Freud's Writings

[Windup]

I've recently finished reading Freud's Psychopathology of Everyday Life in a collection of his writings. So far, basically, every somatic/linguistic failure possible has been attributed to an unconscious motive. I'm not reading Freud for any class specifically, but for a broader understanding of psychological theories to apply to broad analyses on a range of topics (also better understanding of literature). Next in the book is: The Interpretation of Dreams, Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex, Wit and Its Relations to the Unconscious, Totem and Taboo, and The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement. Which writing(s) would you most recommend, that have true value (I mean I understand they all have some merit, but Psychopathology of Everyday Life could of been simplified into unconscious motive=some initially unexplained error and saved me some time without 5,000 examples)? I know his writings aren't exactly 'literature' but his ideas have influenced and/or explain a heap of literature :>

[JuniperWoolf]

If you're looking for something that has real significance in the field of psychology today, you're not going to find it in Freud. His theories are dated and seriously lacking in empiricism, there's really no scientific “truth” there. It's better to read Freud from an historical perspective. His importance was more in the field of clinical psychology, the fact that he actually sat down with clients who weren't "insane" and talked to them to try to work out their real life issues, no one had ever done that before.

When it comes to science psychology, read his theories (if you're only going to read one, then I recommend Interpretation of Dreams), then get some Carl Jung in you, then move on to behaviourists (Skinner, then that douchebag Watson) and then you will have an understanding of how psychology developed and you can look into modern psychology.

[Leland Gaunt]

If you're looking for something that has real significance in the field of psychology today, you're not going to find it in Freud. His theories are dated and seriously lacking in empiricism, there's really no scientific “truth” there. It's better to read Freud from an historical perspective. His importance was more in the field of clinical psychology, the fact that he actually sat down with clients who weren't "insane" and talked to them to try to work out their real life issues, no one had ever done that before.

When it comes to science psychology, read his theories (if you're only going to read one, then I recommend Interpretation of Dreams), then get some Carl Jung in you, then move on to behaviourists (Skinner, then that douchebag Watson) and then you will have an understanding of how psychology developed and you can look into modern psychology.
Though I agree with you for the most part, I'd just like to add that the psychodynamic theory is still used effectively in therapy. It seems to perform on par with behavioral and cognitive therapies, when treating things like depression.

then that douchebag Watson
LOL, you are the only one brave enough to say what we are all thinking when reading about him.

[Windup]

Haha, thanks for the input, I only began checking into Freud's writings after remembering some chat about him in my Intro to Psychology class a long time ago, and I recently finished Gore Vidal's Washington D.C., where Vidal mentions Freud's theories regularly (incest, penis envy & and w/e other stretches fit here). I will, however, check out Jung and those mentioned. Although I plan to never venture into psychology myself, the knowledge is quite useful :>

[JuniperWoolf]

Though I agree with you for the most part, I'd just like to add that the psychodynamic theory is still used effectively in therapy. It seems to perform on par with behavioral and cognitive therapies, when treating things like depression.

I'd argue that the process of talking about one's problems and past, and finding an explanation for your present psychological state in your childhood (even if the explanation has no basis in reality) is a cathartic experience in itself. I think that the psychodynamic approach is effective because it allows people to talk about their lives (a form of venting) plus the comfort of perceived "cause and effect" seems to provide stability. I know that when I was depressed, an answer as easy as "I'm this way because I rolled off of the bed when I was ten months old" would be a kind of comfort.

But, that's all just guesswork as well.

[Leland Gaunt]

I don't think that it is to be completely discounted. Talk therapy can treat the root cause, whereas drugs often just treat the symptoms. Not that I am denying the usefulness of drug therapy. It is fully possible for people to be dishonest with themselves and an unbiased viewpoint can illuminate those dishonesties.

[PeterL]

You should keep in mind the advances made recently in the study of the human brain, especially that the balance of neuro-transmitters is essential in everyday activity and in abnormal psychology.

