Damn. That is very impressive. Much respect. What are somethings you have taken away from his work?
Discussion
His experiences with patients are interesting, and I completely agree with the topic of sexual abuse. He was right when he said that neuroses have their roots in sexual experiences!
I've helped many people with mental health issues in real life (especially women), but I've also driven some others to madness. Freud is very rational in his interpretation of dreams, or rather, he has a very Marxist perspective. I believe he struggled to explain the fictions of the unconscious through psychoanalysis. I really appreciate his daughter’s work in child psychoanalysis, as it helps in understanding and interpreting adults better.
I like your thoughts on this. You rock.
I too see Freud's ideas on sexuality and pathology as quite important in understanding the psychology of another and my self.
Also, how we relate in intimate relationships to others will be framed by our early experiences in childhood. Anna Freud did great work in pioneering child psychoanalysis. I see her frame being limited too as she was devoted to her father's topographical model of the unconscious. Melanie Klein created a greater model of the baby core and the relation to mother. It began the system of Object Relations psychoanalysis. This model, I think captures more dynamics of human relatedness. It is the model in which I did my post-doctoral studies.
Robert Caper's book: "Immaterial Facts" does a good job of highlighting Freud's progression and does a bit to tie in Klein's ideas.
Also, what do you mean my "Marxist perspective"?
From a Marxist perspective, I mean that he sought to explain the subconscious based on rational facts, similar to how Engels approached nature in "Dialectics of Nature," where he dismissed any existence of the "supernatural." However, we are discussing a period when science had not sufficiently evolved, and we cannot regard the capabilities of the subconscious or the power of the human brain as supernatural. The fact that Freud was unable to precisely explain why humans perceive through their eyes or senses does not mean that the human brain lacks these capabilities.
Got it. Yes, empiricism is limited as it's epistemology only includes the physical realm. Then when it comes to our psychology, a pure empirical explanation can only go so far. There is a "ghost" in the machine. ;)
A proper epistemology will included the empirical realm and the phenomenological realm. This is especially important in the understanding of human relatedness.
Maybe in your machine there are no ghosts, but those things that your eye cannot see are perceived by your subconscious, because of fact that your eye are limited they cannot explain your subconscious
Yes, agreed. There is a ghost in machine! Yes, the five sense cannot capture the totality of the unconscious.