4 ms·

> Also, the author seems to be a bit on the Freud-is-dead wagon There is very good reason from that. The contemporary dominant paradigms covering the theoretic

> Also, the author seems to be a bit on the Freud-is-dead wagon There is very good reason from that. The contemporary dominant paradigms covering the theoretical ground once dominated by e.g. Freud and Jung can be found under the heading of Cognitive Science[0], where Freud and his legacy of ideas are completely absent to my knowledge. Modern clinical psychology, which I don't know as well, seems to have branches which still employ Freudian ideas—but my understanding is that they are outliers at this point, and that more typically modern clinical psychology is rooted in theoretical results from Cognitive Science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

masswerk 8y ago
Hm – As you pointed out, this is rather a matter of a paradigmatic shift. Cognitivist Science represents a rather unrelated branch of thinking. (Arguably it is also ignoring most of the early 20th century, e.g., the whole body of constructivist theory formed in the 1920s.) Freud was essentially an answer to shortcomings in clinical psychology in the late 19th century, and, while there have been huge advances in clinical psychology, there will be always differences. However, Freud's hints at a general theory, his 'metapsychology' may be still of broader interest today. This is neither a contest nor a zero-sum game. – What I was addressing, are those who promote the notion of Freud being falsified just to be entitled to ignore him, to not read any, who rather prefer to convey a distorted idea, which is based one hearsay only, but still feel qualified to assess the value of his thinking. (The same is probably true for some notions of Kant. Also, arguably Freud and Jung represent rather opposing, incompatible concepts than the same.) [Edit:] *) the whole body of constructivist theory This is meant to refer to authors like Edmund Husserl, Ernst Cassirer and what is still found in remanences under the title of sociology of knowledge (Alfred Schütz, etc).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- westoncb 8y ago
  Just to ensure we're talking about the same thing, I'm referring to 'Cognitive Science' not 'Cognitivist Science,' which sounds more like a branch of philosophy. I think that's the main disconnect in what we're talking about here: mainstream scientists in psychology left Freud behind quite a while ago. There are certainly other corners of academia who continue to use his ideas, but not scientists. Nowadays the two main branches covering similar theoretical subjects are various branches of Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychology (both of these are often grouped together under the heading 'Cognitive Science').

masswerk 8y ago

Hm – As you pointed out, this is rather a matter of a paradigmatic shift. Cognitivist Science represents a rather unrelated branch of thinking. (Arguably it is also ignoring most of the early 20th century, e.g., the whole body of constructivist theory formed in the 1920s.) Freud was essentially an answer to shortcomings in clinical psychology in the late 19th century, and, while there have been huge advances in clinical psychology, there will be always differences. However, Freud's hints at a general theory, his 'metapsychology' may be still of broader interest today. This is neither a contest nor a zero-sum game. – What I was addressing, are those who promote the notion of Freud being falsified just to be entitled to ignore him, to not read any, who rather prefer to convey a distorted idea, which is based one hearsay only, but still feel qualified to assess the value of his thinking. (The same is probably true for some notions of Kant. Also, arguably Freud and Jung represent rather opposing, incompatible concepts than the same.) [Edit:] *) the whole body of constructivist theory This is meant to refer to authors like Edmund Husserl, Ernst Cassirer and what is still found in remanences under the title of sociology of knowledge (Alfred Schütz, etc).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
westoncb 8y ago
Just to ensure we're talking about the same thing, I'm referring to 'Cognitive Science' not 'Cognitivist Science,' which sounds more like a branch of philosophy. I think that's the main disconnect in what we're talking about here: mainstream scientists in psychology left Freud behind quite a while ago. There are certainly other corners of academia who continue to use his ideas, but not scientists. Nowadays the two main branches covering similar theoretical subjects are various branches of Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychology (both of these are often grouped together under the heading 'Cognitive Science').