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

Re: Sartre versus Freud

Expand Messages
  • Meghan
    Brandon wrote: No, I dismiss them as flawed. Period. They don t serve any viable purpose in
    Message 1 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.




      "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.