Freud - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

gabshu · 10-28-2003, 05:00 PM

I've been reading Freud for one of my classes. More specifically "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego" and "Civilization and its Discontents".

Before reading Freud I though he might be a cool guy with some good ideas. I even went and visited his appartment when I was in Vienna. Boy am I dissapointed...

His theories have no backing whatsoever, he just sort of comes up with ideas out of the blue and has nothing there that would convince me that he's right. Also, I see him as a sexist elitis man, who justifies everything through sexual forces. I just don't see much substance to him, just some interesting theories that have no way of being proven.

So, has anyone else read Freud, do you agree with me, what do you think. I'd really apreciate your input because I have to write a paper about him and I can only think of negative things to say. Thanks!

CSflim · 10-28-2003, 05:15 PM

Freud is a classic example of using the "I'm right!" mode of logical reasoning.

What I find disturbing is not Freud's pseudo-scientific theories, but rather how so many people put so much faith in them, even to this day.

(ps. you're obviously suffering from castration anxiety)

(pps. or else you're not suffereing from castration anxiety, as the outward signs for any condition, are also the same as its opposite)

(ppps. I'm right)

phukraut · 10-28-2003, 06:59 PM

i remember there were some experiments done with monkeys in attempt to prove something about the oral stage in humans (the first psychosexual stage). sorry i can't remember anymore but i learned about it in my first year psych class.

but on the whole yeah freud's system, like all psychoanalytical systems, shouldn't be considered scientific. CS is right, it's disturbing some psychologists can't see that freud isn't science, but is an answer for everything. most see just fine i think though.

the question is though is not whether freud pulled his model out of his ass, but whether it works in practice or not (sessions). in the past psychoanalytic sessions lasted for years, several times a week, and were very expensive. so maybe concrete numbers of success/fail are hard to come by. does anyone know if it's still like this?

gabshu · 10-28-2003, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
(ps. you're obviously suffering from castration anxiety)

(pps. or else you're not suffereing from castration anxiety, as the outward signs for any condition, are also the same as its opposite)

(ppps. I'm right)

jaja, thanks for psychoanalysing me. well I don't fear being castrated since I was born that way, and since that makes my ego weaker, I guess I'm just inferior to all men.

Also I know psychoanalysis is very popular in Argentina for some reason, don't ask me why. I get the impression that Freud is not really popular among psychology departments in universities, but more in english and government departments. At least in my school that's the way it is.

Food Eater Lad · 10-28-2003, 07:55 PM

I think Freud was a milestone in that he was one of the pioneers in a feild that has since past him by. Before him, the Aleinists would do horrific things in the name of mental health. Freud led a change in that, but still, I dont think his theories hold up to serious scrutiny.

Killconey · 10-28-2003, 10:33 PM

I think that Freud was the brainstorming phase of psychology where a bunch of good ideas were born, but infinitely more crap came than good. He is at his best when you use him as a stepping stone, rather than the path.

bennyb · 10-29-2003, 07:42 PM

Freud, yes, was a milestone, that got the whole world wondering, how and why. But some of his ideas concerning sex, such as Penis envy... yadda yadda yadda, females are inferior because they have no penis... he was the catalyst.

XenuHubbard · 10-29-2003, 10:26 PM

Reading Freud only teaches me one thing; that Freud was pretty fucked up and had a thing for his mother.

But he opened the door to modern psychology, and that's what he should be recognized for.

I also believe that he set the feminist struggle back indefinetely. He and Jung opened the door for all those "rockets are phallic symbols" theories.

vonstalhein · 10-30-2003, 09:18 AM

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.

Moskie · 10-31-2003, 12:05 PM

When applied to real, living people, Freud's theories are pretty useless and unrevealing. But, there's one thing I always like to bring up during discussions about Freud, and that's the fact that his theories are almost wholly based on characters from Greek and Shakespearean tragedies. I know I'm stating the obvious, but its no coincidence that it's called "The Oedipus Complex", based on Sophocles' Oedipus Rex.

