"..."Penis envy," "Oedipus complex," etc - none of these are operationalized terms, and none had any actual evidence. ..." - MB
As I seem to remember, the notion of Oedipus, while ancient, was founded upon Freud's observations of some sessions with one young boy.... On Apr 9, 2:00 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've heard that Freud has been "debunked" but I'm unclear as to how. > > Freud has been debunked in the sense that he presented his views as > products of scientific inquiry, and people trusted those views because > they deemed them to be the products of scientific inquiry. > > Now, it has been realized that Freud wasn't doing any science. He was > an observer, a philsopher, a thinker. His theories are fine for > reading for pleasure, or as a means to prompt deep thinking. But > Freud wasn't doing any science. He was essentially writing novels. > He made observations in the real world and told stories about what > they meant. > > "Penis envy," "Oedipus complex," etc - none of these are > operationalized terms, and none had any actual evidence. They were, > and potentially still are, interesting. And surely some of Freud's > views have turned out to be, and more will turn out to be, correct. > Just as some of his views have turned out to be, and more will turn > out to be, incorrect. > > One psychology paper contrasted the Cartesian vs. Spinozan view of > belief. If I remember correctly from the paper, Descartes said that > any proposition is received neutrally, then tested for its truth or > falsity. Spinoza, on the other hand, said that any proposition is > believed to be true by default, whereupon (very quickly) it is then > tested for truth or falsity by the human mind. The paper presented a > series of studies presenting evidence that the Spinozan view was > right. But does that make Spinoza any smarter than Descartes? No. > They were both philosophizing. They weren't presenting any scientific > evidence for their views. Likewise, if Freud turns out to be right on > a particular view, that doesn't vindicate him. The point is, he > wasn't doing science. He was doing literature and philosophy. Which > is perfectly fine when you're up front about it, but problematic when > it's cloaked as science. > > On Apr 9, 2:15 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "... On Apr 9, 10:05 am, frantheman <[email protected]> > > wrote: ..." > > > > Sexual relationships with children are immoral because they are > > > always an abuse of power and trust. > > > This is quite possibly absolutely true but the fact that this is a > > relatively new mindset in our species must also be considered in the > > gestalt. As with all new mindsets, it is accompanied by a great deal > > of emotionalism which, as I have said, clouds the mind and the ability > > to perceive and think rationally, which is the only means of achieving > > a healthy resolution of any perceived problem. My only disclaimer is > > that I can conceive of a healthy sexual relationship between parent > > and child but the odds against it are astronomical. > > > > We should be aware of some important distinctions here. Children are > > > not asexual, they have their own appropriate sexuality. There is a > > > childish sexual aspect for children to relationships, particularly to > > > their parents and those they love, and especially regarding their > > > mothers. There seems to be little doubt that nursing/breast feeding > > > has a sexual component for infants and small children. This is natural > > > and inevitable, as children experience holistically and completely - > > > growing up and learning has much to do with developing capacities to > > > differentiate. > > > Very well put. Good thinking Francis. It is recognizing and > > accepting such aspects of the issue that can lead to further insight > > and eventually solution. > > > > I've referred to Freud here before and, even if you don't want to go > > > all the way with him, there seems to be little doubt that the process > > > of maturing/developing/growing up has a deep sexual vector. > > > I've heard that Freud has been "debunked" but I'm unclear as to how. > > Personally I think he was right on the mark with regard human > > sexuality. All one needs do is look about to see how much sex and > > sexuality permeates our society. Even our religious symbols are > > sexual icons. Sex inundates advertising. The admen have found that > > sex literally sells anything -- food, toiletries, clothing, behavior > > -- even sex. What I don't understand is how, in the midst of all this > > overt and covert sexuality, many still cling to outmoded and > > emotionally disturbed perspectives, burying heads collectively and > > impliedly in the sands of ignorance. What can it be but their own > > denied feelings, tendencies and inclinations in this respect. > > > > The vital distinction is that children have a right to their own natural > > > sexual > > > development (which includes inquisitive investigation of their own > > > bodies and the bodies of others). On THEIR terms, and in the security > > > that adults will guide them, give them answers, show them limits and > > > not abuse their trust. I see the disappearance of a lot of prudery and > > > sexual repression in (western) society in the past half century as a > > > positive development - growing up in Ireland in the 60s, I never saw > > > my parents naked - my daughters' experience was different (and, I > > > believe, better), and it certainly helped me (and them) being > > > challenged by questions like, "Papa, why have you got a penis and I > > > don't?" :-) > > > I find yours to be a very enlightened and healthy perspective but then > > Irish minds in some ways have always seemed to have a deeper insight > > into the realities of human nature -- which may also explain why so > > many of them are Catholic. I've a bit of the old sod myself. > > > > The incest question is complex. I tend to see adult sexual > > > relationships between parents and children as deeply problematic, > > > because they seem to me to be distortions of the "normal" parent-child > > > relationship. > > > The question of incest is most certainly complex and where it overlaps > > with the parent-child relationship, the healthier path should be the > > proper one, yet I have questioned at times whether sex, just as every > > other aspect of parenting a child, should not be part of that > > relationship. As it is we mostly don't even discuss sex with our > > children and leave them to go out and find out what's what on their > > own which in turn brings up the sexual aspect of Lord of the Flies. > > > > The sexual urge and the urge for power (over others) are > > > very strong in human personalities and related to each other on many > > > levels.. Parent-child relationships have a large and important power > > > vector, which only works because it takes place within a context of > > > love and trust. But inequality of power is one of the most corrupting > > > things for any sexual relationship and such considerations raise major > > > problems for sexual relationships between adult parents and children. > > > Historically, taboos surrounding sexual relations between adult > > > siblings (or close degrees of consanguinity) had justifiable genetic > > > grounds. In a changed situation, where reliable contraception is > > > possible, many of these taboos seem to lose force. Still, power issues > > > within families should not be underestimated. > > > You're remarkably insightful today. Either that or you always have > > been and I'm just remarkable more aware today. But human beings are > > indeed highly sexual and political and where sex and power interplay > > with each other in any relationship, but especially in that between > > parent and child, disastrous results are more often than not the rule > > of the day. And when it's family politics -- well, that can result in > > human behavior at its worst. Early on I adopted the rule that if > > someone is family, that's a damned good reason to stay away from them > > and as a result I feel I'm more of myself than any parent or > > sibling. I was out on my own at fourteen and never looked back (till > > the last few years when I decided to write my memoirs.) > > > /e- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
