[NoStoneUnturned]

A lot of people on this forum are in psychology. So I wanted to ask the question: Do you like/dislikes goodold Sigmund Freud. I have my own opinion, however, I would like to see others first.

[Nemesis]

I think Freud was full of shit, but he was the first to postulate the idea that we have thoughts and motivations that we are not aware of. That idea formed the basis for pretty much all of psychology since. This idea has also been substantiated in so many ways within many other disciplines, so he does deserve credit for that.

From a scientific point of view, his theory on the whole was non-falsifiable and therefore not real science. This legacy still continues within some (albeit few) contemporary theories. That angers many of us still trying to establish psychology as a viable (although "soft") science. Also, as with anybody who has studied psychology, I have been plagued by people's notion that all psychologists are "analyzing" them or think they are messed up in some way. Sometimes it's fun to play along and watch people squirm, but it gets really annoying.

My rant being done, I would like to add that Dr. Phil has been almost equally devastating to the fields credibility. He's a joke.

[True Rune]

I don't care much for him. It is neat that he revealed the unconscious, but many of those theories were just ridiculous. Many of the personality theories I've found have been non-falsifiable though.. Though in a sense, he helped this place come to be. xD

[inscrutable]

He's a philosopher, not a psychologist.

[pocohauntus]

^
Sigmund Freud or Dr. Phil?

[NoStoneUnturned]

	Originally Posted by inscrutable To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He's a philosopher, not a psychologist.

Jung was a philosopher too...

[inscrutable]

Freud. And yes, Jung was also a philosopher..

[Kenetics]

I like Freud. Hate that he's still an authority to some people.

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Freud...was the first to postulate the idea that we have thoughts and motivations that we are not aware of.

Now that can't be true. The only earlier thinker that talked about the unconscious whom I have read personally, is Nietzsche. But there must be others. According to Wikipedia, the first scientist who talked about the unconscious is Paracelsus (1493-1541).

[MaleVolentworld]

I was reading a small piece on him the other day and found his theories quite bizarre and funny. As far as I can remember, in the context of childhood development, he said that the child hates his father initially because he is a threat to his own sexual relationship with his mother, so sees him as a competitor.

I can never remember desiring to have sex with my mom, but, also as far as I can remember, in addition to developing his theories from case studies, he also based them on his own introspection. I think he said that the motivation of man is sex, and he explains everything by it.

[zibber]

I actually read a big chunk of Das Unheimliche this morning (waiting for my jet lagged, comatose girlfriend to wake up). It was "my first Freud" and I found it a lot of fun to read. I don't think it's very representative of his oeuvre, but it's a good first impression.

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My rant being done, I would like to add that Dr. Phil has been almost equally devastating to the fields credibility. He's a joke.

Isn't that limited to, well, limited people? It strikes me as similar to dismissing the entire hip-hop genre based on chauvinistic commercial rap. It's really quite superficial and anyone who digs one iota deeper knows it's not representative.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Kenetics To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now that can't be true. The only earlier thinker that talked about the unconscious whom I have read personally, is Nietzsche. But there must be others. According to Wikipedia, the first scientist who talked about the unconscious is Paracelsus (1493-1541).

I grant that the idea was most likely thought of before, but Freud was the one who inspired the massive amount of scientific inquiry we have seen throughout the latter portion of the 20th century leading to the understandings we now have of unconscious processes.





Nemesis added to this post, 0 minutes and 50 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Isn't that limited to, well, limited people?

Exactly. That's my gripe.

[uncon]

	Originally Posted by inscrutable To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He's a philosopher, not a psychologist.

Actually he was a neurologist.

I thinks he's basically right in his major theories. Specifically, the Oedpus/Elektra complexes (that Jung also called the most important myth of civilization) will always be important in civilization, his stages of sexual development and the id/ego/superego organization of the psyche. These were once contreversial but now are pretty commonplace. Never fully trust someone that makes fun of the Oedpus/Elektra complexes for they are truly the walking unconscious.

Check out The Century of the Self and then decide if he wasn't basically correct. Advertisers and Public Relations firms don't waste their money on tactics that don't work.

[Storm]

Freud's theories have no basis in penis. Wait! No! I meant "reality!"

