ŷ������

“It has often been noted that three major revolutions in thought have threatened the idea of human centrality. First, Copernicus demonstrated that Earth was not the center about which all celestial bodies revolved. Next, Darwin showed us that we were not central in the chain of life but, like all other creatures, had evolved from other life-forms. Third, Freud demonstrated that we are not masters in our own house-that much of our behavior is governed by forced outside of our consciousness. There is no doubt that Freud’s unacknowledged co-revolutionary was Arthur Schopenhauer, who, long before Freud’s birth, had posited that we are governed by deep biological forced and then delude ourselves into thinking that we consciously choose our activities.”
― Irvin D. Yalom, The Schopenhauer Cure

“You see, the bodily resurrection of Jesus isn't a take-it-or-leave-it thing, as though some Christians are welcome to believe it and others are welcome not to believe it. Take it away, and the whole picture is totally different. Take it away, and Karl Marx was probably right to accuse Christianity of ignoring the problems of the material world. Take it away, and Sigmund Freud was probably right to say that Christianity is a wish-fulfillment religion. Take it away, and Friedrich Nietzsche was probably right to say that Christianity was a religion for wimps. Put it back, and you have a faith that can take on the postmodern world that looks to Marx, Freud and Nietzsche as its prophets, and you can beat them at their own game with the Easter news that the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
― N.T. Wright, For All God's Worth: True Worship and the Calling of the Church

“...We lost our faith and went around wondering what life was for. If art was no more than a frustrated out-flinging of desire, if religion was no more than self-delusion, what good was life? Faith had always given us answers to all things. But it all went down the drain with Freud and Darwin. We were and still are a lost people.”
― Ray Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles

“what is new in his theories is not true, and what is true in his theories is not new.”
― Hans Eysenck, Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire

“Mathematics is the study of analogies between analogies. All science is. Scientists want to show that things that don't look alike are really the same. That is one of their innermost Freudian motivations. In fact, that is what we mean by understanding.”
― Gian-Carlo Rota, Indiscrete Thoughts

“Freud expressed the opinion—not quite in earnest, though, it seemed to me—that philosophy was the most decent form of sublimation of repressed sexuality, nothing more. In response I put the question, 'What then is science, particularly psychoanalytic psychology?' Whereupon he, visible a bit surprised, answered evasively: 'At least psychology has a social purpose.”
― Ludwig Binswanger

“The words which we use in our everyday speech are nothing other than watered-down magic.”
― Sigmund Freud

“Freud wrote that love involves the undervaluation of reality and the overvaluation of the desired object. While the correct valuation of a person is an odd, if not impossible idea, we might say Freud meant something like this: for various reasons, many of them masochistic, we become involved with others who cannot possibly give what we ask for; we can wait as long as we wish, but they do not have it, and one day, if we bear to abandon our fantasy and see clearly, we might face reality straight on. We will then look elsewhere for fulfillment, to a place where our needs can, in fact, be satisfied.”
― Hanif Kureishi

“The difficulties connected with my criterion of demarcation (D) are important, but must not be exaggerated. It is vague, since it is a methodological rule, and since the demarcation between science and nonscience is vague. But it is more than sharp enough to make a distinction between many physical theories on the one hand, and metaphysical theories, such as psychoanalysis, or Marxism (in its present form), on the other. This is, of course, one of my main theses; and nobody who has not understood it can be said to have understood my theory.

The situation with Marxism is, incidentally, very different from that with psychoanalysis. Marxism was once a scientific theory: it predicted that capitalism would lead to increasing misery and, through a more or less mild revolution, to socialism; it predicted that this would happen first in the technically highest developed countries; and it predicted that the technical evolution of the 'means of production' would lead to social, political, and ideological developments, rather than the other way round.

But the (so-called) socialist revolution came first in one of the technically backward countries. And instead of the means of production producing a new ideology, it was Lenin's and Stalin's ideology that Russia must push forward with its industrialization ('Socialism is dictatorship of the proletariat plus electrification') which promoted the new development of the means of production.

Thus one might say that Marxism was once a science, but one which was refuted by some of the facts which happened to clash with its predictions (I have here mentioned just a few of these facts).

However, Marxism is no longer a science; for it broke the methodological rule that we must accept falsification, and it immunized itself against the most blatant refutations of its predictions. Ever since then, it can be described only as nonscience—as a metaphysical dream, if you like, married to a cruel reality.

Psychoanalysis is a very different case. It is an interesting psychological metaphysics (and no doubt there is some truth in it, as there is so often in metaphysical ideas), but it never was a science. There may be lots of people who are Freudian or Adlerian cases: Freud himself was clearly a Freudian case, and Adler an Adlerian case. But what prevents their theories from being scientific in the sense here described is, very simply, that they do not exclude any physically possible human behaviour. Whatever anybody may do is, in principle, explicable in Freudian or Adlerian terms. (Adler's break with Freud was more Adlerian than Freudian, but Freud never looked on it as a refutation of his theory.)

