What do you think?
Rate this book
In this fully updated second edition, the author clearly introduces and assesses all of Freud's thought, focusing on those areas of philosophy on which Freud is acknowledged to have had a lasting impact. These include the philosophy of mind, free will and determinism, rationality, the nature of the self and subjectivity, and ethics and religion. He also considers some of the deeper issues and problems Freud engaged with, brilliantly illustrating their philosophical significance: human sexuality, the unconscious, dreams, and the theory of transference. The author's approach emphasizes the philosophical significance of Freud's fundamental rule - to say whatever comes to mind without censorship or inhibition. This binds psychoanalysis to the philosophical exploration of self-consciousness and truthfulness, as well as opening new paths of inquiry for moral psychology and ethics.
The second edition includes a new Introduction and Conclusion. The text is revised throughout, including new sections on psychological structure and object relations and on Freud's critique of religion and morality.
The second edition includes a new Introduction and Conclusion. The text is revised throughout, including new sections on psychological structure and object relations and on Freud's critique of religion and morality.
260 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 2005
93 people are currently reading
1,006 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Lear
46books59followersJonathan Lear is an American philosopher and psychoanalyst. He is the John U. Nef Distinguished Service Professor in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago and served as the Roman Family Director of the Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society from 2014 to 2022.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
May 30, 2024
ترجمه� فوق العاده و دقیق و چاپ تمیز نشر نو، لذت خوندنش رو چندین برابر کرد.
April 21, 2021
در بابِ شرح و شفاف‌سازی� نظریات روانکاوی فروید، جاناتان لیر از هر جهت بی نقص عمل کرده است. بررسی روانکاوی فرویدی یا در واقع تحلیلی فلسفی با نیم نگاهی به فلسفه ارسطویی، موجب شده «فروید-جاناتان لیر» به اثر منحصربه‌فرد� تبدیل شود. یکی از مهمترین اقدامات جاناتان لیر، برطرف کردنِ سوء تفاهم ها و سوءِ فهم های نظریات فروید است. اتفاقِ مثبتِ دیگری که به اهمیتِ کتاب افزوده، تحلیلِ فلسفی-روانکاویِ پرونده بیمارانِ فروید است. جاناتان لیر از تحلیلی ابتدایی می آغازد و سپس خواننده را با تحلیل های پیچیده و بسیار مهمِ روبرو می کند. ترجمه بی نقص و دقیق است و پاورقی ها و توضیحاتِ مترجمانِ این کتاب، موجباتِ فهمِ پاره ای از موارد دشوار کتاب را فراهم کرده اند.
پ. ن : «فروید-جاناتان لیر» کتابی به مثابه مبانی آشنایی با روانکاوی فرویدی نیست و لازمه خوانشِ کتاب، آشنایی اجمالی با نظریات روانکاوی فرویدی است.
پ. ن : «فروید-جاناتان لیر» کتابی به مثابه مبانی آشنایی با روانکاوی فرویدی نیست و لازمه خوانشِ کتاب، آشنایی اجمالی با نظریات روانکاوی فرویدی است.
September 19, 2021
It is a readable introduction to Freud the philosopher, and it is written in a fairly accessible language. It does, however, seem rather superficial at times and never really get to grips with the aspects of Freud’s work that I find most central to his philosophical position. Interesting in its links to Plato, but there's just a little too much Lear in the interpretation and possibly not enough Freud.
January 27, 2021
تا جایی که متوجه شدم نویسنده� کتاب، جناب جاناتان لیر متاثر از ارسطو هست و این در درک و روایتش از فروید -حداقل در این کتاب- بسیار موثر بوده. علاوه بر این دست کم برای من که قبلا هیچی از فروید نخونده بودم بعضی جاها قابل تشخیص نبود که دیدگاهی که مطرح میشه دیدگاه فروید هست یا نویسنده. با این وجود چشم‌اندا� خوبی در طرح مساله و آشنایی ابتدایی با فروید برای من داشت.
ترجمه کتاب هم بسیار دقیق بود و امتیاز چهارم رو برای ترجمه میدم.
ترجمه کتاب هم بسیار دقیق بود و امتیاز چهارم رو برای ترجمه میدم.
January 7, 2020
This book was an answer to my prayers.
No no!
Not really!
I don’t actually do that.
But if I did.
I would have prayed all last year for a great new book on psychoanalysis.
And then this book would have dropped and that would have made it seem like it worked.
Anyway.
This is a great book.
It’s a well written, economical, plain spoken contemporary elucidation of Freudian psychoanalysis, written by the clearly insightful, skillful and erudite psychoanalyst and philosopher Johnathan Lear.
Lear posits that the prime directive of psychoanalysis is for the analysand to observe their own experiences, and say whatever comes to mind, without self censorship, for the sake of brining the fullness of their psychological existence into conscious awareness.
All of the other special structures and constructs of the psychoanalytic ‘situation� are designed specifically to foster this outcome.
That’s so clear.
I really really wanted someone to come along and write a book like this.
And he did.
And I’m so dang happy about it.
I honestly can’t even!
Yass mama yass!!!!
The 📖 hit the 🎯
No no!
Not really!
I don’t actually do that.
But if I did.
I would have prayed all last year for a great new book on psychoanalysis.
And then this book would have dropped and that would have made it seem like it worked.
Anyway.
This is a great book.
It’s a well written, economical, plain spoken contemporary elucidation of Freudian psychoanalysis, written by the clearly insightful, skillful and erudite psychoanalyst and philosopher Johnathan Lear.
Lear posits that the prime directive of psychoanalysis is for the analysand to observe their own experiences, and say whatever comes to mind, without self censorship, for the sake of brining the fullness of their psychological existence into conscious awareness.
All of the other special structures and constructs of the psychoanalytic ‘situation� are designed specifically to foster this outcome.
That’s so clear.
I really really wanted someone to come along and write a book like this.
And he did.
And I’m so dang happy about it.
I honestly can’t even!
Yass mama yass!!!!
The 📖 hit the 🎯
February 7, 2023
به عنوان کسی که تا الان کتابی در این زمینه نخونده بودم خیلی با خوندنش راحت بودم. جاناتان لیر توی هر قسمت مسئله‌‌ا� که در برخی موارد بیمار‌ها� فروید و در برخی موارد انسان‌ه� به طور کلی باش مواجه هستند رو شرح میده، بعد از اون نظر فروید در رابطه با مسئله رو شرح میده و در آخر در برخی موارد نظرات فروید رو نقد میکنه، و انقدر اینکار رو با نظم خوبی انجام میده که هم به فهمیده شدن مطالب کمک میکنه و هم خوندن کتاب رو خوشایند میکنه.
August 1, 2023
� � درمانی بر یک درمان
ویتگنشتاین هدف خود را از تأسیس فلسفه‌ا� رویكرد درمانی در گستره فلسفه می‌خوان� و از روی اتفاق كار فلسفی خود را با روانكاوی مقایسه می‌كن�. او مشكل عمده فلسفه پیش از خود را كاربرد نابجای زبان می‌نام� و درصدد ارائه مثال‌های� بر می‌آی� كه با استفاده مناسب از زبان مسائل فسلفی نه حل، كه منحل شوند. جاناتان لیر نیز در كتاب «فروید» كه ترجمه فارسی آن به تازگی منتشر شده درصدد بر‌می‌آی� روانكاوی- و به‌خصو� مبدع آن یعنی فروید- را بر روی كاناپه روانكاوی بخواباند و سؤال‌ها� چالشی را با او در میان بگذارد كه به‌مثاب� اشتباه‌ها� وی تاریخ روانكاوی را مبتلا به مشكلاتی كرده كه خود فروید از پس آن برنیامده است. شواهد متعددی از این كتاب می‌توا� نشان داد كه طی آن نویسنده فروید را نه به شیوه خشك، پوزیتیوستی و یك‌سونگران� هانس آیزنك و نه به سبك جامعه‌شناس� سطحی و تطبیقی اریك فروم به باد انتقاد می‌گیر�. صدالبته این انتقاد نه رویه‌ا� رفتارگرایانه و بیرون از متن مانند آیزنك دارد و نه به شیوه فروم به مقایسه بی‌سرانجا� و یك‌پاراگراف� ماركس و فروید ختم می‌شو�.