Really, though. His theories are laughable and I think stem from the fact that he was sexually molested as a child. (Or so I heard). They are also extremely anthropocentric. He thought that little boys and little girls experienced penis envy and saw the penis as an inherent, even an innate, symbol of strength. Obvious case of self projecting.

Edit: Saw the post above me. What is your reason for believing in the Oedipus complex?

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by inscrutable To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He's a philosopher, not a psychologist.

He was not a philosopher per se, he was a theorist and the father of psychoanalytic therapy. Keep in mind Freud was an active practitioner of psychoanalysis and saw clients regularly. Of course there are philosophical overtones to his theory, but that's common to any theory in any discipline.





Nemesis added to this post, 1 minutes and 36 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Obvious case of self projecting.

Way to dispute Freud with his own concept of projectionism.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[uncon]

	Originally Posted by MaleVolentworld To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can never remember desiring to have sex with my mom, but, also as far as I can remember, in addition to developing his theories from case studies, he also based them on his own introspection. I think he said that the motivation of man is sex, and he explains everything by it.

It's not sexual, more like possession of a love object that you now see split between you and your father. We all know that children get jealous when another child is born after them. This is the same idea but it's actually more important b/c what you do during this stage forms the template for your later relationships. Of course you don't remember it - it's an unconscious motivation. You "learn" your basic template with regard to human relations not coincidentally by the time your accessed memories become available (say around 5 yrs. old). As long as your family environment was good enough then there's no need to ever introspect about your Oedipal situation. Of course, if you're attracted to women 20 years older (poor Ashton Kutcher) or you are driven to steal another man's wife or you're a woman who always goes for the married man - well, then it's time to go to therapy and find out what's really driving this BS which is probably an Oedipal/Elektra unresolved conflict that's unconscious.

He didn't say that the motivator was all sex, only that libido (sexual energy) was the most important drive and it is.

I saw this a few times on those nanny reality shows where the son (usually around 3-5 yrs. old) wants to sleep in mommy's bed and of course, these mothers have indulged this phase inappropriately and actually had the father sleep in another room in rare cases. It's just a weening stage.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Really, though. His theories are laughable and I think stem from the fact that he was sexually molested as a child. (Or so I heard). They are also extremely anthropocentric. He thought that little boys and little girls experienced penis envy and saw the penis as an inherent, even an innate, symbol of strength. Obvious case of self projecting.

It's that obvious? What exactly do you mean, anyway?

The thing with a concept like "penis envy" is that it might very well exist, but only under certain cultural circumstances. It actually seems like a pretty solid and universal concept, when talking generally about how minorities feel towards those controlling them. (It reminds me of a Sartre essay on the mentality of slaves or colonized peoples, basing their identity on the oppressor.) I just wish it weren't so focused on the man/woman schism, which by now is quite different from that of fin-de-siecle Vienna.

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He was not a philosopher per se, he was a theorist and the father of psychoanalytic therapy. Keep in mind Freud was an active practitioner of psychoanalysis and saw clients regularly. Of course there are philosophical overtones to his theory, but that's common to any theory in any discipline.

Das Unheimliche is actually mostly philosophical, feeling almost like something by Seneca or Epicurus.

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Exactly. That's my gripe.

As much as I hate the mainstream erosion of anything exploited commercially, as long as the commercial product isn't the only thing that's left, I don't lose much sleep over it. It worries me that the majority of people seem entirely uncritical, but I'm still discerning as hell and that's paramount
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ElstonGunn]

I read somewhere that he thought introversion was a disorder. And that liking music was juvenile escapism (but sculpture, which coincidentally, he enjoyed himself, is fine, of course).

[uncon]

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Freud's theories have no basis in penis. Wait! No! I meant "reality!" Really, though. His theories are laughable and I think stem from the fact that he was sexually molested as a child. (Or so I heard). They are also extremely anthropocentric. He thought that little boys and little girls experienced penis envy and saw the penis as an inherent, even an innate, symbol of strength. Obvious case of self projecting. Edit: Saw the post above me. What is your reason for believing in the Oedipus complex?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Funny, I saw this on one of funniest home videos. I little girl saw the little boys penis and started crying and said "where's mine, I want one one" and the mother said "it's okay, we'll take you to Disney world" and she stopped crying and started smiling. True story.

