On 2 November Beth wrote:
Hi Allen,
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to answer my questions.
I'm digesting the material you provided .
I cannot tell a lie (as George Washington supposedly said, though that's
most likely a myth too), I am a little sad that I'll no longer be able
Sorry, folks, about coming back to this topic just when you thought youd
heard the last of it (from me at least), but this time its to correct a
momentary misapprehension of my own. On rereading my message just posted I
realized that I had made an error. It is certainly true that around the
Beth, thanks for your generous and thoughtful reply to my messages about
the PBS program on Freud. Ill try to respond to the points you raise as
briefly as I can manage! Ill e-mail comments about Freuds relationship
with Breuer to you directly because its not important enough to take up
space
Title: Re: Young Dr Freud
Hi Allen,
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to answer my questions. I'm digesting the material you provided .
I cannot tell a lie (as George Washington supposedly said, though that's most likely a myth too), I am a little sad that I'll no longer
Title: Re: Young Dr. Freud on PBS
Allen Easterson wrote a delightfully erudite expose of some of the Freud myths. Having just finished reading Allen's post along with my Sunday morning coffee, I've abjectly decided to add myself to the league of lazy TV watchers I so spurningly derided in my
On 1 Dec 2002, Beth Benoit wrote:
Allen Easterson wrote a delightfully erudite expose of some of the
Freud myths. snip
And a characteristically thoughtful response from Beth, showing her
independence from either camp.
Finally, despite Allen and Stephen Black's comments that the
Title: Re: Young Dr. Freud
Can I put in a tiny vote for the PBS presentation of Freud? Yes, there were a lot of things missing. I would have loved, for example, to see more discussion of the uproar following Freud's presentation of Seduction Theory. It was mentioned, then not referred to again
Stephen Black wrote:
Nevertheless, a handy web search suggests that deep space astronomers do
call what they do experiments, even if they don't randomly assign planets to
conditions. For example, NASA has something called Clementine Deep Space
Probe Science Experiment, and I think their
On 28 November Stephen Black wrote:
Young Dr. Freud, which I caught on PBS (US TV)
last night thanks to the alert by Charles Harris is, as
predicted by Charles, the standard admiring view as
seen through the eyes of uncritical supporters. It
offers no unpleasantness, no doubts, no dissenting
Stephen wrote:
That's Freud for you. A big wild man who has cocaine in his body.
Isn't it a good thing we had Jung come along to straighten him
out and make psychoanalysis scientific and respectable?
Rick --always ready to add a bit of lateral motion to the
thread
---
Stephen Black wrote:
Bailey titles his piece Sigmund Freud: Scientific Period (1873-
1897). (Note that The Interpretation of Dreams was published in
1900.) In a discussion appended to his paper, Bailey was asked why
he stopped at 1897 in Freud's career. He responded:
If you will accept the
Christopher Green said:
This is by no means to argue that Freud was correct. But surely that debate is
long over. Questions about his historical influence are much more relevant. At
the very least, he launched the psychodynamic approach to psychotherapy that
dominated the whole of the 20th
Shearon, Tim wrote:
Christopher,
Not to defend S. Black specifically and I don't want to argue too much that point
about the whole of established medical practice. First, I do think that Christopher
might be being too kind to stop with the end of the 20th century with being skeptical
about
Chris- I hope I did not provoke you as that wasn't my intention. I indeed may have
missed your point. I also think you are missing my point.
You said:
Freud's practices were common for medical people of his day. If you think that's
nonscientific so be it, but it can't be used as a criticism of
14 matches
Mail list logo
