According to the interpretation of the Oedipus complex by Hélène Deutsch the girl doesn’t blame her mother for her lack of a penis but the father. Therefore she stops to identify with the father and the masculine personality. The relation with the father gets a libidinous meaning which results in fantasies about being raped.
oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:
never in my entire life have i ever wanted a penis.(you know what i mean). nor subsequently have i ever blamed my mother or my father for my lack of one.
don't ever make the mistake of thinking i'm a feminist fins.
I have to say that, as far as Freud is concerned, I somewhat agree with Cate. However, this is probably due to my ignorance in the subject. A few years ago, if asked, I would probably say that "classical" psychology/psychiatry in the vein of Freud/Jung/Adler was probably puesdo-science. Thanks to some folks here, I have a new appreciation for Jung, but I'm still on the fence with Freud.
As a discipline, my impression of psychology is that it attempts to be scientific. They learn a scientific form of methodology and are experts in statistical analysis like it's nobody's business. What they study, though, is extremely difficult to model, and the real problem is that psychology as a whole field operates in the absence of a unifying theoretical framework, like evolution and cell theory in biology, relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, etc. This leads to inconsistent conclusions and a lot of reasoning that looks wish-washy from the outside, ie some of Freud's 'theories'. Just a perspective from someone that knows little about the subject.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I have to say that, as far as Freud is concerned, I somewhat agree with Cate. However, this is probably due to my ignorance in the subject. A few years ago, if asked, I would probably say that "classical" psychology/psychiatry in the vein of Freud/Jung/Adler was probably puesdo-science. Thanks to some folks here, I have a new appreciation for Jung, but I'm still on the fence with Freud.
As a discipline, my impression of psychology is that it attempts to be scientific. They learn a scientific form of methodology and are experts in statistical analysis like it's nobody's business. What they study, though, is extremely difficult to model, and the real problem is that psychology as a whole field operates in the absence of a unifying theoretical framework, like evolution and cell theory in biology, relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, etc. This leads to inconsistent conclusions and a lot of reasoning that looks wish-washy from the outside, ie some of Freud's 'theories'. Just a perspective from someone that knows little about the subject.
I have to say that, as far as Freud is concerned, I somewhat agree with Cate. However, this is probably due to my ignorance in the subject. A few years ago, if asked, I would probably say that "classical" psychology/psychiatry in the vein of Freud/Jung/Adler was probably puesdo-science. Thanks to some folks here, I have a new appreciation for Jung, but I'm still on the fence with Freud.
As a discipline, my impression of psychology is that it attempts to be scientific. They learn a scientific form of methodology and are experts in statistical analysis like it's nobody's business. What they study, though, is extremely difficult to model, and the real problem is that psychology as a whole field operates in the absence of a unifying theoretical framework, like evolution and cell theory in biology, relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, etc. This leads to inconsistent conclusions and a lot of reasoning that looks wish-washy from the outside, ie some of Freud's 'theories'. Just a perspective from someone that knows little about the subject.
I'm not sure a lack of unifying theory is a problem. I personally see that as a benefit, as there are vast levels of human experiences and contexts within which to understand them. There are some universal concepts, however, such as the unconscious/conscious, etc., that it seems are accepted across the board.
Psychology is a field that attempts to objectively look at subjective experience. It uses scientific methods, and yet is widely known as a soft science. It is necessary that it relies much on interpretation/hermeneutics with flexibility enabling understanding many contexts, and all kind of experiences without "objectifying" or dehumanizing them. That can be looked at as a problem, however, unlike hard science in general, this field understands the concept of the effect of the psyche of the observer affecting the outcome of what is observed. Also, empathic and emotional connections with the observer are necessary, unlike in hard sciences. Therefore in such contexts the interpretive aspects which might be seen as a flaw are also clearly a benefit. Psychology grasps being aware of the vast diversity of subjectivity and it's interaction with objectivity. The value is in the context, and the inconsistent conclusions can be quite consistent within various models and approaches by specific observers. I think the bottom line is that within psychology, imo, it's generally known that it's truths are not absolute.
It's interesting that Jung's and Freud's interpretations speak to the men themselves, and their own lives and experiences and awareness.
