Do you also hate to Freud?

A philosopher once said that "a dwarf, a giant's shoulders sees more." I would also say that, conversely, "a dwarf, at the foot of a giant, sees nothing ... except his own envy."

This is, in my opinion, what many critics have great characters of history, dedicated primarily to dig in the dirt from them, as if the dwarves do not own our own rags sufriésemos also ... So I think to learn of the publication of another book against psychoanalysis, "Freud, the twilight of an idol," Michel Onfray.

As I said before, I'm not a psychoanalyst, and even less adept at Freud, who disagree very much, except for some ideas that I consider crucial: p. for example., unconscious, symptom, neurosis, defense mechanisms, free association, dreams, transference, countertransference ... Freud said many foolish things, made many mistakes and certainly not always play fair, and we need to know. (Nor countless scientists, thinkers, historians, journalists, politicians., Play fair, but that is another topic). However, despite all this, I am perpetually in debt to Freud.

For my entire life personal, intellectual and professional my teachers and related-including Fromm, Alice Miller and my therapist-, life and improvement of all my patients, my writings, this blog with all-you-readers, etc.. , and derives all benefits from Freud. Our whole world, even, alas, his successful propaganda and brainwashing, are derived from Freud. For this, despite all the dwarves of the land belongs, in my opinion, a fundamental trio in the history of the West, Darwin, Freud and Marx, who, despite all the limitations of the time of their birth and their personal errors and defects, began the process of knowledge that no one had ever imagined before, and opened the way to forms of freedom unthinkable at any other time or place in the world.

Obviously, every thought is questionable. Any criticism is necessary. But when criticism, no respect for the positive aspects also has criticized it, seems to seek global discredit rather, their destruction, is inevitable suspicion that perhaps the critic is "doing therapy" at the expense of his victim's easy-the which can not defend herself, or need to "kill" the envied father (1), or just vent some kind of intellectual rigidity. On the other hand, I hope that the enemies do not presuppose that Freud, in terms of "mental disorders", psychiatry or behaviorism are inherently superior. And if you do not even believe in such disorders, in that I agree, but not many psychoanalytic concepts are no longer needed to understand and alleviate a lot of people.

In any case, for decades a lot of people have tried to reform from within psychoanalysis, or have used different and creative ways, or simply turned away completely from him. Have also been committed, and committed, many excesses that approach, as with all doctrines and crafts. But everyone, absolutely everyone, even his detractors angry, we have drawn on Freud. We are dwarfs on the backs of Freud. Not to mention the fact that, as so often repeated here, no matter what others say, the only thing that matters is our own experience. So, do not resignéis to "hear of Freud": read it! It is an unforgettable experience because, well, as rarely says, is a great writer.

Finally, for all these things and despite all the sins of psychoanalysis and his father, I still respect and thanks to Sigmund Freud.

____

1. It is your own father he should "kill" on the inside. Otherwise, there will be "patricide" enough in the world that can soothe your heart.