3 Answers

  1. Partially relevant, partially revised. What is important is that knowledge about the human psyche has greatly expanded, so those views of Freud that are still relevant are not the only and absolute knowledge about the psyche (as he himself seems to have believed), but only one of the directions or stages.

  2. Yesterday I was reading Nancy McWilliams ' Psychoanalytic Diagnostics on the top shelf of my reserved seat on my way home.

    She writes her work for practitioners, constantly referring to opposing points of view (namely among analysts), and also constantly mentioning Freud's position – as a historical episode in the constant ongoing development of views-of experience in psychoanalysis.

    Only the episode, of course, is special. Istok. But the source is precisely what is alive, developing, and in demand.

    And I'm not just talking about psychoanalysis, but about modern practical psychology in general, including completely denying psychoanalysis.

    Practical psychology and psychoanalysis, including in many ways, have developed in this way (are developing): heretically kicking away… pushing AWAY. “From Freud.”�

    Who, of course, lived, wrote and worked a hundred years ago; and therefore-we are proud, students! – I understood psychology much less than today's schoolboys. … or…))

    P.S. I'm not an enthusiastic fan of psychoanalysis, I'm a normal eclectic workhorse. Models of psychoanalysis are stupidly useful to me) Then I read)

  3. I think that it is worth talking about the truth and falsity of Freud's ideas, and not about their relevance. What is true is always relevant. Freud tried to get into the depths of a person's consciousness, into his subconscious or even unconsciousness, instincts, drives-this is very important, but the trouble is that everything can be mixed up there, which is what happened to old Freud. While studying psychoanalysis, he came to the conclusion that there is a certain contradiction between subconscious drives, instincts and norms of culture, ethics, religion, social norms and prescriptions, and this contradiction has a detrimental effect on health and the psyche. In other words, a person succumbs to his secret passions and because it is considered reprehensible in society, he feels guilty. Instead of teaching that relief from guilt and depression should be found in doing the right thing, he began to denounce what he saw as unrealistic moral norms and standards. This was done quite subtly and efficiently. Many of the manifestations of lawlessness that are prevalent in the modern world have their origins in Freudian doctrines. They open the door to the deepest and darkest obscurations of the human heart.

    Freud clearly understood that the source of human depression is morals, commandments, norms ( God's Law), because no one can live by these norms; and as a result, guilt produces depression. The Apostle Paul explained this in Romans 7: 19: “I do not do the good that I will, but I do the evil that I will not.” From this, Paul concluded that the Law was right and he was evil. He exclaims, “For I know that what is good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the desire of good is in me, but I do not find it necessary to do it” (Rom.7:18).This conflict prompted the Apostle Paul to seek help in the only true solution to this dilemma – in the Lord Jesus Himself. Freud, on the other hand, turned to the most important cause of death and evil that this planet has ever known-the human mind. Instead of seeking the Lord and His provision for our deliverance from the Law and from the body of death that he manifests in us, Freud tried to free man from this Law. This, of course, is not possible.And as a result….

Leave a Reply