Was Freud a Philosopher

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165192 wrote:

Well sure. What has that to do with it? The issue is whether Freud was a philosopher because of what he also did. (For all I know Freud was a great chef, but he wasn't a great chef because of his psychoanalysis). Let's keep our eyes on the ball, shall we?

I don't see that as the question at all.
Is what Freud did, resultant of his being a philosopher?

@wayne,

wayne;165193 wrote:

I don't see that as the question at all.
Is what Freud did, resultant of his being a philosopher?

What as the question at all? I am not denying that Freud was interested in philosophical matters. So is the guy who repairs my car. That does not make either one a philosopher.

@BlueChicken,

"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" that's philosophy, dunno if one can lable him as a philosopher as of such, but least he Imo made philosophy on a small scale.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165200 wrote:

What as the question at all? I am not denying that Freud was interested in philosophical matters. So is the guy who repairs my car. That does not make either one a philosopher.

Ok, issue, not question.
What exactly makes someone a philosopher?
Is there a measured amount of study required to be called a philosopher?

Can someone using philosophy to develop an unrelated field of expertise be called a philosopher?
Or are you saying that's more like the mechanic, that the philosopher is the guy who makes the tools, not the guy using them.

@wayne,

wayne;165204 wrote:

Ok, issue, not question.
What exactly makes someone a philosopher?
Is there a measured amount of study required to be called a philosopher?

Can someone using philosophy to develop an unrelated field of expertise be called a philosopher?
Or are you saying that's more like the mechanic, that the philosopher is the guy who makes the tools, not the guy using them.

That's is a long, and involved issue, and it is far too late. Anyway, the question, what is a philosopher would deserve (if that is the word) a thread of its own, and I think there have been a number of threads on that theme. I would not call someone who, every once in a while, thinks about what is the purpose of life, or asks why do people fight so much, a philosopher. Philosophy is something that people like Descartes, or Leibniz, or Daniel Dennett do. Long, protracted, and careful analyses, of what are recognized as philosophical questions. There is no record of Freud having done anything like that. It seems to me that if you want to consider what it is that philosophers do when they philosophize, then the thing to do is to ask what people like Descartes or like Daniel Dennett do, not what those on the periphery of the field do. Like Freud.

@wayne,

wayne;165204 wrote:

Can someone using philosophy to develop an unrelated field of expertise be called a philosopher?
Or are you saying that's more like the mechanic, that the philosopher is the guy who makes the tools, not the guy using them.

Both.

Imo philosophy only lies in the ability to reason, to ask questions, to analyze matters, etc.
Colin Powell had a doctrine "overwhelming power" for the gulfwar, which is a philosophy.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;165209 wrote:

Both.

Imo philosophy only lies in the ability to reason, to ask questions, to analyze matters, etc.
Colin Powell had a doctrine "overwhelming power" for the gulfwar, which is a philosophy.

It is? How would that fit into the definition you just gave?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165208 wrote:

That's is a long, and involved issue, and it is far too late. Anyway, the question, what is a philosopher would deserve (if that is the word) a thread of its own, and I think there have been a number of threads on that theme. I would not call someone who, every once in a while, thinks about what is the purpose of life, or asks why do people fight so much, a philosopher. Philosophy is something that people like Descartes, or Leibniz, or Daniel Dennett do. Long, protracted, and careful analyses, of what are recognized as philosophical questions. There is no record of Freud having done anything like that.

I am agreed, it is late.

I understand your description of Philosophy to be a Science, worthy of more than just casual inquiry.
I am agreed on that also. Plumbers should also be more knowledgable than a handyman who does a bit of plumbing.

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 01:23 AM ----------

HexHammer;165209 wrote:

Both.

Imo philosophy only lies in the ability to reason, to ask questions, to analyze matters, etc.
Colin Powell had a doctrine "overwhelming power" for the gulfwar, which is a philosophy.

I had been of that opinion, that someone practicing philosophy was being a philosopher.
But I see what Kenneth is saying, that actually deserving the title of Philosopher requires a deeper commitment to the work involved.
As I said about the plumber, many can do plumbing work, few are willing to devote the time and effort to becoming a plumber and should not bear the title.

@wayne,

wayne;165211 wrote:

I had been of that opinion, that someone practicing philosophy was being a philosopher.
But I see what Kenneth is saying, that actually deserving the title of Philosopher requires a deeper commitment to the work involved.
As I said about the plumber, many can do plumbing work, few are willing to devote the time and effort to becoming a plumber and should not bear the title.

Imo they'r still plumbers, but their skill should then be considerd instead of questioning their title.

..even a grain of rice can tip the scale.

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;165104 wrote:

He's an intellectual poison to which we have yet to find the antidote.

I cant imagine why anyone ever took anything he said as other than idiotic.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;165245 wrote:

I cant imagine why anyone ever took anything he said as other than idiotic.

The Italians have a phrase that fits Freud's theory to a 't'. It is,
"Se , ". Loosely translated that means, "If it isn't true, it should be".

@BlueChicken,

He was unconsciously a philosopher.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165210 wrote:

It is? How would that fit into the definition you just gave?

I assume you have never played RTS games copetetivly, if you just run headlong towards a skilled enemy, you will surely die, you actually have to think to outsmart your enemy, you have to think about different doctrins.

A good commander must analyze the terrain, to make the fight on his terms, best shown in the greco war 480 bc.

You must consider your soldiers "stregth" if your underpowerd you must retink strategies, compared to normal stregth.

You must bait the enemy, provoke him to attack where he is weakest, and defend your own weaknesses.

You mus think up new strategies and tactics, such "hammer and anvil", "pincer movement" or "blitz war".