لیر فیلسوفی عضو انجمن بین‌الملل� روانكاوی است. دغدغه او هم از سنخ روانكاوی است و هم از جنس فلسفه. رویه‌ا� در این كتاب به فلسفه علم تأسیسی می‌ماند� مشابه همان رویه‌ا� كه وبر نسبت به جامعه‌شناس� داشت. فلسفه مدنظر لیر به دیدگاه كانتی «شرایط ممكن‌شد� ایده‌ها� تجربی» نزدیك است و باید دقت كرد كه این ایده‌ه� از كندوكاو در تجربه‌ها� بالینی و قیاس آن با نظریه‌ها� فروید حاصل می‌شون�. در دو بخش اول كتاب نگاه فلسفی غالب است. در درآمد كتاب لیر به مقایسه فروید با فیلسوفان متأخر یونان باستان (سقراط، افلاطون و ارسطو) و دیدگاه‌ها� آنان می‌پرداز�. فصل اول كتاب راجع به قیاس نظریات فروید با دیدگاه‌ها� تحلیلی دانلد دیویدسن است و از منظر دیویدسن مطالعات درباره ناهشیار را پی می‌گیر� و به نقد آن می‌پرداز�. تا فصل شش حضور فیلسوفان چندان پررنگ نیست- گرچه نگاه فلسفی و دغدغه‌ها� پیگیرانه آن كماكان ادامه دارد. در فصل نتیجه‌گیر� نویسنده باز هم سری به فیلسوفان یونان می‌زن�. اما چرا لیر دغدغه فلسفی دارد؟ به گفته خودش هدف او گشودن امكانات تأویل � اینكه چه ممكن است بر بیماران فروید رفته باشد- و دوام نفوذ اندیشه فروید است. لیر می‌خواه� سؤالاتی را از فروید و بیمارانش بپرسد كه یا فروید نپرسید یا با طرح نابهنگام آنها، بیماران را برای همیشه از اتاق روانكاوی راند یا روند آن را مختل كرد. روند شكل‌گیر� كتاب- اگر بتوان از این اصطلاح استفاده كرد- حالتی «تئوری‌گرافی� با مبنای فلسفی» دارد. اصولا جاناتان لیر با دیدگاه‌ها� فروید متقدم همدل نیست. او تلویحا بر این باور است كه فروید هر چه به پختگی می‌رسید� دیدگاه‌های� سازش بیشتری با واقعیت وجودی بیماران پیدا می‌كر�. از سوی دیگر فروید آن‌قد� نابغه بود كه توانایی تبدیل مشكل به راه‌ح� را دارا باشد. دو نمونه از این خلاقیت‌ه� را می‌توا� به ترتیب زمانی در كنارنهادن هیپنوتیزم در درمان بیماران هیستریك و تئوریزه‌كرد� مسئله انتقال در پی شكست روانكاوی بیماری به نام «دورا» پی گرفت. از اولی تداعی آزاد به وجود آمد و از دومی كشف مكانیسم پدیده انتقال. انتقالی كه در ابتدای امر بزرگ‌تری� مشكل میان روانكاو و بیمار بود كه بعدها با نبوغ فروید به بزرگ‌تری�...
✍️ نیما شریفی
@nashrenow
ویتگنشتاین هدف خود را از تأسیس فلسفه‌ا� رویكرد درمانی در گستره فلسفه می‌خوان� و از روی اتفاق كار فلسفی خود را با روانكاوی مقایسه می‌كن�. او مشكل عمده فلسفه پیش از خود را كاربرد نابجای زبان می‌نام� و درصدد ارائه مثال‌های� بر می‌آی� كه با استفاده مناسب از زبان مسائل فسلفی نه حل، كه منحل شوند. جاناتان لیر نیز در كتاب «فروید» كه ترجمه فارسی آن به تازگی منتشر شده درصدد بر‌می‌آی� روانكاوی- و به‌خصو� مبدع آن یعنی فروید- را بر روی كاناپه روانكاوی بخواباند و سؤال‌ها� چالشی را با او در میان بگذارد كه به‌مثاب� اشتباه‌ها� وی تاریخ روانكاوی را مبتلا به مشكلاتی كرده كه خود فروید از پس آن برنیامده است. شواهد متعددی از این كتاب می‌توا� نشان داد كه طی آن نویسنده فروید را نه به شیوه خشك، پوزیتیوستی و یك‌سونگران� هانس آیزنك و نه به سبك جامعه‌شناس� سطحی و تطبیقی اریك فروم به باد انتقاد می‌گیر�. صدالبته این انتقاد نه رویه‌ا� رفتارگرایانه و بیرون از متن مانند آیزنك دارد و نه به شیوه فروم به مقایسه بی‌سرانجا� و یك‌پاراگراف� ماركس و فروید ختم می‌شو�.
لیر فیلسوفی عضو انجمن بین‌الملل� روانكاوی است. دغدغه او هم از سنخ روانكاوی است و هم از جنس فلسفه. رویه‌ا� در این كتاب به فلسفه علم تأسیسی می‌ماند� مشابه همان رویه‌ا� كه وبر نسبت به جامعه‌شناس� داشت. فلسفه مدنظر لیر به دیدگاه كانتی «شرایط ممكن‌شد� ایده‌ها� تجربی» نزدیك است و باید دقت كرد كه این ایده‌ه� از كندوكاو در تجربه‌ها� بالینی و قیاس آن با نظریه‌ها� فروید حاصل می‌شون�. در دو بخش اول كتاب نگاه فلسفی غالب است. در درآمد كتاب لیر به مقایسه فروید با فیلسوفان متأخر یونان باستان (سقراط، افلاطون و ارسطو) و دیدگاه‌ها� آنان می‌پرداز�. فصل اول كتاب راجع به قیاس نظریات فروید با دیدگاه‌ها� تحلیلی دانلد دیویدسن است و از منظر دیویدسن مطالعات درباره ناهشیار را پی می‌گیر� و به نقد آن می‌پرداز�. تا فصل شش حضور فیلسوفان چندان پررنگ نیست- گرچه نگاه فلسفی و دغدغه‌ها� پیگیرانه آن كماكان ادامه دارد. در فصل نتیجه‌گیر� نویسنده باز هم سری به فیلسوفان یونان می‌زن�. اما چرا لیر دغدغه فلسفی دارد؟ به گفته خودش هدف او گشودن امكانات تأویل � اینكه چه ممكن است بر بیماران فروید رفته باشد- و دوام نفوذ اندیشه فروید است. لیر می‌خواه� سؤالاتی را از فروید و بیمارانش بپرسد كه یا فروید نپرسید یا با طرح نابهنگام آنها، بیماران را برای همیشه از اتاق روانكاوی راند یا روند آن را مختل كرد. روند شكل‌گیر� كتاب- اگر بتوان از این اصطلاح استفاده كرد- حالتی «تئوری‌گرافی� با مبنای فلسفی» دارد. اصولا جاناتان لیر با دیدگاه‌ها� فروید متقدم همدل نیست. او تلویحا بر این باور است كه فروید هر چه به پختگی می‌رسید� دیدگاه‌های� سازش بیشتری با واقعیت وجودی بیماران پیدا می‌كر�. از سوی دیگر فروید آن‌قد� نابغه بود كه توانایی تبدیل مشكل به راه‌ح� را دارا باشد. دو نمونه از این خلاقیت‌ه� را می‌توا� به ترتیب زمانی در كنارنهادن هیپنوتیزم در درمان بیماران هیستریك و تئوریزه‌كرد� مسئله انتقال در پی شكست روانكاوی بیماری به نام «دورا» پی گرفت. از اولی تداعی آزاد به وجود آمد و از دومی كشف مكانیسم پدیده انتقال. انتقالی كه در ابتدای امر بزرگ‌تری� مشكل میان روانكاو و بیمار بود كه بعدها با نبوغ فروید به بزرگ‌تری�...
