Legal rights are significant because they protect our civil liberties by restricting government authority. We should support the adoption of legal rights for that reason. Until they're adopted, however, claimed rights are unenforceable. They're what we wish were legal rights, i.e. what we think should be legal rights.

I'm something of a Stoic--an aspiring Stoic--because I think Stoicism provides a guide to how to live well and virtuously without the need to accept the existence of a personal, busybody God issuing commands, listening to our petitions and sometimes granting them, disbursing punishment and rewards as appropriate. The ancient Stoics had a good deal to say about natural law, but I don't think they were proponents of natural rights. Natural law is a guide to how to act--according to nature, virtue and reason, without regard for things outside our control--things, power, riches, etc., which we should treat as indifferent. When we act according to nature we act virtuously and reasonably towards others, who like us (according to traditional Stoicism) share in the Divine Reason or Divinity which is immanent in the universe. We don't do that because others have a "right" to be treated like that, but because that is the way we should conduct ourselves. [This is a simple summary of Stoicism as I understand it]

So we don't need a belief in natural rights, or inherent rights, to act morally and virtuously. But it can't be expected that government will act "according to nature" or virtuously. The concept of legal rights is useful as a means by which to restrict and control the power of government.

Going off topic, I know, but I wanted to respond to what I think are your concerns.

I see that you have written lengthy essays and I have absolutely no issue with your ideas or even you contribute to my thread as I don't want it to die just yet.

However, right at the start you said that you are no fan of Freud and I don't have any problem with that or any of your discussion. I am just wondering if other threads would be helpful for you, especially as you have expressed an interest in Egyptian civilisation. I am interested in it too but not very knowledgeable but I would recommend a thread started by Gus Lamarch about the cradle of civilisation.

In the meantime I am quite happy if you continue writing in this thread if you wish to do so.

Thank you. Freud was a great man, but I think his focus was too narrow. Still, I think I prefer him to Jung, who it seems to me may not have had enough evidence to conclude that virtually the entire cultural history of our species was packed away somewhere in our brains, unknown to us but available to pop out when appropriate.

I find Stoicism has too many contradictions to be a philosophy on how to live well.

As for Freud, the guy was a quack. I honestly wonder how he had such an influence for so long when much of his work has been discredited along the way. Even his notion of the subconscious was later found to be incorrect.

So we don't need a belief in natural rights, or inherent rights, to act morally and virtuously. — Ciceronianus the White

You kind of do, otherwise morality becomes "whatever I say is moral", something the stoics never fully grasped.

If you are against Freud can you come up with a philosophical argument against hm to back it up because views need to be based on critical analysis rather than mere subjective attitudes and dislikes.

No need since his entire body of work isn't rooted in evidence. It has been called into question several times and even some of the experiments he performed were found to lack serious control methods and even influenced outcomes. A number of his case studies have been found to be fabricated, distorted, or just outright fraud. His "repressed memories" were just confabulation like in the case of "the Wolf Man" where he essentially inserted what he thought happened to solve the case.

The man's entire body of work has no evidence to back it and some of the good stuff he came up with was actually practiced by others before and during his time. Not to mention the HEAVY bias evident in his world (it was a reflection of his time, not about human nature in general).

One doesn't need philosophy to see him for the quack he is.

it all comes down to the limitations of words — Jack Cummins

I guess so. Language is not exactly the perfect mode of communication. Telepathy would, in my opinion, be the closest thing to being a perfect language unless it too depends on language. After all, telepathy is just reading minds, right?

This relates back to the art psychotherapy course which I was doing which looked at images because art therapy is about art making. This basis of art therapy is about the level of visual processing in the brain and how in some cases healing can exist at that level, beyond the limits of words. — Jack Cummins

:ok: I'm starting another thread on this topic. One of my wild ideas. Probably hogwash but I'll put it out there for feedback.

So, what I am saying is that there are depths of experience reality which are not always about words, the tool of the philosophers. — Jack Cummins

:ok: I think you're off the mark but only by a bit. While 9 out of 10 times philosophy is bound to linguistics in the sense that philosophical discourse takes place within the bounds of ordinary language, tweaked for precision of course, there's the 1 out of 10 times, it (philosophy) has made forays into the ineffable, the world beyond words. I don't know how successful an enterprise that was/is.

As for Freud, the guy was a quack. I honestly wonder how he had such an influence for so long when much of his work has been discredited along the way. Even his notion of the subconscious was later found to be incorrect. — Darkneos

I have been confident individuals and cultures have a consciousness and a subconsciousness. What is the explanation of Freud being wrong about that?

