The authors offer a critical examination of the claims of the proponents of the growing neuropsychoanalytic trend, that neuroscientific findings are relevant and important for the development and justification of psychoanalytic theory and practice. They bring to light some of the intuitions that have led to the popularity of the neuropsychoanalytic claims and the fallacies that underlie these claims and intuitions. They argue that it is crucial at this time to articulate the case against the neuropsychoanalytic trend because, underlying the debate over the relevance of neuroscience to psychoanalysis, there lies a struggle over the essential nature of psychoanalytic theory and practice. Relying on a biologistic perspective, whereby only what is biological is real, this new trend in effect offers a vision of psychoanalysis that limits the significance of the unique psychoanalytic concern with the understanding of meanings and the role of discourse in discerning and justifying these meanings.