The point is very clear. Neither Freud nor Adler excludes any particular person's acting in any particular way, whatever the outward circumstances. Whether a man sacrificed his life to rescue a drowning, child (a case of sublimation) or whether he murdered the child by drowning him (a case of repression) could not possibly be predicted or excluded by Freud's theory; the theory was compatible with everything that could happen—even without any special immunization treatment.

Thus while Marxism became non-scientific by its adoption of an immunizing strategy, psychoanalysis was immune to start with, and remained so. In contrast, most physical theories are pretty free of immunizing tactics and highly falsifiable to start with. As a rule, they exclude an infinity of conceivable possibilities.”
― Karl Popper

“The asylum, and later the national health service, warehoused thousands of patients made mad by the intrusions of a sexual predator. But these institutions had been dominated by the discredited Freudian fantasy that sexual abuse doesn’t happen - that it is our illicit desires that drive us crazy. A century ago, Freud recoiled from his own theory of the sexual seduction of children and projected the problem back into the patient. He claimed in his Aetiology of Hysteria that clients, typically women, were describing their fantasies, not facts, not ‘real events��. P3”
― Beatrix Campbell, Stolen Voices: The People and Politics Behind the Campaign to Discredit Childhood Testimony

“I could say it all began with my mother.”
― Shannon Celebi

“Lacan, as we have seen in our discussion of Freud, regards the unconscious as structured like a language. This is not only because it works by metaphor and metonymy: it is also because, like language itself for the post-structuralists, it is composed less of signs �� stable meanings �� than of signifiers. If you dream of a horse, it is not immediately obvious what this signifies: it may have many contradictory meanings, may be just one of a whole chain of signifiers with equally multiple meanings. The image of the horse, that is to say, is not a sign in Saussure’s sense - it does not have one determined signified tied neatly to its tail - but is a signifier which may be attached to many different signifieds, and which may itself bear the traces of the other signifiers which surround it. (I was not aware, when I wrote the above sentence, of the word-play involved in ‘horse�� and ‘tail��: one signifier interacted with another against my conscious intention.) The unconscious is just a continual movement and activity of signifiers, whose signifieds are often inaccessible to us because they are repressed. This is why Lacan speaks of the unconscious as a ‘sliding of the signified beneath the signifier��, as a constant fading and evaporation of meaning, a bizarre ‘modernist�� text which is almost unreadable and which will certainly never yield up its final secrets to interpretation.”
― Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction

“El primer humano que insultó a su enemigo en vez de tirarle una piedra fue el fundador de la civilización”
― Sigmund Freud

“This pursuit of unavailable distant people has oedipal roots.
�� fearing the consequences, they make certain that they fail at the attempt.��
―Distancing, Kantor (p.115)”
― Kantor

“We are so made that we can derive intense enjoyment only from a contrast and very little from a state of things.”
― Sigmund Freud

“But the resurrection without the crucifixion is empty optimism, an optimism that gives credence to Freud's notion that wishful thinking is the sum and substance of our faith. Include the crucifixion--and our role in that bloody moment--and the whole picture changes.”
― Mark Galli

“Freud's antique notion of women as diminished men is quite wrong. Biology instead reveals every man's battle to escape the woman within.”
― Steve Jones, Y: The Descent of Men

“One criticism of Freud still sometimes heard on the political Left is that his thinking is individualist �� that he substitutes ‘private�� psychological causes and explanations for social and historical ones. This accusation reflects a radical misunderstanding of Freudian theory. There is indeed a real problem about how social and historical factors are related to the unconscious; but one point of Freud’s work is that it makes it possible for us to think of the development of the human individual in social and historical terms. What Freud produces, indeed, is nothing less than a materialist theory of the making of the human subject. We come to be what we are by an interrelation of bodies �� by the complex transactions which take place during infancy between our bodies and those which surround us. This is not a biological reductionism: Freud does not of course believe that we are nothing but our bodies, or that our minds are mere reflexes of them. Nor is it an asocial model of life, since the bodies which surround us, and our relations with them, are always socially specific.”
― Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction

“The purported insight achieved by the patient is not the product of a process of veridical self-discovery, but rather reflects the patient’s conversion to the therapist’s interpretation.”
― Adolf Grünbaum

“Κάποτε ο Φρόυντ σε μια διάλεξη που έδωσε, διατύπωσε την άποψη ότι οι διαφορές της Ψυχανάλυσης με τον Μπιχεβιορισμό ίσως και να είναι λιγότερες από όσες φαίνονται, μια και η έμφαση που δίνει η ψυχαναλυτική θεωρία στα πρώτα χρόνια της ζωής του παιδιού και την επίδραση των γονιών στη διαμόρφωση του χαρακτήρα του, δεν είναι τίποτε άλλο από την αναγνώριση του ρόλου που παίζει το «περιβάλλον» - μια έννοια καθαρά Μπιχεβιοριστική. Ένας νεαρός ψυχαναλυτής που άκουσε αυτή τη διάλεξη, έγραψε ένα αγανακτισμένο γράμμα στον Φρόυντ διαμαρτυρόμενος ότι «ένας Φροϋδικός δεν είναι δυνατόν να παραδέχεται το «περιβάλλον» σαν σημαντική έννοια στη διαμόρφωση του χαρακτήρα». Η απάντηση του Φρόυντ ήταν πολύ σύντομη: «Αγαπητό μου παιδί, εσύ είσαι Φροϋδικός. Εγώ είμαι ο Φρόυντ».”
― Giorgos Pinteris, Μια μικρή αλλαγή φέρνει μια μεγάλη