Thank you. Freud was a great man, but I think his focus was too narrow. Still, I think I prefer him to Jung, who it seems to me may not have had enough evidence to conclude that virtually the entire cultural history of our species was packed away somewhere in our brains, unknown to us but available to pop out when appropriate. — Ciceronianus the White

That seems compatible with how Socrates saw things. Our true selves know everything, but when we come into this three-dimensional existence we forget what we know. He demonstrated this by talking an uneducated boy through a math problem. His objective in life was to ask questions to raise awareness of what he expected everyone to know but thought they had forgotten. This would imply a subconscious, right?

I have said before, I think the genius of Freud came from the Greeks. Joseph Campbell followed Jung and said a hero is someone who makes us aware of the past. We have a personal past and a cultural past and a planetary past. A New Age follows awareness of the past. Which if there is no linear time is the present. :smile:

I have been confident individuals and cultures have a consciousness and a subconsciousness. What is the explanation of Freud being wrong about that? — Athena

They believe that but recent evidence shows there to be no such subconscious.

I am interested to know a bit more about the evidence you speak of to show that there is no subconscious.

I was fairly impressed in some ways by the little critique you wrote on Freud's lack of evidence on your previous post, although your claims were lacking in clear evidence. If you are that convinced of the supremacy of evidence based research you need to be able to cite it. Were you coming from a psychological angle. This was not clear and while philosophy can draw upon psychology and psychoanalysis the various lines of thought need to be spoken of with clarity.

You moved from a position of lack of evidence to a claim that philosophy was not necessary to the conclusion that Freud was a quack. This was a rather sweeping opinion.

To some extent I do stand by my belief that experiences go beyond words, and that has led us both into a diversion into art therapy. But that does not to say that we should not be doing our best to find the words we need.

To say that psychoanalysis goes beyond words I am pointing at levels of reality which may be about evolutionary aspects of nature prior to the human level, namely the instinctual level of emotion.

Despite the mystics' claim of transcendent levels of awareness beyond words, I go back a bit on what I appear to have been arguing and say that as philosophers we need to find the best possible words to express our point of view. I am not sure if this means that logic is primary or whether it could include thinking about emotions and other instincts and drive from the position of reason.

I am glad you are still involved in the thread and engaging with the various comments. I went off in a bit of a diversion with The Mad Fool, into the realm of art therapy. One idea leads to another and it is all interconnected.

We literally have neurological evidence that the unconscious is really just background brain processes that we aren't aware of. Freud however failed to provide any evidence that the subconscious is a repository of any sort.

Any fool can see his theories are rooted in the biases of his time.

In the case of the wolf man Freud pretty much fabricated the cause of the poor guy and claimed that he was cured when the man himself says that such a memory would be impossible.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/science/as-a-therapist-freud-fell-short-scholars-find.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

His entire practice has 0 evidence to support it. Literally anyone can see it and it's why his name no longer holds sway in psychology, some even say he set the whole thing back by 50 years.

His theories about women were just downright horrifying:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/friedan.htm

He even thought homosexuality was stunted repression of sexuality and that it contributed to several mental illnesses. He's responsible for several anti-gay myths.

I could go on but there is literally scores of evidence as to why the man was a quack.

I mean he even tried to peddle cocaine as a psychiatric cure-all: http://marsdentherapy.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-freud-and-cocaine-freudian.html

There is literally thousands of reasons to forget about the man.

I can see that you are providing evidence for your ideas and I do give you credit for that.The one bit I would question the most is the idea of discrediting the unconscious.

My questioning about discrediting the subconscious or unconscious is from a theoretical stance though. I am wondering is if we see the unconscious as a mere background process, I am left wondering if that would mean that sleep(and dreams) would be regarded as unnecessary. What would happen if we were awake constantly? I have experienced many sleepless nights and have felt absolutely terrible. I am not convinced that sleep is a mere rest for the body and do believe that dreaming is essential.I would suggest that it allows for some kind of synthesis of conscious experience.

I am not a biologist but do believe that the nervous system is complex. I am not sure that the brain itself is the only aspect of consciousness and the only way I can back this up is with reference to the limbic system and the parasympathetic nervous system.

Regarding biases I am inclined to think that rather that certain biases rather than him creating them he had certain views because he was affected by the prejudices of a former time. What I believe he did was about bringing sexuality into an open forum. The ideas he expressed provided a forum for discussion and this in itself has been a starting point for positive developments to further the awareness of women's rights and gay rights.

