On 8/11/2018 at 9:08 AM, Brant Gaede said:

 

Last year?

--Brant

Watch it Brant -  some of us Know what You Did Last Summer-

not respectable !

nonjudgmentally,

Carol

"Jordan B. Peterson provides a brief history of psychoanalysis, mentioning the giants of 20th century thinking such as Freud and Jung, while using the theory to interpret David Lynch's movie Mulholland Drive."

This isn't probably what was meant by Peterson's views on Freud, but hey. It is interesting in itself. 

For the reader ... a snapshot from Amazon's Freud Page:

8 hours ago, caroljane said:

I can assure you that my reaction to the Crews' review had nothing to do with  indirectly attacking Peterson...

Carol.

I don't expect your reaction in particular to be about Jordan Peterson, just like I don't expect Max's to be.

Freud has been absolutely trashed in O-Land, especially by Nathaniel Branden, who called his death drive one of the most embarrassing propositions ever put forth in psychology and probably the history of mankind since the dawn of human life or something like that.  Other Objectivists and Objectivist-leaning folks tend to bash Freud first, then refer to the idea under examination later, if at all. That's the general pattern here in O-Land. I'm the anomaly.  

I've noticed that Freud tends to elicit negative knee-jerk reactions from people belonging to a variety of thought systems depending on how he's been bashed among the different intellectuals.

I made my comment about politics because I was pondering the enthusiasm which people like Crews and his fans extend to 700 pages of gotcha about Freud. Don't they like to watch paint dry or something more exciting like that? The only thing I can think of for passionately going after Freus is politics, and then it's to get someone else, not him per se.

As for me, I'm a creative artist. I have a much easier time of it. I can dive any old time into my Id and dream about Rand's Atlas Shrugged image of two trains penetrating a mountain from the front and back and exploding against each other in the middle, or a sweating Roark jackhammering against solid granite in a sweltering quarry as he talks to the icy Dominique for the first time--while she has her legs wrapped around a horse and riding the animal. Ah, yes, Roark will cure her frigidity with rape later...

(I can go on, and believe me, there's plenty more where that came from.)

Michael 

9 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"Jordan B. Peterson provides a brief history of psychoanalysis, mentioning the giants of 20th century thinking such as Freud and Jung, while using the theory to interpret David Lynch's movie Mulholland Drive."

This isn't probably what was meant by Peterson's views on Freud, but hey. It is interesting in itself. 

 

For the reader ... a snapshot from Amazon's Freud Page:

 

So what you're saying is that Freud was a lobster...

"You're a different person when you're angry, a different person when you're afraid..."

"I don't think you can debate the proposition that you are not alone in your being ...and you are not the captain of your ship"...

Yes, you can debate this proposition. Ultimately you are alone in your being -- and are always presented with the choice to determine what you'll think about that and do about it.

No, you are not different persons in differing emotional states.

Fascinating and complex as Jordan can be, he succumbs to the dualism of cognition and [self-programed] emotions. I have sometimes thought he's a most self-conflicted thinker, this might give a clue.

35 minutes ago, anthony said:

No, you are not different persons in differing emotional states.

Tony,

Don't you think you are being a little to literal in interpreting Peterson's words?

I mean, if it's raining cats and dogs and you don't see canines and felines falling out of the sky, do you think the person who said that suffers from self-conflicted "dualism"?

Michael

Why is self programmed the Mr Clean Eraser of dualism, and if it is,how or why isn't it just as self programmed as the capacity of cognition? ( which feels a little metaphysical , no ?)

I mean, yeah sure, you got yer integration  but of what?

41 minutes ago, anthony said:

"You're a different person when you're angry, a different person when you're afraid..."

"I don't think you can debate the proposition that you are not alone in your being ...and you are not the captain of your ship"...

Yes, you can debate this proposition. Ultimately you are alone in your being -- and are always presented with the choice to determine what you'll think about that and do about it.

No, you are not different persons in differing emotional states.

Fascinating and complex as Jordan can be, he succumbs to the dualism of cognition and [self-programed] emotions. I have sometimes thought he's a most self-conflicted thinker, this might give a clue.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Don't you think you are being a little to literal in interpreting Peterson's words?

I mean, if it's raining cats and dogs and you don't see canines and felines falling out of the sky, do you think the person who said that suffers from self-conflicted "dualism"?

 

Michael

Hi Michael, While I listened to all of it, the first 6minutes are revealing of Peterson's convictions, over and above his subject at hand, psychoanalysis. I'm not anti- symbolism, but I think that Peterson relies too much on symbolism, on what I've heard of him. He can slip in fantasy (etc.) this way.

