Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:25:12 — 133.0MB)
On Sigmund Freud's On Dreams (1902), a bit of The Interpretation of Dreams (1899), and the lecture, “Revision of the Theory of Dreams” (1933).
Are dreams just a bunch of random crap? Freud says, no, they're actually the first and best way to figure out the structure of the mind, which (surprise) involves the unconscious and how repressed, anti-social desires get (sort of) revealed to us, albeit smashed together through chains of association with what seems like random crap.
How can Freud support such a view? Is it science? What are its implications for our capacity to philosophize? Mark, Wes, Seth, and Dylan are here to sort of hint at telling you, but in a repressed sort of way. Read more about the topic and get the texts.
After you listen to this, check out the aftershow featuring Wes, host Danny Lobell, and PEL listeners. You can watch it on YouTube, or become a PEL Citizen and access an edited version along with all of our other bonus audio on our website or on your mobile device through our convenient Citizen feed. Please support PEL!
End song: "Sleep" by Mark Lint. Read about it.
Freud image by Sterling Bartlett.
the nascent scientific investigations of cognitive-biases have (or should have) replaced these mistaken notions of repression but perhaps more interesting (for PEL purposes) is the critiques of Freud by the philosophers Wittgenstein and Isabelle Stengers who are (roughly speaking) for the powers/uses of suggestive interpretations and against pseudo-scientific authority. Along these lines is Richard Rorty’s rewriting of Freud in his Contingency book.
For an critique of Freud’s rhetorical style see:
Stanley Fish, “Withholding the Missing Portion: Psychoanalysis and Rhetoric”
How do you see Freud’s notions of repression as mistaken? How would modern understandings of cognitive bias better help someone trying to cope with long term PTSD, for example, in leu of using a more classical understanding of repression?
The important part of dreams is not the dream, it’s the analysis.
The important part of the analysis is not the analyst. It’s the patient.
To me, it seems like dream analysis was Freud’s way of overcoming the inhibitions of patients to actively confront the realities of their emotional lives, in a way that otherwise was impossible in 19th century Austria.
The scientific criticism comes in when we ask whether, on the whole, patients find this sort of therapy useful or not. The stereotype of the Freudian lecturing the person on the couch about what their dreams REALLY mean seems to me uncharitable, as well as missing the point entirely.
What I heard in the podcast was very strange––though I really liked the whole plan. This is my first comment, so I hope it adds something. I haven’t listened to part two however. I wanted to respond before hearing the second part (after listening to it, I am sure I will re-think some things). With that said, I’d be very curious to learn who edited it and how they go about editing. I bet the editor has a few things to say; I’d like to listen to how they crafted their skill.
In the spirit of this podcast, this is one of my most recent dreams:
I couldn’t sleep and had to go for walks in between wake and sleep. It was raining when I walked through my little mountain town and I was very relaxed and enjoyed the rain, but my dream took place during the sunny day. I was meeting with a friend at a restaurant. I had been there before (and could remember how to get there), but it looked the exactly same. I cannot remember what we talked about though I think I know who I talked to. Midway during the conversation, I broke down and began to weep. I woke up, however, and it was still raining.
What would you guys make of this? I am not sure how this process works.
There’s a new series on dreaming appearing on The Brains Blog:
http://philosophyofbrains.com/2015/07/05/re-mapping-the-concept-of-dreaming.aspx
It was nice episode.
Only thing I felt went wrong was that you stated (multiple times?) that Freud has been arguing for certain connection between his portrait of psychic processes and (neuro)biology. In my current belief (I’ve read only those books of Freud which have been translated to Finnish) this is not the case. Instead, he has made kind of ‘notes’ or marks (can’t find the proper english word) in spirit of “…in future neuro(bio)logy might find that memories and their links equal to neurons (in brain)”. So instead of localisizing psychic instances to certain parts of the physiological brain, he makes some imaginative speculations or suggestion how he thinks it _might_ be. But, ultimately, leaves it open for future generations of scientists to find out.
ps. it was nice to hear that the angry person has went to analysis. Might be placebo, but I thought I could hear the change – from what was _not_ there anymore, in his speech. Congrats.
I’ll comment here because our (small) Freud Not School group will be discussing His Dreams lectures soon – just in case anyone would like to join us.
As I read (very early on in my reading) I notice that he makes the assertion that dreams are from a stimulus which disturbs sleep (page 113 Intro lectures standard edition). He says that the appearance of such stimuli in our dreams is evidence for this. I’m unsure of how broadly he makes this assertion but it does seem there are many other explanations and one would need to argue those points in order to really say convincingly that dreams have a sense in the way that he does. For example, why can’t it be part of our messy evolutionary adaptation that we need rest and perhaps during that time we process emotions which have no language attached? Perhaps my brain has a feeling FIRST, and then various thoughts arise from the feeling and not the other way around. Perhaps that has more to do with the physiological/anatomical make-up of the brain (proximity of one part to another) rather than some insight into deep unconscious feelings. Maybe he is leaving room for that to be possible and I haven’t gotten there yet. At this point it is still unclear to me whether he sees dreams as a sort of encoded message or whether it’s an exercise akin to looking at ink blobs and cloud forms and deriving meaning from them expostfacto. I cannot imagine that it’s the latter because, if so, why not just look at the ink blobs.