My point is that Freud's theories can be very interesting to keep in mind while studying these tragedies. His "penis envy" theories fit very well when studying gender switching in Shakespeare. And its not very hard to have a production of Hamlet where Hamlet is in love with his mother. I could keep going, but you get the idea.

phukraut · 10-31-2003, 03:04 PM

yeah Jung took that idea and really ran with it, but in a different direction..

gabshu · 11-01-2003, 08:11 PM

Thanks guys, lots of good insight. I still can't get over my dislike of Freud, but you've said some interesting things, especially that of Freud takin things from the classics.

anti fishstick · 11-02-2003, 11:54 AM

people still believe in freud's theories today because of the way ideas pick up and become accepted in time. his theories might have been a little wacky, but he couldn't have found the best time to get them out as he did in the 20's. at a time when society was pretty conservative towards sex, his ideas came off as taboo and pretty radical. this stirred the pot, and got people thinking a little outside the box. in my opinion, freud just had a lot of problems of his own that he shared to the world by his theories. it's hard not to personalize a construct. while the oedipus complex, phallic dream symbols, penis envy, etc. shouldn't be taken too seriously, it should be considered for psychology as a whole. you can't understand psychology without knowing it's history, and thus knowing of frued.

yellowgowild · 11-02-2003, 01:04 PM

Psychology will be a pseudo science until they can completely map the human brain down to each and every quantum fluctuation. Everything they do now is just "guess and check". I do believe that Freud was right in some areas, but I think he stopped short of the reall motivations behind most people which to me is just survival rewarded with pleasure.

Sledge · 11-02-2003, 02:07 PM

Um, no. Freud's theories were never based on experimental results, but they did work for him in a clinical setting to a certain extent. His ideas are metaphorical, and you can't measure metaphors. There's no actual "id" portion of the brain, but human beings behave like there is.

Freud's theories are models for human behavior. They're pretty good in that respect as long as you don't try to make them something they aren't.

Aesik · 11-02-2003, 05:00 PM

For and interesting view on some of Freud's theories and practices, check out "Self-Hypnotism and Its Daily Uses" (think that's the exact title) by Leslie LeCron. He brings up some great points on the faults in Freud's theories. In some ways Freud could fully explain certain things, nor cared to take the time to investigate all possibilities and thus just went with his own theories and ignored many possibilities.

phukraut · 11-02-2003, 05:10 PM

or try

Why Freud Was Wrong

Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis

by RICHARD WEBSTER.

i enjoyed this book.. but i don't agree with everything he says.

10-28-2003, 05:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
gabshu Psycho Location: The capital of the free world??	Freud I've been reading Freud for one of my classes. More specifically "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego" and "Civilization and its Discontents". Before reading Freud I though he might be a cool guy with some good ideas. I even went and visited his appartment when I was in Vienna. Boy am I dissapointed... His theories have no backing whatsoever, he just sort of comes up with ideas out of the blue and has nothing there that would convince me that he's right. Also, I see him as a sexist elitis man, who justifies everything through sexual forces. I just don't see much substance to him, just some interesting theories that have no way of being proven. So, has anyone else read Freud, do you agree with me, what do you think. I'd really apreciate your input because I have to write a paper about him and I can only think of negative things to say. Thanks! __________________ Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/

10-28-2003, 05:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Freud is a classic example of using the "I'm right!" mode of logical reasoning. What I find disturbing is not Freud's pseudo-scientific theories, but rather how so many people put so much faith in them, even to this day. (ps. you're obviously suffering from castration anxiety) (pps. or else you're not suffereing from castration anxiety, as the outward signs for any condition, are also the same as its opposite) (ppps. I'm right) __________________

10-28-2003, 10:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	I think that Freud was the brainstorming phase of psychology where a bunch of good ideas were born, but infinitely more crap came than good. He is at his best when you use him as a stepping stone, rather than the path. __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

10-29-2003, 10:26 PM	#8 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	Reading Freud only teaches me one thing; that Freud was pretty fucked up and had a thing for his mother. But he opened the door to modern psychology, and that's what he should be recognized for. I also believe that he set the feminist struggle back indefinetely. He and Jung opened the door for all those "rockets are phallic symbols" theories. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

10-30-2003, 09:18 AM	#9 (permalink)
vonstalhein Insane Location: Where You Live.	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..