Sun Tzu was a good warphilosopher, you should read some of his writings.

Much of modern buisness, politics, sports, warfare ..etc are based on his teachings, same with "the prince - Makaveli".

@BlueChicken,

Freud should not be considered a philosopher at this era. He is a psychologist due to psychology and philosophy seperating from one another. Unless the people of this forum want to add philosophy of psychology to this forum than freud should not be considered a philosopher here. btw, nobody counts freud a philosopher at any of the universities. It's like saying isaac newton was a philosopher because he believed in laws that govern our motions.

@michael88,

michael88;165350 wrote:

Freud should not be considered a philosopher at this era. He is a psychologist due to psychology and philosophy seperating from one another. Unless the people of this forum want to add philosophy of psychology to this forum than freud should not be considered a philosopher here. btw, nobody counts freud a philosopher at any of the universities. It's like saying isaac newton was a philosopher because he believed in laws that govern our motions.

Still, I can see how his Civilization and it Discontents would be discussed in a philosophical setting. Couldn't you? Still, yes, you are right. He would be considered a philosopher only if the term were used pretty loosely.

@BlueChicken,

Yes in that he created a rational investigative organization of the human mind/perception/life and made great insights.

He also was the first to point out certain dynamics of human nature and how they have related to the literarary/historical underpinnings of man (i.e. oedipus rex).

The next progression of Carl Jung elaborated on these insights (archetypes, anima etc).

Philosophy and psychology are intimately related.

@StochasticBeauty,

StochasticBeauty;165392 wrote:

Yes in that he created a rational investigative organization of the human mind/perception/life and made great insights.

He also was the first to point out certain dynamics of human nature and how they have related to the literarary/historical underpinnings of man (i.e. oedipus rex).

The next progression of Carl Jung elaborated on these insights (archetypes, anima etc).

Philosophy and psychology are intimately related.

And now we have still another group of take it or leave it assertions. Just what we need on a philosophy forum.

@BlueChicken,

Since "psychology and philosophy are intimately related" let's reverse the question. Was Hume a psychologist? Was he involved in the scientific study of the human mind?

Actually, the 2nd question may rule Freud out as a psychologist. Simply theorizing about the human mind does not make you a psychologist. But it doesn't make you a philosopher either.

I don't think it necessarily demeans someones to say that their work was not philosophy or psychology.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;165400 wrote:

Since "psychology and philosophy are intimately related" let's reverse the question. Was Hume a psychologist? Was he involved in the scientific study of the human mind?

Actually, the 2nd question may rule Freud out as a psychologist. Simply theorizing about the human mind does not make you a psychologist. But it doesn't make you a philosopher either.

I don't think it necessarily demeans someones to say that their work was not philosophy or psychology.

I don't like catagorical imperatives especially in dealing with things which are open to interpretation (i.e. this question). Under your assumption, I think Einstein was much more a philosopher than Freud but still a physicist.

If you think about it, on the surface there is something strange about psychological claims. Psychology tells us that the complex behavior of human beings (and other sophisticated creatures) is mediated by seemingly unobservable mental states playing a role in seemingly hidden mental processes. What gives psychologists confidence in this account? Are these mental states made of matter? If they are, why are they not directly observable? If they're not, why should we believe in them? Are mental processes 'just' chemical processes? If they are, is psychology a kind of crude biochemistry?

The very nature of psychology has intimate ties to much to economics, game theory *and* philosophy. the purpose of philosophy is to abstract what is valid from all realms of value so as to enable the person to create his or her own identity ; the historical situation determines what is holistically possible. The results of such philosophical analysis should be consistent with the empirical results of psychology.

One interesting aspect is I find psychology often limits ones ability to accept certain philosophical phenemenon (eg metaphysics). It seems philosophy is related to any intellectual persuit which includes human truth.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;165400 wrote:

Since "psychology and philosophy are intimately related" let's reverse the question. Was Hume a psychologist? Was he involved in the scientific study of the human mind?

Actually, the 2nd question may rule Freud out as a psychologist. Simply theorizing about the human mind does not make you a psychologist. But it doesn't make you a philosopher either.

I don't think it necessarily demeans someones to say that their work was not philosophy or psychology.

There is a branch of philosophy which is called, "philosophy of mind". The philosophy of mind, like all philosophy, is not an empirical discipline which would deal directly with the mind, for example, learning theory. The philosophy of mind is a meta-discipline, which is not about the mind, but about the concepts employed in thinking about the mind. If psychology can be understood as "talk about the mind", then the philosophy of mind can be understood as "talk about talk about the mind". An investigation into, and analysis of, our concept of the the mind. It is not an empirical investigation, but a conceptual investigation. It is significant that one of the seminal philosophical books of the 20th century is called, The Concept of Mind (Gilbert Ryle) and that is exactly what it is about, not the mind itself, for that study would be psychology, but rather, about the concept of mind. Not about the referent of the concept of mind (which would, again, be psychology) but about the concept itself. What it is we (and psychologists) understand by mind (the concept) and the subsidiary concepts like, the concepts of understanding, of knowing, of belief, imagination, thought, emotion, and so on. So, to repeat, psychologists study the mind, and philosophers of mind (or of psychology) study the concept of mind. A neat division of labor.

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 05:56 PM ----------

StochasticBeauty;165420 wrote:

Philosophy is related to any intellectual persuit which includes human truth.

But then, I thought that would also be science (although I don't quite understand what "human truth" is as contrasted just with truth). But are philosophy and science the same?

Philosophy Forum

Was Freud a Philosopher

Quick Links

My Account

able2know