[bpearson]

Neuropsychology can't explain everything though, mind you neither can traditional psychoanalysis. You need both of them, even if one is less based upon scientific "fact"

[PeterL]

Neuropsychology can't explain everything though, mind you neither can traditional psychoanalysis. You need both of them, even if one is less based upon scientific "fact"

Yes, but Freud's work has aged poorly.

[Leland Gaunt]

You should keep in mind the advances made recently in the study of the human brain, especially that the balance of neuro-transmitters is essential in everyday activity and in abnormal psychology.
I know, and I am certainly not suggesting that psychoanalysis is better. Just that it does have its uses.

Neuropsychology can't explain everything though, mind you neither can traditional psychoanalysis. You need both of them, even if one is less based upon scientific "fact"
Quite right. Also cognitive, behavioral, and humanist have their places within therapy, as well.

[AJ07]

It's a shame Freud is looked upon as an old man to be read in history classes and enjoyed over a late evening tea conversation! Current psychotherapy trends are annoyingly poor. Psychoanalysis is a dead and rich art I haven't been able to come across no matter how I scavenge through therapists.

Not only from the Psychology p.o.v., but take any psychological piece of writing (like Nabokov), and you can't help exclaiming how dead on Freud had it. Or maybe he only makes sense to twisted horrors like myself.

Far as the original question goes, I enjoyed Dream Psychology a lot, though I don't know how relevant you'd find it to literature. Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious, I'd say. It's short and easy.

[Leland Gaunt]

you can't help exclaiming how dead on Freud had it.
I can. So do you agree with Freud's thoughts on schizophrenia?

[mal4mac]

If you're looking for something that has real significance in the field of psychology today, you're not going to find it in Freud.

Is the unconscious of no significance in psychology today? I don't get that impression.

Freud was hardly the first thinker who talked to people and tried to work out their real life issues. What about Socrates? The Stoics? Epicurus? These thinkers had great influence on CBT, so are very relevant to today's psychology.

Windup - that looks like a good collection you have - who is the editor/publisher? Why not just read it and put up with the repetition first time through! Highlight passages for re-reading and then you don't have to put up with reading everything again... and you'll need to re-read if you want to take Freud as seriously as you maintain.

For an overview, I liked Anthony Storr's Freud: A Very Short Introduction.

[JuniperWoolf]

Is the unconscious of no significance in psychology today? I don't get that impression.

Freud plucked his reasons for inner turmoil out of the air. If he were alive today, he'd tinker with his theories. As he isn't, the field itself has done it for him. It's silly when you see people who don't know anything about psychology taking Freud's theories seriously, there are over one hundred years of scientific advancement that they need to know about if they want to understand psychology. Although Freud was the father of the unconcious, it's not like unconcious theory ends at psychoanalysis (actually it's the opposite; psychoanalysis was only the beginning). Psychology is a science: it has been, and will continue to be, tweaked and improved.


Freud was hardly the first thinker who talked to people and tried to work out their real life issues. What about Socrates? The Stoics? Epicurus? These thinkers had great influence on CBT, so are very relevant to today's psychology.

I didn't say that they weren't relevant. I don't really know why you brought this up, to be honest. The thread is about psychology which as a serious science is relatively young, and though the philosophical ideas of the past have influenced the way we perceive human nature, the idea of a clinic, where "normal" people come in and lay on a couch and talk to a professional about their lives in an effort to improve themselves, that can be attributed to Freud (I'm pretty sure that there's no evidence of Socrates ever having sat down with a housewife and trying to figure out why she can't stop crying after sex).

P.S. What does CBT have to do with anything? That's a pretty tiny branch of the science of psychology as a whole, the application of one method of clinical psychology that wasn't even mentioned once in the thread.

[.Kafka]

Lacan. And Freud is certainly not irrelevant. The amount of Freudian psychoanalytical criticism I encounter on a day to day basis is astonishing.