I will answer you in seriousness. I was young then in my twenties. I went back to college but was disillusioned with psychology and quit. I saw a Freud book in a used book store for 50c and bought it. I became fascinated with him and read all his books along with others like Jung, and Adler. I recognized at the beginning he was talking in symbols and did not see his concepts as literal things. He was a great writer.
I learned from Freud to not take things literally and it was of tremendous help.
I suffered from depression and migraine headaches that kept me in bed. Freud’s work helped me to cope. But it was on my 49th Birthday year that I experience unconditional love and from that moment on my mental problems were over.
Rogerian therapy, advanced by Carl Rogers and others, was premised almost entirely on the necessity for unconditional positive regard for the client. It was also called client centered therapy.
It is not modern. It came about in the 60s and 70s, and went away thereafter. It’s much more like what you’re describing than is Freudian psychoanalysis. Neither of these therapies have sufficient empirical evidence to support them.
So, you’re essentially wrong on every point and in every conceivable way.
That’s not a surprise since he seems to be saying “Freud didn’t mean what he wrote, he meant some other things that I am interpreting according to my own devices.”
I have no practical knowledge of Phychaitrists and just a little experience with therapists.
I do recall a Dr. being interviewed on the radio one time for whatever it is worth. His commment was that he had never cured anyone, he was seeing clients sometimes for years and they had little improvement. Some of his clients started attending AA and had dramatic, fast, and long lasting improvements. He switched his practice to a group therapy where the group learned to trust and support one another. He also used some of the guidelines from aa as to how they should start dealing with life and past problems. He claimed great success. I have never heard from him since so I have no idea how true or accurate his statements were.
So, Lekatt, you’re an expert on psychotherapy and the works of Sigmund Freud. And you’ve admittedly never heard of Carl Rogers. How about Adler? Perls? Horney?
Dr. Phil?
Please reconsider. It’s an important question. If you happen to have documentary evidence the “cigar is a cigar” quote is authentic, you would make a signal contribution to history’s understanding of Freud by finding it. And don’t limit yourself to posting here. There are many scholars who would be interested as well.
Frankly, I think your memory is playing tricks on you, but that’s the great thing about documentary evidence. If clear, it eliminates all doubts. This would be a very important discovery.
Yes, well, that’s actual Freudian analysis. Not the double secret psychoanalysis hidden behind a thick fog of metaphor, which there is no record of Freud or his disciples ever using, and which bears a remarkable resemblance to Rogerian therapy.
Is lekatt male? Because these posts can only have come from Freud’s lover, and I know of no evidence suggesting he was anything but straight.
Not really that important to me. If a lot of people over the years has attributed that saying to Freud then it makes sense that he probable said it. No big deal.
Freud was an awkward subject and the socialites loved him. They could talk about sex using his concepts without appearing inappropriate. Most of them never understood what was going on in his works. Even today that is true. We have lost our ability to think outside the literal where the real meaning of life lurks.
Ah I get it now. You read outside the literal Freud, where the “love cures all” meaning of Freud lurks. Surprisingly, this is also your philosophy! It’s amazing how much of the world agrees with our personal ideology when we don’t literally look at it.