Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Sartre versus Freud

Expand Messages
  • Meghan
    Brandon wrote:
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 4, 1999
      Brandon wrote:

      <<I think basic sexual drives, or instinctual drives not sexual desires is
      what Freud is talking about. I think Freud would argue that the term
      sexual is used to strictly. His term sexual (pleasures) is more general.>>

      I fail to see a significant difference. Either way, he's arguing that
      infancy can have a significant pyschological effect on later life. This is
      absurd, as we all know, because babies can't form permanent memories, etc.

      Of course, there's no such thing as "human instinct" anyway.

      <<Of coarse babies can't understand sexual desires. Their cognitive
      faculty isn't developed enough. But this is besides the point.>>

      I think that's central to the point. Man, if you think people
      anthropomorphize their pets ... it's exponentially worse with people and
      their babies. I wholeheartedly believe that babies aren't people. They're
      potential people. :-)

      <<I could be wrong but I think we just tend to misinterpret Freud.>>

      I don't really bother with interpretation. I just go straight to the
      demolition.

      Since many of his theories are based on incorrect premises, I think any
      reasonable person would dismiss his work as fundamentally flawed. Sure,
      it's entertaining, but as a diagnostic paradigm or legitimate science it
      fails miserably.


      -Meghan


      _____________________

      http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html

      "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself."

      -- Rita Mae Brown
    • Brandon Roshto
      So do you disegard all theories as being potentially flawed. They are all speculative. I think Freud s theory, regardless of if its valid or not, it gives us,
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 5, 1999
        So do you disegard all theories as being potentially flawed.
        They are all speculative. I think Freud's theory, regardless of if its
        valid or not, it gives us, or some people, a possible explaination of why
        things are the way they are. It seems to me that he makes some valid
        interpretations. Interpretations that have been backed up with facts.

        Scientific Validation of Freudian Concepts
        -Some Freud concepts: the id, ego, superego, death wish, libido,
        and anxiety could not be tested by the experimental method.
        -However unconscious forces can influence our conscious thought
        and behavior. See research on subliminal perception for example.
        -Repression experimental studies have provided supportive results
        (Glucksberg & King, 1967; Holmes & McCaul, 1989; Davis 1987)
        -Dream research confirms his idea that dreams are disquised or
        symbolic and that they effect our emotional concerns. However, no
        research confirms his ideas about dreams representing a fulfillment of
        wishes or desires.
        -Oral and Anal Personality types; Agression; the Freudian slip,
        repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse all have research confirming
        their validity.

        I respect the fact that you don't agree with Freud in many instances.
        This is probably pragmatic in your case, however, whether you agree with
        him or not, he offers an explaination to many problems with personality
        and you can deny its validity. This doesn't change the facts,
        experiments, and research done on Freudian concepts. I prefer other
        theories myself, but this also is beside the point and doesn't give me a
        license to accuse Freud as not offering some valid explainations to
        personality!

        Babies aren't people they're only potential people? I don't think I
        understand. You might have to unpack this a little more. If this is
        the case I could argue that people aren't people they're just potential
        people striving to the ideal of people. In other words we have potential
        to be people but we have not actualized this potential yet. I have the
        potential to be like Mike, so what. There's a big difference, he has
        actualized his potential.
        Some might argue that if babies aren't people, kill 'em. Maybe this is
        the rationalization behind abortion.

        Just rambling I guess sorry
        Brandon
      • Meghan
        Brandon wrote: No, I dismiss them as flawed. Period. They don t serve any viable purpose in
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 6, 1999
          Brandon wrote:

          <<So do you disegard all theories as being potentially flawed.>>

          No, I dismiss them as flawed. Period. They don't serve any viable purpose
          in advancing mental health; pyschotherapy is probably the least effective
          method of therapy available, plus it takes forever and costs an arm and a
          leg ... to cure something a cognitive-behavioral therapist could deal with
          with more expediency and at a considerably lower cost. As Cynthia Heimel
          says, strict Freudian therapists tend to have lovely summer houses. :-)

          <<Some Freud concepts: the id, ego, superego, death wish, libido, and
          anxiety could not be tested by the experimental method.>>

          It's just his fairy-tale of the compartments of the mind.

          <<However unconscious forces can influence our conscious thought and
          behavior. See research on subliminal perception for example.>>

          I have. Most reports of subliminal perception have been widely
          exaggerated. Ever hear of the famous experiment where they flashed brief
          images of popcorn and soda during a drive-in movie, and concession sales
          increased dramatically? It never even happened. [See http://www.snopes.com]

          I certainly hope the research you mention doesn't include that of Wilson
          Key, who pretty much singlehandedly popularized the myth of subliminal
          advertising. Note that Key also believes there are subliminal messages on
          Ritz crackers, the Sistene Chapel, and Sears catalogues. Gee, he sure
          seems credible!

