He started modern psychiatry in line with the level of science that existed in that period. There is no "science of what dreams mean" there can be no scientific study of the patterns of types of dreams and their correlation to what a valid interpretation might be BECAUSE its an interpretation.
You're writing like someone who has no idea about earlier psychoanalysis or the development of modern psychology which almost always is taught as having started with Jung and Freud because they started it as we conceive of it today.
That's not a sign of having been "discredited".
Relying on the rationalist lens of scientific positivism as an authority for an area of study focused on the irrational, is a ridiculous approach.
"Well Kevin we did some tests on your father and the body of your pet chicken that died last week, and found no connection between the two that would explain why the chicken spoke with his voice in your dream"
No shit. No shit "Freudhasn't been testedor found to be credible by science"
....and ergo, claims to his, or his case studies having been discredited aren't actually substantiated by literature.
That's why the term "discredited" is being used rather than debunked, because there's no claims of physical fact being made that can be "scientifically disproven". Science not having proven something isn't the same as science having discredited it.
That's the point. It's the analysis of the meaning of dreams and the mechanisms of persona and identification. They not physical or objective phenomena.
You can't open a person and find their persona or id, or subconscious and test them with the scientific method so all I get from that being the standard of your response is that you're uninformed on either the nature of early psychoanalysis, the nature of science, or both.
It also hints at the idea that Freud's writing "have been discredited" as being an off hand dismissal on the basis of "I don't like what I've heard about it" rather than anything more substantial than that.
Eg. It's a subjective opinion rather than some set moment in intellectual history that has a wrong and right outcome.
So I'm going with the idea that Freud's views are subjective but impactful enough to have defined an entirely new field of the study of the mind. I'm going with this as that's what's taught in most psychology courses, they don't teach that he was discredited, in fact you usually read his case studies (eg. The rat man and others), and some of his essays as the starting point to learning about psychology.
I'm going instead with the idea that he and Jung were early. In the same sense that Aristotle or Lister were early.
Israel has done so many things that are untenable in the modern age, yet the support from the west has not budged an inch, and it's bringing the West's claims to be post-colonial and anti-genocide into question...
...as well as raising some questions that previously only nazi leaning conspiracy theorists would entertain.
The level of unwavering support makes it look like Israel is in-charge, and Western leaders need to explain why this is.
I wouldn't be surprised if western support is cited in future terrorist attacks. It's highly unpopular among the public, yet so uniform to the point of being incredibly questionable.
The entire Western world has zero moral standing, and it's very odd how they all support Israel. It seems Israel is the boss, and that raises a lot of questions.
I suspect we're risking an increase in terror attacks in the west and should they reference Israel, leaders will really have no defence. What Israel is doing and has done has nothing to do with democracy. It's nothing less than a repeat of the wars of colonialism, just in a modern settling, and supporting it casts Western progress away from its colonial history to being highly questionable.
The western world is losing it's legitimacy by supporting Israel like this, and it makes so little overt sense.
Yeah, I never understand when people say his ideas are "discredited" but there's never any further information as to when that supposedly happened or who was involved.
It's because they haven't been, and can't be. How do you discredit the idea that the subconscious is made up of the "sublime oceanic" that reveals its self in dreams? Or that inversions of black and white in dreams has a specific meaning?
It's like saying the Mona Lisa was discredited as good art, it's subjective.
Michael J. Fox having his brain disorder from unknowingly eating human remains on a movie set that was near that pig farmer serial killer guy and his brother who used to host parties and kill sex workers.
Still can't believe Tech companies don't realise: If you want the widest adoption, make something as open source, customisable, editable, codable, and anonymous as you can.
If you don't want something to be wide spread, demand everyone's data, make it a black box you can't edit, customise, or be creative on, and you have to link to all your other profiles.
Meta would have been best off had logins been entirely optional, and they're still trying to life that bad reputation three generations later.
That said the quest is a great product, and I use mine every day to stay fit.
I wonder how long Trump would retain power if he gets back in.
...when his term is served, will a General or an operative attempt to end his third term in office by killing him.... And then will that individual retain any sort of power, or will they die soon after.
The Pill can in fact alter the smell based preferences of women, which temporarily alters mating preference. This is due to the pill simulating the hormones of pregnancy, as part of its mechanism of action.
However, I don't believe this is what Republicans are referring to, as in The Salon article Charlie Kirk is talking about it causing "brain damage".
No they're just being possessive and controlling assholes, as usual. They're anti-freedom.
Too many things, from physical controls to licenses are "going digital". If a person doesn't have the presence of mind to carry their physical license with them when they get in their car, the they're not switched on enough to be driving.
An undisciplined, forgetful, or unaware mind, is a hazard on the roads.
He started modern psychiatry in line with the level of science that existed in that period. There is no "science of what dreams mean" there can be no scientific study of the patterns of types of dreams and their correlation to what a valid interpretation might be BECAUSE its an interpretation.
You're writing like someone who has no idea about earlier psychoanalysis or the development of modern psychology which almost always is taught as having started with Jung and Freud because they started it as we conceive of it today.
That's not a sign of having been "discredited".
Relying on the rationalist lens of scientific positivism as an authority for an area of study focused on the irrational, is a ridiculous approach.
No shit. No shit "Freud hasn't been tested or found to be credible by science"
....and ergo, claims to his, or his case studies having been discredited aren't actually substantiated by literature.
That's why the term "discredited" is being used rather than debunked, because there's no claims of physical fact being made that can be "scientifically disproven". Science not having proven something isn't the same as science having discredited it.
That's the point. It's the analysis of the meaning of dreams and the mechanisms of persona and identification. They not physical or objective phenomena.
You can't open a person and find their persona or id, or subconscious and test them with the scientific method so all I get from that being the standard of your response is that you're uninformed on either the nature of early psychoanalysis, the nature of science, or both.
It also hints at the idea that Freud's writing "have been discredited" as being an off hand dismissal on the basis of "I don't like what I've heard about it" rather than anything more substantial than that.
Eg. It's a subjective opinion rather than some set moment in intellectual history that has a wrong and right outcome.
So I'm going with the idea that Freud's views are subjective but impactful enough to have defined an entirely new field of the study of the mind. I'm going with this as that's what's taught in most psychology courses, they don't teach that he was discredited, in fact you usually read his case studies (eg. The rat man and others), and some of his essays as the starting point to learning about psychology.
I'm going instead with the idea that he and Jung were early. In the same sense that Aristotle or Lister were early.