Talk:Freud and Philosophy

Discussions in reliable sources
Since not all editors may have access to the reliable sources the article is based on, I note some of what they contain, in the hope that this may be useful:

Don Ihde in International Philosophical Quarterly - Freud and Philosophy "...quickly became his most controversial work. It was attacked on one side by the followers of the unorthodox Freudian structuralist, Jacques Lacan. This attack claimed that the original insights of Freud and Philosophy concerning the similarities of the structures of the unconscious and of language were "borrowed" from Lacan." He goes on to note that the perspective developed in the book "far from being borrowed from the Lacanians, was already anticipated in Ricoeur's earlier works."

Charles Reagan in Paul Ricoeur: His Life and His Work - "Ricoeur's break with Lacan became extremely hostile after the publication in 1965 of his book on Freud. Lacan had expected to be a central figure in Ricoeur's book and to have his theories prominently featured. Instead, he is barely mentioned... Lacan unleashed his disciples, who produced a torrent of criticism of Ricoeur's views. Ricoeur was used to having his philosophical positions attacked, but he was not prepared for the personal and vitriolic criticism he received....

When Freud and Philosophy "was published in the spring of 1965, it achieved great success and attracted extraordinary criticism....Lacan was furious with Ricoeur's book. First of all, it usurped his ground: Lacan thought that he and he alone was the authentic French interpreter of Freud....Complaining to his entourage that Ricoeur had plagiarized his ideas, Lacan turned his supporters loose to write scathing attacks on Ricoeur and his book. One particularly vitriolic attack came from J-P Valabréga, who claimed that Ricoeur had taken Lacan's ideas without attribution."

Élisabeth Roudinesco in Jacques Lacan & Co: A History of Psychoanalysis in France, 1925—1985 - "Not only did Ricoeur not 'steal Lacan's ideas,' but so little did he 'steal' them that he misconstrued them completely. He invented a Lacan he was unable to read and whom he tried in vain to confront.

Lacan, for his part, felt offended. When he became acquainted with the book, he went into a rage. He had expected to be glorified and found himself misunderstood by a celebrated philosopher who had attended his seminar. Already in Rome he had extorted payment of his bills; thereafter he would turn positively odious, complaining to his entourage that he was the victim of a 'plagiarist.' The 'rumor' began to spread: Credulous disciples were firmly convinced that Ricoeur had pilfered Lacan's ideas. If proof were needed, he was there at the seminar."

Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Insanity and human culture
During a recent good article review, the reviewer criticized the following passage:

' According to Ricœur, dreams and phenomena comparable to them, including both insanity and human culture in general, involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning", which he equates with the symbol. '

The reviewer suggested that the passage might be clearer without "insanity and human culture in general", since it "applies to people generally and those who are insane". After I rejected the proposal, the reviewer instead suggested altering the passage to,

' According to Ricœur, dreams and phenomena comparable to them, regardless of a person's mental health or sanity, involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning", which he equates with the symbol. '

I will note what is wrong with the reviewer's criticism of that passage. The passage is not about Ricœur's view of "people" considered as individuals. Rather, it is about his view of "dreams and phenomena comparable to them". There is no reason why it would be clearer without "both insanity and human culture in general". The reader unfamiliar with Freud and Philosophy has no means of knowing that, for Ricœur, "dreams and phenomena comparable to them" includes "both insanity and human culture in general", so removing "both insanity and human culture in general", rather than making the passage clearer, would remove information for no good reason and lower the quality of the article.

The proposed change to 'According to Ricœur, dreams and phenomena comparable to them, regardless of a person's mental health or sanity, involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning", which he equates with the symbol ', would be an utter distortion of Freud and Philosophy. Ricœur is not concerned with arguing that, regardless of a person's mental health or sanity, "dreams and phenomena comparable to them" involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning". Ricœur does not presume that there are certain people who believe that a person's mental health would make a difference to whether their "dreams and phenomena comparable to them" involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning" and try to argue that such people are wrong. Rather his point is that insanity and human culture in general both involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning" - a totally different claim. The reviewer was apparently suggesting, in a confused way, that discussing "human culture in general" is the same as discussing "people" as individuals, with the implication being that this makes a specific mention of insanity unnecessary, since "people" would include insane people. In fact it is entirely possible to discuss human culture without making any claim specifically about insanity or insane people. It is not self-evident at all that because someone believes that "human culture in general" involves specific kinds of significations, that he therefore believes that the specific phenomenon of insanity also involves the same kind of significations. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Phenomenology of religion
During the recent good article review, the reviewer criticized the following statement, from the "Summary" section of the article,