✍️ نیما شریفی
@nashrenow
July 8, 2021
Lucid and accessible philosophical introduction to Freud that is critical yet sympathetic (my favorite kind of introductions!) Argues, contra Donald Davidson, that the unconscious ought not to be thought of as a "second mind". I am rather new to Freud but I found Lear's argument rather compelling, I do think the mind ought to be thought of holistically that may be divided (preconscious, unconscious, subconscious, conscious...) but it is still "one"... I guess a kind of cognitive monism? I don't know. His chapter on dream analysis was very compelling but I felt he could have articulated condensation and displacement a bit better (I needed outside reading material to better comprehend it - the fault in lack of understanding could be my own!) but either way it fairly radically shifted the way I look at dreams. The concept of transference seems tricky (he even admits it is not very well understood in psychoanalysis itself!) but I thought Lear did a good job articulating this concept at an introductory level (though it was still quite complicated and I'm not sure I quite get the full gist of it!). The pleasure/reality principle stuff is neat and Lear's critique of the death drive was interesting, but I didn't quite understand it to be honest haha. Lear's articulating of the id/ego/superego and its genealogical formation and the Oedipus complex were really good, I was enthralled with it: gave me a lot to think about! I think Freud's theory of morality and religion are quite interesting (and like most of his theories fairly weird) but I do think Lear pretty much demolished it with his critique (Lear admits its the weakest part of Freud's theory and from what I know I tend to agree, though it is still an interesting thing to read about...Freud essentially constructs his own myth to explain mythologies). Overall, very good introduction to Freud and I feel like it is accessible to most people, the chapter on Transference was by far the hardest one to grasp, but this is a perfect introduction for someone with a little bit of experience of reading academic texts (like, say, a freshman undergrad). Maybe not the absolute best "baby's first Freud" book but I can't imagine one being better while also still being as academically rigorous yet compelling.
January 20, 2021
خیلی مردد بودم بین ۳ و ۴ و به نظرم نمره‌ا� ۳.۵ هست.
کتاب مروری هست به افکار و آرای فروید ولی بیشتر به این می‌پرداز� که اهمیت فلسفی افکار فروید در زمانه� ما چی هست. من کتاب رو برای آشنایی با افکار فروید شروع کردم ولی فکر می‌کن� خیلی کتاب مناسبی برای شروع نیست. کتاب رو یه فیلسوف روانکاو نوشته و خوندنش یه جاهایی سخت میشه. مخصوصا این که یه قسمت‌های� از کتاب معلوم ن��ست کدوم حرف‌ه� نظر نویسنده است و کدوم‌ه� نظر فروید. ولی کتاب ایده‌ها� جالبی رو در مورد نظریات فروید و اهمیتشون در زمان حال به ما میده و نقدهایی هم که نویسنده به نظریات فروید وارد می‌کن� جالب هستن. من متن انگلیسی کتاب رو خوندم و ترجمه� فارسی کتاب رو هم تا اینجا تا نیمه� کتاب دنبال کردم. به نظرم ترجمه� خوبی از کتاب انجام گرفته ولی لحن ترجمه زیادی حماسی و ادبی شده و فهم متن انگلیسی راحت‌ت� از متن فارسی هست یه جاهایی. در کل ولی بعد از خوندن کتاب بیشتر علاقمند شدم که نظریات فروید رو مطالعه کنم. حس می‌کن� ما همیشه نقدهایی که به فروید وارد شده رو خوندیم و هیچ‌وق� نرفتیم اول ببینیم حرف فروید چی بوده اصلا.
کتاب مروری هست به افکار و آرای فروید ولی بیشتر به این می‌پرداز� که اهمیت فلسفی افکار فروید در زمانه� ما چی هست. من کتاب رو برای آشنایی با افکار فروید شروع کردم ولی فکر می‌کن� خیلی کتاب مناسبی برای شروع نیست. کتاب رو یه فیلسوف روانکاو نوشته و خوندنش یه جاهایی سخت میشه. مخصوصا این که یه قسمت‌های� از کتاب معلوم ن��ست کدوم حرف‌ه� نظر نویسنده است و کدوم‌ه� نظر فروید. ولی کتاب ایده‌ها� جالبی رو در مورد نظریات فروید و اهمیتشون در زمان حال به ما میده و نقدهایی هم که نویسنده به نظریات فروید وارد می‌کن� جالب هستن. من متن انگلیسی کتاب رو خوندم و ترجمه� فارسی کتاب رو هم تا اینجا تا نیمه� کتاب دنبال کردم. به نظرم ترجمه� خوبی از کتاب انجام گرفته ولی لحن ترجمه زیادی حماسی و ادبی شده و فهم متن انگلیسی راحت‌ت� از متن فارسی هست یه جاهایی. در کل ولی بعد از خوندن کتاب بیشتر علاقمند شدم که نظریات فروید رو مطالعه کنم. حس می‌کن� ما همیشه نقدهایی که به فروید وارد شده رو خوندیم و هیچ‌وق� نرفتیم اول ببینیم حرف فروید چی بوده اصلا.
June 26, 2020
Lear states that his purpose in this book is to give a "philosophical" introduction to Freud's thought. I anticipated that this would involve analyzing Freud's implicit metaphysical assumptions, or connecting his ideas to issues in philosophy of mind, etc. Lear does none of that. This rather feels like a summary of Freud's key ideas; there is no philosophical explication of their broader significance, or philosophical argument for their legitimacy. Some of my dissatisfaction comes from this violation of expectations.
The rest of my dissatisfaction stems from my attitudes toward Freud's ideas themselves. I've been suspicious of Freud's work, and was hoping that reading Lear's understanding of Freud (Lear, as a philosopher whose work I admire) would change my mind. It did not. Reading this book affirms my sense that Freudian psychoanalytic theory is very much like a religion. It provides a seemingly comprehensive framework to understand our human nature and to explain our experiences. But its principles are reductive and ungrounded, as much as the principles in any given religion are. The hype over and acceptance of psychoanalytic theory is perhaps due to the same factors that contribute to the acceptance of religions. Their explanations offer guidance and meaning to the most confusing and painful areas of experience.
Moreover, I think Freud's ideas can flourish only in the individualistic, narcissistic, capitalist culture of our day. It would baffle people from communalist cultures how one could think it is a good idea to talk and think about ourselves - without thinking about the broader world, history, and our communities - for hours on end. Criticisms of self-help culture are pretty much applicable to Freudian psychoanalysis, from the understanding of psychoanalysis that Lear's book has left to me.
Let me give some examples and summarize some parts of this book. Freud believes that there is an unconscious that has dispositions, very much like our conscious dispositions. The difference is that the unconscious's dispositions are not targeted at specific individuals or events; they are more general emotional impulses. In contrast, our dispositions and attitudes are directed at particulars. Moreover, the unconscious is fundamentally sexual. If this view on the structure of the mind is appealing, I think it is because it captures the fact that we can have mental states that do not have particular propositional or conceptual content. But one does not need to posit a second agential force inside ourselves, distinct from our own, (let alone a force that is sexual in nature) to account for this fact. We can just posit that there is a range of kinds of dispositions and experiences we are capable of; some are conceptual, and others are not. I think a more useful framework for understanding this fact is that there are conceptual and non-conceptual elements of most mental states. We can examine mental states in terms of these two kinds of aspects; there is no need to posit a second agent or personality is the source of all the non-conceptual elements.
Freud, moreover, believed that the act of interpreting our dreams gives us insight into the unconscious. This seems like a load of nonsense. If the ways we interpret something shed light on the non-conceptual, emotional drives that back up and color our experience, evaluating our interpretations of anything, not just dreams, should do the trick with letting us understand our emotions. Freud does not provide any convincing argument for his claim that the contents of dreams are all hyper significant, reflecting our desires and fears. The competing thesis is that the contents of dreams are quite random, or re-hashing of imagery and experiences from our lives; the support for this is that songs and images can get stuck in our heads for reasons totally unrelated to our desires and fears (e.g., the song is simply catchy). Freud's approach to dream analysis is tantamount to the affirmation of forming conspiracy theories about anything we wish, without requiring actual facts or evidence to support such theories.
Freud also proposes the reality principle, the pleasure principle, and the death drive. He thinks that our experience is ontogenetically originally driven by the pleasure principle; we seek out pleasure, and understand reality in such a way as to promote the attainment of pleasures (e.g., an infant hallucinates the mother's breast, because this gives pleasure, and the infant believes that the breast actually exists in doing this). It is a cognitive achievement to let the reality principle structure our experience; the reality principle simply refers to our sensitivities to how the world actually works, independently of our needs and pleasures. Why do we need this elaborate positing of fundamental psychic 'principles'? It is commonsense that we seek out pleasure, and this disposition influences the beliefs we form and the ways we go about the world. There are many different, fine-grained psychological explanations that could be offered to examine this in detail. The 'explanation' of these two principles is both reductive, and doesn't actually offer much explanatory power; it doesn't help us understand the psychological mechanisms that are going on, whose manipulation could help us intervene on our experience.
The most insightful point of psychoanalysis, which Lear keeps up as a theme running throughout the chapters, is about the nature of psychological healing. Healing does not happen when we form the correct beliefs, or make discoveries that explain out pasts. Rather, healing happens when we are engaged in our pathological behaviors live-time, have this behavior disrupted (e.g., by reflecting and self-awareness; by a psychoanalyst), and then change our route activity and complete the behavior in such a way as to give it a new form. But this point is not unique to psychoanalysis. Behaviorist approaches in psychology focus and expand on this point. Moreover, William James, who preceded Freud by half a century, makes this point in his analyses on the nature of habit.
I might not be doing Freud justice for how innovative and important his ideas are. Maybe I can be critical of him because the conceptual resources to which I have access are already influenced and enhanced by Freud's discoveries about the existence of the unconscious. But at Freud's time, his points were momentous, and before him no one thought about psychological dynamics between the unconscious and conscious. But that simply isn't true. Philosophers for a very long time have talked about the force of emotion and impulse, and the disconnect between those and reason. Moreover, philosophers have known about unconscious processes and mechanisms, and posited how they structure our conscious experience (Hume, Kant). I set out hoping to have my mind changed about Freud, to see his importance. But with all the charity I can muster, I think his insightful/correct points have already been made by other thinkers preceding him, and his misleading/incorrect points are nicely disguised and are believed in religiously by too many.
I'm writing this all out because writing reviews helps me remember my reading experience; but also because I think Freudian ideas are positively destructive and unhelpful, and I wish for people to be more critical towards him. The ideas are destructive in that the explanatory entities that are posited to account for our experiences are all located inside one's psyche. When Freud understands that the individual's relationships to others shape one's development, he acknowledges these relationships only as, or in the form of, an internal, psychological structure the individual possesses, a structure that she imposes on the world. There is no mention of politics, culture, or history, and how these fundamentally shape the possibilities of relationships and experiences.
Nonetheless, this book is written quite clearly, and is well organized. I'd recommend it for readers who want an introduction to Freud's central ideas. But do not expect a philosophical take or analysis of these ideas; and take caution in one's evaluation of them. Lear does not provide any resources to help us evaluate Freud; he states that he largely agrees with psychoanalytic theory. So his writing can make it difficult to critically evaluate Freud, or at least does not aid in providing a critical lens.
The rest of my dissatisfaction stems from my attitudes toward Freud's ideas themselves. I've been suspicious of Freud's work, and was hoping that reading Lear's understanding of Freud (Lear, as a philosopher whose work I admire) would change my mind. It did not. Reading this book affirms my sense that Freudian psychoanalytic theory is very much like a religion. It provides a seemingly comprehensive framework to understand our human nature and to explain our experiences. But its principles are reductive and ungrounded, as much as the principles in any given religion are. The hype over and acceptance of psychoanalytic theory is perhaps due to the same factors that contribute to the acceptance of religions. Their explanations offer guidance and meaning to the most confusing and painful areas of experience.
Moreover, I think Freud's ideas can flourish only in the individualistic, narcissistic, capitalist culture of our day. It would baffle people from communalist cultures how one could think it is a good idea to talk and think about ourselves - without thinking about the broader world, history, and our communities - for hours on end. Criticisms of self-help culture are pretty much applicable to Freudian psychoanalysis, from the understanding of psychoanalysis that Lear's book has left to me.
Let me give some examples and summarize some parts of this book. Freud believes that there is an unconscious that has dispositions, very much like our conscious dispositions. The difference is that the unconscious's dispositions are not targeted at specific individuals or events; they are more general emotional impulses. In contrast, our dispositions and attitudes are directed at particulars. Moreover, the unconscious is fundamentally sexual. If this view on the structure of the mind is appealing, I think it is because it captures the fact that we can have mental states that do not have particular propositional or conceptual content. But one does not need to posit a second agential force inside ourselves, distinct from our own, (let alone a force that is sexual in nature) to account for this fact. We can just posit that there is a range of kinds of dispositions and experiences we are capable of; some are conceptual, and others are not. I think a more useful framework for understanding this fact is that there are conceptual and non-conceptual elements of most mental states. We can examine mental states in terms of these two kinds of aspects; there is no need to posit a second agent or personality is the source of all the non-conceptual elements.
Freud, moreover, believed that the act of interpreting our dreams gives us insight into the unconscious. This seems like a load of nonsense. If the ways we interpret something shed light on the non-conceptual, emotional drives that back up and color our experience, evaluating our interpretations of anything, not just dreams, should do the trick with letting us understand our emotions. Freud does not provide any convincing argument for his claim that the contents of dreams are all hyper significant, reflecting our desires and fears. The competing thesis is that the contents of dreams are quite random, or re-hashing of imagery and experiences from our lives; the support for this is that songs and images can get stuck in our heads for reasons totally unrelated to our desires and fears (e.g., the song is simply catchy). Freud's approach to dream analysis is tantamount to the affirmation of forming conspiracy theories about anything we wish, without requiring actual facts or evidence to support such theories.
