The Freud hater, typically engrossed in his philistine sense of moral outrage, closely resembles a prissy victorian spinster on her way to the vicarage to report the after hours shenanigans of a house of ill-repute. The visceral rejection of his work has nothing to do with an exquisite concern for scientific methodology, but rather, with Freud embodying a hated archetype, the harbinger of bad news. While whole chunks of his work have been superseded by later developments (as it is the case with most major thinkers and scientists) his biological reductionism, by and large, has stood its ground. Biological reductionism (even in its most sophisticated forms) remains an unpalatable truth to many, who will try to sugarcoat the pill with all manner of fanciful inventions, from free will, to quantum consciousness. All Freud is truly guilty of is trying to dispel some of our most cherished illusions.
he was gay though.
I wouldn’t put it past him, he was out to outrage the peasants and their phallic pitchforks.
Everything that irritates us about others can lead to an understanding of ourself - Carl jung
They only teach Freud in introductory psychology classes otherwise universities say freuds ideas have been debunked. They keep his work in introductory textbooks to illustrate how he was a product of his times employing the use of other psychological tools by proxy to illustrate psychology lessons, but you have to admire how he’s still a part of pop psychology.
You’ll find that many academics continue to read Freud, although admittedly not necessarily in psychology departments.
Zwayne is right. Freud is still seen as one of the founders of psychology but most of his specific ideas and theories arent seen as true anymore.
I also think you cant debunk critism as “they are haters”. It just comes across as you’re taking it personally.
The average Freud hater doesn’t care about that.
As described by Freud delusional thinking arises as a result of the reaction-formation and projection of threatening unconscious homosexual wishes (Chalus, 1977).
I’m not trying to debunk serious criticism of Freud, and most certainly I don’t take it personally (why should I?). Above I make clear that whole chunks of his work have been superseded by later developments. But I am intrigued, as a sociological phenomena, by the spectacle of a major thinker being derided by people who have never read him.
Obviously I don’t agree with that.
I clicked heart should I rather say why not? if you was being funny
I heard somewhere that he was the first to really think about and analyse the subconscious. And that he brought it to the mainstream. And that he was ultimately wrong about a number of major things, but not everything.
how did he analyse the subconscious?
His works on cultural and social topics remain a fascinating read.
I think he worked on people’s dreams from memory, but that’s just a guess.
ok. 15 characters.
I don’t know him very well, but he had some weird theories on sexuality, homosexuality and religion that I don’t accept.
Freud was wrong on many things, but he started it all. Jung followed on Freud and Nietzsche. Freud admitted that Nietzsche was in a way better at psychology than he was since Freud did attempt to read some of his works BTW (afterall Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky were also psychologists, not only existential philosophers).