Chapter 26 Chapter 24 The Freudian Revolution

Three of the greatest intellectual revolutions of the past century are associated with the names of Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud.Darwin's revolution fundamentally restructured the natural sciences and had important consequences beyond the narrow confines of evolutionary biology, especially in the social sciences.Marxism was a revolutionary force in the social sciences (and in social and political activity) because of its intellectual and political consequences; its adherents declared that Marxism was "scientific."And to many, the Freudian revolution is ambiguous because there is no consensus on its importance: Was Freudian psychoanalysis a science?Or, is it social science?Or, is it not even science at all?

The literature on Freud, psychoanalysis, and the Freudian revolution is voluminous and rather confusing and contradictory.This state of affairs is largely due to the continuous divergence of various schools from the core of orthodoxy established by Freud.Psychoanalysis has drawn a steady stream of strong criticism from some philosopher or scientist: they are concerned with ways of keeping men and women who cannot stand Freud's open discussion of sexuality discreet and disciplined.These successive strong criticisms or attacks can be seen as a sign of the far-reaching effects of the Freudian revolution.

In addition to the factors already mentioned, a number of other issues have arisen in the analysis and evaluation of this revolution.Many of these problems are caused by the current inaccessibility of many original and extremely important documents (such as Freud's complete correspondence with William Fries).This literature will provide an insight into Freud's theories, especially his controversial theory of seduction (see discussion below) - an episode in the psychoanalytic revolution that some believe has weakened psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy. An important historical interpretation of the foundations of correctness--the stages of development.Only in the 21st century, when the Freud archives are fully available and a full scholarly review of them becomes available, will we be able to critically assess this or other episode or event in the development of Freud's thought and the application of these ideas by other members of the psychoanalytic movement.

Freud's revolution differed from revolutions in all the other sciences described in this book in that psychoanalysis at its core was founded almost entirely by a single individual, Sigmund Freud (however, On this point see also Witte, 1960; Ehrenberg, 1970).Moreover, it is only during this revolution that the original literature (Freud's own books and articles) remains highly valued and seriously studied by practitioners because of its scientific content rather than its historical value.Not only are orthodox Freudians—psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, anthropologists, etc.—still reading Freud himself, but Many of his works are also important classics and textbooks for scientists, practitioners, and social scientists who do not necessarily subscribe to Freud's concepts and theories, and who disagree to varying degrees with the major orthodoxy.Psychoanalytic treatments (concentrating primarily on the psychoanalytic process) remain essentially the same as those developed and practiced by Freud.It is mainly for this reason that critics have often accused Freud's psychoanalysis of being a closed system, more akin to philosophy or even religion than to true science.

Freud was a compelling and persuasive writer, a master of genuine genius in German prose—an aspect of his scientific genre that is lost in English translation.Although—as Freud has said on many occasions—his aim was to create a scientific psychology freed from the philosophical burden of its history, he deliberately chose "simple pronouns" to describe Three psychodynamics (1953, ZO: 195) - dasIch (ego), dasEs (it) and dasUber-Ich (superego).This, he says, is because, in psychoanalysis, "we wish to remain in touch with the prevailing way of thinking, and like to make its concepts scientifically useful, rather than rejecting or discarding them".There is "no value" in using such commonplace rather than esoteric terms and phrases; the reason is practical: psychoanalysts want their theories to be "understood" by their patients; But not always learned." He explained: "The impersonal it is directly linked to certain expressions used by normal people. People say, it penetrates me; at that time, in me There is something stronger than me. C'etait plus fort que moi (i.e. something stronger than me)." In English, however, these ordinary nouns are missing.They became synonymous with the esoteric Latin ego (ego), Super-ego (superego) and id (ide, i.e. instinctive impulse) - today, more people are from its Freudian These concepts are not understood in their original sense in Latin.Freud here follows the tradition of physicists who use terms in common language—work, force, energy—in the context of new specific and delimited sciences.Freud also adopted some classic terms such as "Oedipus complex" and "Libido".

