“Psychoanalysis is not about the scientific study of a subject”
We agree.
Now either you discredit pseudoscience or you don’t.
Don’t go to a psychoanalysts, go to psychiatrists.
Don’t go to barbers, go so surgeons.
What you call “psychoanalytic methods” used by modern psychiatrists are long distanced from Freud’s ideas. To the point where reputable psychiatrists are avoiding the term psychoanalysis.
We don’t treat respiratory issues with “taking the air” by the seaside anymore.
Anyone recommending psychoanalysis and still calling it psychoanalysis is either someone who graduated 50 years ago and failed to keep up recently or a quack.
“Psychoanalysis is not about the scientific study of a subject”
We agree.
No. It’s about the study of the subjective. Which is part of the subject. Which is part of the material world, of society. Just because things are in your head doesn’t mean they’re not real: They’re models, very much influenced by the rest of reality, and they get acted upon, very much influencing the rest of reality.
Seeing them as apart is a quirk of European thought introduced back when the Church, faced with having to retreat from its explanations of the physical world by progressing science, said “ok you do the physical world, we’ll do the soul”. That’s why to this day you see this idea floating around that things in your head aren’t real because that’s where religion and faith is and we all know that isn’t real, don’t we? So we can safely ignore it? Tell that to the people burned at the stake by faithful: That stuff very much has an influence on the world, is part of it. I say fuck the church the soul, psyche, whatever you call it, is our field now.
We don’t treat respiratory issues with “taking the air” by the seaside anymore.
Yes we do. Stop talking out of your arse, please. What’s true though is that that kind of stuff doesn’t have long-lasting effects, at least not on the physiological level, if you want something long-lasting you need to move to a place with air that your respiratory system likes but that goes for a lot of things, say eating healthy, or talking walks. Needs to become a habit or results will at best be temporary. What you will never hear is a doctor saying “nah cancel that vacation, stay here in the city, the smog is fine”.
It is the study of the subjective. That does not mean that the study is subjective.
You’re discrediting conversation by getting this shit wrong ten times in a row.
Pop quiz: Are you conscious? Next question: Can you prove it objectively? Or is it sufficient that we come to an intersubjective agreement about it to have established a baseline of subjective human experience?
"Pop quiz: Are you conscious? Next question: Can you prove it objectively? Or is it sufficient that we come to an intersubjective agreement about it to have established a baseline of subjective human experience?
Descartes was a philosopher. Freud tried to be a doctor.
Freud has been discredited as a bad philosopher and a bad psychiatrist.
The idea that he was trying the “study of the subjective” is false.
The reason he is known as the father of psychiatry is he tried to make objective observations about consciousness.
He largely got it wrong, so his ideas are now hokum. But he gets some credit for trying.
Much like Hippocrates. We disregard the stuff he got wrong. His ideas are discredited. We happily ignore the stuff he didn’t prove scientifically.
Then we get on with medicine with actual evidence.
Saying Freud only studied the subjective would be discrediting him even more than I’m doing.
Saying Freud only studied the subjective would be discrediting him even more than I’m doing.
I never said that. I said that’s what psychoanalysis is about.
Freud was a neurophysiologist by training. He was always more of an academic than a physician, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a doctor in both senses before opening his own practice. Maybe read a biography or such.
Lots of strong opinions you have there, not much to back it up and on top of that you seem to be incapable of understanding very clear and simple sentences of mine, interpreting into them whatever you want. No, I won’t psychoanalyse you over that I’m just giving notice that you’re to stop that shit or land on my blocklist: I’m not your therapist.
He studied (among other things) psychiatry in university (this was his prof), and worked in psychiatry before opening his solo practice. His doctoral thesis and main focus in studies was neurophysiology, though, it’s Jung who was a full-blown psychiatrist. Adler was first ophthalmologist, then GP, getting into the psyche way later in his career.
Psychiatry as in the western discipline is way older, dates back to the enlightenment when people started to consider other possibilities for things like epilepsy and schizophrenia than people getting punished by god. The name itself is a bit older but the turn towards an at least half-way modern approach started with William Battie. 80 years dead when Freud was born.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says. On top of that you’re diminishing the role he’s traditionally ascribed in the history of the subject.
Pick a lane because you’re going further than I am.
You call his ideas “subjective” like I do. That discredits them. Using subjective or unprovable medical treatments is the definition of quakery.
You also deny his historical impact on the things we do today that matter, psychiatry.
So we seem to be in agreement on Freud.
You seem to want to defend quakery in general in order to defend Freud.
“Psychoanalysis is not about the scientific study of a subject”
We agree.
Now either you discredit pseudoscience or you don’t.
