i think Freuds theories are very much open to interpretation, i'm not an expert on him but i'm fairly sure he didn't maintain that his views were the only views, or the only ones worth ascribing to. When i say his theories are open to interpretation, it's more that they are ABOUT interpretation. His work on dreams for example. As there is no certifiable evidence about what they mean, as they are interpreted differently individually, and whilst a flying kettle might be poignant for one person, it might simply be a representation of someone having thrown a kettle at them the previous day for another. Personally, however, i find quite a lot of sense in the psychoanalytical (or psychodynamic) approach, but as the age old 'nature/nurture' argument rages on, compromise between physiological, biological and behaviourst seems the way forward to me. I'd be extremely interested in hearing what others think about the workings of the human mind and more on the other approaches to psychology.
__________________
No Win No Fee
Last edited by vonstalhein; 10-30-2003 at 09:36 AM..
|