Robert Holt (1968, 3) suggests that Freud's work can be better understood by considering three paradigms.One is "The General Theory of Psychoanalysis" (Rappaport, 1959), which is sometimes referred to as metapsychology.The discipline is a series of "theoretical hypotheses upon which a psychoanalytic system may be built," Freud's "Outline of Scientific Psychology" (1954, 347-445) in 1895, "On the Metaphysics of Psychology" in 1915. (1953, 14:105-235), and in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900; 1953, 45).Another paradigm is what Holt calls "Freud's phylogenetic theory," which includes Freud's "sublime speculations, which are primarily evolutionary and teleological."Works in this category are full of literary allusions and metaphors rather than strict or "definite patterns of mental organ".Such as Freud's "Totem and Taboo" (1913), "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" (1920), "Fantasy Future" (1927), "Civilization and Its Discontents" (193) and "Moses and Monotheism" (1934) -1938) belong to this category of works.

Finally, of all Freud's contributions, the most scientifically important are "the clinical theory of psychoanalysis, with its psychopathology, its explanation of the development of sexual phenomena and the structure of character in the psychic side"; these theories and interpretations are based on "the thesis constituted by the principal events (real and fanciful) in the history of a person's life. For the practicing psychoanalyst it is this theory which guides clinical diagnosis and therapy. Even those who may not be strictly Freudian--psychiatrists, psychiatric social workers, clinical psychologists--are strongly influenced by this theory; this theory--" Inaccurately classified as psychodynamic"—"has even penetrated general academic psychology through textbooks on character (personality)"

In a very valuable study of Freud's influence, David Schacko and David Rappaport (1964) show how deeply Freud's revolutionary ideas pervaded into psychological thought; not necessarily "the specific concepts and explanatory theories in which they are rooted" (Holt 1968, 4), but "general concepts and observations."Freud's major fundamental innovation was his recognition of the influence of unconscious and psychological forces beyond our rational control on behavior, desires, fantasies, and motivational factors.He called attention to and valued the importance of all psychic phenomena, from dreams and hallucinations to pure slips of the tongue, and especially the role of sex in the psychological development of individuals from infancy onwards.

The Different Phases of the Psychoanalytic Revolution Like all revolutions in science, the beginning phase of the Freudian revolution involved a revolution of thought, or revolution-in-itself.This revolution took place in the early 1890s, when Freud and J.Breuer cooperated and used hypnosis to start the research on hysteria (hysteria).During a relatively brief but productive period in Paris with Jean-Martin Charcot, Freud had begun to study hypnosis from a clinical perspective.Freud's ideas on the functions of the unconscious underwent a rapid and radical development during an exchange of ideas with Wilhelm Fries, a nose and throat specialist in Berlin.Fries not only exerted a great influence on Freud's physiological and psychological thinking, but he also transformed Freud into an irrational bionumerologist (bionumerologist), and Freud's Biographers have downplayed this aspect of his intellectual development and given insufficient attention (Salovey 1979, 144).The literature that Freud wrote during his association with Fliess constituted a revolution in input, including the conception of the "Outline of Scientific Psychology" (Freud 1954, 355-445).

In May 1896, in a speech to the "Vienna Society of Psychiatry and Neurology", Freud expounded his theory on the causes of hysteria (hysteria) (1952, 62-64).As described in his autobiography (1952, 62-64), Freud initially believed what older women told him about being raised in infancy by a father (which was most often the case), an uncle, or a A story of seduction by an older brother.Later, he found that his parents' "neurological symptoms were not directly related to actual events, but to manifestations and dreams containing expectations" and that, "in the case of neuroses (mental neuroses), psychological More important than material (physical) reality." This was Freud's first vague sense of "the Oedipus complex—a concept that would later assume such overwhelming importance—."

