|
|
|
|
|
|
by cccybernetic
915 days ago
|
|
|
I see your point, but honestly, the only way I can respond to your question is with more questions. Why do we expect deep psychological or philosophical insights to make things better for us, or lead to “improvements”? Why do we think that a profound revelation will bring clarity and resolution to our lives? It could just as well make us more crazy. There’s the famous case of the “Rat Man”. Whether Freud cured him is up for debate, though he most likely didn’t. But it’s a deep mediation on neurosis, obsession, cognitive dissonance, love, hate. It raises more questions than it answers but it's incredibly insightful. It gets at the heart of human fragility and I think that's something to take seriously. |
|
|
That's a fair point. We shouldn't necessarily expect them to.
However, we do need some way to evaluate if they are real deep insights or just an interesting fantasy. IF Freud's ideas are just not true, if our psyche is not really divided in id, ego, and super-ego, if our early childhood experiences are not so formative etc - is it really fair to call it a deep insight? I'd say that, IF that turns out to be the case, then no, it wasn't a deep insight, it was just an interesting fantasy, no different from the deep lore of the Elves of Tolkien. Not without value, but lacking in philosophical or psychological value.
So, the big question is how we should tell if his insights are true or not, before using them to change our way of thinking about ourselves and others. And evaluating how they are successful or not at their stated purpose, while not proof, is at least evidence in this direction.