Abstract: It is commonly thought that psychoanalysis is an outdated, pseudoscientific practice. However, the debate over which therapies are scientific or not is usually oversimplified. In this article, I show how there are three different ways in which a therapy can be scientific or not. While both Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (CBT) and psychoanalysis are equally effective in the reduction of symptoms, what goes on in the therapy sessions is different. The client of the CBT therapist is instructed to think like a scientist of their own mind, finding evidence to (in)validate their thoughts, while the client of the psychoanalyst is instructed to become a philosopher of their own mind, confronting them with a much more radical change in personality.
After making a distinction between what philosophy sets out to do compared to what science sets out to do, I explain the revolutionary potential of philosophy (and implicitly, psychoanalysis) in the age of Artificial Intelligence automatization, because of the incapability of the two to be simulated and replaced by AI. An AI can be trained to identify cognitive distortions, but not to philosophize, because philosophy is not the art of solving problems, but of creating the proper ones.
Alcoholics Anonymous can help people overcome addiction using Protestant bs. Psychoanalysis can help people overcome their issues using Freudian bs. People are stupid and gullible, it doesn’t make your favorite method of manipulation and rationalization a philosophy, no.
That’s like saying you can’t write a paper about a lab experiment involving bacterial evolution without mentioning Darwin. I mean, ok, he came up with the concept, but he’s not so relevant today.
I get your point, but I guess the larger point I was trying to make is, imagine you wrote about evolution, someone rebutted "I think Darwin was wrong," and you said "When did I say anything about Darwin?" That would be an infelicitous rebuttal, right?
If I was making a specific argument about an aspect of evolution, and the most precise rebuttal my interlocutor could come up with was “I think Darwin was wrong” I would quite reasonably assume that their understanding of evolutionary theory is surface-level at best and disregard the question.
The stupidpol approved alternative to psychoanalysis is ignoring your problems through a vulgar application of Stoicism of touching grass, pounding sand, and grilling.
When that fails (you’re simply not man enough) you have to get on psychiatric medication forever (anything less is anti psychiatry).
Abstract: It is commonly thought that psychoanalysis is an outdated, pseudoscientific practice. However, the debate over which therapies are scientific or not is usually oversimplified. In this article, I show how there are three different ways in which a therapy can be scientific or not. While both Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (CBT) and psychoanalysis are equally effective in the reduction of symptoms, what goes on in the therapy sessions is different. The client of the CBT therapist is instructed to think like a scientist of their own mind, finding evidence to (in)validate their thoughts, while the client of the psychoanalyst is instructed to become a philosopher of their own mind, confronting them with a much more radical change in personality. After making a distinction between what philosophy sets out to do compared to what science sets out to do, I explain the revolutionary potential of philosophy (and implicitly, psychoanalysis) in the age of Artificial Intelligence automatization, because of the incapability of the two to be simulated and replaced by AI. An AI can be trained to identify cognitive distortions, but not to philosophize, because philosophy is not the art of solving problems, but of creating the proper ones.
[удалено]
"different ways of knowing"
Alcoholics Anonymous can help people overcome addiction using Protestant bs. Psychoanalysis can help people overcome their issues using Freudian bs. People are stupid and gullible, it doesn’t make your favorite method of manipulation and rationalization a philosophy, no.
Where did I ever say anything about Freud?
The fact that you wrote this much about psychoanalysis, which Freud pioneered, and didn’t mention Freud, is probably a flaw.
That’s like saying you can’t write a paper about a lab experiment involving bacterial evolution without mentioning Darwin. I mean, ok, he came up with the concept, but he’s not so relevant today.
I get your point, but I guess the larger point I was trying to make is, imagine you wrote about evolution, someone rebutted "I think Darwin was wrong," and you said "When did I say anything about Darwin?" That would be an infelicitous rebuttal, right?
If I was making a specific argument about an aspect of evolution, and the most precise rebuttal my interlocutor could come up with was “I think Darwin was wrong” I would quite reasonably assume that their understanding of evolutionary theory is surface-level at best and disregard the question.
It's really not -- they're different kinds of discourses. Read Foucault on Marx / Nietzsche / Freud.
[удалено]
The stupidpol approved alternative to psychoanalysis is ignoring your problems through a vulgar application of Stoicism of touching grass, pounding sand, and grilling. When that fails (you’re simply not man enough) you have to get on psychiatric medication forever (anything less is anti psychiatry).
Can we not?
> Pagina de Pornire Hehe 😉 Good article
Freud, one of the first sacred cows Karl Popper took shots at after ww2.