A well-placed symbol imparts something, and he shouldn't be able to later resort to anything like: "I didn't literally mean what I said".

So allowing that he is obviously not literal, one can't ignore his "different beings" as determined by their emotional states  (while one can indeed experience and ~behave~ differently when feeling different emotions). Even symbolical, his is a self-divisive premise to allow, separating one from one's volition and emotional self-responsibility.

He begins with "limitations of rationality" - saying, "you can't think without motivations and emotions ..and can't think without a body". Evidently true for the body, (his "embodiment") but the others are causally reversed - rather, you can't have "motivation" without thinking (awareness, perceptions and concepts) and can't have emotions without prior thinking, (assessing and valuing). Albeit, complicated by the confused/conflicting feelings arising from earlier, uninvestigated subconscious evaluations, often 'informed' or borrowed from others , picked up and assumed unthinkingly, for which psychoanalysis has its uses .  

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"Jordan B. Peterson provides a brief history of psychoanalysis, mentioning the giants of 20th century thinking such as Freud and Jung, while using the theory to interpret David Lynch's movie Mulholland Drive."

"So, I'll start by telling you a little bit abooot psychoanalysis..."

1 hour ago, tmj said:

Why is self programmed the Mr Clean Eraser of dualism, and if it is,how or why isn't it just as self programmed as the capacity of cognition? ( which feels a little metaphysical , no ?)

I mean, yeah sure, you got yer integration  but of what?

 

 

Cognition-emotion is only part of integrated mind-body (though, the element that is arguably most prominent, if not integrated). You know how it goes, objectively: Switching on thinking and focus is volitional, emotion follows the thinking (value-judgments) automatically. Very simply. I don't know how you come to "just as self-programmed as the capacity of cognition."?

49 minutes ago, anthony said:

A well-placed symbol imparts something, and he shouldn't be able to later resort to anything like: "I didn't literally mean what I said".

Tony,

Agreed on first and Peterson always has his symbols mean something. I've listened to enough of his work to know a lot of them. (Oddly enough, I haven't had time for the current video yet.)

As to him not being able to say the symbol he used should not be taken literally, I mean, come on. Really?

So when you say he "slips" into fantasy, do you want me to take you literally? We all know fantasy is not real--by definition. And we know slipping only happens with matter, which is real.

So you are wrong, wrong, wrong... Wrong I say! WRONG!!!

And what's worse, you "shouldn't be able to later resort to anything like: 'I didn't literally mean what I said'."

Michael

7 minutes ago, anthony said:

"Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..."

If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one "volitionally switch on" thinking and focus?

J

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Agreed on first and Peterson always has his symbols mean something. I've listened to enough of his work to know a lot of them. (Oddly enough, I haven't had time for the current video yet.)

As to him not being able to say the symbol he used should not be taken literally, I mean, come on. Really?

So when you say he "slips" into fantasy, do you want to take you literally?

Tony has slipped into Randroid mode, and is doing the typical thing of haphazard/hostile reading while looking to nitpick/misinterpret and to find/invent something to take issue with and fight against.

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And we know slipping only happens with matter.

Merlin disagrees. To him, the idea of slipping in reality is a "scam." To Merlin, there is no slipping.

J

44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Agreed on first and Peterson always has his symbols mean something. I've listened to enough of his work to know a lot of them. (Oddly enough, I haven't had time for the current video yet.)

As to him not being able to say the symbol he used should not be taken literally, I mean, come on. Really?

So when you say he "slips" into fantasy, do you want to take you literally? We all know fantasy is not real. And we know slipping only happens with matter. So you are wrong, wrong, wrong... Wrong I say! WRONG!!!

 

And what's worse, you "shouldn't be able to later resort to anything like: 'I didn't literally mean what I said'.

   

Michael

 

Ha. Neat comeback, I did write "slips in", metaphorically, as in subtly introduces, invokes, etc. (not "slips into").

A far cry in intellectual significance from JP's "a different person ... when you're angry ... egotistical ...", etc.-  I should think!

The comments may be one hook to hang Jordan's interesting melange of psychology/philosophy on, as far as I've seen it to be - he shows signs of strong behaviorism. With a refreshing, assertive, no b.s/non-pc manner, and undoubtedly brilliant, there could be his secret of success to large numbers: Behaviorism looking again attractive to people?

"A person doesn't act upon the world, the world acts upon him". BF Skinner.

I believe I picked up (oops, metaphor) in this video and in other places that implication by JP.