I once read that the penis envy thing with Freud came in an era where women were repressed under patriarchy and the dominant "male" schools of thought. And by such schools of thought, more typical female styles of processing information were not understood or valued. The female perspective came up "lacking". Women's dissatisfaction with life could not be understood, because the male view lacked understanding of more female "spatial" thought, as opposed to linear and typically "male thought". And given such context, Freud thereby interpreted that women feel sad and unfulfilled because they don't have penises..... :rolleyes: .....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This is why there's no point carrying on with this avenue of discussion, because obviously no-one else has read any psychoanalytic feminism.
I'm personally looking for communication and exchange of differing perspectives carried out on an even playing field, where we all exist. If my perspective does not resonate with you, that's great. I'm not looking to indulge your view, I'm looking to communicate.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So, in a nutshell, new philosophy isn't dangerous to anyone but those in control. It's the necessity of those in control, to stay in control, by telling you that new ideas are harmful to the wellbeing of all.
exactly.
good ole chicken little and 'the sky is falling' mentality at work.
so yes, overall...i think philosophy is a necessity to true civilized living. dangerous or not...it is truly needed, otherwise imho society will simply atrophy. personally, i adore philosophy, probably one of my most fave classes in college, ever....the course you never knew you needed until you took it and realized....whoa! to think about thinking......;)
I'm not sure a lack of unifying theory is a problem. I personally see that as a benefit, as there are vast levels of human experiences and contexts within which to understand them. There are some universal concepts, however, such as the unconscious/conscious, etc., that it seems are accepted across the board.
You're right. In a field like psychology, a unifying theory would be perhaps too rigid for it to be of any use due to the subjectivity. And that was probably why I had a hard time 'wrapping by brain' around it.
Psychology is a field that attempts to objectively look at subjective experience. It uses scientific methods, and yet is widely known as a soft science. It is necessary that it relies much on interpretation/hermeneutics with flexibility enabling understanding many contexts, and all kind of experiences without "objectifying" or dehumanizing them. That can be looked at as a problem, however, unlike hard science in general, this field understands the concept of the effect of the psyche of the observer affecting the outcome of what is observed. Also, empathic and emotional connections with the observer are necessary, unlike in hard sciences. Therefore in such contexts the interpretive aspects which might be seen as a flaw are also clearly a benefit. Psychology grasps being aware of the vast diversity of subjectivity and it's interaction with objectivity. The value is in the context, and the inconsistent conclusions can be quite consistent within various models and approaches by specific observers. I think the bottom line is that within psychology, imo, it's generally known that it's truths are not absolute.
I realize, as well, "psychology" is a big umbrella term referring to many different things. There are many subfields. They have a distinction between research psychology, which includes fields like social, cognitive, biological, and abnormal psychology, and applied psychology including things like clinical and educational psych. And in certain aspects of psychology, such as mental health and illness, the terms meanings vary from one culture to the next, etc.
It's interesting that Jung's and Freud's interpretations speak to the men themselves, and their own lives and experiences and awareness.
I once read that the penis envy thing with Freud came in an era where women were repressed under patriarchy and the dominant "male" schools of thought. And by such schools of thought, more typical female styles of processing information were not understood or valued. The female perspective came up "lacking". Women's dissatisfaction with life could not be understood, because the male view lacked understanding of more female "spatial" thought, as opposed to linear and typically "male thought". And given such context, Freud thereby interpreted that women feel sad and unfulfilled because they don't have penises..... :rolleyes: .....
Ha ha, yeah, Freud always seemed a bit hokey to me. I have also thought that there is a big philosophical foundation for some of the theories, like some of things Jung came up with - synchronicity, archetypes, the collective unconscious, etc. But Jung, I can somewhat dig.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
True. Camus said that the logical response to living in a meaningless world is to be in a state of constant rebellion.
and i guess in doing so, give meaning to the only life you can control(maybe?) - your own. that is if you think life has meaning in the first place. or that it should.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Not consciously, maybe.
