Changes

: I don't follow your point here.  Are you suggesting the addition of citations, or are you denying that Freud lied?  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't follow your point here.  Are you suggesting the addition of citations, or are you denying that Freud lied?  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I noted that a number of people had asked for citations for this, what seems to be quite contentious point. Please let me stress I know absolutely nothing about Psychoanalysis; hjowever, I have found what seems to be the reference that the original author (whoever it was, probably lost in the mists of time) did not supply, i.e. Coffi. From what I have read, Coffi contends that Freud did not so much '''deliberately''' lie as fabricate according to his mindset; in that way, it is a failing in Frued's psychoanalytic process, and the claims Freud made for it, and opens the process up to the accusations of being a pseudoscience and Freud to the accusation of being a quack. The second citation actually addresses this point of view and contends that this sort of result is inevitable from the psychoanalytic process, in that patient and analyist must necessarily come to a shared understanding, which must, by any dialogic process, be fabricated. In other words, whether or not the result of the analysis yields truths or not cannot be easily determined; it might be that an analyst is genuinely uncovering meaning, but on the other hand, he and the patient might be making it all up, and no-one, not even the participants can say for certain. My point in all this, is that given the quagmire that this seems to lay before us, to make a claim that Freud was lying, is at best oversimplistic, and at worst is simply untrue, as there is no evidence that Freud '''deliberately''' lied. This means that it does not actually belong in an article on deceit, and trying to claim that it does when there is no evidence to support it, could well itself be deceitful. --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)  

:: I noted that a number of people had asked for citations for this, what seems to be quite contentious point. Please let me stress I know absolutely nothing about Psychoanalysis; hjowever, I have found what seems to be the reference that the original author (whoever it was, probably lost in the mists of time) did not supply, i.e. Coffi. From what I have read, Coffi contends that Freud did not so much '''deliberately''' lie as fabricate according to his mindset; in that way, it is a failing in Frued's psychoanalytic process, and the claims Freud made for it, and opens the process up to the accusations of being a pseudoscience and Freud to the accusation of being a quack. The second citation actually addresses this point of view and contends that this sort of result is inevitable from the psychoanalytic process, in that patient and analyist must necessarily come to a shared understanding, which must, by any dialogic process, be fabricated. In other words, whether or not the result of the analysis yields truths or not cannot be easily determined; it might be that an analyst is genuinely uncovering meaning, but on the other hand, he and the patient might be making it all up, and no-one, not even the participants can say for certain. My point in all this, is that given the quagmire that this seems to lay before us, to make a claim that Freud was lying, is at best oversimplistic, and at worst is simply untrue, as there is no evidence that Freud '''deliberately''' lied. This means that it does not actually belong in an article on deceit, and trying to claim that it does when there is no evidence to support it, could well itself be deceitful. --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)  

 

<references/>

<references/>