          I'm willing to concede that subliminal perception can exist --- although
          I'm less willing to agree that it can have an inherently motivating effect,
          as even subliminal persuasion expert Howard Shevrin was unable to provide
          any evidence of causality in regard to subliminal messages [see the Judas
          Priest subliminal messages trial]. However, I think Freud extends it to
          the degree that it loses its validity.

          <<Repression experimental studies have provided supportive results
          (Glucksberg & King, 1967; Holmes & McCaul, 1989; Davis 1987)>>

          See my explication below.

          <<Dream research confirms his idea that dreams are disquised or symbolic
          and that they effect our emotional concerns. However, no research confirms
          his ideas about dreams representing a fulfillment of wishes or desires.>>

          I concede that dreams are caused by thoughts and perceptions either having
          been experienced during the day (a friend always dreams about people from
          our philosophy class) or while asleep (dreaming of a siren while your alarm
          is going off). And anything can effect emotional concerns. The latter
          idea, about fulfillment, seems more central to Freud's paradigm on the
          whole and is the part which is unverified.

          <<Oral and Anal Personality types>>

          Personality certainly has more influencing characteristics than just one; I
          shudder to think of the person whose identity was entirely created by when
          their mother stopped breastfeeding.

          <<the Freudian slip,>>

          So what evidence is there that shows that misspeaking is necessarily
          indicative of one's unconscious thoughts and not just an accident?
          Everything with Freud is so deliberate.

          <<repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse all have research confirming
          their validity.>>

          This I take issue with, and I cite Dr. Bob Conkright as well as my own
          knowledge (I have a social work background). There aren't repressed
          memories --- there are *forgotten* memories. Note that "false memory
          syndrome" has a hell of a lot more support than so-called "repressed
          memories." It's staggering to see how easily a false memory can be
          created. My psych professor did so with a class in about fifteen seconds.

          One dangerous application of the so-called repressed memory syndrome is the
          myth of Satanic Ritual Abuse. No evidence of such has *ever* been provided
          --- yet thousands of people visit scurrilous "therapists" who dredge up
          "repressed memories" and claim to have been abused at the hands of
          insidious cults. Satanists sure must be busy these days.

          I can provide many citations upon request. I delved into this issue for
          while debunking the existence of Satanic Ritual Abuse, so I've got a pretty
          good-sized arsenal to support me. But when you really think about it, the
          idea of repressed memories makes no sense from a self-preservation
          standpoint. Say a caveman has a traumatic run-in with a mastodon. Does it
          serve him better to a) repress the memory, or b) remember the experience
          and learn from it?

          <<I prefer other theories myself, but this also is beside the point and
          doesn't give me a license to accuse Freud as not offering some valid
          explainations to personality!>>

          I don't see Freud as invalid because I feel other methods are better. He's
          invalid even if there are *no* alternative methods. If I say the sky is
          green and nobody else comes forth to offer an alternative, it doesn't mean
          the sky is green.

          His assumptions are based on flawed premises, and most were derived from a
          fairly narrow sampling. I won't even get into the issue of baiting
          patients --- I think Freud saw in them what he wanted to see to prove
          himself right. Confirmation bias!

          <<Babies aren't people they're only potential people? I don't think I
          understand. You might have to unpack this a little more.>>

          I was kidding, actually. I'm not fond of children, the little savages. :-)

          <<If this is the case I could argue that people aren't people they're just
          potential people striving to the ideal of people. In other words we have
          potential to be people but we have not actualized this potential yet.>>

          Yeah, you and Plato could argue that. Of course, one of the central issues
          of modern metaphysics involves defining precisely what a person is.
          Descartes, Berkeley, Spinoza, and Leibniz all have different
          conceptualizations and criteria.

          <<Some might argue that if babies aren't people, kill 'em.>>

          That's a pathetic argument --- puppies aren't people, so should we kill
          them? Ferns aren't people, should we kill them? I certainly hope that
          non-human life has value.

          <<Maybe this is the rationalization behind abortion.>>

          Should anyone wish to discuss "rationalizations" for abortion they can
          contact me off-list, as a public discussion would invariably become
          distended. I will say that I'm a pro-choice activist and know a great deal
          about the subject as a political issue, a medical issue, and as a
          philosophical/axiological issue. Rationalization has very little to do
          with it.


          -Meghan


          _____________________

          http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html

          "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself."

          -- Rita Mae Brown
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.