Last week, Mrs. Quinet mentioned that we might look at Freud and psychoanalysis in connection with Notes from Underground and other Realist works. I recently read a pair of editorials in
New Scientist magazine which discussed the value of Psychoanalysis from a scientific standpoint. The question is compelling: is Freud's legacy more important from a Humanities standpoint than it is to the field of Psychology?
Since I could not find the editorials online, I typed them up and put them on Google Docs. Here is the link:
You can read the pair in under five minutes.
Does Freud still matter? If so, is it only in a purely literary-historical sense? Let me know what you think! Maybe we will talk about it sometime next week?
2 comments:
These articles are both very interesting perspectives on Freud and psychoanalysis. I personally think Freud still does matter, even if his theories are not proven to be scientifically correct. I believe he is still a monumental figure in the psychological, literary, and historical worlds due to his unique viewpoints that effected the people of his time. I think Bunge's point that psychoanalysis experimenters have not had control groups is interesting, although I think repressed memories and dreams can be important in understanding one's problems in life. Freud continues to fascinate me, and I wish we could read his "Interpretation of Dreams" in class.
I agree, Julia. I think Freud is still important today. He explored parts of the human mind that know one else had. He was a pioneer into the world of psychology. Psychoanalysis may not be accepted as beneficial today, yet his works should still be respected. Rutherford and J. J. Thomson were pioneers in chemistry, even though the majority of their theories have been disproved today. Yet, they are still respected and learned about, just as Freud should be.
Post a Comment