Commentary by Antonio R. Damasio

I must begin this brief comment by confessing that I read Freud in college, 30 years ago, and that in spite of the delight and admiration he caused in me, I have only returned to check quotes and, once again with great delight, to Civilization and Its Discontents (1930). Thus my words are based on memories that may not be accurate although they have been supported, in part, by the helpful Freud quotes in Solms and Nersessian's interesting article. Under the circumstances, I will comment only on the main ideas that came to mind as I read the target article and the thoughtful reaction to it prepared by Panksepp.

1. It makes good sense, given Freud's status as biologist (yes, I think he was a biologist) and cultural figure, to attempt a critical rereading of his writings from the perspective of contemporary neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy. It is important, however, to turn the enterprise into a slowly evolving “project” rather than attempt to fashion a position paper based on the efforts of willing experts. There are good reasons to choose the former. First, the topics that have the most relevance to Freud's own thinking are now receiving ample scientific attention. Second, the scientific evidence on these topics is changing so rapidly that interpretations are not stable enough for anything but work-in-progress forms of discourse. Third, as Panksepp correctly points out, some of the aspects of neuroscience and cognitive science that are currently least satisfactory are those that have to do with emotion, certainly the matter closest to Freudian thinking. The neuroscience of emotion needs to be reshaped first, and while this is happening even as we write, we have far to go. The neuroscience of emotion will make more significant progress when certain issues are given the importance they probably deserve: the missing perspectives of evolution and homeostasis in the conceptualization of the emotions; the frequently missed role of the body, real and as represen