tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post4385614007446157332..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Freud and Nietzsche: Psychiatry between Existentialism and ScientismBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-70369528006425277872017-04-23T12:28:49.862-04:002017-04-23T12:28:49.862-04:00Well, I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on ph...Well, I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on physics. I certainly don't understand the math. Penrose's The Road to Reality shows well how the math builds on itself. Kline's Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty shows the shakiness of math's foundations, which must somehow fit with Smolin's conjecture that math is essentially fictional.<br /><br />My knowledge of physics is confined to some of the popularizations: Paul Davies, Lee Smolin, Suskind, Brian Greene. I remember liking Quantum Reality, by Nick Herbert, for showing the variety of philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, but that's an old book now. And I like reading Smolin's outsider perspective on the prevailing theory in physics, on string theory. His recent book with his co-author, The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time is interesting. It includes his take on mathematics, which connects well with Harari's view of the fictional nature of culture in general. That's all I try to do, really, with regard to physics, which is to weave some ideas in physics into a larger philosophical picture. I'm more interested in the philosophy and the sociology of science.<br /><br />Regarding Aeon, I agree it has many articles worth reading. I pitched an article there once but they didn't go for it. Now they don't take submissions.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-68821117777080203932017-04-23T10:39:12.314-04:002017-04-23T10:39:12.314-04:00Great explanation, thanks. I've not heard of ...Great explanation, thanks. I've not heard of the connectionist term, though I think get the distinction. <br /><br />Do you have any reading suggestions when it comes to modern physics?guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17921348890452371324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-9290833084446469292017-04-23T09:36:48.313-04:002017-04-23T09:36:48.313-04:00There was a split in recent psychology between the...There was a split in recent psychology between the cognitivists and the connectionists, between those who posit mental representations, to stick closer to our intuitions about ourselves and our identity as having a mind made up of beliefs and desires, and those who identify more with the brain and thus posit parallel-processing learning systems. The latter derive from behaviourists and from the folks in that Aeon article who mocked Freud for being unscientific. The former derive from Chomsky's demolition of behaviourism and from the rise of computationalism (the use of the computer as a model of the mind-brain). <br /><br />Connectionists consider themselves scientists because they stay close to the physiology, whereas the cognitivists can consider themselves scientific because they take into account the data of consciousness and the rest of the "manifest image" (freewill, reason, etc). But actually, cognitivists are closer to philosophy than to science. The Aeon article shows this split went back to Freud's day. Freud's talk of the superego and the ego were intuitive compared to the work of the much more reductive theorists and proto-behaviourists. <br /><br />There's a similar split in physics between string theorists and the rebels (like Lee Smolin) calling for more attention to data rather than to math. String theorists have math rather than intuition, but math is likely a kind of fiction, as Smolin argues, so once again string theorists are closer to philosophy than to data-based science.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-52523544209699882352017-04-22T10:28:10.532-04:002017-04-22T10:28:10.532-04:00Thank you, that was interesting. Aeon publishes s...Thank you, that was interesting. Aeon publishes some good stuff, they usually have at least one article that pulls me in from their summary newsletter I subscribed to.<br /><br />My takeaway is that the author feels the science portrays the unconscious as being an enabler of automatic actions, like the ability to multitask without applied attention. It makes me think of the common experience of driving somewhere without incident but having no memory of doing so because you were focused on something in the foreground. They mention William James which who is a near contemporary of Freud's but often reads as the father of cognitive therapy to me. At the same time, he was well aware and wrote some intriguing passages about his own struggles with anxieties that were clearly born of the sort of concerns that you call cosmicist.<br /><br />Orthodox Freudianism reads cultish to me. They talk about some of the progeny of their views in popular culture like L Ron Hubbard. At the same time, Freud's ability to untangle motivations and illustrate them, especially when he talks of cultural matters have really fascinated me for a long time.<br /><br />It seems pretty widely acknowledged now that he was both aware and avoidant of speaking about how conversant he was with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer (the latter really deserves a lot of 'credit' for his views).guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17921348890452371324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-25358404477425067692017-04-21T17:39:23.450-04:002017-04-21T17:39:23.450-04:00Guthrie, by coincidence an interesting article jus...Guthrie, by coincidence an interesting article just came out that takes up this question of a more scientistic, efficiency-based kind of therapy than psychoanalysis. <br /><br />https://aeon.co/essays/every-school-of-psychology-has-its-own-theory-of-the-unconsciousBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-26755204311336237422017-04-21T12:42:17.260-04:002017-04-21T12:42:17.260-04:00Religion is all lies.
