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.
This volume is concerned with the foundations of psychoanalysis—specifically, with issues in the philosophy of mind as these bear on the question of the kind of theory psychoanalysis is, with the evidential status of psychoanalytic theory, and with the relevance of neurophysiological theories of dreams. It includes A. Grünbaum's Précis of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique, and responses by J. Hopkins and F. Cioffi to that critique; papers by M. Eagle, J. Haldane, and M. Moore on consciousness and the unconscious; papers by I. Dilman and R. Sharpe on a theme which runs through a number of papers in the volume, whether psychoanalysis is an extension of commonsense or "folk" psychology (explanation in terms of desires and beliefs) or is instead a nonpersonal theory to be developed along the lines set down in psychoanalytic metapsychology; a paper by E. Erwin, with a reply by P. Kline, on evidential support for psychoanalytic theory; papers by F. Crews and P. Lamarque deploring Freud's influence; and papers on the psychoanalytic dream theory, including a critique by A. Hobson based on his theory of the neurophysiology of dreaming, with a response by R. Squires, and other critiques by H. Porte and by A. Pagnini of Freud's dream theory.
The reader will have very little sense that contributors to this volume who have different views were or, given the tone in some (but not all) cases, could ever be influenced by each other. (There is irony here, considering the polemical references in some of the papers to the dogmatism of psychoanalysts.) I would like to have had Grünbaum's responses to points made by Hopkins and Cioffi (especially because, in my experience, Grünbaum does listen to and is affected by a reasoned argument). Were Erwin's convictions shaken at all by the reply of Kline? Did Squires raise any question in Hobson's mind about what he (Hobson) was asserting?
Three papers especially are worth the price of admission: those by Grünbaum