Freud, Marx and Darwinism

Bertvan@aol.com
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:05:51 EST

Susan:
>this has almost nothing whatsoever to do with modern psychiatry. Your
>acquaintance with psychiatry is 30 years out of date. Even then, however,
>psychiatry was focused on healing. You frequently mention Freud on your web
>page and in other posts and talk about how he was often in error. Error is
>the only way new things are learned. Freud invented an entirely new
>science. That he got a lot wrong is neither hear nor there. Science, unlike
>religion, is always looking for new information and is self-correcting.

Bertvan:
Was Freudian theories ever scientific, Susan? Were they ever tested to
determine if they were effective? Or real? Are present day speculations
about human motivation scientific? I admit speculations about what causes
what entity of the psyche to do what sound exactly like the just-so stories
of the Darwinists and the sociobiologists. I see nothing scientific about
either.

Susan:
>Freud once said that he aim was to use analysis to turn abject misery into
>ordinary unhappiness. Modern counselors would probably settle for that, but
>most have higher aspirations.

Bertvan:
Is there a scientific way to "turn misery into ordinary happiness'? Are you
suggesting there is something scientific about talk therapy?

Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan