tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post6027445960990357079..comments2024-03-28T22:33:29.066-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE THOUGHT OF SIGMUND FREUD LAST PARTRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-65231073175618358042011-05-26T01:00:31.675-04:002011-05-26T01:00:31.675-04:00Prof. Wolff, thank you for this very interesting s...Prof. Wolff, thank you for this very interesting series of posts on Freud. <br /><br />You write: <br /><br />"Obviously, it takes training, patience, experience, and sensitivity to draw this sort of distinction, just as it takes a combination of ability, training, and experience to enable a research laboratory scientist to distinguish between an important experimental anomaly and just some glitch in the equipment. A skilled luthier [someone who makes stringed instruments] can tell, by picking up a piece of wood, flexing it, plucking at it with a thumbnail, and even smelling it, whether or not it will make a good back of a violin. I cannot do that, needless to say, but the luthier is not claiming to have magical powers when he tests a piece of wood. He is simply exhibiting the result of long training, experience, and some native talent."<br /><br />This is a very interesting passage, and it suggests to me that you mean something different by "science" than most modern philosophers do. Many scientists and philosophers would bristle to hear it suggested that doing work in physics or biology require (in principle) wisdom, discretion, prudence, intuition, all those intangible qualities. <br /><br />Could you talk a little bit about what you think science is?Plinyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09883411215474201985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-50223529015804472372011-05-22T14:46:12.748-04:002011-05-22T14:46:12.748-04:00That's interesting.I am sure you are right. I...That's interesting.I am sure you are right. I am sorry to have given a wrong impression.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-23909568590595305582011-05-22T11:54:12.025-04:002011-05-22T11:54:12.025-04:00Re 'behavioral modification': I believe th...Re 'behavioral modification': I believe this post leaves a misleading impression by identifying 'behavioral modification' solely with altering the schedule of reinforcements (i.e., operant conditioning).<br />Although I don't know much about this, there is a group of therapies known as 'cognitive behavioral therapies' which I understand are used quite a bit today, to treat, e.g., substance abuse or anxiety disorders, and which are not psychoanalytic but also not a matter of manipulating reinforcements. (See for instance the Wikipedia entry on 'cognitive behavioral therapy').LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-9002218055978263432011-05-22T02:25:43.251-04:002011-05-22T02:25:43.251-04:00Thank you, Carl. That is much better!Thank you, Carl. That is much better!Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61711664774708413792011-05-21T23:40:34.650-04:002011-05-21T23:40:34.650-04:00Erratum: Portnoy's analyst actually says "...Erratum: Portnoy's analyst actually says "Now ve may perhaps to begin?"Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02998793914690685677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-27783404975626968052011-05-21T19:38:47.744-04:002011-05-21T19:38:47.744-04:00Behaviorism is certainly dead in linguistics (espe...Behaviorism is certainly dead in linguistics (especially due to Chomsky's famous 1959 review of Skinner's <i>Verbal Behavior</i> in the journal <i>Language</i>). And I gather from people I've talked to in psychology that it persists there but is relatively marginal (though the behaviorists do have an international scholarly organization).English Jerkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14960822939548263926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-29365702455912242012011-05-21T16:42:53.175-04:002011-05-21T16:42:53.175-04:00Two comments of little import:
1) Now that you'...Two comments of little import:<br />1) Now that you've finished your Freud tutorial (book?) I don't feel so bad recommending a book to you: have you read Tony Judt's "Ill Fares the Land"? It's an expanded version of this lecture he gave at NYU:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/<br />I've only just begun the book, but it seems to examine many of the same questions you touch on in your essay on Socialism. I think it should be interesting (also Judt writes beautifully, so its a pleasure to read).<br />2) There seem to be a number of "Michael"s in your comments. Sorry if this causes any confusion.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781744385645937568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-9718476945455222252011-05-21T16:14:29.367-04:002011-05-21T16:14:29.367-04:00"Some people say that Freudian psychoanalysis..."Some people say that Freudian psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science, a closed epistemological loop, incapable of empirical conformation or disconfirmation, and they find the patent imperviousness to criticism with which supposed “Freudians” present their “explanations” simply infuriating."<br /><br />I think those people might be confusing "Freudian" with "Lacanian" which, at least from my discussion with decently educated Lacanians, seems to think this.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781744385645937568noreply@blogger.com