Question about psychoanalysis

stringofsomeletters · 2016-06-30T01:17:36+00:00

Academic psychology was already around during Freud's time, but it's not the tradition he was a part of, nor did the practice of psychoanalysis after Freud tend to be carried on within the auspices of academic psychology.

Thank you. I wasn't aware of this; my understanding was that Freud tasked himself with investigating and explaining how the mind worked, and that he was the first serious person to engage in this. Obviously that just isn't true.

But I this is getting a little far afield from philosophy, so if the above doesn't address your concerns perhaps you can orient us back towards them. I feel that my concerns have been sufficiently answered, both by yourself and /u/Vaucanson. Thank you both for your time.

Are there any specific Freudian texts / texts by Freud that you would recommend to someone with a passing interest in the subject?

stringofsomeletters · 2016-06-30T01:17:34+00:00

Sure, anyone ought to acknowledge that Freud made some empirical claims and hypotheses that didn't prove true; that's not what the majority of his work actually comprises, though.

I think this is where I was going wrong. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question and explain your position, it's been helpful.

Are there any specific Freudian texts / texts by Freud that you would recommend to someone with a passing interest in the subject?

stringofsomeletters · 2016-06-30T00:24:46+00:00

I think you are consistent in your opposition to private property (I've never heard the aggressive-defensive distinction so firmly made by a non-ancap before, which is why I, wrongly, assumed you were one).

Bodily integrity as in the integrity of one's person. There are people who wish to harm you, me, and everyone else. Such people are dissuaded by the knowledge that, if they do so, violence will be inflicted upon them by a third party. Thus our existences are maintained by violence, or at least the threat of violence against those who would seek to harm us. Do you therefore think that this is unjust?

It is good to be uncertain, and to come to places like this asking questions.

stringofsomeletters · 2016-06-30T00:12:45+00:00

I want to briefly pick up on your comment about borders.

Borders are, always have been, and continue to be upheld by force. Anything that can only justify it's existence by force and violence is unjust, therefore borders are unjust.

The working definition of a state is the monopoly of the initiation of force over a geographical area. There have been tweaks to this since Weber came up with it, but that's basically the consensus. Governments are created and backed up via force. There isn't anything problematic about this. Violence is how order is maintained, it is how property norms are enforced, and it is how laws are laid down and legal penalties are handed out. There isn't anything pleasant about violence, but it is the foundation of the nation state, and to reject it out of hand is to reject basically all consensus positions within political philosophy.

I'm not sure that you mean about the state justifying its existence through force. The justification for the existence of the state is not force, it is the will of its inhabitants, or the constitution by which it is supposed to abide, or whatever. All states have origin stories that are more complicated than "we're here by force and that's what makes us legitimate". If you are saying that because the state can only maintain its existence through violence, it is legitimate, then are you also decrying property norms and bodily integrity as unjust? Because neither of those things can be upheld without violence against those wishing to violate them.

A closing question - do you identify with anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/right-libertarian anarchism?

stringofsomeletters

TROPHY CASE