Posted: Dec 17, 2017 6:48 am
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815
Siggy - "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."
He wasn't wrong about how to treat homosexuals according to modern Western culture.
Hmmmmmmmm. Well, I remember Richard Prins posting that his little boy had said to his wife "I want to kill daddy" and he at least seemed to think this provided some support for the Oedipus complex. Science is about falsifiability at the end of the day (althought the way people (myself included) harp on about the need for empirical support one might well think twice). The Oedipus complex has been ditched from society imo largely because the idea that we want to have sex with our mothers is so utterly repugnant. Well I think that's the wrong way to view it - I would say it's more like we want the primary woman in our lives (our mother)'s role to be the lasting/adult primary woman's role in our lives (usually our missus). I don't actually think it's about sex at all really (well obviously it's about preserving the species but hopefully you get my drift). There're a couple of other theories as to possible causes of some homosexuality which seem plausible/likely to me; but I see no reason to call Freud's theory as to the origin of (some imo) homosexuality "nonsense".
Freud’s legacy has transcended science, with his ideas permeating deep into Western culture. Rarely does a day go by where we don’t find ourselves uttering a term drawn from his work: Mommy and daddy issues. Arrested development. Death wishes. Freudian slips. Phallic symbols. Anal retentiveness. Defense mechanisms. Cathartic release. And on and on and on.
Siggy - "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."
He wasn't wrong about how to treat homosexuals according to modern Western culture.
In summation, Westen says there are five broad areas in which the work of Sigmund Freud remains relevant to psychology: the existence of unconscious mental processes, the importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior, the childhood origins of adult personality, mental representations as a mediator of social behavior, and stages of psychological development.
For example, he theorized that homosexuality was a failure to reconcile the anal phase, or the Oedipal phase. Which is nonsense.
Hmmmmmmmm. Well, I remember Richard Prins posting that his little boy had said to his wife "I want to kill daddy" and he at least seemed to think this provided some support for the Oedipus complex. Science is about falsifiability at the end of the day (althought the way people (myself included) harp on about the need for empirical support one might well think twice). The Oedipus complex has been ditched from society imo largely because the idea that we want to have sex with our mothers is so utterly repugnant. Well I think that's the wrong way to view it - I would say it's more like we want the primary woman in our lives (our mother)'s role to be the lasting/adult primary woman's role in our lives (usually our missus). I don't actually think it's about sex at all really (well obviously it's about preserving the species but hopefully you get my drift). There're a couple of other theories as to possible causes of some homosexuality which seem plausible/likely to me; but I see no reason to call Freud's theory as to the origin of (some imo) homosexuality "nonsense".