lpetrich

I have gotten the late Stephen Jay Gould's recent book I Have Landed, and I have read nearly all of it so far. I'm still curious about his thoughts about the kamikaze hijackings of last year, the two most destructive of which had happened a mile from his home.

But in addition to such goodies as a discussion of Ernst Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, there was mention of how Sigmund Freud had believed that several features of our minds had been the result of Lamarckian inheritance of some events of long ago. Not surprisingly, as mainstream opinion turned against Lamarckism in the early 20th cy., Freud felt disappointed that this convenient mechanism seemed to be absent.

In addition, Freud and his friends were strong believers in Haeckel's view that growth reruns evolution, a view discredited long ago.

Also, SJG noted that some supporters of Freud's theories have claimed that we ought to view some of his account of formative events as metaphorical -- meaning that these accounts are not literal, but allegorical.

I wonder how Freud is viewed among psychologists nowadays; is his work considered much more than a historical curiosity?

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

seebs

My vague recollection is that most of his theories have long since been written off, but the underlying idea that talking to people can be a good way to learn about them, and that some mental disorders are *entirely* mental, has survived.

lpetrich

Something like behaviorism, but at least behaviorism can be justified as a "black box" approach to psychology -- how much can one learn from looking from the outside?