Things to Note Before Reading Freud's "The Murder of Dostoevsky's Father" - Five Principles for Reading Freudian Theory

Five principles for reading Freudian theory - What should be noted before reading Freud's theory of Dostoevsky?

On the previous page, Eysenck'sFarewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of Freud's Empire.introduced.

The book carefully critiques each of the errors in Freudian theory and reveals how Freudian theory is spoken without evidence.

The reason I am referring to this book is because FreudDostoevsky and the Killing of the Fathers."This was because he had written a paper called "The Oedipus Complex" in which he applied the Oedipus Complex to Dostoevsky and discussed it.

What's wrong with that?" you may ask.

But as I mentioned in the previous page, Freud's theory has no historical basis. Freud interprets events according to his theory and even twists and turns the subject or event.

As you study Dostoevsky, you will see how Freud interprets Dostoevsky at will. The interpretations go on and on with total disregard for historical facts and corroboration, creating a completely different portrait of a man who is no longer the same person. This was a problem that I just could not accept.

Later article on Freud's theory of DostoevskyI seriously wondered if "The Brothers Karamazov" is really a novel about the murder of a father - reading Freud's "Dostoevsky's Murder of the Father."We will cover it again in the following section, so please see that section for more details.

Therefore, in this article, I would like to introduce some principles to be aware of when reading Freudian theory from my previous article, "Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of Freud's Empire". It is a frighteningly revealing look at the reality of Freud's work. I am sure you will be surprised if you read it. Freudian theory is something we often hear about in our daily lives, but it will be revealed how unfounded it is. So, let's get started.

These are very important points, so I would like to take a closer look at them one by one, even though they are only excerpts.

Principle 1: Do not trust anything written about Freud or psychoanalysis, especially anything written by Freud himself or by psychoanalysts, without proper grounds for trust.

The first principle is very important for those who want to know the truth about psychoanalysis and Freud, though,Without a credible and adequate basis.、、、、、、、、、、、、、, ,Written about Freud and psychoanalysis、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、, ,Especially don't trust anything written by Freud himself or any psychoanalyst.、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、This means that what is written is often wrong and, in the worst cases, is the opposite of the truth. This means that what is written is often wrong and, in the worst cases, the opposite of what is true.

Critique, by H. J. Eysenck, translated by Masaru Miyauchi, Akinori Nakano, Naoki Fujiyama, Michio Ozawa, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Yukiko Kaneo, Hisashi Ebisawa, and Akira Iwanami, Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire, p. 27

There is still plenty of evidence that Freud and his biographers wrote factually incorrect things about the development of psychoanalysis and the fate of his heroes, but interested readers are referred to Saraway, Ellenberger and the bibliography at the end of this volume. From the foregoing, we hope that it is abundantly clear that what Freud and his successors have written is factually inaccurate. Their intention to make Freud into a traditional hero and to create a myth is obvious. In mythology, facts are not allowed to interfere with the formation of myths.

Critique, by H. J. Eysenck, translated by Masaru Miyauchi, Akinori Nakano, Naoki Fujiyama, Michio Ozawa, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Yukiko Kaneo, Hisashi Ebisawa, and Akira Iwanami, Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire, p 32

As we have already seen in this article, Freud has been deified and his biography and theories are far removed from historical fact. We cannot present more in this article, but this book will take a closer look at those points of view.

Eysenck then moves on to the next principle.

Principle 2: Do not trust the word of Freud or his successors that psychoanalytic treatment is successful.

Moreover, myths are not only found in Freud's early years. So, readers who want to know the correct account of psychoanalysis need to follow the second principle.Never trust the word of Freud or his successors that psychoanalytic treatment is successful.、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、The case of Anna O. As an example, let me give you the case of Anna O., a patient with classical hysteria who, according to the myth, was cured by the treatment of Bloyer.

Anna was a 21-year-old woman when Brower was called to treat her. Anna's illness began while she was caring for her father. Brower believed that Anna had experienced emotional trauma related to her father's illness, and that her symptoms were formed by her desire for his death, so he treated her using "dialogue therapy," which Freud later took over.

Freud and Breuer claim that the symptoms that afflicted Anna were "completely cured" by the cathartic treatment.

However, recently Anna's medical records were discovered at the Bellevue Sanatorium in the town of Kreuzlinden, Switzerland.