On 8/12/2018 at 6:17 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is a sidestep. I asked a question you apparently don't want to answer because your premise is flawed.

Your premise? Something can have a continuation without a beginning.

But if something does not have a beginning, how can it have a continuation? In other words, if people did not originally take Freud's views seriously, how could they continue to do so? If people did not take Marxism seriously in the beginning, how could they continue to do so?

That’s beside the point. Your original question was: “So why do you think Freud's work has been taken seriously by so many people over the years?”, and not: “So why do you think Freud’s work has been taken seriously by his contemporaries?”, suggesting that a persistent appreciation would be an indication of the validity of Freud's theories. Well, in fact that appreciation in academic psychological circles has dwindled over the years, Freud adepts are today mainly found in the humanities, with some philosophers, some writers and other nebulous characters. But anyway, persistence of an idea is no guarantee for its validity. And the idea that something must have a beginning to have a continuation is just a red herring. It's of course trivial, but a continuation can have different causes from a beginning.

I can tell you my own experience: when I was young (long, long ago..) I read many books by Freud and naively accepted most of his theories at face value, although I had already doubts about some of his conclusions, but well, he lived long ago, so it wasn’t surprising that not everything had stood the test of time.

However, as I grew older and learned more about psychology and read books critical about psychoanalysis, my views changed. For example, I realized the unfalsifiability of many of Freud’s pronouncements: telling a patient what an element in her dream means, and when she disagrees, telling her that this of course as expected her resistance at work, which proved that Freud was right.

One of his patients had a dream that was not a wish fulfillment, contradictory to Freud’s theory. Aha, said Freud, that is because your wish is that I am wrong, so your dream is in fact a wish fulfillment!

Heads I win, tails you lose.

In later years also uglier details about Freud became known, that he had deliberately falsified his results, that he told fairy tales about treatments and successes that had never been realized. And then the ugly story about cocaine, championed by Freud as a wonder medicine. Now it’s perhaps understandable that he saw the new medicine as a hopeful remedy against several illnesses, but he was quite irresponsible when he wrote in a publication that it was quite safe and didn’t have any side effects, without having tested it, except that he took himself regularly a solution of cocaine. On the basis of one dubious publication, he gave it in large amounts to his friend and colleague Fleischl, who was addicted to morphine, as it was supposed to help overcome the morphine addiction. But as you might expect, Fleischl became now addicted to morphine and cocaine (and died later after terrible sufferings).

Now you would perhaps expect that Freud after this horrible experience (and similar stories about other cases) would retract his recommendation of cocaine, but no, he tried to blame others for the failure and contended that cocaine still was safe. When later the evidence finally no longer could be ignored, he kept silent and tried just to forget his previous publications about this subject.

The latter story I’ve just read in Crews’ book. So far my impression is not that of a raving lunatic, as some Freud adorers claim him to be, but of an objective reporter, who sometimes even shows some understanding for Freud’s behavior, but who lets the facts speak for themselves.

Don’t shoot the messenger. It was Freud who misbehaved, and the evidence is there for everyone to see. Unless you find the idea of criticizing Freud something like blasphemy, then you should of course look away.

You can observe something similar when someone dares to criticize some statements by Ayn Rand. The randroids then jump on him and call him a Rand basher or a Rand hater, tell him that he is irrational, a mystic, a leftist or whatever. A familiar spectacle.

Oh, and to come back to the question why Freud was taken seriously by his contemporaries. I think that was not so different from my own experience: lack of knowledge and sophistication. In the course of time people do learn new things, science advances, new insights and new information will become available. So it’s not so strange that fashions come and go. I don’t see what should be so difficult about that.

59 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one "volitionally switch on" thinking and focus?

J

You know, the whole self-awareness thing---humans have the ability to think about their own thoughts.  Sheesh.

Jonathan, are you self-aware?  I'm beginning to wonder about that from reading all of your posts.

Jordan Peterson, that is the man who says that atheists deep down believe in God, even if they don't know it. He also says that everyone is religious, "everything you act out is predicated on your implicit axioms, and the system of implicit axioms that you hold as primary is your religious belief system". 

In other words, a scatterbrain and a religious nut.

1 hour ago, Max said:

Freud adepts are today mainly found in the humanities, with some philosophers, some writers and other nebulous characters.

I should probably have included this brief Jordan Peterson lecture excerpt, as it focuses more tightly on a couple of important points.

See also the cogent bits in this one: "All that's left are his mistakes" Jordan Peterson introduces Freud

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

You know, the whole self-awareness thing---humans have the ability to think about their own thoughts.  Sheesh.

