Popper’s view of psychoanalysis

Popper’s view of psychoanalysis

Sir Karl Raimund Popper was born in the year 1902 at Vienna.  He studied Vienna University during his schooling years. He acquired doctorate from the University sometime in 1928 (Jarvie, Milford & Miller, 2006). As such, all through his early and developing life, he had an interest in psychology. This gave him the desire and inclination to delve deep into psychology, and, therefore, psychoanalysis. He died in 1994 as an accomplished man.

According to Jarvie, Milford & Miller (2006), Sigmund Freud, defines psychoanalysis as a method that humanity uses in an attempt to understand the route that goes on in the mind. In most cases, the accessibility of most of these processes comes across as impossible. Therefore, there exist no other investigative procedure to lend credibility to the processes, unless through psychoanalysis. The definition also fits the process of the investigative procedure on the intangible processes of the mind.

As such, the concepts of the psychoanalysis get no physical interpretation. Rather, the intangible and psychological perspective applies. The approach of trying to understand Popper’s view requires the understanding and consideration of his views on the different vast fields which his views get spread. These fields comprise of Scientific Philosophy, Rationality, Religion and God, Political philosophy, Metaphysics and Arithmetic Philosophy (Jarvie, Milford& Miller, 2006).

In the Scientific Philosophy, Popper first fronted the concept of falsifiability/demarcation problem (Popper & Schilpp, 1974). He argues that his choice of the term does not arise from the simple thinking of making something seem false. Rather, if anything is false, it gets confirmed so by experiment or observation. As an addition to his approach, he argues that a theory should pass the test of falsifiability to get considered as genuinely scientific. In the long run, he throws his support behind Albert Einstein for his realist approach to theories in science as opposed to the instrumentalist approach by Niels Bohr.

In discussing the induction problem, under falsification, Popper fronts his argument based on the sun. From the main reason that the coming up with proof that the sea will have water next week, the formulation of the theory that the sea will have water next week can be formulated. As such, failure for the sea to have water another week, leads to falsification of the theory, requiring that a different one get developed (Popper & Schilpp, 1974).  Therefore, the ease of detection of the falsity of a theory promotes a true theory.

In the field of Rationality, Popper held that the rationality idea not only get scientific and empirical applications, but also presents an avenue for criticisms. Further, the method gets application in the observance and eradication of error without negative consequences. He argues that the application of the terms “right” and “wrong” assumptions smirk of lack of understanding in the use of the words. He prefers the study of theories for the ability to withstand the use of assumptions than labeling them negative or positive (Popper, 1977).

Eradicate negative consequences, so in labeling one as a wrong and the other as the right one defeats the meaning of the application

Popper further fronts the argument that no assumption deserves any justification (Popper, 1977). As he opposes justification, he claims, due to the traditionalistic approach on philosophy, that there exists nothing like sufficient reason in making assumptions. As such, elimination of errors in theories, before scientific application, remains paramount as compared to justification of assumptions.

In the Philosophy of Arithmetic, Popper dissects the common and most widely accepted mind-set on arithmetic. From the basic understanding of such arithmetic statement as “1 + 1 = 2”, the falsification of the statement comes into play. Such a statement remains true in its context. However, when the statement get rewritten as “1goat + 1goat= 2 goats”, the statement get subject to falsification, to determine logical truth and as factual (Popper & Schilpp, 1974).

In handling Political Philosophy, Popper rejects the belief that things happen as a precursor to yet-to-happen incidences. He talks against the argument that if what happens in the present leads to another in the future, then there occurrences get justified. Referring to his early experiences where rioters got shot and died, some his friends in University; he talks of an unjustifiable response from one of the leaders he consulted.

The justification that the rioters had to die in order to realize the workers’ revolution did little to convince Popper of the sequence of occurrences. This prompted him to ditch communism and cross over to criticism of the principles and approaches on issues by communists. He observes that the pre-arranged, or pre-meditated, an occurrence gives rise to totalitarianism and in most cases, authoritarianism.  This gets credence from the fact that leaders may tend to talk of their rule as premeditated, and, therefore, rule over others.

On his view on the Paradox of Tolerance, Popper stresses the point that the toleration of intolerance constitutes a vice. In as much as he advocates for tolerance, tolerating intolerance amounts to tolerance getting threatened. He writes in order to eradicate the rise of intolerance to peak levels; the tolerance of intolerance need be kept in check. Otherwise, he argues, the intolerance of tolerance may arise (Popper, 2002). Therefore, the belief set forth about boundless tolerance gets a leash in an attempt to cushion tolerance against intolerance.

Popper, in his Popperian Cosmology, agrees on knowledge being objective, in its objectivity and independence of the object concerned (Popper, 1977). He further goes ahead to propose the existence of three worlds of knowledge. The first world that he refers to as the physical world involves such physical states like books, paintings and all the products that the human mind brings forth. The second world he attributes as the mental world. This world, according to Popper, includes ideas and perceptions of the mind.

