4.0 Article

Ernst Brucke and Sigmund Freud: Physiological roots of psychoanalysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE NEUROSCIENCES
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 568-591

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2022.2074280

关键词

Ernst Brucke; history of ideas; history of psychoanalysis; School of Helmholtz; Sigmund Freud; sociology of philosophy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article explores the significant influence of Ernst Brucke on Sigmund Freud, focusing on their relationship and how Brucke's ideas shaped Freud's psychoanalytical theory.
Ernst Brucke was one of the most influential figures in Sigmund Freud's life and work. Freud studied under him for around six years during his student years, and he never turned his back on Brucke's fundamental teachings. Brucke was a member of the strictly materialist and reductionist movement called the School of Helmholtz. This article will interpret how this physiological movement influenced Freud's psychoanalysis and how its understanding of science was embedded in Freud's theory. For this purpose, I will focus on the relationship between Brucke and Freud, and then will demonstrate how Brucke's influence appears in Freud's psychoanalytical theory. Despite the common practice of evaluating Project for a Scientific Psychology as the last attempt of Freud's physiological commitment, I will take Freud's ontology and epistemology as a product of his interaction with Ernst Brucke. In this conjunction, I will discuss psychoanalysis's essential physiological and neurological components, such as the conservation of energy, the principle of constancy, the pleasure principle, and dual-aspect monism. For this purpose, I will apply the methodology of Randall Collins, the so-called sociology of philosophy. This method allows us to analyze personal contacts between master and pupil and the results of this interaction. This method will help to demonstrate why Brucke's influence was more prevalent in Freud's psychoanalysis than any other neuroscientific master of Freud.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据