[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other
December 1921

A CRITIQUE OF PSYCHANALYSIS

Author Affiliations

Professor (Emeritus) of Nervous Diseases, Tufts College Medical School BOSTON

Arch NeurPsych. 1921;6(6):610-633. doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1921.02190060017002
Abstract

I have no sympathy with the argument of ridicule which Dr. Mills has used so effectively, but, as I believe, for the moment only, and to the apparent delight of a large portion of this audience. I cannot help thinking that if Dr. Mills had confined himself more closely to the text of his prepared paper, which I had his kind permission to read in advance, his criticisms of the freudian psychology would be taken more seriously and would carry greater weight. For a serious argument of reductio ad absurdum is legitimate.

It is difficult to discuss the freudian psychology without first defining accurately what we are discussing. Otherwise we shall be discussing different things, as is commonly the case. Psychanalysis means three different things:

1. It is a method of examination of the mind for the purpose of determining what factors may be at work as determinants of any

×