I am certainly not saying that Freud was without many weaknesses and I do acknowledge that you are getting into critical discussion. I certainly hoped that would happen and would not want Freud put on a pedestal. But I do believe that, as you say, he was not the only person exploring the many of the psychological ideas in his writings, but I would still say that his writings are a useful resource and I do believe it is not sufficient to simply dismiss him as 'a quack'.

Our true selves know everything, but when we come into this three-dimensional existence we forget what we know. — Athena

My personal feeling is we have no good reason to believe (at this time, anyhow) there's anything beyond the universe. Nothing, therefore, that transcends it. Maybe we'll find out there is, sometime, or maybe there are other universes. People speak of a transcendent God, but we attribute characteristics to that God we can only conceive of though our existence as a part of the universe, and cannot even guess what is beyond it. The transcendent God makes no sense to me, and can't be known. If there's a God, I think it's immanent and impersonal.

So I would tend to doubt anything being "our true selves" unless it's thought to be a part of the universe. There's still a great deal we don't know about the universe, though.

Freud was a quack because his who body of work tried to pass itself for science when he had no evidence that any of it was a thing. He could not see past the ideas of his time either which greatly impacted his views.

I didn't need evidence to attack Freud but you refused to accept the obvious.

Regarding biases I am inclined to think that rather that certain biases rather than him creating them he had certain views because he was affected by the prejudices of a former time. What I believe he did was about bringing sexuality into an open forum. The ideas he expressed provided a forum for discussion and this in itself has been a starting point for positive developments to further the awareness of women's rights and gay rights. — Jack Cummins

Not at all. He is one of the people responsible for perpetuation negative stereotypes of women and essentially gave people "scientific" grounds to discriminate against homosexuality. He didn't bring sexuality into an open forum, he pretty much validated the male-centered view of the world and still cast the women as "other". If he never existed women and gays likely would not have had the setbacks they would have because people would not be pointing to him as "science" behind their views.

I don't think you grasp how worthless the mans ideas were and yet he was able to influence people for years afterwards before they got smart as saw him as a quack. You are attributing positives to the man that don't exist. Nearly all of psychology today recognizes how Freud damaged the field pretty badly and almost led to people not taking psychology seriously.

My questioning about discrediting the subconscious or unconscious is from a theoretical stance though. I am wondering is if we see the unconscious as a mere background process, I am left wondering if that would mean that sleep(and dreams) would be regarded as unnecessary. What would happen if we were awake constantly? I have experienced many sleepless nights and have felt absolutely terrible. I am not convinced that sleep is a mere rest for the body and do believe that dreaming is essential.I would suggest that it allows for some kind of synthesis of conscious experience. — Jack Cummins

Dreaming is not essential. Sure we can't really know much about it because it's very hard to test, but plenty of people have dreamless sleep and feel fine. Some don't dream at all. It's not essential. Your first conclusion does not follow. The subconscious being background noise does not mean sleep or dreams are unnecessary. IF you were awake constantly then you would suffer terribly as your brain cannot operate at that level for extended periods of time. Sleep is just rest for the body, that includes the brain. As for synthesis of conscious experience that is literally all we do. Our brains construct reality based on our sensations so what you get is a simulation not the actual thing.

After dealing with post trauma syndrome it is hard to believe we do not have a subconscious. What is the argument for that?

[
I have never denied that Freud's ideas are without weaknesses. You gave links with some articles but as for your own argument it is mere opinion.

It is impossible to say what would have happened in the world of psychology if Freud had never existed.

I don't think psychology has been too badly damaged by Freud. It is thriving amidst the social sciences. Clinical psychology is a sought career for many, with fierce competition.

I think Freud's ideas do reflect the prejudices of his times but would say that I am not so sure that he was really against gay issues because he spoke of the dangers of repression.

His ideas can be used in many ways as with most thinkers.

I am not a scientist and I have no idea if you are and I do not think that scientists should have monopoly on claims to truth? Even scientists are affected by the participation observer bias.

What about the arts? Perhaps psychoanalysis fits more into this than any other perspective. The psychoanalytic tradition is not Freud alone but a whole heritage, including Jung, Melanie Klein and Walter Bion, to name just a few. Are you dismissing Freud or the worth of the whole field of psychodynamic psychotherapy? It still exists and has not been overthrown by cognitive behavioral therapists entirely.