The third world, according to Popper, constitutes the totality of knowledge gained by man, in all its different, manifold forms. He proposes that world three reflects the manifestation of the outcomes of the activities in the second world on the first one (Popper, 1977). As such, the knowledge than a person possesses owes its origin to the total accumulated human knowledge. Therefore, the generation of any knowledge, or recurrence of ideas, arises from the interaction between the three worlds

When tackling the topic on the Origin and Evolution of Life, Popper concurs with the Darwin theory of evolution, with reservations. He describes the Darwin theory as not being a scientific theory that can undergo tests, but a program that may require a research in a metaphysical manner. He, however, goes ahead and describes the theory as invaluable in the understanding of evolution (Popper, 1977). The theory makes a significant contribution to the growth of human knowledge, on matters of evolution.

During his analysis on the Darwinian Concept of Natural Selection, he floats the idea that its difficulty in testing led to its dismissal as a tautology. He tried to explain ways in which the theory was untested, and yet it represented a significant scientific interest. He comes up with a justification by acknowledging that the floated understanding of the Darwin theory presents a successful program for a research in metaphysics. This significantly applies to natural selection (Popper, 1977).

Popper delves into the determination and description of the Free Will. He settles with the idea that the free will gets a better description in a state of interactional dualist approach (Popper, 2002). As, such, the mind, which constitutes the free will, does not exist on its own, but does so in connection with others. Rather, he writes that there occurs a physical distinction between the psychological and mental aspects in people.

In subscribing to Freud’s presentation of psychoanalysis, Popper concurs on the principal psychoanalytical divisions of the mind (Popper & Schilpp, 1974). He talks of the existence of the subconscious mind and the ability of persons to refer and draw from it. As such, he concurs with the idea that the subconscious mind forms the tip of the larger understanding of the unconscious mind. The two forms of minds, in Freudian representation, get represented as an iceberg, with the conscious mind forming the visible part.

The unconscious mind forms the larger and invisible part as compared to the conscious mind. As such, in the real world, it makes up the id, ego and the superego. These three aspects, according to Popper, determine the perception of things, persons and even conflicts. As such, the appreciation and understanding of these two minds promotes the understanding of the inner person (Popper &Schilpp, 1974). The indulgent of the two minds forms the basis of self-understanding.

In describing the unconscious mind further, he says that it harbor such emotions like thoughts, feelings and even memories that occur outside the conscious mind. Some of the content in the subconscious mind seem unacceptable and may contain feelings bordering on past pains and anxieties. All these continue impacting on the conscious mind at all times, sometimes with negative impacts on the person or those around.

For a proper and effective understanding of the different approaches given to the topic of psychoanalysis, the understanding of the two schools involved call for an understanding. The first school poses that discussions and analyses of psychoanalysis stems from the methodology fronted by science (Jarvie, Milford& Miller, 2006). Poppers favors this scientific approach, where, as early discussed, falsification gets a change for engagement. As such, this view gives a chance to open up and undergo refutation.

The inability of psychoanalysis to open up for scientific investigation leads to terming it a pseudoscience. This arises due to the observation and understanding that failure to open up to refutations constitute more of a social issue than a scientific one. He terms psychoanalysis as based more on observation and experience as in experimentation, leading to inconclusive and undependable results.

The second school of thought involves the acceptance and application of philosophy in the understanding of psychoanalysis (Jarvie, Milford & Miller, 2006). This group sets up philosophical views that relate psychoanalysis to the concepts that occur, and bear relation to, in the real world. An argument arises whereby the occurrences that arise and cannot undergo scientific testing get classified as cases of psychoanalysis. As such, all that occurs within and outside the human mind and gets no scientific explanation lies in the psychoanalysis class.

Situations arise where the subconscious minds suppresses the conscious mind to bring to the fore unintended information. Due to the rise of such situations, the concept of psychoanalysis augers well in explanation, as opposed to scientific explanations that may try to give an explanation. Taking a dating scene as an example, psychoanalysis best explains why the man involved may invariably call the new partner by the name of his ex. Psychoanalysis explains this situation as having to do with unresolved issues with the ex. However, scientific explanations fail in explanation.

In his entire life, Popper kept to himself in matters concerning God. After his death, there emerged an interview earlier conducted, at around 1969, with astounding revelations on his take on God (Zerin, 1998). While acknowledging the gift of life, the mythology behind the understanding of God casts a doubt on his mind. As a psychoanalyst, the concept of acceptance of the Jewish mythology, by a majority of people, raises credence questions.

The rejection of both the Indian and Egyptian mythology resurfaces every time the concept of God, in a Jewish concept, arises (Zerin, 1998). Therefore, in as much as religion abounds in the world today, Popper rejected the idea of religion that had organizational formats, due to reason that fanaticism bound to arise. As an individual, Popper believed in searching for answers, in this case, concerning life.

 

References

Jarvie, I. C., Milford, K., & Miller, D. (2006). Karl Popper: A centenary assessment. Aldershot:    Ashgate.

Popper, K., &Schilpp, P. A. (1974). The philosophy of Karl Popper: Book 1. La Salle, Ill: Open    court

Karl Popper (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New       York: Harper Torch books

Popper, K. R. (1973) “Of Clouds and Clocks,” in his Objective Knowledge, corrected edition,      Oxford: Oxford University Press

Popper, K. R. (1977) “Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind” Oxford: Oxford    University Press

 

 

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]