Subject
Re: VN vs. Freud (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Brian Phillips <bphillips@western.edu>
I see the anti-Freudian bent, in Nabokov and others, as a distaste for any
system of thought which over-simplifies the human condition. Not so much a
"liberal", but a humanist reaction. In addition, I feel Freud represents a
classis case of the single-factor fallacy. Perhaps Nabokov might have
embraced a "gestalt" approach.
At 08:51 AM 1/30/98 -0800, you wrote:
>From: Luba Lepskaya <ll@jumbo.com>
>
>
>>As my professor has said, "to disagree with Freud is to lose the
>>ability to say anything meaningful at all." I tend to trust Nabokov over my
>>professor, but need some ammunition in the debate against Freudian analysis.
>
>A lot of psychology professors disagree on Freud's theory for several
reasons.
>First of all a theory is based on hypotheses which, in order to be considered
>good, have to be testable and possibly refutable. One cannot refute Freud's
>theory because they it doesn't predict anything, but explains what had
>happened.
>
>His theory was based on a very specific group of people which consisted of
>mentally ill with very severe cases and predominantly male population.
>He also refused to believe in sexual abuse, therefore, he created all
>the possibilities of subconscious fight against fantasies. These I think
could
>create a good argument for his theory to be unreliable.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Luba
>
>
If [man] is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practise kindness
towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his
dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of
animals.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
I see the anti-Freudian bent, in Nabokov and others, as a distaste for any
system of thought which over-simplifies the human condition. Not so much a
"liberal", but a humanist reaction. In addition, I feel Freud represents a
classis case of the single-factor fallacy. Perhaps Nabokov might have
embraced a "gestalt" approach.
At 08:51 AM 1/30/98 -0800, you wrote:
>From: Luba Lepskaya <ll@jumbo.com>
>
>
>>As my professor has said, "to disagree with Freud is to lose the
>>ability to say anything meaningful at all." I tend to trust Nabokov over my
>>professor, but need some ammunition in the debate against Freudian analysis.
>
>A lot of psychology professors disagree on Freud's theory for several
reasons.
>First of all a theory is based on hypotheses which, in order to be considered
>good, have to be testable and possibly refutable. One cannot refute Freud's
>theory because they it doesn't predict anything, but explains what had
>happened.
>
>His theory was based on a very specific group of people which consisted of
>mentally ill with very severe cases and predominantly male population.
>He also refused to believe in sexual abuse, therefore, he created all
>the possibilities of subconscious fight against fantasies. These I think
could
>create a good argument for his theory to be unreliable.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Luba
>
>
If [man] is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practise kindness
towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his
dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of
animals.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)