The medical records revealed that the symptoms that Bloyer claimed to have permanently removed persisted long after Bloyer's treatment had ended.

Symptoms began with "hysterical coughing," followed by muscle contractions, paralysis, seizures, paresthesias, visual abnormalities, and bizarre speech impediments. These symptoms continued long after Bloyer stopped treatment. It is impossible to say that Bloyer cured the symptoms.

Furthermore, Anna is not hysterical,tuberculous meningitis、、、、、、that he was suffering from a serious physical illness. Thornton writes in detail. (omitted)

Thornton's detailed account reveals the long course of the disease and the fact that Bloyer had misdiagnosed the patient, providing a treatment that was completely unrelated and invalid to the original disease.

Thus, the claims made by Freud and his successors about this case are all mistaken. Thornton makes it clear that Freud was aware that he was mistaken, and it seems that many of his successors were as well.

In fact, it was Jung who first publicly stated that supposedly successful treatments were completely ineffective.

Such stories show that we should be wary of the words of Freud and his successors, even when they claim that a treatment was successful. The tendency to claim failed treatments as successful is ubiquitous.

The case of the werewolf, which will be discussed in detail in later chapters, is a good example. Here, too, the myth of the hero overcoming impossible obstacles and achieving success is on display.

Unfortunately, in the case of Freud's case, success was a figment of the imagination. Readers interested in more factual information are advised to read Saraway, Thornton, and Ellenberger's book, which examines the cases in detail and reconstructs them historically. The facts are quite different from Freud's story.
Some line breaks have been made.

Critical Review, H. J. Eysenck, Masaru Miyauchi, Akinori Nakano, Naoki Fujiyama, Michio Ozawa, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Yukiko Kaneo, Hisashi Ebisawa, Akira Iwanami, Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire, p 32-34

You can also see here why Jung was excommunicated by Freud.

Considering the level of science and medicine at the time, Freud may have had no choice in not detecting the disease, but it seems to be a very important principle in considering whether his theory is accurate or not.

Principle 3 Don't take the claim of originality seriously, look into the work of Freud's predecessors.

The third principle that must be followed when examining Freud's contributions is,Don't take the claim of originality seriously.、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、, ,Check out the work of Freud's predecessors.、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、It is.

We have already mentioned, in connection with Galton's free association method, that Freud did not like to acknowledge his "discoveries" as the achievements of his predecessors.

Similarly, I use without refusal the important work of French psychiatrist Pierre Janet on anxiety. Janet's case is detailed in Ellenberger's book.

But perhaps the most obvious is the doctrine of the unconscious. Freudians try to portray Freud as a lone hero who risked so much in his search for truth, the first to enter the deep, unfathomable pit of the unconscious.

This story is also far from the truth. As White writes in "The Unconscious Before Freud," there were hundreds of people who postulated and detailed the existence of the unconscious before Freud. In fact, it would be rare for a therapist not to have some form of unconsciousness in mind when treating problems of the mind. (omitted).

There is no question about the fact that before Freud, many philosophers, psychologists, and even physiologists assumed the unconscious. To think that Freud discovered the "unconscious" is utter nonsense.

In connection with the theory of the unconscious, Ebbinghaus, the renowned German psychologist and the first to conduct experimental studies of memory, complained that

The part of the theory of the unconscious that is new is not true; the part that is true is not new."

It is a perfect epitaph, fitting not only for Freud's theory of the unconscious, but for all of his achievements. It is a phrase that will be used over and over again.

Unconscious activity does indeed exist, but the idea of a Freudian-style unconscious, a medieval morality play in which the ego, id and superego, censors, Eros and Thanatos, and other mythical figures play out, and the Oedipus Complex, Electra Complex, and various other complexes are implicated, It is so ridiculous that it does not deserve the word scientific.
Some line breaks have been made.

Critical Review, H. J. Eysenck, Masaru Miyauchi, Akinori Nakano, Naoki Fujiyama, Michio Ozawa, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Yukiko Kaneo, Hisashi Ebisawa, Akira Iwanami, "Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire," p 34-36

This was a question I had been asking myself for a long time.

Freud is often said to be the discoverer of the unconscious, but the existence of the "unconscious" has long been discussed in Eastern thought, including Buddhism. The analysis of the mechanism of consciousness was also surprisingly precise.