Don’t go to a psychoanalysts, go to psychiatrists.
Don’t go to barbers, go so surgeons.
What you call “psychoanalytic methods” used by modern psychiatrists are long distanced from Freud’s ideas. To the point where reputable psychiatrists are avoiding the term psychoanalysis.
We don’t treat respiratory issues with “taking the air” by the seaside anymore.
Anyone recommending psychoanalysis and still calling it psychoanalysis is either someone who graduated 50 years ago and failed to keep up recently or a quack.
No. It’s about the study of the subjective. Which is part of the subject. Which is part of the material world, of society. Just because things are in your head doesn’t mean they’re not real: They’re models, very much influenced by the rest of reality, and they get acted upon, very much influencing the rest of reality.
Seeing them as apart is a quirk of European thought introduced back when the Church, faced with having to retreat from its explanations of the physical world by progressing science, said “ok you do the physical world, we’ll do the soul”. That’s why to this day you see this idea floating around that things in your head aren’t real because that’s where religion and faith is and we all know that isn’t real, don’t we? So we can safely ignore it? Tell that to the people burned at the stake by faithful: That stuff very much has an influence on the world, is part of it. I say fuck the church the soul, psyche, whatever you call it, is our field now.
Yes we do. Stop talking out of your arse, please. What’s true though is that that kind of stuff doesn’t have long-lasting effects, at least not on the physiological level, if you want something long-lasting you need to move to a place with air that your respiratory system likes but that goes for a lot of things, say eating healthy, or talking walks. Needs to become a habit or results will at best be temporary. What you will never hear is a doctor saying “nah cancel that vacation, stay here in the city, the smog is fine”.
Don’t treat subjective pseudoscience as medicine.
Calling Freud’s work subjective is essentially discrediting it. That’s what you’re doing.
It is the study of the subjective. That does not mean that the study is subjective.
You’re discrediting conversation by getting this shit wrong ten times in a row.
Pop quiz: Are you conscious? Next question: Can you prove it objectively? Or is it sufficient that we come to an intersubjective agreement about it to have established a baseline of subjective human experience?
"Pop quiz: Are you conscious? Next question: Can you prove it objectively? Or is it sufficient that we come to an intersubjective agreement about it to have established a baseline of subjective human experience?
Descartes was a philosopher. Freud tried to be a doctor.
Freud has been discredited as a bad philosopher and a bad psychiatrist.
The idea that he was trying the “study of the subjective” is false.
The reason he is known as the father of psychiatry is he tried to make objective observations about consciousness.
He largely got it wrong, so his ideas are now hokum. But he gets some credit for trying.
Much like Hippocrates. We disregard the stuff he got wrong. His ideas are discredited. We happily ignore the stuff he didn’t prove scientifically.
Then we get on with medicine with actual evidence.
Saying Freud only studied the subjective would be discrediting him even more than I’m doing.
What do you think Freud was studying?
I never said that. I said that’s what psychoanalysis is about.
Freud was a neurophysiologist by training. He was always more of an academic than a physician, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a doctor in both senses before opening his own practice. Maybe read a biography or such.
Lots of strong opinions you have there, not much to back it up and on top of that you seem to be incapable of understanding very clear and simple sentences of mine, interpreting into them whatever you want. No, I won’t psychoanalyse you over that I’m just giving notice that you’re to stop that shit or land on my blocklist: I’m not your therapist.
So let’s go through it.
Freud tried to be a doctor, tried to be objective about the mind which became psychiatry.
So the father of psychiatry.
But he actually practiced psychoanalysis which is unscientific and now discredited.
It’s not a strong opinion anymore than “please use the scientific method”.
He studied (among other things) psychiatry in university (this was his prof), and worked in psychiatry before opening his solo practice. His doctoral thesis and main focus in studies was neurophysiology, though, it’s Jung who was a full-blown psychiatrist. Adler was first ophthalmologist, then GP, getting into the psyche way later in his career.
Psychiatry as in the western discipline is way older, dates back to the enlightenment when people started to consider other possibilities for things like epilepsy and schizophrenia than people getting punished by god. The name itself is a bit older but the turn towards an at least half-way modern approach started with William Battie. 80 years dead when Freud was born.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says. On top of that you’re diminishing the role he’s traditionally ascribed in the history of the subject.
Pick a lane because you’re going further than I am.
You call his ideas “subjective” like I do. That discredits them. Using subjective or unprovable medical treatments is the definition of quakery.
You also deny his historical impact on the things we do today that matter, psychiatry.
So we seem to be in agreement on Freud.
You seem to want to defend quakery in general in order to defend Freud.