May I add, there is, The International Society for Neuro-Psychoanalysis. A group that have integrated two disciplines. To form a bridge between fields. They have validated some Freud.
It's like everyone feels kinda wow.. CASTRATED around Freud. That's why people feel so COMPULSED to distance themselves from him without actually looking at the evidence. Freud is psychology daddy and we're anxious Freud is gonna cut our dangles off. You know, we have to protect our castration anxiety around him by calling him wrong- Regardless of the facts.
Certainly, the writers of the past influence the writers of that come after them. This isn't anything new. You would need to be more specific about what you mean by "validated". Just because their interpretation agrees with itself, it doesn't make them correct in the absolute sense. Epistemology and reasoning courses are all over these sort of shortcomings.
What is more important to me especially at this time is how do you make a psychologist or whatever shit they call this Dogma and non scientific field accountable? How do we make them accountable? For me a psychologist is a modern priest. Just like the priest preaches about God which he has no evidence of. They are just getting paid by manipulating the unconsciousness of people. We should replace all of them by Good meditators who have something to offer to humanity.
Psychology is a very different thing. The book Principles of Neural Science (Kandel, 2019) for instance, is the product Psychology, neurology and biology investigation. On the other hand is this fraud: Freud.
There are some cuts of Freud, from the beggining even, that seems to be biased in favor of the thesis. Freud recognize where he get the ideas. Indeed Freud mentions Albert Moll and Havelock Ellis, for example. He mentions Kraft-Ebing on libido, attraction and repulsion forces on Brücke, Umhemlich from Schelling, Nmemonic Image from Wernicke. The only one that Freud does not mention is Sabina Spilrein on death drive becuase was Jung's wife. The thing with "Practicing Science" is utterly wrong, not just a bit, is blatantly wrong. The scientific tradition in Psychology has three major sources: german style that is the laboratory based founded by Wundt, the english style based on statistics founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton and the french style that was based on psychiatric wards mainly on clinical cases, championed by Martin Charcot. Freud was educated in France in neurology and indeed some of his firsts papers without Breuer were written in french because of this. Indeed what Freud did in his time was a good framework for medicine, because this patients, for example, in United States were taken by religious insititutions like the New Thought and Freud gave to the medical institutions tools to build a frame and take care of patients with no signal of physical illness. The good science on psychology was not invented until Harry Gold developed the double blind studies in the 1950's, twenty years after Freud's death.
Dr. Mark Solms just spent 20 years interpreting Freud's German notes. Solms was written 4 books, one out now, I think. Maybe this can bring psychoanalysis to the forefront again. Solms is a neurscientist and a psychoanalyst.
The incest enacted by Oedipus wasn't intentional, however - at the end of Sophocles' play, after the truth finally comes to light, Jocasta (his mother) hangs herself, while Oedipus, horrified at his patricide and incest, proceeds to gouge out his own eyes in despair. How can this be a natural psychological inclination, when the realisation of what you have done leads to self-annihilation? Freud was subverting a myth - using the 'kudos' of myth as a basis for his essential theory. It makes no sense, psychologically, that human beings should be, from birth, driven by unnatural impulses, when they are themselves part of nature. These impulses can, of course, develop as a result of the individual's response to life as he/she grows up - but they are not 'innate'.
As long as you never discover your unconscious, you will never understand yourself or the world around you. Most likely, agency will not be recognized either. Freud, in spite of his problems, created psychoanalysis. That's all that's important to experience, unless you want to resort to conversion. Jesus feeak, in other words. BTW, Jung can easily be accused of the same issues. Competition was as prominent then as it is today! WW3 is all about Competition.