Freud also proposes the reality principle, the pleasure principle, and the death drive. He thinks that our experience is ontogenetically originally driven by the pleasure principle; we seek out pleasure, and understand reality in such a way as to promote the attainment of pleasures (e.g., an infant hallucinates the mother's breast, because this gives pleasure, and the infant believes that the breast actually exists in doing this). It is a cognitive achievement to let the reality principle structure our experience; the reality principle simply refers to our sensitivities to how the world actually works, independently of our needs and pleasures. Why do we need this elaborate positing of fundamental psychic 'principles'? It is commonsense that we seek out pleasure, and this disposition influences the beliefs we form and the ways we go about the world. There are many different, fine-grained psychological explanations that could be offered to examine this in detail. The 'explanation' of these two principles is both reductive, and doesn't actually offer much explanatory power; it doesn't help us understand the psychological mechanisms that are going on, whose manipulation could help us intervene on our experience.
The most insightful point of psychoanalysis, which Lear keeps up as a theme running throughout the chapters, is about the nature of psychological healing. Healing does not happen when we form the correct beliefs, or make discoveries that explain out pasts. Rather, healing happens when we are engaged in our pathological behaviors live-time, have this behavior disrupted (e.g., by reflecting and self-awareness; by a psychoanalyst), and then change our route activity and complete the behavior in such a way as to give it a new form. But this point is not unique to psychoanalysis. Behaviorist approaches in psychology focus and expand on this point. Moreover, William James, who preceded Freud by half a century, makes this point in his analyses on the nature of habit.
I might not be doing Freud justice for how innovative and important his ideas are. Maybe I can be critical of him because the conceptual resources to which I have access are already influenced and enhanced by Freud's discoveries about the existence of the unconscious. But at Freud's time, his points were momentous, and before him no one thought about psychological dynamics between the unconscious and conscious. But that simply isn't true. Philosophers for a very long time have talked about the force of emotion and impulse, and the disconnect between those and reason. Moreover, philosophers have known about unconscious processes and mechanisms, and posited how they structure our conscious experience (Hume, Kant). I set out hoping to have my mind changed about Freud, to see his importance. But with all the charity I can muster, I think his insightful/correct points have already been made by other thinkers preceding him, and his misleading/incorrect points are nicely disguised and are believed in religiously by too many.
I'm writing this all out because writing reviews helps me remember my reading experience; but also because I think Freudian ideas are positively destructive and unhelpful, and I wish for people to be more critical towards him. The ideas are destructive in that the explanatory entities that are posited to account for our experiences are all located inside one's psyche. When Freud understands that the individual's relationships to others shape one's development, he acknowledges these relationships only as, or in the form of, an internal, psychological structure the individual possesses, a structure that she imposes on the world. There is no mention of politics, culture, or history, and how these fundamentally shape the possibilities of relationships and experiences.
Nonetheless, this book is written quite clearly, and is well organized. I'd recommend it for readers who want an introduction to Freud's central ideas. But do not expect a philosophical take or analysis of these ideas; and take caution in one's evaluation of them. Lear does not provide any resources to help us evaluate Freud; he states that he largely agrees with psychoanalytic theory. So his writing can make it difficult to critically evaluate Freud, or at least does not aid in providing a critical lens.
April 11, 2022
جالبه که انگار یادم رفته بوده بزنم که کتاب رو تموم کردم. به صورت کلی کتاب خوبی بود ولی به نظرم برای شروع کار کتاب مناسبی نیست. یه مقدار خوبی فلسفه پردازی‌ها� جاناتان لیر مخلوط شده با روایت نظریات فروید و یه جاهایی تفکیک این دو سخت میشه.
کتاب یه مقدار هم سنگین هست و همونطور که گفتم برای آشنایی با فروید احتمالا کتاب مناسبی نیست ولی ارزش خوندن داره
کتاب یه مقدار هم سنگین هست و همونطور که گفتم برای آشنایی با فروید احتمالا کتاب مناسبی نیست ولی ارزش خوندن داره
February 1, 2022
This is a to be recommended summary of the major tenets of Freud’s thoughts.
Refreshing to read this balanced account against all the recent Freud bashing.
Yes mistakes were made but Freud gave us some great insights for our journey towards our understanding of our psyche
And this book underlines the primal importance of the free association attitude underlying psychoanalysis
Refreshing to read this balanced account against all the recent Freud bashing.
Yes mistakes were made but Freud gave us some great insights for our journey towards our understanding of our psyche
And this book underlines the primal importance of the free association attitude underlying psychoanalysis
March 23, 2021
خب باید بگم که شما با یه کتاب نسبتاً سخت‌خوا� که در عین حال بسیار ژرف و کاربردی هست روبرو هستید. جاناتان لیر در این کتاب به توضیح، تفسیر و موشکافی آراء فروید پرداخته. بهتره هرکسی که به فروید و یا مباحث روانکاوی و البته مباحث خودشناسی! علاقه‌من� هست، خواندن این کتاب رو در اولویت بذاره. این کتاب می‌تون� ذهن شما رو از برخی بدفهمی‌های� که نسبت به نظریات فروید وجود داره آگاه و اصلاح کنه.
نکتهٔ پراهمیت این کتاب اینه که جاناتان لیر موضعی کاملاً معتدل و منصفانه به آراء و افکار فروید داره، در این کتاب نه خبری از جانبداری‌ها� مبالغه‌آمی� و بی‌دلی� از فروید و نظریاتش هست و نه خبری از سوءگیری‌ه� و تفسیرهای غیرمنصفانه و جاهلانه!
به قول اسلاوی ژیژک
«اگر بنا باشد به این پرسش پاسخ دهم که در میان روانکاوان معاصر چه کسی برای نگارش درآمدی بر فروید در مقام فیلسوف شایسته‌تری� است، انتخابم کسی نخواهد بود جز جاناتان لیر»
و در نهایت درود بر جناب جعفری و جناب طهماسب برای ترجمهٔ دقیق و عالی چنین اثر مهم و ارزشمندی.
نکتهٔ پراهمیت این کتاب اینه که جاناتان لیر موضعی کاملاً معتدل و منصفانه به آراء و افکار فروید داره، در این کتاب نه خبری از جانبداری‌ها� مبالغه‌آمی� و بی‌دلی� از فروید و نظریاتش هست و نه خبری از سوءگیری‌ه� و تفسیرهای غیرمنصفانه و جاهلانه!
به قول اسلاوی ژیژک
«اگر بنا باشد به این پرسش پاسخ دهم که در میان روانکاوان معاصر چه کسی برای نگارش درآمدی بر فروید در مقام فیلسوف شایسته‌تری� است، انتخابم کسی نخواهد بود جز جاناتان لیر»
و در نهایت درود بر جناب جعفری و جناب طهماسب برای ترجمهٔ دقیق و عالی چنین اثر مهم و ارزشمندی.
November 19, 2018
This is a philosophical introduction to Freud's views. It's interesting in many ways and Lear is not afraid to critique Freud, but at times the work turns more into an exposition of Lear than a popular philosophical introduction should be. Also, at times he is not harsh enough with Freud. Freud had almost no philosophical background and like all people who start doing philosophy with no real background in it, he makes dreadful first year undergraduate type mistakes. Lear is to patient with this and its clear that Freud's views on religion and morality are so simple minded as to be virtually worthless from a philosophical perspective.
Where Freud is at his most interesting from a philosophical perspective is where he is developing psychological views based on psychology that are philosophically relevant. The wall between psychology and philosophy is barely there if at all and this is where a philosopical introduction is most useful. Fortunately, that covers most of the book.
An additional criticism that I have is that if we take a long clear hard-headed look at Freud, then we have to conclude that he was both a genius and a fucked up dude. Furthermore, he was much more captured by the morays of his time than he ever expected. Lear is bad at understanding this which is essential to understanding Freud. To take the most obvious example of this, Lear discusses at length the case example of Dora primarily in the chapter on Transference. Like Freud, he misses the fact that Dora is essentially being pimped out by her father in order to bang another man's wife. Lear engages in subtle victim blaming here as does Freud. Dora seems the only wholly reasonable one here to me.