' In his view, the primary difference is that phenomena that psychoanalysis views as distorted reflections of basic desires are regarded by the phenomenology of religion as "the revelation of the sacred" '

She made several different criticisms, but the only one I'll respond to here is that the statement is not an accurate reflection of what Ricœur states in Freud and Philosophy. That certainly is a serious accusation. I am happy to report that it is also completely false. Turning to page 7 of Freud and Philosophy we find this:

"What psychoanalysis encounters primarily as the distortion of elementary meanings connected with wishes or desires, the phenomenology of religion encounters primarily as the manifestation of a depth or, to use the word immediately, leaving for later a discussion of its content and validity, the revelation of the sacred."

The statement that appears in the article is obviously only a simple summary of the relevant comments by Ricœur on page 7 of Freud and Philosophy. It is entirely accurate. The suggestion that it is not properly cited is clearly wrong. The reviewer's comment, "It seems to me that pages 7 and 8 explain that are the [sic] many ways that we create symbols of our true or double meanings, whether through dreams, spoken words, or any number of ways", does nothing whatever to show that the statement she criticized is inaccurate in any way and is entirely off the point. Pages 7 and 8 of Freud and Philosophy are indeed concerned with more than only the phenomenology of religion, but the statement that appears in the article is not an attempt to summarize everything on pages 7 and 8. It only summarizes what Ricœur states on one particular part of page 7. The reviewer later commented, "There's one case where your summary did not reflect what was on two pages of the book and I asked you to 1) take a second attempt or 2) provide a page number - because I am not finding the content". Again there is little to be said except that the criticism is clearly wrong. As far as I can tell, it simply reflects misunderstanding of article content. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually I will comment on another point. The reviewer made some comments about the the sentence ' In his view, the primary difference is that phenomena that psychoanalysis views as distorted reflections of basic desires are regarded by the phenomenology of religion as "the revelation of the sacred" '. She suggested that its meaning might depend on how ' "the revelation of the sacred" is defined across religions '. In fact it does not, because it relates to how "the revelation of the sacred" is defined by the academic field of phenomenology of religion, not world religions themselves. The reviewer commented that the sentence "seems like an over-generalization of world religions". For the record, in case the reviewer is still following this, that sentence is not about world religions and does not even mention them. It relates to the phenomenology of religion, a distinct subject.


 * As they say, I'm only trying to be helpful. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Templates
Kingsif, rather than adding templates to the article, it might be a better idea to simply discuss how to improve it. I'm perfectly prepared to modify the article in any number of ways, if you can clearly identify problems. A template by itself is unlikely to lead to improvement. Note that a template relating to "plot" is not appropriate here. Works of fiction have plots. This is an article about a non-fiction book.

Judging from a comment you made somewhere else, it seems you consider the problems of the article to be an "excessively long essay-like discussion of summary" and "and how there's a long introduction to the reception". If you believe the "Summary" section is too long by all means explain why in detail and we can consider how to cut it back. I disagree that the "Summary" section is "essay-like". If you think it should be written differently then explain how. How the "Reception" section should be organized is a complicated matter considering that there is so much relevant information that needs to be organized and presented. I see nothing wrong with the organization of the section at present. For the record, no one other than you has ever criticized its current organization, which apparently had nothing to do with why it was failed. If you want to make a suggestion for improving or restructuring the section go ahead. Telling me you don't like the way it is organized is not helpful in the absence of a specific suggestion for improvement. Freeknowledgecreator (talk)

Also, since your edit summary here indicates that you might have some interest in reviewing the article, you can note that I have removed the good article nomination, for the time being, in response to the abuse I have recently received. I may of course nominate the article again in future once matters calm down. Note that I do not consider the addition of templates a helpful action for a prospective reviewer. Discussing the article with me on the talk page would be a much more appropriate and constructive step. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, to repeat myself: a "plot" template is not appropriate for an article about a non-fiction book. Non-fiction books do not have plots. It is entirely appropriate to remove a template stating that an article has an excessively long plot section when it is an article about a non-fiction book and as such does not have a "plot" section at all. Your continued confrontations with me are looking like an exercise in revenge and harassment. Please stop. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, since you placed the templates, I'd like to ask specifically what changes you would like to see made. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absence of response duly noted. I will simplify the structure of the "Reception" section by removing its subdivision into three sections and then remove the template. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)