Other, less innocent, are those who contribute daily to the corruption of psychoanalysis for political reasons and by indefensible views which continue to be repeated, only because of personal relationships and career considerations. Below I quote a few words uttered by the renowned psychoanalyst Jaques Lacan shortly before dying words of a speech that current psychoanalysts do not repeat, but rather, who prefer not to recognize: our practice is a scam, bragging, make flinching to people, dazzle with be searched words. From the ethical point of view is untenable our profession; that’s why me sick, because I have a superego as everyone. What is know if yes or not, Freud is a historic event. I think he failed in what I wanted to do. Happened to me, and soon everyone the psychoanalysis will import you a damn (JAQUES LACAN: extract from a lecture given in Brussels on February 26, 1977, and published in Le Nouvel Observateur Edition number 880, page 88) source: the book Black of psychoanalysis (Mikkel Bosch Jacobsen-Jean Conttraux-Didier Pleux-Jacques Van Rillaer-Cattherine Meyer-year 2005) Defense believe that the question is not whether freud was a Saint or not, the truth is that you one should learn about ideas like the discomfort of culture u future of an illusion to be able to realize with rapides and without any difficulty to what Freud stall itself is not original, because philosophers few loved ones and even controversial, in antiquity, already had proposed the hedonism as a way to achieve happiness IE as an ethic or Galice. This way the development mainly Epicureans, a bobada of influence for freud, likewise freud with his theory of the self as external structure, such as shell of the psychic apparatus and with a structure more complex, I and super I, concepts that show a different structure and complex.
away from Cartesian philosophy which also is good. That is you can criticize not freud but theory? or is that does the truth of the proportion this given by who said that.?I think Freud as any human can criticize him but that is no reason to invalidate a theory. Friend, persolmente and although it should not think anything above the article in relation to Freud or anyone else as we know that in the history of ideas are criticized the man to say that this theory wrong, then Nietzsche was a madman, Epicurus a shameless, Plato an idealist, Agustin a beato, Santo Tomas a machine logic without sense, kant a facho etc. anyone can write a book saying this and anyone could say that it is true. But is not gossip philosophical, though also like us, but that is what is said with the theory, which is its rational content?, which your object. If freud alters the results of the investigations I think that that everyone makes it.
you don’t change something to speak well of yourself is a madman, the reality is not what this alla, which she passes by my. Finally I if I invite you to read Freud as the culture theorist and psychoanalysis with a sense critical and methodological, i.e. not taking Fred as a guru, but as a human being with whom we enter into dialogue. . and then what each decide if their arguments are very bad and worthy of criticism. Personally I find some theses difficult to accept and very worthy of criticism, but that’s different to say that freud is a degenerate just like the Freudian and therefore everything they say is false. Jeison Bohorquez original Autor and source of the article.