Nevertheless, Freud is still regarded as the discoverer of the unconscious. I also wondered if the ancient wisdom of the East would be ignored, just as it was by Columbus when he "discovered America.

But the story behind it was like the one above. The unconscious had been studied before Freud, and the unconscious itself was conscious in religion and in many other aspects.

So why did Freud nevertheless achieve this level of status as the "discoverer of the unconscious"?

We have discussed this in our previous biography, "Freud, Dark Spot in the Vision," and in the following article in relation to Marx.

And the most important of these Principle 3 is considered the most important of all.."The part of the theory of the unconscious that is new is not true, and the part that is true is not new."This is the word.

This is true of much Freud-related discourse, as author Eysenck states.

Freud promoted his research with the attitude, "This is the true 00. Freud promoted his research with the attitude, "This is original research that has never been described before. However, the reality of Freud's promotion of the cutting edge of research was expressed in words such as the above.

Principle 4: Do not easily trust the evidence that asserts that Freudian theory is justified. When you examine the evidence, the exact opposite is often true.

The fourth principle that I recommend to those who read Freud is,Don't easily trust the evidence that asserts that Freudian theory is legitimate.、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、The following is a list of the most common problems with theWhen you examine the evidence, the exact opposite is often true.、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、This means.

There will be much more material in the book to show that this principle is correct, but here is just one example to help you understand the purpose of this principle.

In Freud's dream theory, dreams are always assumed to be the fulfillment of repressed desires in infancy. As we will see in detail in the chapter on dream judgments, Freud wrote many examples of dream interpretation in his own book.

Surprisingly, however, not a single dream has anything to do with early childhood repression!

This fact is, of course, widely accepted by psychoanalysts. Richard M. Jones, one of Freud's most ardent supporters, has no choice but to say the following in The New Dream Psychology: "I have read the Dream Judgement from cover to cover. I have read the Dream Judgement from cover to cover, and there is no dream that satisfies a desire that was repressed in infancy. Every dream had a desire, but they were either fully conscious desires or desires that had been repressed since infancy. (omitted).

Keep in mind that the method of deceiving the reader by saying that a particular case supports Freud's theory, when in fact it does not, is a ploy often used by Freud and his successors.

The interpretation of dreams is accepted because it makes common sense and makes sense. Therefore, the reader does not think too much about the connection between Freud's theory and dreams, but it should be noted that Freud's interpretation is much more complex and intricate than a straightforward interpretation.
Some line breaks have been made.

Critical Review, H. J. Eysenck, Masaru Miyauchi, Akinori Nakano, Naoki Fujiyama, Michio Ozawa, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Yukiko Kaneo, Hisashi Ebisawa, Akira Iwanami, "Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire," p 37-39

This principle is also very important.

Freud piles up one interpretation or speculation after another, even though what he brings forward as evidence does not serve as evidence.

His narrative is so exquisite and persuasive that you can't help but notice when he comes up with the wrong evidence and get more and more rounded up.

The best example of this, which I will discuss in the next article, is the psychoanalysis of Leonardo da Vinci. Freud came up with a rationale from which he developed all of his theories, including the Oedipus Complex, and that rationale was completely wrong. The starting point of his interpretation was already wrong.

The same applies to Dostoevsky's "father-killing theory". A thorough historical examination of the evidence brought forward by Freud makes it clear that it is false. As Eysenck states, the evidence brought forward by Freud's side needs to be verified. The average reader cannot go that far, and it would never occur to him or her that "the evidence Freud brings forward is baseless. Thus, Freud's theory will be passed off as correct, even though it is false evidence.

Principle 5: When looking at life histories, do not overlook the obvious.

For readers who wish to appreciate psychoanalytic theory and the personality of its founder, my final advice is,When looking at life histories.、、、、、、、、、, ,Don't overlook the obvious.、、、、、、、、、、、This means.

I would like to demonstrate the importance of this principle by explaining a paradox in Freud's life history. This paradox refers to Freud's sudden transformation that occurred in early 1890.

By the end of the 1880s, Freud held several positions: university lecturer, honorary advisor to the Institute of Childhood Diseases, and head of its neurology department. He was also an accomplished neuroanatomist and highly regarded as an expert, having written extensively on neurology.

He was happily married, had many children, and was a prosperous practitioner treating diseases of the nervous system. He was a member of the bourgeois class, conservative, traditional, and a Christian. Everything suddenly changed in the early 1890s.