http://www.haaretz.com/jew...Religion is all lies. <br /><br />http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-15571066098829877682017-04-18T18:26:05.617-04:002017-04-18T18:26:05.617-04:00Guthrie, I agree completely that psychoanalysis is...Guthrie, I agree completely that psychoanalysis is closer to existentialism than is cognitive behavioural therapy. Indeed, given CBT's avoidance of the underlying issues and its focus on strategies for solving specific problems related to a disorder's symptoms, CBT is like sanctioned drugs such as caffeine and nicotine, which keep the workflow going without challenging the worldview or upsetting the capitalistic apple cart (as do psychedelic or entheogenic drugs, for example). <br /><br />According to CBT's wikipedia page, the goal is to alter "thought distortions," which are "exaggerated or irrational thought patterns." Of course, I'm sure extreme ways of thinking can be harmful to oneself and to others, but this certainly leaves untouched the cosmicist point that _all_ human thinking is distorted, by definition. All our thoughts are generalizations or models which have pragmatic, largely instinctive justifications (as Hume and Nietzsche pointed out). We're all much less rational than we think we are. And all normal ways of thinking per culture are viewed as practically insane by future generations. <br /><br />Anyway, the main point I wanted to make in this article is that it's a shame that psychiatry as a whole isn't as informed by existentialism as it should have been, given its Freudian-Nietzschean pedigree. You're right again that Freud isn't central even to current psychoanalysis, let alone to psychiatry as a whole. But I agree with Becker that postindustrial mental problems that aren't straightforwardly physiological in nature likely stem from deep existential fears, which art and religion rather than science need to address. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-28901942463180240942017-04-18T14:54:18.383-04:002017-04-18T14:54:18.383-04:00I realize you're not making an argument agains...I realize you're not making an argument against this observation, but it does seem that psychoanalysis in one of it's forms may be one of the few avenues for a non-religious person to engage in existential conversations. Just engaging in this sort of narrative therapy is likely to seem like nothing else in life to someone who 'suffers' from existential anxiety but has no artistic or other outlet. How orthodox or Freudian the therapist is likely determines the judgements implied, how absurdly sexual each memory or thought is painted. But I don't think orthodox Freudians are likely even the majority of practicing psychoanalysts these days.<br /><br />Contrast that experience with cognitive therapies of various sorts as approved by modern insurance or pushed in the workplace or to parents. Maybe they are effective for learning small thinking habits that lessen everyday suffering, but they are geared toward compliance in a consumerist culture at the fastest possible pace. It's hard to think of an arena where technoscientific rubber hits the road faster than conventional therapy as practiced in schools, workplace, prisons, even churches.<br /><br />Talking in circles about some subjects is occasionally the best orbit you can hope for.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17921348890452371324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-87220687347495767442017-04-17T14:48:17.012-04:002017-04-17T14:48:17.012-04:00http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-soh-gen...http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-soh-gender-neutral-parenting-20170106-story.html<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-54800289366866224792017-04-16T19:01:07.026-04:002017-04-16T19:01:07.026-04:00There's obviously a biological difference betw...There's obviously a biological difference between the sexes, but in so far as gender is the set of attitudes and behaviours that define masculinity and femininity, gender is indeed socially constructed, since it depends on how we're raised and on the culture's roles and ideals for men and women. Evolution also plays a part, since there are physiological differences other than the sex organs. <br /><br />I don't see how anyone could think gender is entirely a cultural fiction, though, unless they took the postmodern view that all truth is anyway subjective.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-35318362966168022942017-04-16T14:27:33.190-04:002017-04-16T14:27:33.190-04:00How do you feel about the people who claim that ge...How do you feel about the people who claim that gender is entirely a social construct, and that hormones and evolution play no real part in gender? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com