Why Freud was Wrong [antikvár]

A Note to the Reader the title of this book, bold though it may seem to some, is not intended simply as another stinging rebuke to Freudians. It is true that if I did not believe that Freud could be unseated, and unseated in an even more comprehensive and conclusive manner than he has been yet, I would not have thrown down my gauntlet in quite this way. But throughout the pages that follow I have tried to bear in mind the common claim that 'we are all Freudians now'. Because I believe there is some truth in this claim, I have tended to treat the founder of psychoanalysis as the embodiment of our¦ ideas rather than simply as the propagator of his own. My ultimate goal is not to humiliate Freud or to inflict mortal injury either on him or his followers. It is to interpret and illuminate his beliefs and his personality in order that we may better understand our own culture, our own history and, indeed, our own psychology. It is to this constructive attempt to analyse the nature and sources of Freud's mistakes that my title primarily refers. Why Freud Was Wrong has taken me a long time to write and I would like to thank all those people who have encouraged me along the way. Many years ago the philosopher and Freud scholar Professor Frank Cioffi helped to light the slow fuse which would eventually lead to this book when he responded generously and enthusiastically to a paper I had sent him about Freud and Fliess. He, in turn, was one of the first people to read the earliest draft of this book and I remain grateful for his encouragement and for his constructive criticism. It was only when he had read my first draft that this book began to seem real to me. As a result I promptly rewrote it. My friend Ruth Whittaker then undertook to read again a book she had already read once. Her comments and criticisms were, as usual, immensely valuable. Another early reader was Professor Raymond Tallis whose critique of modern literary theory, Not Saussure, I have long admired. As a medical doctor with a special interest in neurology who had strayed into literary criticism, he seemed the ideal reader for a book written by a literary critic