Post by Mike Scott RohanPost by REPI didn't get the impression that Mike was dismissing psychoanalytic theory
out of hand. It sounds to me as though he has a firm grip on the subject.
Firm enough to have an opinion, anyways. And Mike certainly isn't known for
being under-informed around here. Far from it.
Which translates as "knowall", perhaps truthfully; but thank you for those
kind words. I do know enough about the subject to know how little I know, if
that makes sense, but also how little a lot of other people know -- and how
readily Freud has been seized on by amateurs to suit their own purposes, often
highly tendentious; the 50s and 60s were particularly rife with that. My
scepticism is founded partly on how easily Freud's doctrines lend themselves
to distorted interpretations, much as Marx's also do, and partly on his drive
for self-advertisement and self-aggrandisement, which is worthy of a snake-oil
seller. Chiefly, though, it comes from the exposure of his purported case
record, which I read about a while back, and should be better known. I'm too
busy comparing some very pleasant Atterberg symphonies to chase this up in
"Historian of science Dr. Frank J. Sulloway contends "Freud's case histories
are rampant with censorship, distortions, highly dubious 'reconstructions,'
and exaggerated claims."
But you're right to say that I'm not attacking psychoanalysis as a whole --
quite the contrary. It's contributed a great deal, considered as a wide
discipline; even Freud contributed a few concepts, although they were often
already inherent among his Viennese colleagues. But today it's chiefly valid
the more closely it relates to the medical sciences, and not dogmatic
pronouncements formulated on little or no evidence. You cannot help
schizophrenia by talking about it, any more than a broken leg.
Post by REPAs for discussing Freud, I, for one, have no objection. Freud was an
important figure in German history -- perhaps, chronologically, the most
important after Wagner -- and even a major influence on opera and aesthetics.
I even suspect that one can find Regietheater's roots partly in Freud, whose
penchant for finding meaning beneath the surface, like Regietheater, usually
resulted in a lot of sex and perversion.
I think there's a lot of truth in that, and it applies to all the arts --
often as an excuse for childish self-indulgence. One only has to read a novel
by, say, Michel Foucault to see where it's led. Of course Freud isn't the only
influence of that kind; Marx and Sartre have had very similar effects,
attracting mediocre minds eager for a candle to flutter around, hungry for a
system to substitute for creativity. And certainly Wagner himself was also
such a focal point, and not only in music; the influence of the Revue
Wagnerienne was enormous in European intellectual life. Even D.H.Lawrence
wrote a Wagnerian novel, and highly embarrassing it is. So IMHO one can
certainly discuss Freud here, if one must, despite A.C.D.'s uncharacteristic
coyness.
Cheers,
Mike
I second the motion. Let's talk about Freud.
was reviewed in The New Yorker magazine. I don't remember the reviewer's
name, but he summed up his opinion in a phrase that stuck in my mind. The
That would apply to Freud, in my opinion.