“Freud kdysi řekl, že lidstvo zažilo tři velké urážky: nejdříve uslyšelo, že země není středem vesmíru, pak se dovědělo, že člověk pochází z opice, a nakonec mu psychoanalytici řekli, že člověk není pánem ve vlastním domě.”
― Dieckmann Hans, Sny jako řeč duše

“Healing is the way of the heart. This book is an invitation to open our heart. Healing is a love affair with life.
Healing is pure love. Love is what creates healing. Spiritual healing is to be one with ourselves. And to be one with ourselves is to be in joy.
Healing is to develop our inner being. Healing is to discover that which is already perfect within ourselves. It is to rediscover our inner life source. Spiritual healing is to be one with life. We are never really alone, it is our idea of a separate "I" that creates the feeling of being separate from life, from the Whole.
In reality there is only one heart, a pulsating Existential heart. Our own heart pulsates in unity with the Existential heartbeats. We are all notes in the Existential music, and without our unique note the music would not be complete. We are all needed in the Whole; we all have our unique fragrance, quality and gifts to contribute to the Whole.
More than 30 years ago, I had an individual consultation with a spiritual teacher. I did not have time to sit down before I got the question: "You are interested in healing, are you not?" It was the first time that I encountered the topic that would become my way and deep source of joy in life. This spiritual teacher finished the consultation saying: "You will be a fine healer."
The art of healing is the psychology of being, the science of inner transformation. The psychology of being begins where Western psychology ends. It goes beyond Skinner, Freud, Jung, Rogers, Maslow and humanistic psychology. The psychology of being is the psychology of consciousness, a psychology for inner transformation. It is not basically a question of psychology, it is a question of being. The psychology of being begins where we are, and take us to everything that we can be.
The underlying theme the psychology of being is meditation - but not meditation as a static technique - but as the capacity to BE with ourselves and others in a quality of watchful awareness, acceptance and realization.
The art of being is a search beyond the personality. It a search beyond the thoughts, the emotions and the learned attitudes of the personality, to the inner being, to the depth within, which is hidden in ourselves.
The inner being is a deep acceptance of ourselves as we are; the inner being is to be available to life. The inner being is to be in unity with life. This book is an invitation to meet the inner being, our inner source of love, joy, acceptance, humor, intuition, understanding, wisdom, truth, silence and creativity.”
― Swami Dhyan Giten, Presence - Working from Within. The Psychology of Being

“Mum, mum,
He that keeps nor crust nor crumb,
Weary of all, shall want some.”
― William Shakespeare, King Lear

“He died on his return to New York. He died on the gangplank, just a few feet away from America. He didn't quite make it. His hat did though. It rolled off his head and down the gang-plank and landed, plop, on America. Poor devil. I heard it was his heart, but the way the Chinese dentist described the business, it could have been his teeth.”
― Richard Brautigan, A Confederate General from Big Sur

“There's a great spirit gone! Thus did I desire it.
What our contempts doth often hurl from us,
We wish it ours again. The present pleasure,
By revolution lowering, does become
The opposite of itself. She's good, being gone.
The hand could pluck her back that shoved her on.”
― William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra

“I shake my head at his largesse, and I frown as a scene from Tess crosses my mind: the strawberry scene. It evokes my dream. To hell with Dr. Flynn—Freud would have a field day—and then he’d probably die trying to deal with Fifty Shades.”
― E L James

“if psychoanalysis was late-19th-century secular Judaism's way of constructing spiritual meaning in a post-religious world and retail is the late 20th century's way of constructing meaning in a postreligious world, what does it mean that I'm impersonating the father of psychoanalysis in a store window to commemorate a religious holiday?”
― David Rakoff, Fraud: Essays

“Freud could never be certain, he said,
in view of �� his wide and early reading,
whether what seemed like a new creation
might not be the work instead
of   hidden channels of memory leading
back to the notions of others absorbed,
coming now anew into form
he’d almost known within him was growing.
He called it (the ghost of a) cryptomnesia.
So we own and owe what we know.”
― Peter Cole

“¿A usted cómo le gustan las mujeres, Daniel? —No sé yo mucho de mujeres, la verdad. —Saber no sabe nadie, ni Freud, ni ellas mismas, pero esto es como la electricidad, no hace falta saber cómo funciona para picarse los dedos. Hala, cuente. ¿Cómo le gustan?”
― Carlos Ruiz Zafón, The Shadow of the Wind

“Freud was not entirely honest with himself when he said,

“Being entirely honest with oneself is a good exercise".”
― A. Cretan