Also it depends what parts of Freud you want to discredit. Is Lacan discredited because of Freud? Is Anna Freud discredited because of Sigmund? Jung, Adler, Fromm all departed from Freud but started with him.

It's like saying because HTTPS succeeded HTTP then HTTP is wrong - yes its wrong now but we had to go through it to get to where we are.

Without Freud popularizing the idea of subconsciousness and ego - well, we can't even imagine what that's like. It's so ingrained in our, uh, subconsciousnesss, we wouldn't understand what it's like for our society to not be aware that subconscious thought exists.

Even the idea of comforting someone by talking about what happened, on the most casual level, was popularized by Freuds work.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Without Freud popularizing the idea of subconsciousness and ego

You might even say that he brought it out of the collective shadow.

Even the idea of comforting someone by talking about what happened, on the most casual level, was popularized by Freuds work.

Here I have to disagree, that stuff existed as a practice since basically time immemorial. It's what confessionals are about. The framing as more of a medicinal practice than spiritual one was certainly novel, though we don't really know how practitioners in pre-Christian times saw it. E.g. when you had martial issues in Rome you might go to the appropriate temple (Juno) and you'd state your troubles, then they'd perform some ritual and you'd be given rites to perform yourself and I can totally see the priestesses going "yeah he's got his head up his arse let's trick him into realising that he should hug his wife once in a while", then select specific rites that make that outcome likely. Is that not serving the goddess of marriage?

Less religious, the Stoics (and generally philosophy but especially the Stoics) had a tradition of advise letters, while those were often generic and not at all always prompted by actual questions from actual people you wouldn't have such a format if people didn't go to philosophers to be given advise about all kinds of stuff, much of it psychological: They would have written straight-up monologues instead. Random example, Seneca's De Ira: "You have demanded of me, Novatus, that I should write how anger may be soothed, and it appears to me that you are right in feeling especial fear of this passion, which is above all others hideous and wild [...]" (cue a dissertation).

Lastly... talk therapy is also kinda overrated. You can psychoanalyse yourself to understanding, but not to health, that needs some kind of action-impulse -- which can become more likely with psychoanalysis, but that doesn't make it a necessity. All those clinically depressed men in WWII who were suddenly "magically" healed and drove ambulances didn't need to understand anything about the mechanics of their psyche, realising "oh there's actually a way I can be useful" itself did it.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps I should've said "brought it round to popularity." Of course there's a lot of folk psychiatry, medicine etc that has existed since antiquity - but I'd argue the path for Freud was set by WW1 shell-shock being treated as a failure on behalf of the victim, rather than an ailment, which also coincided with the rise of treating the common working man as heroic (e.g. James Joyce, Dadaism...) and the aristocrat as a person rather than a God-appointed rightful space.

It also coincided with the birth of atomic physics and the idea of surrealism: that under reality is another reality.

The folk-psychiatry you mention wasn't rooted in the idea that they was an underneath to one's thoughts that we can't directly access consciously.

Finally, yes his work is rather sexually obsessed, a bit too much. But why does this particular doctor have to get everything correct when Einstein, Darwin, Newton... all had errors too? I wonder if it's still some nascent belief about work about sex being bad and work about "untainted" science like rocks, atoms, bugs... being good.

Just thinking out loud.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

The folk-psychiatry you mention wasn’t rooted in the idea that they was an underneath to one’s thoughts that we can’t directly access consciously.

The idea of "other realm" is practically universal, it's shared by religions and psychology. It may very well be innate. Of course the atheists back then weren't like the atheists now, more of the "our images of the gods are just images we made and who knows how they actually look like" kind, presumably because science wasn't advanced enough for people to bet on materialism, as well as the gods back then still very much functioning as Archetypes not caught up in "can god create a stone too heavy for him to lift" type of bullshit. I mean we're a (mostly) serially monogamous species, of course Juno exists, duh, she's the goddess of that how can you deny the existence of marriage: Juno is the self-portrait of a specific instinct of ours (and yes of course she's married to sky-daddy (Jupiter)). And the gods are our ancestors because those instincts are from the genome... brought to you by The Ancestors which once were revered collectively before people learned to better distinguish different instincts. The structural similarity between paganism and the modern narrative is striking, isn't it?

Circling around: If you read De Ira what should jump out at you is that Seneca is spot-on about just about everything in there. Certainly better than the majority of contemporary self-help authors: The differing framework didn't hinder him, it's ultimately a detail that doesn't matter given the subject matter. Unlike middle-age authors, he doesn't get lost in arcane demonology (exceedingly fuzzy portraits of maladaptive complexes) but lays it out plainly. As such I'm more inclined to attribute to Freud the re-popularisation of a thing that was lost (the other-realm filled with archetypes), in a different dress, after the double-whammy of monotheism just doesn't making a lick of archetypal sense (there's structural psychological sense, though) and progressing science and materialist attitudes killing off its credibility for good. That is, yes, psychology is our new religion we just don't call it that and many like to deny it. How can you even be a Christian, with a personal god, if your mind also has the idea of subconsciousness firmly embedded in it? Subconsciousness evicted Jesus, now people often consider him to be everywhere or outside of physical reality or whatnot but not with them.

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Oh I agree, Freud's work was important. As was Aristotle's. But if Aristotle had suffered much of the scrutiny that Freud has, science would have advanced a lot faster. Obviously extremely unlikely though, given that Aristotle kinda predated science.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why does Aristotle deserve the same treatment?

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

A lot of what he said was just plain wrong, and without the existence of the scientific method back then, no one really questioned him. For example, he basically made the only argument justifying slavery in ancient times, and he notably also got a lot of physics wrong that took until Galileo's time to get resolved, such as with gravity and the elements.