You have dismissed the subconscious and dreams? Perhaps you would like to propose a model for understanding the mind. You seem to have faith in neuroscience but is that the be all and end all? Will you be wishing for philosophy itself to become a mere footnote to add to an all encompassing brain science.

My personal feeling is we have no good reason to believe (at this time, anyhow) there's anything beyond the universe. Nothing, therefore, that transcends it. Maybe we'll find out there is, sometime, or maybe there are other universes. People speak of a transcendent God, but we attribute characteristics to that God we can only conceive of though our existence as a part of the universe, and cannot even guess what is beyond it. The transcendent God makes no sense to me, and can't be known. If there's a God, I think it's immanent and impersonal.

So I would tend to doubt anything being "our true selves" unless it's thought to be a part of the universe. There's still a great deal we don't know about the universe, though. — Ciceronianus the White

Freud was materialistic, right? Matter follows laws, right? Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, is nothing like the God of Abraham. It is not personal. We can live in harmony of the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so.

It is said there could be other dimensions. I think our 3 dimensional reality is only in our 3 dimensional reality and I have no concept of any other. :lol: I am reminded of The Disney movie Inside Out when the girl goes into the abstract room.

As for other controlling rules that are not about matter, Jean Shinoda Bolen's books Gods in Everyman and Goddess in Every Woman presents a realty that is not material. Using the Gods and Goddesses she tells us how these archetypes influence our lives and how our childhood influences us. A concept and an experience are not made of matter yet they influence what we think and how we feel. I don't think we can deny there is more to reality than matter.

I think Freud's ideas do reflect the prejudices of his times but would say that I am not so sure that he was really against gay issues because he spoke of the dangers of repression. — Jack Cummins

Freud was as accepting of homosexuality as the Greeks were because he got a good share of information from the Greeks. Here Hippocrates is important to our understanding and judgment of Freud. Freud like Hippocrates held a materialistic understanding of disease. He said it is what happens in the body that causes disease, not the gods or demons. This was vital to the Christian understanding of medicine that associated illness with sin and demons. For biological reasons a person could be homosexual and we can dismiss everything the Bible has to say about it being sinful and disliked by a God.

As Ciceronianus the White mentioned there may not be a personal God who deals with us individually or cares what we do in private. No demons or miracles from a God and homosexuality is not a mental disease but a biological reality. HIV is not a punishment from God to punish people gay men.

I agree with you that it is hard to see how issues like post traumatic syndrome can be accounted for without the idea of the subconscious.

Psychiatrists have not dismissed the tradition of psychoanalysis as many undertake training in psychodynamic therapy. Many are progressing thinkers, go beyond sexism and homophobia. Of course psychiatry does use drugs, but most do recognise the importance of the subconscious and the past, especially relevant for both post traumatic syndrome and borderline personality disorder.

Of course psychiatry can come under attack. The whole anti antipsychiatry tradition questioned some of the labelling of disorders.

I agree with you that it is hard to see how issues like post traumatic syndrome can be accounted for without the idea of the subconscious.

Psychiatrists have not dismissed the tradition of psychoanalysis as many undertake training in psychodynamic therapy. Many are progressing thinkers, go beyond sexism and homophobia. Of course psychiatry does use drugs, but most do recognize the importance of the subconscious and the past, especially relevant for both post traumatic borderline disorder.

Of course psychiatry can come under attack. The whole anti antipsychiatry tradition questioned some of the labelling of disorders. — Jack Cummins

It seems today everyone is ready to attack anything and everything. This is a serious spiritual disease. That is something materialist have a problem discussing, but I will say our spirit is as important as material substance. The American Spirit is a high morale. We feel it when we believe we doing the right thing. But something has gone very wrong with our spirit. I am sure those people standing outside of polling places yelling "stop the count" believe they are doing the right thing, but they are angry and threatening. That does not look like a high morale to me.

I have no idea how Freud would judge what is happening now, but I know it is about spirit not just matter and facts.

Oregon has just legalized the clinical use of psilocybin and we have great hope for this drug. I would love to know what Freud would have to say of this? A cure for depression, addiction, post trauma syndrome without pyschoanalysis. Another cure can be art especially if the individual is being creative and making art. I think both the drug and creativity share something in common.

I think you were responding to me while I was responding to you.

I am glad that you can see that Freud's ideas do not have to be seen as attacking gay people.

The only thing to bear in mind when speaking of Freud's views in relation to religion is that he wrote a vast amount on religion himself. He was not a believer in God but he did give credit to the oceanic feeling.

