ForumGarden

Dream and myth: the foundation for depth psychology

Freud hypothesized that dreams were a means for establishing a universal method for studying the human psyche. He felt that dreams provided a means for studying the psyche in a manner similar to that used to study the physiological characteristics of the body. In studying dreams and myth he theorized that one could make comparative interpretation of a universality of symbolism.

“It was the insight that, just as dreams express the unconscious of individuals, myths express the unconscious of the human species as a whole¦the symbolism of myth expresses the processes of the psyche in their quintessential form in contrast to the more personal contents of dreams deriving from merely individual experiences.

Freud thought that dreams expressed the unconscious domain of the individual. He furthermore considered that there existed a relationship between myths and dreams. Dreams represented the individual’s unconscious response and myth represented societies’ unconscious fundamental form of the social psyche in symbolic form.

Freud theorized that “by deciphering the symbolism of myths¦he would be able to apply the general principle to the particular case of the individual personality by relating dreams to myths¦it was this that became the foundation for depth psychology.



Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology—Ira Progoff.

Alright. So in what direction would you like this topic to go? Do you agree or disagree with Freud?

As is often the case, Coberst simply posts a general statement about a topic, and provides no suggested topics for discussion or areas to consider. He could as easily have started a thread entitled "Things I find interesting" and linked us to a number of wikipedia and other webpages and accomplished the same thing without filling the forum individual topic threads every time he finds something online that he likes.

Sigmund Freud is considered by many to be the impetus for studying dreams and the unconscious in psychology. His work with the neurotic of Vienna, however, provided a venue for others with similiar ideas to express their beliefs.

Freud was classically educated. His use of the Greek civilization is very apparent, as in his oedipal and edipus complexes. It is therefore appropriate that we look at the early civilizations, and what they believed dreams signified, to get a firm grasp of where we are today, and where your dream theory may be going.

What a very interesting thread. thanks

as in his oedipal and edipus complexes


Just as an aside, I think both those words you used refer to the same term "Oedipus Complex"

The version for daughters and fathers was called the Electra Complex.

laneybug;705443 wrote: Alright. So in what direction would you like this topic to go? Do you agree or disagree with Freud?


There are many ideas that Freud championed that have been modified by Adler, Jung, and Rank but this one that forms the fundamental idea for psychology as a science is true for me and for them.

Tater Tazz;705497 wrote: Sigmund Freud is considered by many to be the impetus for studying dreams and the unconscious in psychology. His work with the neurotic of Vienna, however, provided a venue for others with similiar ideas to express their beliefs.

Freud was classically educated. His use of the Greek civilization is very apparent, as in his oedipal and edipus complexes. It is therefore appropriate that we look at the early civilizations, and what they believed dreams signified, to get a firm grasp of where we are today, and where your dream theory may be going.

What a very interesting thread. thanks


You are most welcome Tater. I receive few complements but everyone is a jewel that I treasure.

So, why should people study Freud?

I am studying pyschology and am just looking into Freud, give me 2 weeks and I'll give an answer that hopefully makes sense :-6

Good luck Suzy! Been there done that allready.

Tater Tazz;705915 wrote: Good luck Suzy! Been there done that allready.


Thanks TT, I love it, it is really interesting.

SuzyB;705913 wrote: I am studying pyschology and am just looking into Freud, give me 2 weeks and I'll give an answer that hopefully makes sense :-6


Good for you. I think that we suffer for our ignorance of such a valuable domain of knowledge. I am a retired engineer and have only in the last year gotten acquainted with this very important science.

Tater Tazz;705911 wrote: So, why should people study Freud?


Some one very important, I forget who, said "know thy self". I think knowing our self is maybe the most important thing we can know. I also think that psychology is perhaps one of the essential sciences for such a knowledge.

Honestly, I think Freud is given way more credit than he truly deserves.

coberst;702539 wrote: Dream and myth: the foundation for depth psychology

Freud hypothesized that dreams were a means for establishing a universal method for studying the human psyche. He felt that dreams provided a means for studying the psyche in a manner similar to that used to study the physiological characteristics of the body. In studying dreams and myth he theorized that one could make comparative interpretation of a universality of symbolism.

“It was the insight that, just as dreams express the unconscious of individuals, myths express the unconscious of the human species as a whole¦the symbolism of myth expresses the processes of the psyche in their quintessential form in contrast to the more personal contents of dreams deriving from merely individual experiences.

