You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I believe that the metaphysical system which would most logically extend the results which Freud has reached would, on the whole, be the Aristotelian. (II, p. 46.)
The original French edition of which these volumes are a translation was reviewed in This QUARTERLY in 1938.1
Roland Dalbiez is not a physician. He is a philosopher. He is moreover a neo-Thomist and a practicing psychoanalyst.
It is Monsieur Dalbiez's hope that he has 'succeeded … in completely withholding [his] personal views in order to present the psychoanalytic method and the doctrines of Freud with an absolute impartiality'.
His prejudices, in fact, spring from two sources: as a philosopher he resents what he considers Freud's intrusion into philosophy; a neo-Thomist, he gags on Freud's 'materialism', his views on religion and morality.
'Psychoanalysis', says Dalbiez, 'leaves the fundamental problems of the human soul where it found them' (II, p. 325). Psychoanalysis can of course have no truck with the 'soul' which is a creation of the priest and the philosopher. But this is the point at which the psychoanalyst and the neo-Thomist in Dalbiez will not mix, and acute tergiversation sets in.
'Orthodox psychoanalysts are compelled to submit their will