The outlook on life has clearly changed. Attitudes toward sexuality, previously rigid and strictly Victorian, suddenly changed in a direction that turned all traditional sexual mores upside down. As his writings show, his style has also changed. The previous scientific papers were clear, concise, and in accordance with the knowledge of the time, but suddenly they became remarkably speculative, theoretical, convoluted, and deliberate. (omitted).

Thornton proposes a very clear hypothesis, based on Freud's correspondence with Freud and Fries, that explains the sudden change in terms of cocaine dependence. Freud studied cocaine, used it to control the headaches that often attacked him, and enthusiastically recommended it to anyone who wanted to change their mental state. (omitted).

There is direct evidence for the cocaine theory in Freud's writings. There is a point in "The Dream Judgement" where he recalls his concern for his own health while writing about a patient.

At the time, I frequently used cocaine to alleviate my bothersome nasal obstruction. A few days earlier, I had just heard that a female patient who had been using cocaine like me was suffering from extensive necrosis of the nasal mucosa.

Thornton's opinion is as follows. Freud was not just using cocaine to ease the pain of his occasional migraine attacks. He was in a vicious cycle of medicating his nasal obstruction, a side effect of the drug. When the effects of the drugs wore off, the nasal obstruction inevitably worsened, so Freud used cocaine constantly.

I think this could be considered a true revelation.

The evidence is largely circumstantial, but Thornton's detailed and carefully annotated analysis should be sufficient proof. Freud's correspondence with Freud and Fries may be even more conclusive evidence, but Freud's family has refused to allow Thornton or other researchers to see the letters.

There is no doubt that Freud's bizarre transformation is very similar to the physical and psychological changes often observed in cocaine-dependent patients. It may be wrong to attribute the behavioral changes to psychological causes or to neurosis (as Breuer and Freud failed to do in the case of Anna 0). Fries and Freud may have had physical causes as well.

Old-fashioned doctors overlook psychogenic diseases and misdiagnose them as being caused by the body. Psychoanalysts often make the opposite mistake. Without examining any case in detail and without preconceived notions, the true cause of the illness cannot be determined.
Some line breaks have been made.

Critical Review, H. J. Eysenck, Masaru Miyauchi, Akinori Nakano, Naoki Fujiyama, Michio Ozawa, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Yukiko Kaneo, Hisashi Ebisawa, Akira Iwanami, "Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire," p 39-41

Freud's cocaine use was written about in his biography. Freud's cocaine use now seems to be a common theory.

Freud tries to diagnose all behavioral changes in terms of psychological ones. He attributes a person's "behavior" to the Oedipus Complex, but a physical problem or illness may have caused the person to "act that way. And even if psychological factors were a factor in the first place, it does not necessarily mean that the Oedipus Complex is the only cause. It is repeatedly pointed out in this book that the human mind does not operate on such a single principle.

Summary - Freud is not a science, but a religious/political phenomenon

We have already told you about Freud's human figure, and I think you now understand the danger of taking Freud and his successors at their word.

I know that readers will be concerned because they are no longer certain about a number of issues.

Why was Freud able to explain his theory of dreams and the unconscious exclusively in "The Dream Judgment" by using examples of dreams that did not fit the theory at all?

Is it possible that many critics whom Freud regarded as obviously hostile were not?

How can a psychoanalyst, who knows the shortcomings of "Dream Judgment," still call it an achievement of genius?

From what we have examined so far, many more questions will be raised. The answer to these questions is that Freud's theory is not science in the orthodox sense, but propaganda created without regard to the facts about the case and without any attempt to prove the scientific theory.

Propaganda was conducted in an unusual manner. Even to knowledgeable critics, it is not explained in scientific terms.

Critics were accused of being hostile to psychoanalysis because of repressed, neurotic feelings and desires from childhood.

in this waybe able to quibble with an opponent's arguments、、、、、、、、、、、、The argumentum ad hominem thing is abhorrent to science and cannot be taken very seriously. Whatever the motivation of the critic, the scientist is obligated to answer the rational part of the critique. This the psychoanalyst does not do at all, and as we will prove in later chapters, no hypothesis other than Freud's hypothesis has ever even crossed his mind.