Almost at the same time, Freud abandoned his seduction theory of hysteria and began his famous self-analysis.This process continued over many years, but the most intensive part was during the summer and fall of 1897, shortly after Freud's father died in October 1896 (Jones 1953, 1:324).Freud's analysis of his repressed feelings towards his parents in childhood led to the conclusion that young males have Oedipal feelings towards their mothers and hostility towards their fathers; This is a normal stage in their development. Freud adopted the example of Oedipus in a letter to William Fries on October 15, 1897 (Freud 1954, 223), and in his 1900 book The Dreaming This topic is developed fully and in detail in Interpretation.Freud had not yet adopted the term "comdex"; he used the story of Oedipus only to prove his discovery, to show that it had strong grounds going back to the ancient Greeks. , can be traced back to the myth of "profound and omnipotent power".In making this description, Freud wrote that "the child .Although Freud emphasized the experiences of his psychoneurotic parents, he believed that psychoneurotics [did not] differ in this respect from others who were still normal. "He asserts that psychoneurotics are "distinguishable only by an enlarged display of those feelings of love and hatred for their parents which arise in the minds of most infants as yet less evident and less intense" (F Freud 1953, 4:260-261). In his autobiography, Freud wrote that early in life, when "the relationship known as the Oedipus complex is established," the boy "puts Their sexual expectations are centered on their mothers and they display hostile impulses toward their fathers as an adversary, while girls adopt a similar attitude". Thus, the Oedipus complex emerges from a Originally not considered exclusively male only (see 924.1). In his 1898 paper "On the Sexual Factor in the Etiology of Psychiatric Neuropathy," Freud made his first public presentation of his thoughts on infantile sexuality.However, it was not until 1900 that he officially announced the revolution of psychoanalysis in his first great work, The Interpretation of Dreams.This, I think, is the last revolution in science where there is a published book rather than a paper in some scientific journal or made public in a series of monographs. Published in Vienna in 1900, the work was repeatedly updated and revised (1901, 1911, 1914, 1919), and the first English version was published in 1913. Freud published other important works in subsequent years: The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905), Three Essays on Sexuality (1905) .At this time, people can already make a scientific evaluation of a complete theory and practice, and thus express their approval or opposition.Initially, psychiatrists, neurologists in the medical profession, and psychologists in academic institutions were extremely opposed to Freud's ideas. (According to Tracco and Rappaport), those "who were still vehemently opposed until 1910" compiled a veritable Who's Who in Psychiatry and Neurology and in The "responses" of those in other disciplines "are somewhat extreme" (see Freud 1913, 182, 166). Shakot and Rappaport suggest that those educated laymen lack interest (even if interested , also a disapproval) reflected the strong disapproval of the connoisseurs. They also found that in these early years Freud's ideas did not attract the special attention of the clergy. In particular, Freud's discovery of the sexual characteristics of infants and young children was widely opposed and resisted.Freud said in his autobiography, "Nothing in psychoanalysis has been so universally opposed and so strongly opposed as the proposition that the sexual function begins at the beginning of life and manifests itself in important characters even in infancy. Anger" (1952, 62).However, "the conclusion of any other analysis can be proved so easily and so completely".Considering the prevailing views of infancy at the time, we may perhaps understand how new and revolutionary Freud's discovery was.Freud clearly explained: "Childhood is seen as innocent and devoid of sexual desires, and the struggle with the demons of indulgence is considered to begin in the restless years of adolescence. In Such occasional sexual activity in infants and young children, which cannot be ignored, is regarded as evidence of depraved and immature evil, or as innate eccentricity." Thus, the Freudian revolution in science is not carried out by established professional men and women who turn from evil to good, but by attractive and self-confident young men, uninfluenced by traditional habitual thinking, about to start their careers It was carried out by practitioners who later became psychoanalysts.Proponents of the new idea should respond to G.Stanley Hall's invitation to a rally at the school.Invitees included Freud himself, A. A．