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.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says.
The ideas have been widely worked into all kinds of theories. Some verbatim, some changed, some completely reformulated.
Are you aware that you can’t use the word “unconscious” without referring to Freud? There’s no more and no less objective proof of it than for consciousness. Call it quackery all you want all you’re saying with that is that you’d rather be unaware of it, would prefer those ideas to never have seen the light of day so that today, you wouldn’t have to face them.
…and this is where I feared we’d end: With me starting to psychoanalyse you. There’s no way out of this without that because to understand, you’d first have to understand a bit or two about yourself. Which is why I’m out because I have better things to do. There’s resources out there, use them, or not, not my business.
The idea that consciousness is a Freudian invention is patiently false.
"The earliest known use of the word unconscious is in the late 1600s.
OED’s earliest evidence for unconscious is from 1678, in T. Hobbes’ De Mirabilibus Pecci."
You’re just making stuff up now. Which I suppose someone defending quackery will do.
You can try to psychoanalyse me all you like, but you’d probably be better off using a psychic to help. A psychic will be able to tell you more things.
As you don’t care if the things you make up about me are right or not you might as well go for volume.
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.
The ideas have been widely worked into all kinds of theories. Some verbatim, some changed, some completely reformulated.
Are you aware that you can’t use the word “unconscious” without referring to Freud? There’s no more and no less objective proof of it than for consciousness. Call it quackery all you want all you’re saying with that is that you’d rather be unaware of it, would prefer those ideas to never have seen the light of day so that today, you wouldn’t have to face them.
…and this is where I feared we’d end: With me starting to psychoanalyse you. There’s no way out of this without that because to understand, you’d first have to understand a bit or two about yourself. Which is why I’m out because I have better things to do. There’s resources out there, use them, or not, not my business.
The idea that consciousness is a Freudian invention is patiently false.
"The earliest known use of the word unconscious is in the late 1600s.
OED’s earliest evidence for unconscious is from 1678, in T. Hobbes’ De Mirabilibus Pecci."
You’re just making stuff up now. Which I suppose someone defending quackery will do.
You can try to psychoanalyse me all you like, but you’d probably be better off using a psychic to help. A psychic will be able to tell you more things.
As you don’t care if the things you make up about me are right or not you might as well go for volume.