"Why this is the case with Freud and Jung (and, interestingly, with
Heidegger), [snip] is beyond me."
sarah barmak already hit the nail on the head when she wrote:
"..but people get far more emotionally incensed about his errors
than is really rational. It's something that is unique among theorists
who have shaped the world we live in.."
and i might add that freud and co. not just shaped the deindividualised
"world", but of course the objects this world contains-- you and me, i.e...
hence, the discussion about freud might be interpreted as being in fact
a meta-discussion revolving around issues of personal experience with/
(imagined) applicability of F.'s theories to the life/persona of
whoeever is speaking.
it is indeed very hard to disentangle one's own reasoning from the
theoretical background being discussed, as some degree of identification
with the debated psychological ideas always seems to take place.
and then, isn't the shift in discussion towards the "morals of
theorists", --that shift implying a personal, not just intellectual
involvement-- in itself a pretty nice indicator of just how much freud &
co are still of a topic?
max d
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|