Jonathan, are you self-aware?  I'm beginning to wonder about that from reading all of your posts.

So, you're saying that the "switch" was already on? As in automatically? But then, what, the person volitionally turns it on again, even though it's already on?

Do you understand the contradiction now? If not, you should think about it a bit more. Focus harder.

Let's review:

Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..."

That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional.

So, I replied, "If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one 'volitionally switch on' thinking and focus?"

Then you piped in with an answer that reveals that you didn't understand the gist of the question. Your response doesn't answer the question.

J

2 hours ago, Max said:

That’s beside the point.

Max,

Not it isn't. Identifying reality correctly is never beside the point with me. Identifying reality correctly is the fundamental point.

It supersedes any gotchas, one-upmanship, reframes, any word games, or even any evaluations you may want to devise.

To me, Rand's fundamental epistemology is (my paraphrase): identify reality correctly, then accept it. 

I agree with that 100%.

This particular case you want to gotcha about involves causality and the law of identity. The concept that something cannot have a continuation without having a start is very simple. Resist it if you will. It will still exist.

I will not defend something so simple any further.

2 hours ago, Max said:

Now you would perhaps expect that Freud after this horrible experience (and similar stories about other cases) would retract his recommendation of cocaine, but no, he tried to blame others for the failure and contended that cocaine still was safe. When later the evidence finally no longer could be ignored, he kept silent and tried just to forget his previous publications about this subject.

Sounds like Ayn Rand with cigarettes causing cancer.

How do you condemn one without condemning the other? Certainly not with consistency of principle.

Maybe wrong tribe?    

2 hours ago, Max said:

... unfalsifiability...

yawn...

Here comes Popper again. And even to him, unfalsifiability was only a potential.

Try to use the falsifiability system on evolution and see how far it gets you. It gets you the same results as falsifying religion. That is, nowhere.

You have to start with observation as your main process in gathering knowledge and add other processes to it over time (including falsifiability, which is not a god to worship, but merely a system of checking prediction propositions). When people sling around the terms falsifiable and unfalsifiable in discussions in O-Land, in my experience, they are generally using the "condemnation in search of reasons" epistemology. I prefer the "observe correctly, then judge" approach.

2 hours ago, Max said:

... suggesting that a persistent appreciation would be an indication of the validity of Freud's theories.

See, here is where we have a problem from different thinking systems. The bulk of your post is ad hominem (in the strict sense, not the rhetorical one generally thrown about). You condemn Freud as a quack. Period. That is your answer to all ideas about him. And you back it up with anecdotes and other items that throw his character in a bad light. The few ideas you discuss are ones nobody takes seriously anymore but even then, they are to show that Freud was a quack. OK. That's your opinion and way of reasoning about it.

In the way I think, there is no general one-size-fits-all "validity of Freud's theories." There are specific things he presented and did that are valid and others that have been discarded. I listed some of the things I agree with. I think I've made it clear I don't agree with everything Freudian, and I'm not even much of a fan of Freud. So I don't want to keep repeating...

We disagree.

Saying more than that at this point brings diminishing returns.

It's like discussing manmade climate change or abortion or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.

Michael

2 hours ago, Max said:

... Crews’ book. So far my impression is not that of a raving lunatic, as some Freud adorers claim him to be...

Max,

Just as a curiosity, do you have a link or something? I have not seen anyone call Crews a raving lunatic and I find it hard to imagine. So I would like to see it if possible.

If not, no biggie.

I'm getting done with this topic anyway. (Out of time if I want to pursue my other values.)

Michael

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..."

That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional.

Pretty basic Objectivism stuff to choose to think.  If you're finding a contradiction in that, then it's your idea in contradiction to Rand's.  Care to elaborate more on your idea?

Just now, KorbenDallas said:

Pretty basic Objectivism stuff to choose to think.  If you're finding a contradiction in that, then it's your idea in contradiction to Rand's.  Care to elaborate more on your idea?

 

I just did. Go back and focus on what I wrote. Address the points that I made.

J

See, the deal is that, just because Rand said it, and you've uncritically accepted it, doesn't make it rational or "pretty basic" stuff. In fact, the criticism that I brought up is a very common one, and it represents pretty basic stuff that Rand and her circle obviously overlooked.

So, again, address the issue. Right now, it appears that you're not even grasping it, despite its incredible simplicity.

J

16 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I just did. Go back and focus on what I wrote. Address the points that I made.

J

No need, you've posted your ideas and you're entitled to them.