There is also some indication that the reason why high heels are sexy is that the foot is a fetishized penis substitute for women and the high heel shoe is a kind of stylized sheath for it. Humans are pretty primitive. The Chinese did foot binding but what gets less reported is what the men did - they sucked the big toe like a penis (the rest of the toes were deformed and moulded into the one big toe). Basically they did foot binding to make the foot look like a stylized, elongated penis that they fetishized. Pretty sick and very narcissistic. I read an interesting article (the famous one about male gaze and cinema) that theorized that males sexualized females by projecting their own sexuality onto them as one would a fetishized object like black stockings or even a blow up doll.

Anyway, we wouldn't be even having this discussion without Freud. He wasn't all correct but his basic ideas were. The Oedipal triad (or Elektra), the psychosexual stages (this has been more accepted b/c we don't have to face our own situation as much), etc. You can see Oedipus in the man that steals the married woman, the man that goes with the much older woman, the man that has unwarranted jealousy - these are mostly childhood issues acted as with a present day substitute.

[Storm]

I don't see how an America's Funniest Video proves that penis envy among little girls is common.

Nor do I see high heels or feet as substitutes for the penis. I've always thought high heels are sexy because it forces the calve muscles to flex, causing them to look muscular. It seems to be that one has concocted a theory about penises, and anything which is oblong is therefore a penis.

[uncon]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see how an America's Funniest Video proves that penis envy among little girls is common. Nor do I see high heels or feet as substitutes for the penis. I've always thought high heels are sexy because it forces the calve muscles to flex, causing them to look muscular. It seems to be that one has concocted a theory about penises, and anything which is oblong is therefore a penis.

Well, the Chinese men did suck it like a penis and foot binding is the most extreme form of footwear. It doesn't prove it b/c it can't be proven - but it does lend weight to it. Ultimately you have to experience it for yourself to really understand what Freud was talking about. You joke about Freud but the people I respect the most on the earth don't - and no, that's doesn't prove anything either. It's an appeal to authority but given a choice between two intelligent people - one that says that Freud was basically correct and that learning about him is important and another that makes jokes - I'll trust the former. Sometimes a rose is a rose and sometimes it's a symbolic vagina.

If you think that Washington Monument isn't phallic then I can't prove it to you - of course, in the past we had actual stone phalluses over our doorways to ward off evil spirits so it's a little easier to show how it represented power looking back. We're more sophisto now. If you have a penis, then you should be aware that it's a symbol of power based on your own experiences and introspection. If not, then maybe your penis is small or you aren't sufficiently introspective. I'm mostly joking
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[darynthe]

I don't like him except as a mentor for Jung whom I worship.

I don't know much about his theories and I hope I stay that way, don't want to waste my time. I am afraid he projected some psychological disorders to all the population when they may be true to a very few, if any.

Although the idea that everything we do is related to sex may be interesting to analyse.

Besides his psychoanalysis method seems not to help people much.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by uncon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, the Chinese men did suck it like a penis and foot binding is the most extreme form of footwear.

Ok, you say "suck it like a penis." Simply because it is placed in the mouth does not mean it's akin to sucking a penis. Nipples are also sucked by babes. Perhaps the men are subconsciously stuck at the babe phase?

Originally Posted by uncon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sometimes a rose is a rose and sometimes it's a symbolic vagina. If you think that Washington Monument isn't phallic then I can't prove it to you - of course, in the past we had actual stone phalluses over our doorways to ward off evil spirits so it's a little easier to show how it represented power looking back. We're more sophisto now. If you have a penis, then you should be aware that it's a symbol of power based on your own experiences and introspection. If not, then maybe your penis is small or you aren't sufficiently introspective. I'm mostly joking To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not denying that some things are meant to be phallic, or that it does symbolize power in some settings. So, we agree there. I disagree that everything which is oblong is some subconscious appeal to the penis.

I don't think I've every typed the word "penis" in such a high concentration before.

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by inscrutable To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He's a philosopher, not a psychologist.

This needs qualification.


Freud is unpopular because his ideas are very uncomfortable, and most of his theories have been discredited. That doesn't make him a poor psychologist; he pointed us in the right direction, and significant gains in the field have been made by standing on his shoulders.

[uncon]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ok, you say "suck it like a penis." Simply because it is placed in the mouth does not mean it's akin to sucking a penis. Nipples are also sucked by babes. Perhaps the men are subconsciously stuck at the babe phase?