Brill (American translator of some of Freud's works), Sandor Ferenci (a Hungarian psychoanalyst who was one of Freud's closest friends for many years), Ernst Jones (later Freud's biographer) and Carl G.Jung.Just a year earlier, in April 1908, a group of psychoanalysts had met in Salzburg for their first international congress.An American (Brill) was present at the meeting. Twenty-six Austrians (among them Freud, Alfred Adler, Otto Rank, Wilhelm Stekel and Fritz Witters), two Englishmen (Jones and the surgeon and psychologist Wilfred Trotter), two Germans (including Karl Abraham), two Hungarians (Fei Rench and F. Stein), six Swiss natives (including Jung). After the meeting, the first journal dedicated to the new discipline, the Annals of Psychoanalysis and Psychological Research, was launched. March 1910, at The Second International Psychoanalytic Congress was held in Nuremberg, and international psychoanalytic conferences have been held regularly since then. Local groups joined the International Psychoanalytic Society as chapters. By 1911, a year after the society was founded, this professional body was Contains 106 members. A revolution in science has begun. Since this group is composed of people with different and even seriously opposed views, it is not long before people leave this Freudian group and form their own A movement of different views. Chief among them were Adler (split in 1911), Stekel (1912), Jung (1913), Ranke (1926). But, even so, they were still influenced by Flo The influence of Eddie's ideas, although they have been modified in one way or another. And this is further evidence of a radical change in the thinking about the human mind and in the treatment of insanity - the hallmark of the Freudian revolution Critics of orthodox Freudian psychoanalysis have argued that the psychoanalytic movement has made no substantial and significant deviations or departures from Freud's original ideas. Others, including Alfred Kazin (195, 16) insists that "For the most part of this Freudian revolution, Freud himself did not play much role". Was it a revolution in the 19th century or a revolution in the 20th century I attribute Freud's revolution to a revolution of the nineteenth century on the grounds that the first three stages of this revolution—the revolution in itself, the revolution of engagement, and the revolution of theory—were reached in 1900.Given that Freud's science and its corollaries are so relevant to us today, it is perhaps long overdue to focus on the revolutions in science that took place in the 20th century. In a paper written in 1923 and published the following year (1953, 19:191), Freud himself addressed the question of whether this movement was a nineteenth-century phenomenon or a twentieth-century phenomenon Talked about my own thoughts.He said, "Psychoanalysis may be said to have been born with the twentieth century; for the publication in which it came to the world as something new - my Interpretation of Dreams - was published in 1900. "Freud then explained that "psychoanalysis is not something that falls from the sky"—"it starts from older ideas and develops them further; It arose from earlier proposals, and then elaborated upon them. Any history of it, therefore, must first consider the influences which determined its origin, and should not ignore the age and circumstances which preceded it. "Freud begins with the mid-nineteenth-century treatment of "what is called the functional neurosis"; he goes on to discuss the work of Bernheim, Charcot, and Janet, and the Advancing and developing, all this led to the publication of Breuer's and his own book "Studies in Hysteria".He then details his own contributions, which reached a peak in 1900. But, as Freud might point out, the question of the nineteenth or twentieth century is not so clearly settled.Freud emphasized the ZO century in his dissertation, which he wrote in 1923, in a book entitled These Eventful Years: The Twentieth Century, as Many of Its Creators Say, is Developing (London and New York, 1924).As the editors of the standard edition of Freud's psychological writings point out (1953, 19:191; 4:Xii), The Interpretation of Dreams (as Freud says) was indeed published in 1900, But it was actually published as early as November 1899.In a paper written in 1932, Freud (1953, 4: Xii) said: "My book The Interpretation of Dreams was last before me in the winter of 1899, despite its title Fill the page as late as the 20th century".Moreover, in a letter to William Friese dated November 5, 1899, Freud told: "The book ["The Interpretation of Dreams"] was finally