At least one red flag, regarding the "first chapter by Freud — preserved in the Bullitt Papers in 24 pages of his German Gothic script". – Freud used latin italics when writing in English.[1] Another one, the notion of an agreement on not publishing as of spring 1932 and the remarks on the non sequitur on Bullitt's side as made by Freud to Marie Bonaparte in Dec. 1933 do not add up.
I find it exceedingly difficult to align this portrayal, especially regarding the additions with anything we do know about and by Freud. (As we're speaking here about a time frame of 1930-32, senility on Freud's side is out of consideration.) Also, the author seems to be a bit on the Freud-is-dead wagon, the promotors of which usually tend to convey a crude caricature. ("And Freud’s ideas took hit after hit, including multiple revelations that he had fudged or misrepresented his findings." – However, I've not seen yet any of this which would stand the scrutiny of a comparison with source material or the claims actually made by Freud.)
> Also, the author seems to be a bit on the Freud-is-dead wagon
There is very good reason from that. The contemporary dominant paradigms covering the theoretical ground once dominated by e.g. Freud and Jung can be found under the heading of Cognitive Science[0], where Freud and his legacy of ideas are completely absent to my knowledge. Modern clinical psychology, which I don't know as well, seems to have branches which still employ Freudian ideas—but my understanding is that they are outliers at this point, and that more typically modern clinical psychology is rooted in theoretical results from Cognitive Science.
Hm – As you pointed out, this is rather a matter of a paradigmatic shift. Cognitivist Science represents a rather unrelated branch of thinking. (Arguably it is also ignoring most of the early 20th century, e.g., the whole body of constructivist theory formed in the 1920s.)
Freud was essentially an answer to shortcomings in clinical psychology in the late 19th century, and, while there have been huge advances in clinical psychology, there will be always differences. However, Freud's hints at a general theory, his 'metapsychology' may be still of broader interest today. This is neither a contest nor a zero-sum game. – What I was addressing, are those who promote the notion of Freud being falsified just to be entitled to ignore him, to not read any, who rather prefer to convey a distorted idea, which is based one hearsay only, but still feel qualified to assess the value of his thinking. (The same is probably true for some notions of Kant. Also, arguably Freud and Jung represent rather opposing, incompatible concepts than the same.)
[Edit:]
*) the whole body of constructivist theory
This is meant to refer to authors like Edmund Husserl, Ernst Cassirer and what is still found in remanences under the title of sociology of knowledge (Alfred Schütz, etc).
Just to ensure we're talking about the same thing, I'm referring to 'Cognitive Science' not 'Cognitivist Science,' which sounds more like a branch of philosophy.
I think that's the main disconnect in what we're talking about here: mainstream scientists in psychology left Freud behind quite a while ago. There are certainly other corners of academia who continue to use his ideas, but not scientists. Nowadays the two main branches covering similar theoretical subjects are various branches of Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychology (both of these are often grouped together under the heading 'Cognitive Science').
"Bullitt spent the rest of his life writing and speaking, most often about the dangers of Communism — like many young leftists, he took a hard rightward turn later in life." – I guess, having witnessed the promises of an early, Leninist USSR, as of 1919, having promoted it and fought for it on the expense of his career, and confronting this with the Stalinist reality of the mid-1930s (Bullitt became US ambassador to the USSR in 1933, witnessing the purges of 1933 and 1934, and probably the beginning of the Great Purge starting in 1936) must have been a harsh experience.
It's sad that people who have done great things are given such flack for later projects that didn't meet expectations. Feynmnan talked about "Nobel prize disease", and how he was determined to avoid it by working on unimportant things if he felt like it. Probably everyone who's gotten some recognition has felt the constraint at some level.
I gather that Freud hated Wilson. He blamed him for destroying the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWII. I suspect that he also blamed him for the the Nazis.
That said, it's plausible that Freud shared the common notion, especially bitterly so, since Jews had also lost that bit of imperial protection they had enjoyed previously (but this had been ambivalent and changing over time, as well).
Yes, but I think that ambivalence and the Bullitt quote about an advisor manipulating Wilson's opinion probably get at the nature of Freud's hatred for Wilson.
A leader who had the power to decide over significant things to Freud who did so without showing enough serious thought to have strong convictions in either direction. No doubt his real priorities were some kind of excessive self obsession..
Yes, there was commentary about how easily Wilson could be manipulated, through simple psychological ploys. Stuff about his passive aggressiveness. Plus lots of homophobic and religious slurs, which I didn't expect from Freud. But then, I've always been more partial to Jung, so hey.
Regarding these slurs: This seems so absolutely not to match what we know of and by Freud, including letters to intimate friends, etc. It's really more like a caricature.
I find it exceedingly difficult to align this portrayal, especially regarding the additions with anything we do know about and by Freud. (As we're speaking here about a time frame of 1930-32, senility on Freud's side is out of consideration.) Also, the author seems to be a bit on the Freud-is-dead wagon, the promotors of which usually tend to convey a crude caricature. ("And Freud’s ideas took hit after hit, including multiple revelations that he had fudged or misrepresented his findings." – However, I've not seen yet any of this which would stand the scrutiny of a comparison with source material or the claims actually made by Freud.)
[1] Compare https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2014/06/hands-on-sigmund-fr...