That could be true. I'm leaning toward penis though b/c apparently they cupped it in their hands like a cherished object. Like one would hold a large diamond in both hands but I can't be sure. The human mind when combined with testerone is very strange indeed.

We definitely learn sucking during suckling (that documentary I mentioned talked about this aspect with regard to smoking but also about its phallic aspects) and the action always denotes that the sucker is getting some sort of nourishment (or energy) from that which is being sucked.

( Show Spoiler )

I've seen so many stupid dances that we obviously just the sexual act symbolized. In some ways, if you'll indulge me, everything is sexual. I mean, the point of existing is reproduction, no? I mean biology. Freud thought that art was the libido directed into noble aims. Instead of pursuing sex, you direct that energy into something not directly related to procuring reproduction. Civilization is the product of this sublimation of sexual energy. This was Freud macro (or sociological/anthropological) view that doesn't get talked about near as much as his micro (or psychological) views.

	I'm not denying that some things are meant to be phallic, or that it does symbolize power in some settings. So, we agree there. I disagree that everything which is oblong is some subconscious appeal to the penis.

That's true - not everything is a penis that is shaped like one, or maybe so. I'm not really sure that humans don't have some sort of symbolic association with all of the things we see.

More stuff:

( Show Spoiler )

I still think that every man must face Oedipus and his particular version of that myth - unless he's successful and rich in which case what's the point? It's a natural biproduct of the nuclear family. Besides, it can only help. If you've gotten through the phases successfully (or good enough) then don't waste your time. If you grew up with a single mom then, trust me, you have Oedipal issues. Not you - just a person in general.

Freud and Jung are two sides of the same coin - one I, one E - they both didn't personally deal with thier problems. Jung cheated on his wife with one of his many circle of women that swarmed around him like a daddy figure (darynthe, et al - a LOT of women worship Jung) and Freud had an emotionally incestuous attachment with his own daughter. This just goes to show you that knowing the truth and physically integrating it into in your own life are different things.

Jung said that all neurosis is avoidance of real suffering. I subscribe to this - and Oedipus/Elektra would definitely qualify as suffering.

uncon added to this post, 23 minutes and 42 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This needs qualification. Freud is unpopular because his ideas are very uncomfortable, and most of his theories have been discredited. That doesn't make him a poor psychologist; he pointed us in the right direction, and significant gains in the field have been made by standing on his shoulders.

I wouldn't say that most of his theories have been discredited:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'm not a Freud apologist but his basic ideas are sound even though I wouldn't trust most therapists as I wouldn't trust most human beings. I can't think of one theory that has been discredited and almost all of his terms are now common parlance (id, ego, superego, repression, etc.) even among the general public. Some of his anthropology ideas were sketchy but he admits that he was doing wild conjecture and his death drive theory was also wobbily (admitedly) but the other basic theories still hold true today.

Thus we have the modern paradox of pretty much everyone accepting Freud's terminology for psychological phenomena (what is PTSD but another name for repression?) while simultaneously publicly deriding Freud and pretending as if he was a debunked pioneer. But I suppose I understand this - no one wants to talk about Oedipus and this is really the crux of why he was controversial. It was certainly sacred ground for me - taboo even. If he just wouldn't have talked about this one thing he would be as accepted publicly today as in reality his actual theories and terminology are - like Jung who called Oedipus the most important myth in civilization but then went on documenting all the other achetypes ad infinitum.

( Show Spoiler )

Personal note: for that he is somewhat of a hero or an incredibly brave person. I can honestly tell you that for me learning about this very maladaptive situation in my childhood and going over all my feelings about it changed my life forever in a very positive way - it opened my eyes but I also wasn't in a typical situation and was hopelessly lost in under-development emotionally. I shudder at the person I would be now without that analysis and emotional catharsis.

[MaleVolentworld]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I read somewhere that he thought introversion was a disorder. And that liking music was juvenile escapism (but sculpture, which coincidentally, he enjoyed himself, is fine, of course).

I also read a small extract from a book on google books (I think it was a book on shyness and the author discusses how psychiatrists have turned normal emotions into disorders) that also mentioned introversion as a personality disorder, apparently this displeased people so instead they called it schizoid personality disorder.