Im always interested in Freud critisisms, but these pseudo-scientist philosifers who think they understand Freud are getting on my nerve. psychologists are the only people who can "truely" critisise Freud.
1. problem had been the empirical evidence. Nowdays problem is that there aren't much of people,
who would understand psychoanalysis well enough to do decent kind of studies. Though Mark Solms seems to show good understanding. Hopefully his cooperation with other neuropsychologists will revitalize psychoanalysis to some point. I agree. Major part of the sociologists, antropologists and philosophers lack of understanding, because of almost non-existent knowledge of biology and human physiology.
Comment removed
skyjuiceification 3 months ago
Im always interested in Freud critisisms, but these pseudo-scientist philosifers who think they understand Freud are getting on my nerve. psychologists are the only people who can "truely" critisise Freud.
geganobo 8 months ago
1. problem had been the empirical evidence. Nowdays problem is that there aren't much of people,
who would understand psychoanalysis well enough to do decent kind of studies. Though Mark Solms seems to show good understanding. Hopefully his cooperation with other neuropsychologists will revitalize psychoanalysis to some point. I agree. Major part of the sociologists, antropologists and philosophers lack of understanding, because of almost non-existent knowledge of biology and human physiology.
apxeli 8 months ago
@geganobo ...????
skyjuiceification 3 months ago