I have to say that, as far as Freud is concerned, I somewhat agree with Cate. However, this is probably due to my ignorance in the subject. A few years ago, if asked, I would probably say that "classical" psychology/psychiatry in the vein of Freud/Jung/Adler was probably puesdo-science. Thanks to some folks here, I have a new appreciation for Jung, but I'm still on the fence with Freud.
As a discipline, my impression of psychology is that it attempts to be scientific. They learn a scientific form of methodology and are experts in statistical analysis like it's nobody's business. What they study, though, is extremely difficult to model, and the real problem is that psychology as a whole field operates in the absence of a unifying theoretical framework, like evolution and cell theory in biology, relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, etc. This leads to inconsistent conclusions and a lot of reasoning that looks wish-washy from the outside, ie some of Freud's 'theories'. Just a perspective from someone that knows little about the subject.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
How about the framework of "self"?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Psychology is a field that attempts to objectively look at subjective experience. It uses scientific methods, and yet is widely known as a soft science. It is necessary that it relies much on interpretation/hermeneutics with flexibility enabling understanding many contexts, and all kind of experiences without "objectifying" or dehumanizing them. That can be looked at as a problem, however, unlike hard science in general, this field understands the concept of the effect of the psyche of the observer affecting the outcome of what is observed. Also, empathic and emotional connections with the observer are necessary, unlike in hard sciences. Therefore in such contexts the interpretive aspects which might be seen as a flaw are also clearly a benefit. Psychology grasps being aware of the vast diversity of subjectivity and it's interaction with objectivity. The value is in the context, and the inconsistent conclusions can be quite consistent within various models and approaches by specific observers. I think the bottom line is that within psychology, imo, it's generally known that it's truths are not absolute.
It's interesting that Jung's and Freud's interpretations speak to the men themselves, and their own lives and experiences and awareness.
I once read that the penis envy thing with Freud came in an era where women were repressed under patriarchy and the dominant "male" schools of thought. And by such schools of thought, more typical female styles of processing information were not understood or valued. The female perspective came up "lacking". Women's dissatisfaction with life could not be understood, because the male view lacked understanding of more female "spatial" thought, as opposed to linear and typically "male thought". And given such context, Freud thereby interpreted that women feel sad and unfulfilled because they don't have penises..... :rolleyes: .....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This is why there's no point carrying on with this avenue of discussion, because obviously no-one else has read any psychoanalytic feminism.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Philosophy is good, but people can use it for bad, like so many things.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
:rolleyes:
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
exactly.
good ole chicken little and 'the sky is falling' mentality at work.
so yes, overall...i think philosophy is a necessity to true civilized living. dangerous or not...it is truly needed, otherwise imho society will simply atrophy. personally, i adore philosophy, probably one of my most fave classes in college, ever....the course you never knew you needed until you took it and realized....whoa! to think about thinking......;)
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You're right. In a field like psychology, a unifying theory would be perhaps too rigid for it to be of any use due to the subjectivity. And that was probably why I had a hard time 'wrapping by brain' around it.
I realize, as well, "psychology" is a big umbrella term referring to many different things. There are many subfields. They have a distinction between research psychology, which includes fields like social, cognitive, biological, and abnormal psychology, and applied psychology including things like clinical and educational psych. And in certain aspects of psychology, such as mental health and illness, the terms meanings vary from one culture to the next, etc.
Ha ha, yeah, Freud always seemed a bit hokey to me.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well then, school us, Fins.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ok. philosophy may become dangerous. depends on what it is and what kind of individual is reading it
Anything is dangerous in the "wrong" hands.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
My arse. You're not paying me. Besides, I'm drinking beer and watching some titties on the telly.
Ha ha, well the last thing I want to do is cut into your 'manly' downtime .;) 'Titties on the telly', eh? Sounds Freudian............
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
there is no self. what affects one, affects us all. we are all interdependent.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Don't you have tellies?
Of course
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
AND titties!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
But you don't get titties on the telly?
I think she's more attuned to wanker on the web.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
you may be onto something.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
somebody had to make bald sexy I guess...
http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/71/039_13679.jpg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
True. Camus said that the logical response to living in a meaningless world is to be in a state of constant rebellion.
and i guess in doing so, give meaning to the only life you can control(maybe?) - your own. that is if you think life has meaning in the first place. or that it should.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say