Comments on: Our complex, changing world

By: JP

JP — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:03:15 +0000

@Bert, on plausible Freudian idea: As you say, Freud did not invent the unconscious, so we cannot count that. He did develop thye idea, but, as far as I know, his development does not meet with much modern day approval. You list some Freudian ideas concerning dreams that, as far as I know, are no longer taken seriously in mainstream psychology. Anyway, arguments about plausibility can probably not be properly conducted here, but thanks for answering.

‘Interpretive’: I still don’t get what you count as an ‘interpretation’. Seriously, i don’t mean to argue, I really just don’t what that means. What would it be to deny that it is an interpretation? If you mean that language and representation is human-created, then, yes, of course. If this is taken to imply that we cannot have objective truth, then I don’t see how that follows from the claim that science is a human creation.

@Maria: I took you to say that psychoanalysis is not empirical. Sorry if I misinterpreted you. So you say that Freud IS empirically falsifiable/verifiable. Do you knowm of a single verification?

How is Freud then a different language game from empirical psychology, as you claimed earlier?

By: Maria

Maria — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:07:13 +0000

@ JP: I can see that you don’t understand science, least of all psychoanalysis. No theory is empirical as such; at best, it can be empirically verified or falsified. As a theory, it comprises concepts which are propositionally structured with a view to making something in the world (society, nature) intelligible. In this sense, Freud’s theories are eminently ‘empirically falsifiable’ or ‘verifiable’, for that matter. Most other psychological theories don’t operate the way Freud’s does, though, as Bert explained.

By: Bert

Bert — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:19:00 +0000

Trevor – Good point, especially because so many of the online games feature characters, beasts and architecture that are of medieval provenance!
JP – There are several distinctively Freudian ideas that are not just plausible, but persuasive – that of the unconscious, which Freud himself claimed was already known to the ancient Greeks, and which is also found in Nietzsche’s work, BUT is nowhere elaborated in a clinical situation – that is, in therapeutic interaction with patients – before Freud. Add to this the semiotic significance of the psychic model he elaborates in The Interpretation of Dreams, which involves the relation between the unconscious, the preconscious and consciousness, together with his original insight into the different signifying processes that occur at the level of the unconscious as opposed to the preconscious, namely what he calls the primary and the secondary processes, respectively. Are those sufficient? I could continue…
Then, as far as an ‘interpretive science’ goes: in a certain sense, ALL the sciences are interpretive, in so far as they result from a certain thematizing interpretation of reality – or did you think that they fall fully developed from the sky? Science is a human achievement – think of Snell’s law, for instance: the light-phenomena that it pertains to are found in nature, but the mathematical formulation of Snell’s law is an interpretation of these phenomena. Psychoanalysis is a particularly obvious case of an interpretive science, because events that would usually be glossed over as insignificant (parapraxes, e.g.), are given a symptomatic interpretation.

By: jp

jp — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:31:07 +0000

It is my understanding that the vast majority of academic psychologists don’t take Freud seriously. So, here are 3 questions:

1. @Maria: Would you agree that, IF we interpret Freud as an empirical theory, if fails utterly?

2. @anyone: Can anyone point to a single DISTINCTIVELY Freudian idea that is also plausible, i.e. that we have good reason for believing?

3. @ Bert: What is an ‘interpretive science’?

By: Trevor

Trevor — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:50:40 +0000

Bert! On another tack altogether, it is interesting how those who would rubbish Plato’s more mystical, archetypal notions (or laughingly dismiss medieval and mystical/ religious notions in general) are quite taken in by the supposedly real world of cyberspace and its characters, which we somehow come to populate and assume through participation.

By: Bert

Bert — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:07:50 +0000

Robard – There’s an obvious tension between your reference to Nietzsche (made with implicit approval for being ‘first’) and your second-hand rejection of Freud. Sure, Nietzsche had a concept of the unconscious, the drives, our rootedness in nature through the body, etc., but Freud gave it clinical validation, and if you compare Freud’s writings with Nietzsche’s – impressive as the latter’s work is (I’m a big Nietzsche fan) – you would no doubt notice that Freud’s approach is completely different. Compare ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’, ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’ and ‘Project for a Scientific Psychology’ with ‘The Birth of Tragedy’, ‘Human, all-too Human’, and ‘Thus spoke Zarathustra’, and you will immediately see what I mean. Besides, psychology (which means, as Maria rightly remarks, empirical psychology; thanks, Maria) still tends to emulate the natural sciences, while psychoanalysis is an interpretive science, with the advantage that, because it works with (quasi-transcendental) psychic structures, it is in a position to make claims about ALL human beings, regardless of culture, while empirical psychology tends to generalize in probabilistic terms on the basis of observation. Observation plays a crucial role in psychoanalysis too, of course, but in so far as it provides the material for, and lends itself to interpretation in terms of the relation conscious/preconscious/unconscious, repression, transference, and so on.

By: Graham Johnson

Graham Johnson — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:25:30 +0000

In a local context, it must pain some observers that getting rid of a person or a group of people only removes their physical presence and that their technosocial and technobusiness presences will still be there quietly manipulating and controlling the forces for good. Unfortunately it means that the seething and gnashing of teeth will continue much longer than the life of the ANC.

By: Elisa

Elisa — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:07:55 +0000

No Robard, you are wrong about Freudian theory being rejected by modern psychology as “lacking any scientific merit”. For one thing, many people think that psychology of ANY kind is not and cannot be a science – human mentality is not the kind of thing that can be subsumed under scientific laws. Secondly, there is much work done (see Mark Solms’s work on dreaming) that argues that Freud’s theory of dreams is consistent with the latest current knowledge in neuropsychology. Freud is alive and well, and is – to my mind – the best psychological theory that we have.

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:01:10 +0000

@ Robard: You don’t seem to realize that psychoanalysis and empirical psychology are two entirely different language games. To reject psychoanalysis is to show your ignorance of its tremendous explanatory capacity as far as individuals’ actions go.

By: Stephen Browne

Stephen Browne — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:52:24 +0000

So basically you’re saying people are assholes online …

I’m sure there is more, but I struggle to interpret much of it