I am Somebody!

shapless

I have no data.

Unfortunately coberst appears to be unaware of the criteria for usage of the word "science". Popper famously used "psychoanalysis" as an example of the misuse of the term. To the extent that Becker relies on psychoanalytic paradigms it is not "science" irrespective of his acclaim by those who are attracted by his focus on the American dream "to be somebody".

I will not argue with Popper but I suspect you have misunderstood his remark.

Anybody familiar with the origin of Popper's "falsifiability principle" will know he used psychoanalysis (and Marxism) to kick against.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Interestingly, Wittgenstein concurs with Popper on this one even though the two philosophers were known to dislike each other.

Indeed. It's on the grounds of the falsifiability principle that "string theory"--not coincidentally, another field whose practitioners are seeking universal (i.e. tautological) explanations for everything--is being attacked. Like psychoanalysis, and like any "social critique" that refuses to cite data, it consists not of unearthing reasons why things happen but applying labels to things that happen. Without undermining the importance of labels, we would do well to remember that naming something--no matter how fancy and impressive the vocabulary may be--is different from explaining it.

I'm coming in late. Aidan, isn't the term, corporation, a reference to an organization in which persons have no relevance? In Latin America, for example, a corporation is referred to as a sociedad anonima (anonymous organization).

I think both Wittgenstein and Popper could have benefitted from psychoanalysis.

And isn't there a book that dramatizes the enmity between Karl and Ludwig? "Wittgenstein's Poker"? (I have it somewhere).

JL, I think it was Coberst who emphasized the analogy of corporation as person-I have no real attachment to that analogy-although I do understand what he means since he explained it.
But as he explained it, although I find it an interesting concept, I don't necessarily agree with it in term of my impression of how the people I've met and spoken to about it envision their life and eventual death.

In terms of people having no relevance in a corporation-are you speaking in actual fact-or in how the corporation views the relevance of the people involved in it? I think those are often two differing realities or perceptions-would we call that a "duality" ..

which highlights Shapeless's thought that
[/b][/i].(emphasis mine)

For instance, I've never felt that it's been totally explained how if each individual's reality is only their perception, why is it that when I make a cake and perceive it, the people who I invite to share it with me not only perceive its existence, but almost always perceive each of the details I perceive (flavor, texture, appearance) in pretty much exactly the same way.

JL Nobody wrote

Only if they were open to it though, just like anything else. I've tried psychoanalysis on two different occasions. Each time I quit after the second visit. Both times, although I was sincerely looking for answers, I was unable to suspend my belief that I knew less about myself than this person who didn't know me, or that I could discover less about myself than this person who would be applying generalisations (and labels) to my specific experiences, emotions and perceptions.
Just as you have to have faith to benefit from religion in any way-I think you have to have faith to benefit from psychoanalysis, and I'm not one to put enough faith into a stranger to put my life in his or her hands and believe that they can explain it to me-I have more faith in myself in that regard.
Personally, I'd rather go to church than psychoanalysis...

Sorry, but I forgot to ask Fresco about this statement that I found interesting:


Do you think that is exclusively or even primarily an American dream to want to "be somebody"?
And if so, why does British culture rigidly differentiate strata or levels of achievement or "being somebody", including MBE"s, OBE's, all the way up through titled folk and into royalty?
Do you see that ingrained cultural practice as delinieating a different phenomena?

Aidan,

I remember my psychopathology lecturer remarking "there are as many cures of "mental problems" by parish priests as there are by psychiatrists". And BTW you cake scenario can be "explained" by focussing on the "reality" of interrelationship through a common language and common perceptual interactions as opposed to the "reality" of the "cake" and "the participants".

The anthropomorpic concept of "a corporation" is reified in law which considers it as "another individual legal entity". This anthropomorphism leads to to ascribing of "motives" and other psychological attributes to such organizations (and even larger ones like "nations) for the purposes of "simplification of cognition". The fact that psychological modes of interaction differ from sociological ones is lost in this tendency towards simplification. The "mistake" is comparable to confusing physical descriptions with biological descriptions.

Therein would lie Popper's reluctance to call psychoanalysis a science. His reluctance wasn't simply a matter of "not being open" to it. It was a matter of the actual definitions of science and psychoanalysis, and specifically about how the truth of psychoanalysis is ascertained compared to how the truth of science is ascertained. As you're noting here, the truth of a psychoanalyst's claim (especially if it's a claim about what is in someone else's head) cannot be tested or falsified. Take Freudian repression: the more you insist that you are not repressing a certain desire, the more you're demonstrating that you really are. Like any theory that deals only with imagined, abstract or mental situations, it can't ever be wrong--thus making it absolutely devoid of explanatory power. It can only be taken on faith, or not. As a positivist, Popper would not classify as a scientific claim something that can't be tested. This is not to undermine things that are taken on faith; it is merely to say that claims of faith are not of the same category as claims of science.

