Re: Libero Arbitrio Confutato?
Inviato da Paxtibi il 2/2/2007 16:53:38
Adesso puoi avere tutti i dubbi che vuoi sull'argomento, ma ti prego, prima di esternarli qui prova a leggerti almeno qualche testo...
Ti consiglio uno di questi:
Freud - Psicanalisi
Freud - L'interpretazione dei sogni
Freud - Casi clinici
Wilhelm Reich - Analisi del carattere
Io quei testi li ho letti tutti, ma non mi sono fermato lì, e credo di aver fatto bene...
Freud bashing begins to look less self-evidently pathological when we lower our sights to Freud's actual, far from modest, claims to discovery in four major categories of knowledge. First, the causes and cure of neurosis. We need not pause over Freud's pretensions in this realm, since scarcely anyone, including Freudian practitioners, can now be found who takes them seriously. The 'oedipal repression etiology' of neurotic complaints is a dead letter, and psychoanalysis as a therapeutic institution has backed away from all of its original boasts about curative power. Second, the meaning of symptoms, dreams, and errors. Freud's greatest novelty lay here, in his widening of intentionality to cover phenomena that had been thought to lack expressive content or, in the case of dreams, to be expressive only in random flashes. When we get down to the details, however--for example, Freud's attribution of 'Dora's' asthmatic attacks to her once having witnessed an act of parental intercourse--we find that the symptomatic interpretations rest on nothing more substantial than vulgar thematic affinities (heavy breathing in coitus=asthma) residing in Freud's own prurient mind. So, too, the heart of his dream theory, the contention that every dream expresses a repressed infantile wish, was merely an extrapolation from his etiology of neurosis; it is counterintuitive and has never received an iota of corroboration. As for the theory of errors, Sebastiano Timpanaro among others has shown that it suffers from Freud's usual overingeniousness and wanton insistence on universal psychic determinism and that it is unsupported, in its emphasis on repressed causes of slips, by any of the examples provided in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Having serially applied the same style of license to the decoding of symptoms, dreams, and errors, Freud was able to delude himself into imagining that the resultant 'convergence of findings' had proved him correct in all three areas. All it really proved is that the imperiousness of Freudian interpretation knows no bounds.
(Frederick Crews, CONFESSIONS OF A FREUD BASHER)
Ti consiglio uno di questi:
Freud - Psicanalisi
Freud - L'interpretazione dei sogni
Freud - Casi clinici
Wilhelm Reich - Analisi del carattere
Io quei testi li ho letti tutti, ma non mi sono fermato lì, e credo di aver fatto bene...
Freud bashing begins to look less self-evidently pathological when we lower our sights to Freud's actual, far from modest, claims to discovery in four major categories of knowledge. First, the causes and cure of neurosis. We need not pause over Freud's pretensions in this realm, since scarcely anyone, including Freudian practitioners, can now be found who takes them seriously. The 'oedipal repression etiology' of neurotic complaints is a dead letter, and psychoanalysis as a therapeutic institution has backed away from all of its original boasts about curative power. Second, the meaning of symptoms, dreams, and errors. Freud's greatest novelty lay here, in his widening of intentionality to cover phenomena that had been thought to lack expressive content or, in the case of dreams, to be expressive only in random flashes. When we get down to the details, however--for example, Freud's attribution of 'Dora's' asthmatic attacks to her once having witnessed an act of parental intercourse--we find that the symptomatic interpretations rest on nothing more substantial than vulgar thematic affinities (heavy breathing in coitus=asthma) residing in Freud's own prurient mind. So, too, the heart of his dream theory, the contention that every dream expresses a repressed infantile wish, was merely an extrapolation from his etiology of neurosis; it is counterintuitive and has never received an iota of corroboration. As for the theory of errors, Sebastiano Timpanaro among others has shown that it suffers from Freud's usual overingeniousness and wanton insistence on universal psychic determinism and that it is unsupported, in its emphasis on repressed causes of slips, by any of the examples provided in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Having serially applied the same style of license to the decoding of symptoms, dreams, and errors, Freud was able to delude himself into imagining that the resultant 'convergence of findings' had proved him correct in all three areas. All it really proved is that the imperiousness of Freudian interpretation knows no bounds.
(Frederick Crews, CONFESSIONS OF A FREUD BASHER)
Messaggio orinale: https://old.luogocomune.net/site/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=52&topic_id=3090&post_id=75399