Freud thought that dreams expressed the unconscious domain of the individual. He furthermore considered that there existed a relationship between myths and dreams. Dreams represented the individual’s unconscious response and myth represented societies’ unconscious fundamental form of the social psyche in symbolic form.

Freud theorized that “by deciphering the symbolism of myths¦he would be able to apply the general principle to the particular case of the individual personality by relating dreams to myths¦it was this that became the foundation for depth psychology.



Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology—Ira Progoff.


Hey that's interesting about Freud and taking the collective experience of myth and applying this to interpreting the personality of the individual because I've only known it was Jung who brought this idea to fore. I knew Freud had originated the idea of ego based psychology, and id and superego, but didn't know that he also attached a universal symbolism to the personal/phenomonological experience :-5. Maybe I learned something today?

Honestly, I think Freud is given way more credit than he truly deserves.Hrm, I'm not sure I agree with this however. Freud even if you disagree with some of what he says, forwarded the professions of psychology and psychiatry in leaps and bounds.

Those who came later refined his work substantially, and dealt with many of the more pressing issues with some of his thought, but to me the analogy is akin to thinking very highly of Copernicus.

Sure, between Kepler, Brahe, and Gallileo, they almost created a wider advance between them and Copernicus, than from Ptolemy to Copernicus, and all of them were simply laying the groundwork for Newton afterwards, but the process is called the Copernican Revolution.

I think Freud can be considered much the same way.

Hi Devonin-

Not to get sidetracked here but you brought up Newton as a recipient of the learnings acquired by others, and I wonder, who did Newton inspire? Einstein?

There's something about Freud's ideas about the human psyche that are the most profound! Even though he was a meathead in many ways... in my opinion... from what limited understanding I have of his theories and such;

There was something a tad off about him. Not sure what.

I know!

Maybe it was because he thought all women who were struggling to achieve emotional happiness were... HYSTERICS?

No, I changed my mind, that wasn't it at all :rolleyes:.

I'm not hostile toward Freud. I think he did the best he could under the circumstances. :-6

Erin

Not to get sidetracked here but you brought up Newton as a recipient of the learnings acquired by others, and I wonder, who did Newton inspire? Einstein?Pretty much all of science after Newton was directly inspired by Newton.

Devonin;706270 wrote: Hrm, I'm not sure I agree with this however. Freud even if you disagree with some of what he says, forwarded the professions of psychology and psychiatry in leaps and bounds.


I agree. But psychology isn't an exact science. How much of his "discoveries" was based in his own neurosis? When dealing with psychiatry/psychology the source should be the most questioned. I think it's absurd that more people know about Freud's discoveries than they know about him. The two are substantially linked.

The fact that he believed "sexual desire was the primary motivational energy in human life" yet "Freud held the opinion (based on personal experience and observation) that sexual activity was incompatible with the accomplishing of any great work. Since he felt that the great work of creating and establishing psychotherapy was his destiny, he told his wife that they could no longer engage in sexual relations. Indeed from about the age of forty until his death Freud was absolutely celibate “in order to sublimate the libido for creative purposes,"according to his biographer Ernest Jones. Yet, let's not forget, his possible infidelities.

That alone is evidence enough that he probably had some of his own ironies to deal with.

My point is, not even the "father of psychoanalysis" is exempt from fallibility, which is what truly needs to be considered regarding anybody and their advancements in such a gray area as psychology.

This, of course, doesn't mean I don't agree with some of his advancements, but I'm critical.

Is it necessarily the case that right answers can only be worth considering if they were arrived at following the 'right' path?

If his concepts came from scientifically invalid work but were later shown to be scientifically valid, does that make him less worthy of respect in retrospect?

I think that's a useful question to think about: If someone proposed a theory on the grounds that the happy pink unicorn told them so, and upon further investigation you found them to be utterly correct, what would you think of their work?

Freud was motivated by a lot of un-scientific concepts, was less than rigorous in testing and documenting a lot of his work, but many who came after him found that he was definately on to something.

Aristotle's physics stood largely unchallenged in the west until the 1500s, almost everything he proposed stood up to scrutiny for centuries, and yet later advances proved him quite thoroughly wrong in terms of -why- he thought things were the case, even though he was shockingly correct in terms of -what- he thought was the case.