I think one of the problems we have with Freud is that in his role as psychiatrist/ psychologist/ psychiatrist is that he did step outside of his role and that is where he goes into philosophy.

Nowadays, at least the roles of different professionals is marked out because the fuzziness of roles can become problematic. While Freud can be seen as a great writer and that is the main strength I would attribute to him, I think that no one today could get away with jumping around areas of thought as he does.

I think that even philosophers have to be careful about this. The main problem is that it could undermine the importance of what is being said.
But I am not wanting a philosophy put in a box.

I see you have written another post while I am writing this. Yes, a cure for post traumatic disorder would be good. I will be very surprised if a psychedelic gets prescribed, even CBD is being frowned upon by many. In my antipsychiatry voice I would say that psychiatry is far more in favour of antipsychotics for post traumatic disorder than psychedelics because visionary healing is not valued enough.

You mention the creative arts and I don't know whether you noticed that The Mad Fool created a thread on this in response to a discussion he had with me.

You should be able to find it, if you are interested, by just scrolling down the page because it was active yesterday.

Yes, a cure for post traumatic disorder would be good. I will be very surprised if a psychedelic gets prescribed, even CBD is being frowned upon by many. In my antipsychiatry voice I would say that psychiatry is far more in favour of antipsychotics for post traumatic disorder than psychedelics because visionary healing is not valued enough. — Jack Cummins

Measure 109
Allows manufacture, delivery, administration of psilocybin at supervised, licensed facilities; imposes two-year development period. — Oregon Voters Pamphlet

Pot was made legal sometime ago and there are stores selling everywhere. We have also moved from stiff criminal sentences for possession of drugs to treatment.

Personally I do not want to be around people who are stoned or under the influence of alcohol. However, when I face death I am looking forward to doing psilocybin in a facility that includes that in its services. I do not believing dying has to be an unpleasant experience and I am glad Oregon has assisted suicide.

Freud's Theories of Life and Death Instincts - Verywell Mindwww.verywellmind.com › ... › History and Biographies
Death Instincts (Thanatos) The concept of the death instincts was initially described in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, in which Freud proposed that “the goal of all life is death.” Freud believed that people typically channel their death instincts outwards. 2 Aggression, for example, arises from the death instincts. — very well mind

PS measure 109 passed.

On a diversion from Freud I am wondering if you have read The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell, and I believe that he used Mescalin when he was dying.

I will read the Freud links as the point I was interested in him was his views on the life and death instincts. I think that part of his work may be the most interesting. The structure of id, ego and superego are also unique and useful I believe.

After all, in assessing Freud it does not have to be about an all encompassing rejection or acceptance of everything he said. That applies to all thinkers too. We do not want to be philosophical robots.

Trauma is actually rather complex but it has nothing to do with a subconscious. It's literally wiring in the brain. Recent developments in neuroscience show that much of what was "the mind" is just the brain. The tricky part is that it's a little more than just going in there and nip and tuck.

"The mind" so far has no evidence for existing as neuroscience gets more advanced. What was termed the mind is just the brain: personality, behavior, emotions, everything. As for Freud psychology would have been better off without him. Talk therapy was his only good contribution but that was not news.

Your essential argument seems to be most in line with the material reductionist. It is compatible with the behaviourist approach of B F Skinner. You do appear to believe that the neuroscientists have the final word. When you say that the 'mind' does not exist you are making an assertion about the mind and body problem of philosophy, a huge a whole branch of philosophy in itself and yet you write as if you can sum the whole field up in a couple of sentences.

Also, in your approach to post traumatic syndrome and its healing you say that the experiences come down to a rewiring of the brain. Of course, the brain is involved in all human experiences but once again you are being completely reductionist. You say that 'tricky part' involves more than 'a nip and a tuck'. Indeed, that is the problem as the repair of human suffering is complex.

As you are so opposed to Freud's ideas what do you believe the answer is for working with life experiences of the past ? You say that talk therapy was not new and I am not sure if you are dismissing it at all or not. I would say that it can help depending on the approach of the therapist. I have been in therapy for personal issues and as part of an art psychotherapy course and would say it can be hinder or help. I believe that this applies to all therapy, including person centred, psychodynamic, Gestalt or cognitive behavioral techniques. There are many therapists with bad attitudes who have absolutely no connection with the ideas of Freud.

