Discussion Following Dr. Holt's Address

Question: My question has two parts. One is how do you defend yourself against the accusation of committing the genetic fallacy in your discussion of Freud? Were you criticized for committing that fallacy? And the second is if we forget about all this genetic stuff and talk about his ideas instead, what do you think was his connection with philosophy, not with Brentano, but with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche? Perhaps what Nietzsche and Freud have in common is the notion of health not as simply a matter of relationships with other persons but as an intrapsychic matter.

Dr. Holt: I'll address myself to the second question first. Freud was naturally aware of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and friends of the same feather flock together. When you think of Freud, he was a bitter man; so was Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Of course they focus on the sickness of their time and of themselves if you want to call it sickness. They lived in a time which was unbelievable and they were persecuted. As you know syphilis of the brain was very prevalent in Europe. It wasn't only the disease of the working class, it was the disease of the kings, the Hapsburgs and everyone else and Nietzsche, of course, had syphilis of the brain. One of the symptoms of syphilis of the brain is delusions and I do not want to go into it, to draw too close an analogy, but I assume that Freud knew about these people quite well. To me the interesting thing was that the novelty in Vienna was not Nietzsche and Freud, but Brentano, who was a revolutionary. You have no idea what it means to stand up against the king, the emperor and his troops. Don't ever think of Vienna as just the beautiful Danube and Sachertorte. It exists but that's not Vienna. There are little side issues. Now to the first question—what was it again?

Question: I think you've done it again. You're not discussing Freud's ideas or Nietzsche's, you're discussing his life.

Dr. Holt: Well, that isn't true at all. Of course, you have to know the life before y