10-28-2003, 06:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
phukraut Addict	i remember there were some experiments done with monkeys in attempt to prove something about the oral stage in humans (the first psychosexual stage). sorry i can't remember anymore but i learned about it in my first year psych class. but on the whole yeah freud's system, like all psychoanalytical systems, shouldn't be considered scientific. CS is right, it's disturbing some psychologists can't see that freud isn't science, but is an answer for everything. most see just fine i think though. the question is though is not whether freud pulled his model out of his ass, but whether it works in practice or not (sessions). in the past psychoanalytic sessions lasted for years, several times a week, and were very expensive. so maybe concrete numbers of success/fail are hard to come by. does anyone know if it's still like this?

10-28-2003, 07:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I think Freud was a milestone in that he was one of the pioneers in a feild that has since past him by. Before him, the Aleinists would do horrific things in the name of mental health. Freud led a change in that, but still, I dont think his theories hold up to serious scrutiny.

10-29-2003, 07:42 PM	#7 (permalink)
bennyb Banned	Freud, yes, was a milestone, that got the whole world wondering, how and why. But some of his ideas concerning sex, such as Penis envy... yadda yadda yadda, females are inferior because they have no penis... he was the catalyst.

10-31-2003, 12:05 PM	#10 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	When applied to real, living people, Freud's theories are pretty useless and unrevealing. But, there's one thing I always like to bring up during discussions about Freud, and that's the fact that his theories are almost wholly based on characters from Greek and Shakespearean tragedies. I know I'm stating the obvious, but its no coincidence that it's called "The Oedipus Complex", based on Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. My point is that Freud's theories can be very interesting to keep in mind while studying these tragedies. His "penis envy" theories fit very well when studying gender switching in Shakespeare. And its not very hard to have a production of Hamlet where Hamlet is in love with his mother. I could keep going, but you get the idea. __________________ Greetings and salutations.

10-31-2003, 03:04 PM	#11 (permalink)
phukraut Addict	yeah Jung took that idea and really ran with it, but in a different direction..

11-01-2003, 08:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
gabshu Psycho Location: The capital of the free world??	Thanks guys, lots of good insight. I still can't get over my dislike of Freud, but you've said some interesting things, especially that of Freud takin things from the classics. __________________ Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/

11-02-2003, 11:54 AM	#13 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	people still believe in freud's theories today because of the way ideas pick up and become accepted in time. his theories might have been a little wacky, but he couldn't have found the best time to get them out as he did in the 20's. at a time when society was pretty conservative towards sex, his ideas came off as taboo and pretty radical. this stirred the pot, and got people thinking a little outside the box. in my opinion, freud just had a lot of problems of his own that he shared to the world by his theories. it's hard not to personalize a construct. while the oedipus complex, phallic dream symbols, penis envy, etc. shouldn't be taken too seriously, it should be considered for psychology as a whole. you can't understand psychology without knowing it's history, and thus knowing of frued. __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

11-02-2003, 01:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
yellowgowild Psycho Location: Tampa	Psychology will be a pseudo science until they can completely map the human brain down to each and every quantum fluctuation. Everything they do now is just "guess and check". I do believe that Freud was right in some areas, but I think he stopped short of the reall motivations behind most people which to me is just survival rewarded with pleasure.

11-02-2003, 02:07 PM	#15 (permalink)
Sledge Pasture Bedtime	Um, no. Freud's theories were never based on experimental results, but they did work for him in a clinical setting to a certain extent. His ideas are metaphorical, and you can't measure metaphors. There's no actual "id" portion of the brain, but human beings behave like there is. Freud's theories are models for human behavior. They're pretty good in that respect as long as you don't try to make them something they aren't.

11-02-2003, 05:00 PM	#16 (permalink)
Aesik Tilted	For and interesting view on some of Freud's theories and practices, check out "Self-Hypnotism and Its Daily Uses" (think that's the exact title) by Leslie LeCron. He brings up some great points on the faults in Freud's theories. In some ways Freud could fully explain certain things, nor cared to take the time to investigate all possibilities and thus just went with his own theories and ignored many possibilities.

11-02-2003, 05:10 PM	#17 (permalink)
phukraut Addict	or try Why Freud Was Wrong Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis by RICHARD WEBSTER. i enjoyed this book.. but i don't agree with everything he says.