Incest was likely practiced in early history when tribes did what they felt like doing. Men simply did what felt good to them. No wonder Chrisrianity was developed. Has anyone researched this possibility?😮
Let's look at the Oedipus conflict from a different lens. Everyone's first love experience is with one of our parents, the other parent becoming the secondary object. Ideally, we all love mommy because our tiny life depends on her. Therefore, she is our role model for love. If she is a good mother, we will love ourselves because she loves her baby and this becomes our feeling of our internal picture of ourselves. If the parenting goes as stated, as adults we will connect to someone who emits the same good feelings experienced as babies and early childhood. This is how incest develops; from deeply, ingrained, early, unconscious memories of our first love relationship. Then, as we get older, these early emotions get repressed into our unconscious memories. It's universal. Somehow, this "incest" has been misunderstood. It's only a role model used to perpetuate humanity as a species. Sexuality emerges with puberty. How would anyone know what to do unless feelings and hormones were triggered by our parents and natural instincts. To continue, the above is what happens, ideally, if your mother was capable of loving. (Not all mothers and fathers can love.) Some are not good mothers or not good fathers, yet babies always love unless their mother turns against them in early childhood. This is why relationships get chaotic. Because we repeat whatever our infant and early childhood "love" experience (forgotten memory) was. We will always try to resolve/repair the early caretaker love relationship. Call it incestual or primary love - the fact is - it's reality - whether you choose to accept it or not. I don't have the time to care if Freud was a fake doctor, or not. I don't believe all of Freud's theories, I have many dismissive thoughts of much of his theories. It's a waste of my time to gossip about him. The Oedipus is truth, from my perspective. Think what you prefer, it matters not to me. I will be me, you be you. It's OK to disagree.
Great to see this guy live. He's must be 89 or 90. He's super fit and focused. I can only recommend his book. Was interesting. The interview as well, thanks for doing it :)
This channel is awesome! Make more videos😃, I'll be through with the ones you have uploaded in a few hours. This is so rare seeing people talking who are smart and curious in a down to earth way and with humour - at least to me. Loved the episode about Freud, I've been actually reading his book before. Keep going! Greetings from Luxembourg
So what? He literally discovered narcasism. It wasn't a pathology before he found it. That's like getting upset that the dude who invented the mirror had a goofy haircut in high school.
@@John_Malka-tits Well all I can say is, if you do not realise the significance of Freud being a narcissist you are not half as clever as you think you are.
@user-fk8rb8ue5h you don't realize the irony of calling Freud a narcasist. That's like feeling like a big smart guy for saying "Einstein was made of energy". Really?? He was a narcacist? Where did you get that diagnosis, Herr doctor?
Goethe thought that he was the greatest physicist in Europe (= the world). Of course, Goethe was a mathematical idiot and had no idea what physics is about.
The main problem with psychoanalysis is that it does not permit honest disagreement. It’s adherents impose their beliefs on clients. The main problem is the harm of this.
Any analysis that were to do that would not be a proper analysis. Try experiencing modern analysis before commenting…most opinions people hold about psychoanalysis are based on cases from from 50-100 years ago from people, like this bloke, with zero direct experience
I used to see a psychoanalyst. I saw him until he died. I saw him for more than 10 years. Do I think he was just doing his job for money? No. I think he believed what he said about psychoanalysis. but i wonder how effective psychoanalysis is. I'm not saying it's not effective, I'm just saying I wonder.
Any intimate human interaction has some effect on you due to the interactive process itself regardless of the validity of the therapeutic theory, which in the case of psychoanalysis is complete bs.
I was in psychoanalysis many years. It helped, but it did not cure. Decades later, I devised my personal analysis and cured myself. I want to get new methods into the field of psychoanalysis... They are still using techniques from the 1900s! I could point anyone whose analysis was not resolved. Look back to your childhood. That's where the answers are. Forget free association.. Use your memories! If I were an analyst, i only understood neurosis. Pathology is not useful for psychoanalysis.
I think many who were in analysis were helped but not cured. The years I spent on the couch treated my inability to concentrate. I returned to university and worked until graduation. Decades later, I needed more analysis. Having no money, I focused on the issues that my original analyst could not fix. So, I psychoanalyized myself. Unfortunately, I have nothing but a psychology degree. I could repeat it only for neueotics, who have unfulfilled, unhappy lives.
Wealthy Americans go in for a lot of talk treatments, diets, spiritual workshops blah blah blah inevitably it works for some just as any effort in this direction will - especially since the success is self-reported. Eating carrots & forgiving my 10yr old self for wetting the bed cured my halitosis etc
