Customer Reviews

Open Minded: Working Out the Logic of the Soul

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Many take issue with Lear's "defense" of Freud, but I see it differently. Lear is not so much defending Freud as he is using the example of Freud-bashing to remind us to continue to question what we think we know about reality. The human tendency is to look for answers, and that is good for us as a species. In our search for order, patterns, and understanding we have learned a great deal about the nature of objective reality (the natural world)...but the basis of scientific pursuit is test and test again; question and question again. There are scientists who continue to refine the measurement of Pi...we don't reach a point where we can simply assume that we know, and we can't interpret the work of Philosophers or Scientists with shallow prejudice and expect to come up with a true understanding of their contributions. Freud's writings are complex and convey a great deal. Many of his ideas were false ones, but that doesn't negate the value of the work he pursued. It doesn't erradicate the value of the questions he asked or the paths he suggested (either through his error or his truth) to others.

The most important aspect of Lear's work; the most profound insight in all of his varied writings comes down to this:

If we want to believe we are right, that we know what is what, then we need not question, think, integrate, or work intimately with complexity. However, if what we care about is the truth; if what we are relentlessly and endlessly pursuing is a scientific, integrated understanding of reality; we must think hard, question everything, and integrate endlessly and joyously -- embracing this, our human challenge.

As Tom Stoppard wrote in _Arcadia_, "It's wanting to know that makes us matter. Otherwise we're going out the same way we came in."

Like "Love and Its Place In Nature," most of this book is a philosophical interpretation of Freudian psychoanalysis. But it is more. One chapter is a discussion of the purpose of tragedy (why would anyone want to watch, or read, or even write a tragedy?). The answer is in this book. Another chapter that has very little to do with Freud discusses the tension between the transcendental nature of Philosophy and the brute classifications of "scientific" Anthropology. Is there room for a merging of the two? Lear thinks so. But the hook is in the first chapter, where he launches a full-on aussault on "knowingness." For example we all "know" Clinton committed infidelity and thus we choose to brush it aside or blow it up into some outrageous impeachment crusade. But how do we really "know" what to do? Read Lear's book and you will be surprised, I guarantee you that.

Lear is a philosopher-psychoanalyst. His view of Freud presented in this book is in fact characteristic of most distinguished academics in the humanities, though Lear himself, being a psychoanalyst, has a rather professional axe to grind. In any case, to get a representive view of one side of the Freud wars today, one ought to read him, particularly because Lear is a clear and engaging writer, with the important virtue of honesty. This said, this defense of Freud seems very inadequate. In presenting the traditional humanist image of Freud, Lear waters down and therefore distorts his master. Adorno once said that Freud is at his best when he is most outrageous. I agree. Lear and so many other defenders simply drop what does not seem appealing to common sense. Well, what is left is not Freud at all. The true Freud will always enrage. One may even say that what does not cause outrage in normal people cannot be Freudian thought. The main problem with Lear's interpretation, and with humanist interpretations in general, is a very narrow conception of what Freud was up to. Wollheim and Hopkins, though fellow philsophers, are better in this regard. In understanding Freud, above all it is important to remember that he was a neurologist who spent some 20 years doing research in neurobiology and neuroanatomy, and that he did not simply discard his early views. To ignore the origin, to forget about, so to speak, the childhood of Freud's thought is very unfreudian indeed. I don't think that Lear wants to ignore this on purpose; but he certainly doesn't have the competency to deal with it. A reviewer below pointed out the same problem, though Pinker, or other hip-pop psychologists, is hardly a trustworthy authority. The key is to understand Freud the scientist first, however weird, to us, he may seem as a scientist. The interested reader may wish to take a look at the following books and articles: Oliver Sacks has a new essay on Freud the neurologist which may be a good starting point; Steve Kosslyn wrote something called "Freud Returns"; Marvin Minsky did borrow much in his "Society of Mind"; Pribram and Gill wrote a book on the Project; Changeux's small book on neurobiology is helpful; Israel Rosenfield did good reporting in his book on memory;Dan Alkon also said much of value in his autobiographical book on memory; Joseph LeDoux's new book is suggestive and thoroughly Freudian for those who can understand the implications; and of course finally there are the four books by Gerald Edelman, the nobel-laureate, which provides the foundation for a Freudian neuroscience in the next century. Only then, perhaps, will we truly understand Freud the humanist.

Patricia, whose computer I am using, is my friend. She loaned me your book and I want to tell many people that it is beatifully written and full of wisdom. I came to the USA from Vietnam in 1977 with very little knowledge about philosophy or psychology. Since then I have learned about American and European ideas.

My brother, who came here with my mother and my sister and me, was very ill. We found him a doctor who practiced psychology like Dr. Freud. After many years, he became healthy and a father. He explained to us the ideas in your book long before I read it but I did not understand them. He worked very hard to live his life well he said. Now, after studying your book, I think I understand pretty well what he meant. I am happy that you can write well about such ideas. Bless you and Dr. Freud and Plato. We owe our happiness to people like you. Probably many do.

Patricia, whose computer I am using, is my friend. She loaned me your book and I want to tell many people that it is beatifully written and full of wisdom. I came to the USA from Vietnam in 1977 with very little knowledge about philosophy or psychology. Since then I have learned about American and European ideas.

My brother, who came here with my mother and my sister and me, was very ill. We found him a doctor who practiced psychology like Dr. Freud. After many years, he became healthy and a father. He explained to us the ideas in your book long before I read it but I did not understand them. He worked very hard to live his life well he said. Now, after studying your book, I think I understand pretty well what he meant. I am happy that you can write well about such ideas. Bless you and Dr. Freud and Plato. We owe our happiness to people like you. Probably many do.

I picked this book out at a local Borders, in the philosophy section. I wasn't anticipating the copious amounts of psychology, but it was still a good solid read.

I haven't read the whole book, as already the introduction and the first chapter reveal that the author is not playing his cards openly. He is obviously a practising psychoanalyst but doesn't tell us that. He has not even read "Why Freud was wrong", but thinks that he can still rebut it. He doesn't address the real arguments of Crews but takes on side issues. In short, the book is for true believers only.