published yesterday" (Freud 1954, 302). This example may serve only to demonstrate how difficult it is to subsume the history of ideas and science into arbitrary chronological divisions such as centuries.In any case, Freud was equally wrong to believe that 1900 was the beginning of the 20th century.Since the first year of our era is 1901, the 100th year (to complete a century) is 100 years, not 99 years.Thus, the last or first century of the 19th century (19th century) is 1900 rather than 1899, and the first year of the 20th century should be 1901 exactly. Freud on Scientific Revolutions and Creativity: A Comparison with Copernicus and Darwin Hostility to Freudian ideas, especially those about sex, naturally led Freudians to compare the toils of their masters with those of any brave pioneer.Freud's biographer Ernst Jones wrote that "both Copernicus and Darwin confronted unwelcome truths about external reality with great courage" (1940, 5), but, as Freud As Lloyd puts it, "the truths of internal reality are faced with a kind of labor that few can do alone."Freud himself was acutely aware of his revolutionary place in the history of spiritual (mind) science and therapy.On numerous occasions he compared his own scientific theories with those of Copernicus and Darwin.Freud was interested in their theories less for their scientific impact than for what we would today call their "ideological" content.Although Freud never (in recorded conversations, in published correspondence, or in published writings) invoked or suggested such terms as "Copernicus' revolution" or "Darwin's revolution" , but he did express the sense that the work done by Copernicus and Darwin was fundamental and significant for the human conception of itself.Obviously, Freud never explicitly said that he was a revolutionary, or that psychoanalysis was a revolution.In The Future of Fantasy (1953, 21:55), Freud wrote: "A shift in scientific perspective is a development, a progress, not a revolution." Freud asserted in 1907 that if one were asked to name "the ten most important books" he would put "like Copernicus, the witchy old doctor John Weir, Darwin's Descent of Man Scientific achievements such as those achieved by others" (1953, 9: 245).This ranking of Copernicus, John Weir, and Darwin is not random, as these men represent three areas in which Freud believed that human self-absorbed self-esteem took a major blow: cosmology, psychology, and evolutionary biology study.Copernicus, Freud argued, overthrew man's fixed centrality in the universe, while Darwin revealed man's close kinship with other animals.Weir, a 16th-century physician with little savvy and extraordinary guts, bravely fought against the fervent brutality of witchcraft, especially when he explained that false pregnancies ("false pregnancies") were not the result of a woman having sex with the devil. It is not a symptom, but a medical physiological condition caused by what we would today call psychological or psychosomatic causes.Oddly enough, Freud cites an A rather unremarkable sixteenth-century physician, but we should perhaps respect his modernity, rationality, and courage (see Zierburger 1935).But, on the other hand, there are not many figures of the mind who deserve to be elevated to the same stature enjoyed by Copernicus and Darwin.He may have chosen Charcot because he repeatedly praised him [Charcot] (1953, 1:135; 3:5, 9-10; 6:149; 12:335; 19:290; 24: 411), and described him as the "greatest leader" of neurology and the "great mentor" of "neurologists in every country."Another prominent example of Freud's choice in this regard is Darwin's The Descent of Man above it.Whether Freud chose The Descent of Man deliberately, or whether he just jotted down the title of Darwin's book the first time he thought of it, is not at all clear.However, Freud may have consciously referred to The Descent of Man, since in this work Darwin asserted the doctrine of the kinship between the human and animal species.Given Freud's particular interest in the blow to man's self-image, The Descent of Man was clearly a more important work at the time than the latter, even though the latter was of great importance to evolutionary biology and indeed to science in general. Possibly a much greater work. In Freud's view, Copernicus' transformation from an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered universe - like Darwin's "destroyed the barriers that people arrogantly erected between man and animals" of the origin of man. The same as theory - is very important, which is basically similar to the recognition that psychoanalysis has received.Freud reveals "what a blow the relation of the conscious ego to a powerful unconscious is to human self-love or arrogance," just