[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Dan Lusthaus]

Hayes wrote:

> I suspect you meant to say philosophy departments are not the ONLY place 
> to read Freud.

Since I haven't surveyed all the course catelogues of every institution of 
higher learning on the planet recently, I would not be an position to say 
how many philosophy (and rel.) depts. currently offer courses on or 
including Freud.

What I was trying to suggest was something else, namely that the "Freud" 
that has been the plaything for philosophers, religion profs., literary 
critics, and the like, is no longer the interesting or vital Freud -- that 
"Freud" is going through rigor mortis. Freud's revival is precisely amongst 
the hard scientists who are not embracing him unquestioningly, but who are 
finding he wasn't as wrong or useless as many have been pretending for some 
time. A new "Freud" is under construction, the exact contours of which are 
not yet fully clear. The hard sciences are resurrecting important aspects of 
Freud's work that have been neglected, overlooked, or misinterpreted by the 
philosophers (who are not only not scientists, they are not even 
psychologists, much less therapists).

>In some departments of philosophy Freud is very much alive and well, but 
>perhaps this is only in backwards places like New Mexico.

That theory has merit.

Dan