It is religion or politics, not science, that has these qualities. Freud, the mythical hero, has completely stepped out of the role of the serious scientist and is playing the role of a religious prophet or a political leader. Only by putting it this way can we understand the matters discussed in this chapter.

To understand psychoanalysis as a movement, we must first understand the human Freud. In all the arts, there is a close relationship between the artist and the work. In science, there is no such thing. Calculus would have been discovered without Newton, and in fact Leibniz discovered it at about the same time, independently of Newton.

Science is objective and independent of personality. Art and psychoanalysis are subjective and closely related to the artist's personality. As we will see in more detail in later chapters, the psychoanalytic movement is not a science in the orthodox sense. All the strange things I have mentioned in this chapter stem from this simple fact.
Some line breaks have been made.

Critique, by H. J. Eysenck, translated by Masaru Miyauchi, Akinori Nakano, Naoki Fujiyama, Michio Ozawa, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Yukiko Kaneo, Hisashi Ebisawa, and Akira Iwanami, Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire, p 42

Here Eysenck concludes that "Freud is not scientific, but religious and political.

This conclusion is also the very thing that led us to introduce Freud in our blog.

As I have discussed in detail in this article, it does not matter whether Marx's or Freud's theories are correct or incorrect. It is the persuasiveness and appeal of the stories they tell that attracts people.

Eysenck's points are very sober and accurate.

But how effective are these points? This is another difficult question. I think this is the reason why Marx Freud as a religious phenomenon still has power today.

On the following pages we will continue to look at Freudian theory using Eysenck's book.

It is the Freudian theory in Leonardo da Vinci that I discussed in Principle 4.

This is precisely the most obvious example of what Freudian theory can be applied to historical figures.

We hope you will take a look at Freud's "Dostoevsky and the Murder of the Fathers" before reading it.

These are "Things to Note Before Reading Freud's "Dostoevsky's Murder of the Fathers" - Five Principles for Reading Freudian Theory".

*However, the issue of paper fraud has recently been pointed out with regard to Eysenck.

Wikipedia.

Hans-Jürgen Eysenck.(in Japanese history)Hans Jurgen Eysenck, 1916.March 4 - 1997September 4The,Germany(at sentence-end, falling tone) indicates a confident conclusionpsychologistThe following is a list of the most common problems with the

Inappropriatelearningby (means of)neurosisThe authors believed that this would cause thebehavioural therapy (behavioral)He attempted to cure by He was active in the field of personality research.1975.indicates such things as location of person or thing, location of short-term action, etc.Eysenck Personality Testwas invented. psychoanalysisHe is known for his scathing criticism of the demonstrability of the

In 2019, 21 years after his death, the paper was found to be fraudulent and 25 co-authored papers were declared "unsafe" by the university. Ultimately, 71 papers were raised for concern by the journal and 14 papers were retracted^[1]The following is a list of the most common problems with the

Wikipedia.

Also,Ethics for Researchers in Hakuraku."in a website calledPsychology: Hans Eysenck (UK); Life Sciences: Ronald Grossarth-Maticek (Germany).The page "The case against the company" provides a detailed account of the case.

Eysenck did not use his own theory to criticize Freudian theory; he used facts and data.

The translator's afterword at the end of the book also states, "The author has kept his emotional expression to a minimum, his opinions to a minimum, and his style is to focus on presenting the non-scientific facts about Freud and psychoanalysis, leaving the judgment to the reader." The author also says, "The author does not use emotional expressions.

However, the issue of Eysenck's thesis misconduct is unfortunate.

Eysenck criticized Freud using facts and data.

But that Eysenck himself was criticized in the same way, pointing out the problems with his theory.

I cannot help but feel the difficulty of psychoanalysis and psychology in not being able to obtain empirical data that can be understood numerically. I am not a specialist, so I only know the end of this fabrication issue through this article. Therefore, I have no way to say more about what is really going on.

However, the reason I have highlighted Eysenck on this blog is because he clearly points out the problems with Freud's theory. And moreover, I would like to state one point: Freud's Dostoevsky theory is not based on facts. I am not in total denial of Freud, nor do I have any particular agenda against current psychoanalysis.

Therefore, although Eysenck has been criticized recently, his "Farewell to Psychoanalysis: The Decline and Fall of Freud's Empire" is separate from his psychological theories and contains accurate criticism of Freud, which we will refer to in this blog.

Next Article.

Click here to read the previous article.

Related Articles