Lear is both a psychoanalyst and a philosopher and this is the strength and weakness of the book. He is stilll locked in some of the myths of psychotherapy, such as the therapist can be a neutral objective partner in the therapeutic relationship. IN my opinion, if we think philosophically we see that things are more complicated than that. Also he is clearly a Freudian psychotherapist and his closeness to Freud often blinds him to both the real flaws of Freud and his real achievements. BOth of which are numerous. On the other hand, he reflexively locates Freud where he should be located as a practitioner first and a theorizer second.
Still having said this the book is very good and rich in ideas. My three star rating is harsh and its almost a four star, but I rate harshly and I would only give at most three or four secondary sources in philosophy a five star rating, its the primary sources that get that kind of thing.
Where Freud is at his most interesting from a philosophical perspective is where he is developing psychological views based on psychology that are philosophically relevant. The wall between psychology and philosophy is barely there if at all and this is where a philosopical introduction is most useful. Fortunately, that covers most of the book.
An additional criticism that I have is that if we take a long clear hard-headed look at Freud, then we have to conclude that he was both a genius and a fucked up dude. Furthermore, he was much more captured by the morays of his time than he ever expected. Lear is bad at understanding this which is essential to understanding Freud. To take the most obvious example of this, Lear discusses at length the case example of Dora primarily in the chapter on Transference. Like Freud, he misses the fact that Dora is essentially being pimped out by her father in order to bang another man's wife. Lear engages in subtle victim blaming here as does Freud. Dora seems the only wholly reasonable one here to me.
Lear is both a psychoanalyst and a philosopher and this is the strength and weakness of the book. He is stilll locked in some of the myths of psychotherapy, such as the therapist can be a neutral objective partner in the therapeutic relationship. IN my opinion, if we think philosophically we see that things are more complicated than that. Also he is clearly a Freudian psychotherapist and his closeness to Freud often blinds him to both the real flaws of Freud and his real achievements. BOth of which are numerous. On the other hand, he reflexively locates Freud where he should be located as a practitioner first and a theorizer second.
Still having said this the book is very good and rich in ideas. My three star rating is harsh and its almost a four star, but I rate harshly and I would only give at most three or four secondary sources in philosophy a five star rating, its the primary sources that get that kind of thing.
June 6, 2022
فروید
نوشته جاناتان لیر
ترجمه مجتبی جعفری و علی‌رض� طهماسب
.
.
.
جاناتان لیر، دانش آموخته فلسفه از دانشگاه شیکاگو است. او که به گفته خود سالیان زیادی مشغول مطالعه آثار فروید است، با نگرشی فلسفی به مبانی نظری تئوری روانکاوی و با تاویلی مناسب از آراء فروید، و به دور از قضاوت های ارزشی فردی، به نگارش این کتاب همت گمارده و در راستای ویراستی دیگر از کتاب دیباچه ای نیز برای خوانندگان فارسی زبان نگاشته است.
ترجمه خوب کتاب و مبانی نظری آن، آن را به کتابی مورد توجه برای علاقه‌مندا� به مطالعات انسانی تبدیل کرده است� و برای دانشجویان روانشناسی و فلسفه، مطالعات اجتماعی و دیگر رشته های علوم انسانی مفید و آموزنده است.
جاناتان لیر خود را موافق و یا مخالف آراء فروید ندانسته و همانطور که مترجمان نیز اذعان داشته اند، بر آن بخش از «ناعقلانیت انگیخته»، که در روانکاوی مورد توجه قرار می‌گیرد� تمرکز کرده است.
او در کنار مفاهیم پایه روانکاوی، همچو اخلاق و صداقت، به انتقال، رویأ، ناهشیار و میل جنسی می‌پرداز� و در کنار مسائلی سازه محور در مبانی روانشناسی، همچو نشاط و افسردگی، به تأویل فلسفی خود پایبند مانده و مفاهیم فرویدی روانکاوی را در چهارچوبی مبرهن، جمع آوری و در این کتاب به چاپ رسانده است.
او برای نگارش این کتاب، چند کتاب به قلم خود فروید، به همراه منابعی از تاریخ روانشناسی و همچنین تاریخ فلسفه را نیز مورد بررسی دقیق قرار داده است و برای مطالعات بین رشته ای توصیه می‌شو�.
باید توجه داشته باشید که وقتی چیزی را نقل می‌کنید� افکار گوناگونی به ذهنتان می‌رس� که بنا بر ملاحظات خاصی می‌خواهی� آنها را کنار بگذارید. وسوسه می‌شوی� به خود بگویید که این یا آن موضوع بی‌رب� است، یا اساسا اهمیتی ندارد، یا بی معنی است، پس نیازی نیست گفته شود. هرگز به این ملاحظات تن ندهید و حرفتان را بزنید_در حقیقت، دقیقا چون از گفتنش احساس ناخوشایندی دارید، باید حرفتان را بزنید. بعدها پی می‌بری� و می‌فهمی� که چرا این یگانه قاعده‌ا� است که باید از آن تبعیت کنید. پس هرچه به ذهنتان خطور می‌کن� بگویید. طوری عمل کنید که انگار مسافری هستید نشسته در کنار پنجرهٔ واگن قطار و چیزی را که در بیرون می‌گذر� برای کسی که درون واگن است توصیف می‌کنی�.
در آخر، هرگز فراموش نکنید که قول داده‌ای� کاملا صادق باشید و چیزی را به صرف آنکه، به هر دلیلی، گفتنش برایتان ناخوشایند است، از قلم نیاندازید. «فروید» در باب مبانی نخست روانکاوی.
در پناه خِرد.
نوشته جاناتان لیر
ترجمه مجتبی جعفری و علی‌رض� طهماسب
.
.
.
جاناتان لیر، دانش آموخته فلسفه از دانشگاه شیکاگو است. او که به گفته خود سالیان زیادی مشغول مطالعه آثار فروید است، با نگرشی فلسفی به مبانی نظری تئوری روانکاوی و با تاویلی مناسب از آراء فروید، و به دور از قضاوت های ارزشی فردی، به نگارش این کتاب همت گمارده و در راستای ویراستی دیگر از کتاب دیباچه ای نیز برای خوانندگان فارسی زبان نگاشته است.
ترجمه خوب کتاب و مبانی نظری آن، آن را به کتابی مورد توجه برای علاقه‌مندا� به مطالعات انسانی تبدیل کرده است� و برای دانشجویان روانشناسی و فلسفه، مطالعات اجتماعی و دیگر رشته های علوم انسانی مفید و آموزنده است.
جاناتان لیر خود را موافق و یا مخالف آراء فروید ندانسته و همانطور که مترجمان نیز اذعان داشته اند، بر آن بخش از «ناعقلانیت انگیخته»، که در روانکاوی مورد توجه قرار می‌گیرد� تمرکز کرده است.
او در کنار مفاهیم پایه روانکاوی، همچو اخلاق و صداقت، به انتقال، رویأ، ناهشیار و میل جنسی می‌پرداز� و در کنار مسائلی سازه محور در مبانی روانشناسی، همچو نشاط و افسردگی، به تأویل فلسفی خود پایبند مانده و مفاهیم فرویدی روانکاوی را در چهارچوبی مبرهن، جمع آوری و در این کتاب به چاپ رسانده است.
او برای نگارش این کتاب، چند کتاب به قلم خود فروید، به همراه منابعی از تاریخ روانشناسی و همچنین تاریخ فلسفه را نیز مورد بررسی دقیق قرار داده است و برای مطالعات بین رشته ای توصیه می‌شو�.