All in all, you argue that the 'what was termed the mind is just the brain' , dismissing the 'personality, behaviour, emotions, everything''. In saying this you are dismissing the essence of what it means to be a human being. Do you believe we are just brains? You are looking at the hardware of human existence and wishing to look at nothing beyond this. But, more than anything you need to realise that your dismissal of the mind, and the subconscious of Freudian thought , involves debate around the philosophy of mind which is a whole branch of philosophy and cannot be written away in a couple of sentences.

↪Athena Trauma is actually rather complex but it has nothing to do with a subconscious. It's literally wiring in the brain. Recent developments in neuroscience show that much of what was "the mind" is just the brain. The tricky part is that it's a little more than just going in there and nip and tuck. — Darkneos

I guess that depends on how we define the subconscious. We surely can not be aware of all the information stored in our brains. Would not the information we are not aware of be a subconscious? I watched a show last night about how we are preprogrammed for prejudice, selecting for our own kind. It is something we do automatically without being aware of doing it.

Your essential argument seems to be most in line with the material reductionist. It is compatible with the behaviorist approach of B F Skinner. You do appear to believe that the neuroscientists have the final word. When you say that the 'mind' does not exist you are making an assertion about the mind and body problem of philosophy, a huge a whole branch of philosophy in itself and yet you write as if you can sum the whole field up in a couple of sentences. — Jack Cummins

Oh, oh, oh I think it should be obvious to everyone that our body and brain are not separate. I believing our bodies hold information and memories our brains may have forgotten.

Also, in your approach to post traumatic syndrome and its healing you say that the experiences come down to a rewiring of the brain. — Jack Cummins

I have no problem with the notion of an experience wiring our body/brain. This is especially true of our sex drive. While hormones play a role in our sexual impulses and may determine our sexual preference, so does experience wire our sexuality. Molesting a child can result in the child becoming a pedophile, or a person can be fixated on feet or rubber. I knew a man who was so cursed, and he lit up like a Christmas tree when children were in the swimming pool. He had lied to me about having this problem and I ended that relationship. The point is obviously he had this reaction without mental control. He had no more control over his physical reaction than I can avoid thinking I am hungry when I see food.

As you are so opposed to Freud's ideas what do you believe the answer is for working with life experiences of the past ? — Jack Cummins

From experience I would say this is where linguistics comes in, self-talk, how we tell ourselves the story. My original trauma happened when I was preverbal so I had a lot of work to do to figure out why I was have a problem. When I pin pointed the experience that caused the trauma and told a counselor what happened, he was able to change the self talk, and I went from experiencing myself as different personalities back to one person having different experiences. What a relief that was.

A key for me was reading a book about traumatized children and realizing I was preverbal when the event happened. I would have had no words for explaining what happened if my mother had not told me what happened. But it was recorded emotionally. First fear and than absolute chaotic terror that could get tripped, if something in the present, tripped the emotional memory. At least for me, understanding all these explanations and getting the right help made a big difference in my life. That counselor introduced me to linguistics and I think of what he did to help me as mind magic because it seemed to rewired my brain.

In my adult life the problem presented as panic attacks and that was fascinating. I got so tired of doctors dismissing what was happening to me as nothing but panic attacks, that I refused to give in to the panic attack the last time I went to the emergency room, many years ago. I calmly told the doctor I was in a state of panic. He didn't believe me but checked my body for signs of panic and sure enough, my body thought I was in a terrifying situation. That is when I began my effort to understand how our brains work and I have preferred the mechanics of how our brains work to Freudian analysis. I think Freud would prefer that too, he just didn't have the tools researchers have today.

The field of post traumatic stress disorder is interesting. I have come across a few people who feel that they have it and it is sometimes gets mistaken for borderline personality disorder. In fact, one of the tutors on my art therapy course thought that complex post traumatic stress disorder would be better for what is regarded as borderline personality disorder. To some extent I agree but I am not sure that there is not a subtle difference. Whatever the labels, severe stress does terrible things to us.

Really, even though I am writing about Freud and arguing against Darkneos's dismissal of Freud I think that various schools of thought can contribute to the understanding of various conditions. I am sure that Freud would not be opposed to neuroscience and in his time hypnotherapy was fashionable so he went down that route.

Understanding is an open quest and can learn from the various competing disciplines and fields of thought. I think philosophy needs to engage in this way rather than thinkers becoming too rigid, fixed and attached to any one way of thinking. The philosopher needs to be able to do mental gymnastics to stay adrift in the rocky slopes of our times.