Since obviously we cannot agree to disagree, I'll continue.
~ We both agree that psychoanalysis and Freudian psychology in general is not scientific. I admit that I am going about attempting to disprove Freud's views as if they
were scientific, and I apologize for that. Also, I only have heard about Hawking's
Model-Dependent Realism, only recently studying it. With that said, I still find error in your claim that psychoanalysis accurately predicts behavior. Some obvious behaviors, known to all those in the world who are apt at socialization, yes. However things such as the stages of psychosexual development, it utterly fails at predicting. You cannot say that “psychoanalysis” predicts behavior, use
a few examples of its “successes”, and ignore its obvious failures.
~ Moving on, I accept that you see that psychoanalysis predicts behavior, thus whether it is factually true and represents “reality” is of little importance. Indeed, even though there are other scientific theories that do far better at this job, you still view both as useful, so it seems, and worth keeping (The later part is merely a guess on my part, apologies if it is an incorrect one). I accept all of this, but I do not agree with it. MDR (Mode-Dependent Realism) is your crutch for this sort of reasoning, thankfully, as that leaves room for criticism.
~ In order for your basis to support your main assertion, psychoanalysis
must predict human behavior, if not in all cases, than in the majority. In other words, psychoanalysis must be congruent with observation and predict future observations. As you know, I am saying that this is not the case. As aforementioned, I have already shown issue with using a few minority examples from a documentary to support all of psychoanalysis (I never heard you say “This part...”, “This theory”...only the entire word.). When Bernays consulted a psychoanalyst, who said the whole bit about woman wanting a penis for power and independence, why did he go to a bunch of debutantes and have them endorse the product? Because he believed that woman saw the cigarette as a symbol of a man's penis? If so, (Which I personally doubt, but for the sake of argument...) let us say that, hypothetically, he goes to another psychoanalyst, who says that cigarettes represent something else entirely. Yes, I know that is not the case, but just think of the example. There is no objective approach to psychoanalysis, no standard for evaluating such a thing as a woman's perception of a cigarette. Given this, another analyst could have said something entirely contradictory. Where is the predicative power in that? Without an objective standard for evaluation, any predictive powers that psychoanalysis has shown could very well just be a statistical fluke. Combine this with the fact that Bernays often digressed from psychoanalysis, and I think my point becomes clear.
~ Perhaps I am being ignorant to this fact or that, if so, please explain why. But not only has psychoanalysis been historically inaccurate (Read my sources~ one account goes into depth about Freud thinking a certain girl surely wanted sex, even after rejecting a man several times. Not very accurate...), and not only are we only looking at it in parts, but without some sort of standard, I cannot see anyway to even ensure that whatever events in
does predict are actually significant. Couple this with Bernays, who often made the situation more murky, and we cannot even be sure if psychoanalysis is being used or not (Which I admit you don't seem to think matters, as we are talking about the “prophetic powers of psychoanalysis”, so to speak). Because of things such as this, I do not even see a reason to keep psychoanalysis in the texts books, other than to provide its historical significance. It has been ousted by other models which better explain observations and predict future one, and that have objective standards. Alas however, such a debate was not even my intentions. I was merely going to vent my grievances and move onto your question, a task I will take up now...
...will there be any chances for democracy, egalitarianism, universal welfare, free and peaceful world - if we ourselves are the most wretched animals mother earth had ever gave birth to?
~ *Given....sorry, it was such a well written passage, this just stuck out like a sore thumb.
~ I have often wondered this for other reasons. There have been documented tribes where almost no government, and a grass-root socialistic system in which, without a monetary system, resources were shared equally according to need. Class still existed, as it often does in traditional societies. but it was merely in the form of man/woman, child/elder format.
~ This all existed on the small scale, regardless of humanity's propensity towards violence. (As a side note, Chomsky on “his” website, talked about this in one writing...I will find that for you and link it if you don't know which one I am talking about). Moreover, most tribal communities exist in a state of harmony not matched by larger society. This is because, while being naturally selfish at time, human beings are innately social animals. Thus things like compassion, altruism, and love exist on equal playing fields as other more “dark” adaptations, such as selfishness, violence, and hate. The key thing to remember is that these seem (as observing any traditional tribe will show) to be only in small, tight-knit communities, closer to the “natural” standard of things. Modern societies that have thousands of people jam-packed into a square-mile are not natural, and the result is more environmental influence in the form of violence, apathy, and the like. And while this is merely environmental, and thus can be counteracted (there surely are cases of altruism in city environments), such feelings almost always foster in a tight-knit social setting. Namely because in said settings, there is a universal interdependence, and evolutionarily speaking, altruism in such an environment raises the collective survival rates of all those in the tribe or group. Ergo, positive emotions have largely developed from the need to have a cohesive social unit. Such units being in the benefit of the species overall.
~ Freud's theories apply only to modern man (If anything), and to some degree, Freud has some good points. We are constantly struggling with more instinctual, impulse drives desires. I deny that these are unconscious most of the times, and I deny they need a social vent (They can be cognitively “over-ridden” so to speak). However, it would be a lie to assert that humans do not desire power and that this gets in the way of a purely democratic society. Instead, I assert that the craving for power and selfish gratification that we see today is largely the result of our environment capitalizing on our “genes”, not our natural instinctual behavior per se. Consequently, this process is theoretically reversible given the proper social-cultural influences are present or the negative influences removed. For example, the elimination of the capitalistic system, which shows greed as a medium for social acceptance, dominance, and success.
~ Only after man has been sufficiently
made ready for such a egalitarian, democratic society, do I think one will have any chance of existing. Present society prevents this; us humans have been far to poisoned by it to recover overnight. Nevertheless, there may still be some marginal hope for the future. After all, with modern technology, we are quickly gaining the means to show modern society for what it is. I think that this is a definite first step in the right direction, Freudian psychology or no Freudian psychology.