باید توجه داشته باشید که وقتی چیزی را نقل می‌کنید� افکار گوناگونی به ذهنتان می‌رس� که بنا بر ملاحظات خاصی می‌خواهی� آنها را کنار بگذارید. وسوسه می‌شوی� به خود بگویید که این یا آن موضوع بی‌رب� است، یا اساسا اهمیتی ندارد، یا بی معنی است، پس نیازی نیست گفته شود. هرگز به این ملاحظات تن ندهید و حرفتان را بزنید_در حقیقت، دقیقا چون از گفتنش احساس ناخوشایندی دارید، باید حرفتان را بزنید. بعدها پی می‌بری� و می‌فهمی� که چرا این یگانه قاعده‌ا� است که باید از آن تبعیت کنید. پس هرچه به ذهنتان خطور می‌کن� بگویید. طوری عمل کنید که انگار مسافری هستید نشسته در کنار پنجرهٔ واگن قطار و چیزی را که در بیرون می‌گذر� برای کسی که درون واگن است توصیف می‌کنی�.
در آخر، هرگز فراموش نکنید که قول داده‌ای� کاملا صادق باشید و چیزی را به صرف آنکه، به هر دلیلی، گفتنش برایتان ناخوشایند است، از قلم نیاندازید. «فروید» در باب مبانی نخست روانکاوی.
در پناه خِرد.
December 30, 2019
2019 Review: I read this again (twice) recently without realising that I had previously read and reviewed it six years ago! Quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then (!) and my views on the book are a bit different. I still think it is a readable and interesting introduction to Freud and I like the fact that Lear is ready to disagree with Freud and the fact that he has his own perspective does make the book interesting. But, despite his evident self-confidence, his thinking strikes me as rather superficial, lacking in either philosophical or psychoanalytic rigour. He seems to have a rationalistic view of consciousness (despite the fact that he is writing a book on Freud!) and then because he is so rationalistic he gets very caught up with the idea that the mind disrupts itself. He has a strange Davidson-influenced approach to understanding human agency but for all his preoccupation with teleology does not seem to notice that he regularly attributes agency to processes (e.g the mind disrupts itself plus lots of vaguely Darwinian talk of things "being selected"). He thinks and hopes that psychoanalysis can fulfil (what he sees as) the Greek project of providing a grounding for an ethically virtuous life, but the idea that a "robust moral psychology" could play this role is deluded. So interesting in that he is prepared to strike off on his own paths, but the paths don't really lead anyway and at best provide material for unravelling.
2013 Review: This is a very readable and interesting introduction to Freud (and to psychoanalysis). It looks at Freud from a philosophical point of view and makes many interesting links particularly to Socrates and Plato. I did occasionally feel that it was seeking to be popular in a negative sense and the author certainly has the confidence to present clear views and make clear judgements, some of which did strike me as being a bit quick or superficial. However, there are many interesting perspective and a good balance between sympathy and agreement with Freud and the attempt to stand back a bit and assess his work. Three stars is perhaps a bit harsh, but as an ex-philosopher my expectations of philosophers are a bit high. I also think that seeing Freud's work through Plato's eyes is rather more worthwhile and interesting than adding Davidsonian insights to psychoanalytic perspectives (but that is probably mainly a reflection on me rather than on this book!).
2013 Review: This is a very readable and interesting introduction to Freud (and to psychoanalysis). It looks at Freud from a philosophical point of view and makes many interesting links particularly to Socrates and Plato. I did occasionally feel that it was seeking to be popular in a negative sense and the author certainly has the confidence to present clear views and make clear judgements, some of which did strike me as being a bit quick or superficial. However, there are many interesting perspective and a good balance between sympathy and agreement with Freud and the attempt to stand back a bit and assess his work. Three stars is perhaps a bit harsh, but as an ex-philosopher my expectations of philosophers are a bit high. I also think that seeing Freud's work through Plato's eyes is rather more worthwhile and interesting than adding Davidsonian insights to psychoanalytic perspectives (but that is probably mainly a reflection on me rather than on this book!).
December 2, 2023
Overall a good review of Freud for those unfamiliar with his works. A little oversimplifying at times, and attempted to give something of a Platonist reading of Freud. I quite liked Lear's description and defense of the Oedipus complex as an abstract model describing the formative and ambiguous emotional conflicts a child has with its parents in its early years of life, as well as his use of a 'level of generality' for how to apply Freud's theories of the Oedipus complex and of religion/society. I would recommend this to anyone new to Freud and interested in the basics of psychoanalysis.
June 29, 2019
An extremely gripping and philosophically compelling exposition of Freud’s major psychoanalytic theories.
September 15, 2021
The most striking choice in this book is its title. There is no biography of Freud because Freud is a "philosophical" introduction, which is to say it's an ideography. Removing the man from the equation has its benefits. Lear's ability to unroll the structure of Freud's thinking so to, if not vindicate, make less ridiculous, ideas like the Oedipus Complex is admirable. Even more admirable is his willingness to sort ideas by utility. And by blending psychoanalysis into his Aristotelian commitments to virtue ethics, he transforms Freudian ideas into a fundamental tenet of being - “humanity…is not a biological given, but an ethical task� and this humanity can be achieved through the "conversation that...can structure the psyche" that is Psychoanalysis.
Of course an obvious problem appears when you tie anyone's "humanity" (an essentialist & definitionally anthropocentric concept) to an "ethical task," especially when your subject is the theories of a bourgeois doctor whose career was built on the neuroses of the well-to-do. This is not made any better by Lear following this up by warning that there are "currents alive in [our] culture that so valorize comfortable lives." Quite a statement from a tenured philosophy professor at a college whose community area, Hyde Park, is both and segregated.
There are intragroup debates about certain ideas Lear espouses like defining the unconscious as a non-conceptual structure that attacks thinking in itself (e.g. anxiety as a childhood adaptation to prevent thinking about such-and-such) as opposed to a kind of brain's brain with its own rationality (inspired by Wilfred Bion per , but idk). And Peter Gay Lear's choice to exclude history. Despite Lear's tethering of Freud to Nietzsche, Gay says, Freud is far better understood as influenced by Plato if only because he was a Viennese elite with all the cultural preoccupations and biases of one. Ignoring this contingency allows Lear to elide Freud's "seriously questioned notions about female psychology."
But while a lack of historical depth and professional disagreements are fine, I do feel they miss that the book is working to show how, "from the perspective of the philosophical tradition," "self-consciousness constitutes as the creatures we are" and that "psychoanalysis is located at the core of our humanity, for it really only enjoins one activity: to allow self-consciousness to unfold spontaneously of its own accord." My concern with Freud is Lear's pairing a radical Nietzschean social critique and an Aristotelian pursuit of "rational animality." If the foundation of psychoanalysis is the harnessing of the unconsciousness' impulse for creative repetition "at the level of self-conscious awareness," and the one activity our humanity enjoins is "allowing" self-consciousness to "unfold," it's unclear to me where the kinds of radical agency found in Nietzsche fit in. What is the relationship between civilization and its discontents?
Which is the irony of Lear's most striking choice in this book. Lear dismisses Freud's metaphysics, but the shape of his dismissal reminds us of the block that Freud stumbled into elitist cynicism on. In the same vein I think of Byung-Chul Han's that tries to do the opposite, claiming Freud's concepts are outdated, having been replaced by a transparency-obsessed burnout society full of "achievement-subjects." Instead of a society whose outcasts are banished by structures of power (homo sacer), it's a society whose incasts are banished by their commitment to that structure (homo liber). Think . I think Lear and Han are optimistic and trying to move beyond Freud. They think we lived in that demarcated space, and I think we live in history.
