Thanks for your post. It is a good summary of certain salient points made by the psychoanalytic school. Certainly it points out that this school shares much in common with religion, insofar as it posits the imaginary, and then attempts to dress it in a three piece suit. It does not, however (so far as I can make out), provide any basis for belief beyond what we have observed, replicated, and determined.
You show some (and you hint at other) conjectures about the nature and meaning of existence. However, I cannot see that your post asserts or intends to assert anything about the supernatural beliefs that inform "your" world (remembering that you have asserted previously a reliance upon "faith"). Pointing out the shortcomings, confusions, or natural deficiencies of conditioned and mortal beings hardly supports any of an infinite number of paths based on caprice or whim.
The problem with Freud, Jung, and many others is that they promote a syllogistic science rather than a measurable one. Their logic depends from axioms that are little more than subjective bias. There were probably a dozen valid thinkers from the psychoanalytic school. But their very divergence and opposition suggests that all reflect axioms assumed by prejudice, bias, and inclination. In any case, the fact that their conceptions of drives, motives, and meanings are disparate neither adds nor subtracts from hard science and objective measurement. There is a literature for the heart, and a literature for the mind... |
