|
Freud
So...is this guy an intellectual visionary or a hack?
Both. People are whole cloth.
In terms of specifics I consider Freud off base, his conclusions skewed by a statistically insignificant sampling of neurotic Viennese housewives. On the other hand, given some of the other ideas floating about the medical, philosophical, and psychological world in the late 19th and early 20th century, he's not that odd.
In terms of concepts the man was absolutely groundbreaking. While the model of psychosexual development is shaky at best, simply the idea that we have an unconcious, that the contents of that may have viable material to inform us both of our maladies and nature, that's groundbreaking and forms a foundation for a lot of culture in the decades to follow.
The implications of that one notion -- the existence of the unconcious -- are wide ranging. From the archetypes, synchronicity and universal unconcious of Jung to the very simple notion that it might just be an idea to talk to a patient, ask them what's going on, what their past was, and circumstances are both tangibly and intangibly ... that one thing shifted ideas amazingly.
Do I read much of him? No. Do I acknowledge his role in influencing our culture and science? Yes.
Would I ever go to a strictly Freudian pyschosexual analyst for help? Probably not.
__________________
I forgot what I was going to say
|
Linear Mode