Of course an obvious problem appears when you tie anyone's "humanity" (an essentialist & definitionally anthropocentric concept) to an "ethical task," especially when your subject is the theories of a bourgeois doctor whose career was built on the neuroses of the well-to-do. This is not made any better by Lear following this up by warning that there are "currents alive in [our] culture that so valorize comfortable lives." Quite a statement from a tenured philosophy professor at a college whose community area, Hyde Park, is both and segregated.
There are intragroup debates about certain ideas Lear espouses like defining the unconscious as a non-conceptual structure that attacks thinking in itself (e.g. anxiety as a childhood adaptation to prevent thinking about such-and-such) as opposed to a kind of brain's brain with its own rationality (inspired by Wilfred Bion per , but idk). And Peter Gay Lear's choice to exclude history. Despite Lear's tethering of Freud to Nietzsche, Gay says, Freud is far better understood as influenced by Plato if only because he was a Viennese elite with all the cultural preoccupations and biases of one. Ignoring this contingency allows Lear to elide Freud's "seriously questioned notions about female psychology."
But while a lack of historical depth and professional disagreements are fine, I do feel they miss that the book is working to show how, "from the perspective of the philosophical tradition," "self-consciousness constitutes as the creatures we are" and that "psychoanalysis is located at the core of our humanity, for it really only enjoins one activity: to allow self-consciousness to unfold spontaneously of its own accord." My concern with Freud is Lear's pairing a radical Nietzschean social critique and an Aristotelian pursuit of "rational animality." If the foundation of psychoanalysis is the harnessing of the unconsciousness' impulse for creative repetition "at the level of self-conscious awareness," and the one activity our humanity enjoins is "allowing" self-consciousness to "unfold," it's unclear to me where the kinds of radical agency found in Nietzsche fit in. What is the relationship between civilization and its discontents?
Which is the irony of Lear's most striking choice in this book. Lear dismisses Freud's metaphysics, but the shape of his dismissal reminds us of the block that Freud stumbled into elitist cynicism on. In the same vein I think of Byung-Chul Han's that tries to do the opposite, claiming Freud's concepts are outdated, having been replaced by a transparency-obsessed burnout society full of "achievement-subjects." Instead of a society whose outcasts are banished by structures of power (homo sacer), it's a society whose incasts are banished by their commitment to that structure (homo liber). Think . I think Lear and Han are optimistic and trying to move beyond Freud. They think we lived in that demarcated space, and I think we live in history.
December 8, 2020
The two-star rating may imply this is a worse book than it is. Lear's philosophical introduction to Freud is a passable attempt at habituating Freud into philosophy. It also provides a potentially valuable supplement to some of Freud's key writings.
There were two problems for me. Firstly, the book spent too long on the areas of Freud's thought that I'm personally less interested in. Lear then seems to write off Freud's attempts to expand the purview of psychoanalysis to civilization as a whole as a regrettable exercise.
Secondly, I just was not convinced by Lear's attempts to read Freud as an unintentional philosopher. The book as a whole did nothing to warm me to psychoanalysis. The whole thing just seems rife with conjecture and unsubstantiated claims, hiding behind a sheen of empiricism. I'm curious about many of psychoanalysis' claims. It's infuriating how bad they are at making them.
Lear is possibly more conscientious than Freud himself on this count. He's quite critical of Freud's more wild conjectures. He also makes an attempt to strike out towards something more philosophically concrete. I just wasn't much persuaded by much of it.
My conclusion is that there's not a huge amount to be gained in terms of the social from lingering too long on Freud himself. Perhaps best to skip directly onto those European thinkers who synthesised his ideas into stronger social theory in the second half of the 20th century.
There were two problems for me. Firstly, the book spent too long on the areas of Freud's thought that I'm personally less interested in. Lear then seems to write off Freud's attempts to expand the purview of psychoanalysis to civilization as a whole as a regrettable exercise.
Secondly, I just was not convinced by Lear's attempts to read Freud as an unintentional philosopher. The book as a whole did nothing to warm me to psychoanalysis. The whole thing just seems rife with conjecture and unsubstantiated claims, hiding behind a sheen of empiricism. I'm curious about many of psychoanalysis' claims. It's infuriating how bad they are at making them.
Lear is possibly more conscientious than Freud himself on this count. He's quite critical of Freud's more wild conjectures. He also makes an attempt to strike out towards something more philosophically concrete. I just wasn't much persuaded by much of it.
My conclusion is that there's not a huge amount to be gained in terms of the social from lingering too long on Freud himself. Perhaps best to skip directly onto those European thinkers who synthesised his ideas into stronger social theory in the second half of the 20th century.
October 10, 2021
Great reference point to retrace the developments of thinking about therapy and the human condition. I will be even more thankfull to have read it when going through essays wrote by Freud himself.
It is not directly a biography, rather the book is a philosophers view of what Freud thought: Analysed asking the question why Freud might have believed what he did. In that sense it is a work of intellectual history rather than a work of what is conventionally seen as analytical philosophy where what matters the most is the truth value of Freuds assertions. That is not to say that Lear ignores the more contradictory elements of Freuds thought - In fact he often triples down on them using Freuds concepts to show Freuds errors which is quite fun.
It is not directly a biography, rather the book is a philosophers view of what Freud thought: Analysed asking the question why Freud might have believed what he did. In that sense it is a work of intellectual history rather than a work of what is conventionally seen as analytical philosophy where what matters the most is the truth value of Freuds assertions. That is not to say that Lear ignores the more contradictory elements of Freuds thought - In fact he often triples down on them using Freuds concepts to show Freuds errors which is quite fun.
September 29, 2022
Lucid and straightforward intro to Freuds basic concepts and themes, although it might be somewhat simplified and not in depth enough. Love how Lear ties Freud's theoretical categories into clinical reality and more significantly ethical considerations. My major problem would be his last chapter on Freud's critique of morality and religion. His critique of Freud's critique is okay, but not how he asserts too much of himself and shifts the problem onto HIS problem rather than Freud's.
February 4, 2024
Insightful exploration of Freud's contributions to human thought. At times a bit dry as the approach is of an analytic philosophical nature, but for the most part doesn't get too bogged down in arguments. I disagree with some of Lear's analysis of later Freud's thought, but appreciate that he felt bold enough to disagree in good faith.
Listened to the audiobook and it was excellently performed. The accent for quotations of Freud was always entertaining.
Listened to the audiobook and it was excellently performed. The accent for quotations of Freud was always entertaining.
January 7, 2021
خواندن در مورد فروید آن هم از دیدگاه فلسفی، تجربه ی جدید و جالبی است. متن کتاب شاعرانه و گاهی کمی سخت است. اما حقیقتا که می ارزد. نویسنده سعی کرده‌خوانش� فلسفی-روانکاوی از بعضی از مسائلی که فروید مطرح کرده را ارائه کند.
March 23, 2022
A clear introduction to Freud's work. My one complaint is that Lear freely editorializes throughout, letting us know whenever he thinks Freud has something wrong. His commentary is thoughtful, but it's not what Freud thought. I guess I have to go straight to the source for that.
October 20, 2019
A very brief but core introduction to idea set of freud, and its place in western philosophy
March 15, 2020
Great introduction to Freud's basic ideas.
January 19, 2021
This is a really fantastic introduction to freud! I do have some quibbles with the text though, specifically the way that Freud has a very gendered system, but Leer elides this.
July 30, 2021
A great Aristotelian reading of Freud.
December 16, 2021
Incredibly compelling portrayal of Freud, plugging him into the Aristotelian tradition. In a way, Lear salvages Freud for me and makes me want to revisit psychoanalysis in more depth.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.