Print

Print


> Nancy Gish wrote:
> 
> Dear Diana,
> 
> I do not find Freud as helpful as Janet and other explanations of, for
> example, the loss of senses of the failure of ideas and imagination.
> And I don't take his name as a basis for information in most cases; in
> fact, he annoys me to the point of wanting to throw the book at the
> wall much of the time.  He was deeply important, though not the
> originator of many ideas attributed to him, but explanations of his
> views does not explain much for me.  The unconscious, for example, was
> not originally his idea; it was already there in Charcot, and Janet
> also studied with Charcot.  My point is that it is not that I don't
> know these terms or claims; it is that I don't take them as the source
> of my reading.


When  Freud enters a conversation I simpl tune out and think of England.
"The Uncscious" is an absurd concept in any case. That most mental
activity is unconscious is fairly obvious; but that fact is utterly
irrelevant to theweird concept of "The Unconscious." There simpl is no
entity corresponding to the phrase. And when Freud adds to the silliness
by inventing The Ego, The Id, and the Super-Ego we are truly in the
realmf of low comedy. Freud is important in the 20th century in that
many were influenced by his thought and used hs categories, but he has
long ceased to be of any particular relevance to understanding human
thought and feeling.

Carrol