beachbum Posted June 21, 2005 Posted June 21, 2005 My teacher told me that all he did was relate things to sex.
AzurePhoenix Posted June 21, 2005 Posted June 21, 2005 He was also in love with his daughter, and put an intellectual edge to smoking your jaw into an early grave. More seriously, his insights into the human psyche revolutionalized the field, especially regarding the unconscious, and its components.
AL Posted June 21, 2005 Posted June 21, 2005 Many of his concepts have saturated our popular culture, though whether for better or worse, you decide. Things like "Freudian slip," "penis envy," "sublimation," "Oedipal complex," etc. are still mentioned in pop culture even though Freud was allegedly debunked for using poor, biased samples in his studies.
PhDP Posted June 21, 2005 Posted June 21, 2005 He is the father of psychoanalysis, a modern form of psychological chamanism
beachbum Posted June 21, 2005 Author Posted June 21, 2005 Yea thats true, but nowaday teenagers think like that too.. so not much difference. umm.. was Kinsey the same?
greentea Posted June 21, 2005 Posted June 21, 2005 the revolutionary contribution of Freud is not just relating everything to sex, but simply creating a model for the human psyche that is related to the body. its further application to various situations can be quite doubtful and a sort of chamanism. but it is like every model that goes beyond its realm. the main flaw in his theory is the assumption that acquired traits can be inherited, which contradicts most of modern science (although obviously there are mechanisms for epigenetic inheritance, as well)
Newtonian Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 he was a nutter...i play snooker . According to him i have a tendancy to stroke balls in with a phalus
swansont Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Freud-inspired book: Men are from Mars, Women have no Penis
DRU Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 He was also in love with his daughter' date=' and put an intellectual edge to smoking your jaw into an early grave. More seriously, his insights into the human psyche revolutionalized the field, especially regarding the unconscious, and its components.[/quote'] yeah he was a little weird. but the only reason he "revolutionized" the field was because all his wrong theories led to the right ones.
ecoli Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 yeah he was a little weird. but the only reason he "revolutionized" the field was because all his wrong theories led to the right ones. In that case, his methods lead to a new way of thinking that allowed the feild to be revolutionized. Even if his theories are innacurate, he still is an important man because of this.
bascule Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Jung is so much cooler than Freud. All Freud did was make people focus on what's wrong. That's totally the wrong way of going about things! What you should do is look at what's right and try to strengthen that, then build from there.
Conceptual Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Freud was part of the late 19th psychology movement that tried to rationalize away religion. Once the religious methods for regulating unconscious psycho-dynamics were removed for large numbers of people with logic, it created a hole in the unconscious minds of people. Psychology was one of the movements to help fill in the void. There were also religious/pseudo-scientific, philosophical and political movements to help fill in the void. There were also two world wars.
BobbyJoeCool Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Try to name more than two psychologists before Freud. WITHOUT looking them up... Can you do it? How about after Freud? He brought psychology into the view of the pubic eye, thus people started to care about it, and thus people started actually researching it more than it had been in the past. Most of his theories were wrong, but that's ok. It's not science unless somethings are proven wrong!
bascule Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Try to name more than two psychologists before Freud. WITHOUT looking them up... Can you do it? How about after Freud? Jung, Keirsey, Myers, and Briggs? That wasn't too particularly difficult...
BobbyJoeCool Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Jung' date=' Keirsey, Myers, and Briggs? That wasn't too particularly difficult...[/quote'] All of them are post-Freud, aren't they? I was pointing out it'd be hard to name many pre-Freud psychologists... (And I know some people could do it...)
bascule Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Oh, I see what you were saying now... Yes, Freud created the field by infuriating a number of people with his bad ideas
DRU Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 Oh' date=' I see what you were saying now... Yes, Freud created the field by infuriating a number of people with his bad ideas [/quote'] haha nice:cool:
Glider Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 Jung is so much cooler than Freud. All Freud did was make people focus on what's wrong. That's totally the wrong way of going about things! What you should do is look at what's right and try to strengthen that' date=' then build from there.[/quote'] To do that, you have to know what's right and a reasonable way of doing that is to learn what is wrong. "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever left, however improbable, must be the truth.".
thefusionist Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 Freud provided many of the forms that we use to question. Though many of his ideas were wrong, the frame of mind, the ability to break through many of the social impediments are what makes Freud great (establishing thoses forms, giving others the confidence). As with many great minds their ideas lead to improvements. More dimension can alwas be added to things unless they resolve the entire equation.
Conceptual Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 If you look at some of Freud's early papers, as a grad student, one can see that the literature was already substantial before 1900. He is considered the father of psychoanalysis. It turned the pioneering psych-sciences into something more practical and useful for the average person.
Cognition Posted December 22, 2005 Posted December 22, 2005 And the fact that he related anything to sex, was because at that time (Victorian), everything associated with sex was very repressed...
clarisse Posted December 22, 2005 Posted December 22, 2005 Quote: Originally Posted by cognition And the fact that he related anything to sex, was because at that time (Victorian), everything associated with sex was very repressed... That and he was also extremely phallocentric and even Jung who I think is better than Freud and some other of his contemporary psychoanalysts also thought that he kind of overemphasized sexuality
Glider Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 If you look at some of Freud's early papers, as a grad student, one can see that the literature was already substantial before 1900. He is considered the father of psychoanalysis. It turned the pioneering psych-sciences into something more practical and useful for the average person.Hehe, that reminds me of an essay I marked once. It contained the enlightening phrase; "Pavlov, the father of salivating dogs...". I can't see the phrase "...the father of..." now without laughing. How very Pavlovian
Sisyphus Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 ....so you guys are saying not everything is about sex?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now