Freud, Philosophy, and Science
- Mrdj1833
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 4:57 am
Freud, Philosophy, and Science
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.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
- Mrdj1833
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 4:57 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
There, Mr. DJ, I see that you have summarized the validity of the basis of the major criticism of Freud's theory or 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.
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.
- Mrdj1833
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 4:57 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
"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".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.
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.
- Mrdj1833
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 4:57 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
"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.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
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.
- Mrdj1833
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 4:57 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
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.
- Mrdj1833
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 4:57 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
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.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
- Vodoman
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: August 29th, 2017, 6:25 am
Re: Freud, Philosophy, and Science
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023