Aidan,

There are some statistical cultural differences regarding "becoming" between various nations. Some notable American Anglophiles have remarked on the acceptability in this country for people to opt out of the rat race and go for "self-sufficiency". The "Honour System" is often thought of with contempt and deference to Royalty is somewhat ceremonial (for the sake of the tourist industry). This is not to say that the "American Dream" has not had impact on the young via the ubiquitous Americanization of the media. But this needs to be put in the perspective of a growing ecological counter movement in which aspirations of the individual are seen as subservient to frugality and sustainability.

I agree that Freudian analysis has not proven to be very effective or efficient. Nevertheless, when there is enough time and money and a proper match between analyst and patient imperfect but positive results have occurred.
But, more importantly, the argument that psychoanalysis (not university-based psychology where at least the pretence of scientific rigour is demonstrated) is not scientific seems to imply that ALL "true" knowledge is necessarily scientific knowledge. Much of our knowledge is the result of interpretation and intuition, not to mention eons of trial and error. AND much "knowledge" is not explicit or the basis for perfect material results. Accupuncture may be an example. And who can demonstrate that poetry has not served to educate its audiences in the more subtle aspects of human existence; at least it has penetrated into areas not reachable by science. Finally, in my very private judgement at least, the most non-scientific of achievements, mystical "knowledge," is the most profoundly beneficial of all.

Does it? I'm not sure that I see the leap from "Psychoanalytical knowledge is not scientific" to "All knowledge is scientific." It's true that psychoanalysis has been criticized on scientific grounds, but it seems perfectly possible to say "A is not part of B" without also having to say "B is all that matters." Am I misreading you, JLN?

Aidan and Fresco, it's always been my impression that one of the functions of that legal entity, the corporation, has been to protect individuals from legal responsibility. It has hidden the individual without the collective.

O.K., I'm only saying that psychoanalysis is not be repudiated solely on the grounds that it is not strictly scientific.

Aidan and Fresco, I suffered a typo in my comment about the corporation; I meant to suggest that it conceals in the individual WITHIN, not without, the corporation.

I have no doubt that psychoanalysis is helpful to some people and I respect the work that is done, etc. I just think it takes a certain personality to do the work on both sides. The reason I approached psychoanalysis in the first place was that I wanted to complete a graduate program in counseling and one of the prerequisites (or requirements for completion of the degree program, I can't remember which now) was that each candidate had to have either undergone or be undergoing psychoanalysis- in other words have real practical experience in what they would be attempting to do. It became very apparent to me that my skills were much more practically based, and that I needed to be involved in work with others that had a more concrete focus with more concrete outcomes. I'm not saying this with pride-if anything, I really looked at it as some ability I was lacking.
(I think it's that same "concreteness" inherent in some parts of my personality that doesn't allow me to look at cakes as anything but based in reality-I understand the idea of shared perception through shared language and interaction, but I can't really buy it.)

But I do think any work in psychology (apart from physiological reactions, ie in drug studies, for example) can be considered no more than "study" (although study I consider very important and interesting and helpful in making practical applications) in which scientific method is applied. But I think it's a mistake to look for or expect universal outcomes such as one could expect to gather in experimentation or data collection in the hard sciences.


Which would call for one to suppress his or her drive to be an individual or "somebody". I don't think that's the analogy "person as corporation" Coberst was getting at-unless being a part of a bigger collective enabled the individual to at least feel that his or her influence in the world would not stop with death, but continue.

Fresco, I see what you're saying about what seems to be the more inherent interest in frugality and sustainability in the UK as opposed to the US. I see it too.
But I don't regard the materialism that has become everpresent in the US as an accurate depiction of "The American Dream" and the way in which Americans have historically striven to "Be Somebody". I see it as a very sad perversion of what is, in it's pure form, a wonderful hopefulness and belief that anything is possible.
Or maybe it's just that what I viewed as the American Dream, (or my American dream as embodied by my parents as I was growing up-that I could be or do anything I wanted to if I worked hard enough) has been replaced, through the apathy and lack of motivation to do any kind of self-study (as Coberst advocates) by the quick fix of materialism.
It's sad to me that it's that constant striving for material goods and recognition of outward success that's become what the rest of the world sees as being the American dream-but I can certainly understand why they would believe that.

Making one's mark or contribution, or achieving some kind of recognition within the social world of a profession or special activity like art is not the worst thing one can do. But the desire for universal fame or unlimited wealth and power are pathological conditions if you ask me (good examples are Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nichole Smith).
As I said before, I spent my early adult life in the Hollywood region of Los Angeles, and I felt sorry for the many aspiring youth who needed desperately to become famous, as if not to be a famous entertainment celebrity is to be a pitiful "nobody", virtually invisible or socially non-existent.
JLNobody

Yes, I like to call the people protected in this way the faceless humans. They can do all sorts of vile and criminal acts without fear of consequence. As I see it, this is one big contributor to a lot of messed up things that we'd all be better off without.

These faceless humans remind me of the ringwraiths in the lord of the rings.

Probably the principal reason for such anonymity is to protect the individual from the financial (as well as legal) responsibilities of the collective. The conviction of Ken Lay (CEO of ENRON) was a refreshing counterexample.