tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post112741190557605335..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Wittgenstein vs. FreudUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55600247130324266922012-05-06T14:15:12.360-04:002012-05-06T14:15:12.360-04:00Massimo - you seem like a good guy. I was (and am)...Massimo - you seem like a good guy. I was (and am) a Wittgenstein zealot, so I definitely think he is worth working on. As a good Wittgensteinian, I rejected the idea of mental processes, so I was deeply unimpressed when Freud patted himself on the back and announced that as well as conscious mental processes there were unconscious mental processes. However, although he started from a very confused picture of the mind, he did actually have something pretty amazing to say. So I am now pretty fanatical about both Wittgenstein and psycho-analysis. So perhaps I just need to be locked up :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1128377185282655132005-10-03T18:06:00.000-04:002005-10-03T18:06:00.000-04:00I agree with most of what Witt. and Popper said ab...I agree with most of what Witt. and Popper said about Freud and yet if one reads him as a "fictional" contribution or a hypothetical speculation on human psychology Freud is often interesting. I think in the long run he will be looked at as a kind of pre-scientific natural philosopher but a natural philosopher groping toward a science of mind and brain.<BR/><BR/>On the side of science, I think Freud himself would despise most post-modern uses of his theories. If anything Freud believed in 'naturalistic' explanations. I think he himself believed that if, for instance, neurological or chemical research contradicted his theoretical "guesses" then his theories would have to be revised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1128039776841542712005-09-29T20:22:00.000-04:002005-09-29T20:22:00.000-04:00I've noticed that phenomenon in many blogs, too. T...I've noticed that phenomenon in many blogs, too. They get repetitive after awhile, and I end up hunting out alternate opinions in the form of other blogs.<BR/><BR/>Thought I'm sure this one will be different. ;-)Charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06582002690213501584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1127910699784209742005-09-28T08:31:00.000-04:002005-09-28T08:31:00.000-04:00J, what I meant was that Dawkins is getting a bit ...J, what I meant was that Dawkins is getting a bit repetitive (his latest is a collection of previously published essays); Gould's writing style had deteriorated significantly over the years, so much so that his last technical book was boring, self-aggrandizing, with parenthetical statements that ran more than one page, and footnotes to help future historians of science reconstruct his thought. Give me a break!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1127878591048803992005-09-27T23:36:00.000-04:002005-09-27T23:36:00.000-04:00"especially people like Dawkins or Gould"What do y..."especially people like Dawkins or Gould"<BR/><BR/>What do you mean? Just curious.<BR/><BR/>I'm about to start Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale", by the way. I've seen several very favorable reviews, I hope they were right.<BR/><BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1127590049977645052005-09-24T15:27:00.000-04:002005-09-24T15:27:00.000-04:00David, yes, I've read plenty of Dawkins, though no...David, yes, I've read plenty of Dawkins, though not his most recent stuff (there is only so much I can take from a single author, especially people like Dawkins or Gould... :-)<BR/><BR/>Anything specific you were thinking about?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1127577600231244962005-09-24T12:00:00.000-04:002005-09-24T12:00:00.000-04:00Massimo, have you read any Dawkins by chance?Massimo, have you read any Dawkins by chance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1127478495198413002005-09-23T08:28:00.000-04:002005-09-23T08:28:00.000-04:00Well, I wouldn't dismiss good 'ol Sigmund that eas...Well, I wouldn't dismiss good 'ol Sigmund that easily (and neither does Wittgenstein, as I'm continuing to read Bouveresse's book), but I completely agree with your parallel between his Id/Ego/Superego and Plato's three-partite soul. In fact, I've always been a bit puzzled by how rarely that obvious similarity is mentioned.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1127419472364096512005-09-22T16:04:00.000-04:002005-09-22T16:04:00.000-04:00Maybe it's just me, but I never understood how any...Maybe it's just me, but I never understood how anyone ever took Freud seriously. After 30 seconds of hearing about the Oedipus complex in into Psych I was pretty sure he was full of it, and its fairly obvious that his Id/Ego/Superego concept is just a lift from Socrates's three elements of the soul. It's like Gardner said (or paraphrased from someone else, I forget) "where Freud was original he was wrong, where Freud was right he wasn't original." (I'm paraphrasing a paraphrase, I think.)Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.com