as "the biological blow dealt by the theory of the origin of man and Copernicus's Discovery dealt its earlier cosmological blow "as much damage as it did to our narcissistic self-image before" (1953, 19:221).According to Freud, the barriers to acceptance of these three theories arise from emotional rather than intellectual causes, which thus explain "their amorous character".He pointed out that "on the whole" there was opposition to psychoanalytic theory, as did "individual neurotics treated for their insanity".The resistance and opposition to Freud's theory - similar to the earlier resistance and opposition to Copernican and Darwin's theories - is not "of the kind that usually arises from the resistance and opposition to the most scientific innovations", but due to " The fact that powerful human emotions are wounded by the subject of this theory." The most famous example of Freud linking the influence of Copernicus and Darwin to the hostility to psychoanalytic theory is found in his (1916-1917) Part III, "General Theory of Neurosis".Freud discussed in this section that "mankind's naive self-love and self-esteem have suffered two major blows from science".Since Copernicus, people "know that our earth is not the center of the universe, but only a speck in an infinite cosmic system" (1953, 16:285).Darwin's research "destroyed the presupposed creation privileges of human beings, and proved that human beings are members of the animal kingdom and also have an indelible animal nature." However, in Freud's view, for human beings The third and heaviest blow to the megalomaniac "" comes from modern psychological research, which proves to each of us that we are not masters of our own even in our own rooms; One has to be complacent with a little information about the subconscious processes of the mind. " Oddly enough, Freud never seemed to speak of his own revolutionary overthrow of classic psychology and traditional psychotherapy.But (in 1916-1917) he did use the phrase "a general rebellion against our science".This rebellion, he says, is characterized by "the contempt of all pedantic considerations of false decorum, and the freedom of its opponents from all shackles and limitations of just logic" (1953, 16:285).This expression is of particular significance to historians of revolution, since revolt means an uprising and riot against established authority, and Freud has always complained about his own radical and new ideas Establishment and acceptance met with resistance. Freud was fully aware that Copernicus was not the first to assert the motion of the earth.In it he notes that "something similar [to Copernican's system] was already expressed by Alexander's science" (1953, 16:285), and that Alexander makes it clear that as far back as Copernicus "Pythagoreans had doubted the privileged position of the earth before, and in the third century BC Aristarchius of Samus asserted that the earth was much smaller than the sun, And around that celestial body." Thus, "even the great discoveries of Copernicus . Not when "that discovery" was made, but when it "gained general acceptance".Darwin's theory that man is not "different from or superior to animals" but "in himself ... descended from animals ... more closely related to some species and more distantly related to others" Also similar to this (1953, 17:141).These conclusions were not only made by Darwin himself, but were deduced and summarized from "the research of Charles Darwin, his collaborators and pioneers". In thus enumerating and illustrating the predecessors of Copernicus and Darwin, Freud is in no way belittling and slandering the creativity of these two men.Instead, he was trying to express a general theory of creativity.Freud believed that many, if not all, of our most "creative" thoughts can be traced back to some earlier thinker, and often in our conscious thoughts we may have forgotten someone.A striking example Freud cites is Ludwig Born.Born's 1823 article "The Art of Becoming a Creative Writer in Three Days" provides a compelling description of the method of free association and is therefore of great importance in psychoanalysis.When Freud realized that Havelock Ellis had declared the Swedenborg mystic, poet and physician Garth Wilkinson the "true" creator of free association, the article aroused him attention (Freud, 1955, 18: ZM).Although Freud had completely forgotten Born's papers, he later recalled that "at the age of fourteen he was presented with a collection of Born's writings, and over the past fifty years he has still has this book, and it is the only one preserved from his boyhood." Moreover, Born "was the first author he delved into deeply." What surprised Freud especially was that he It was found that Born discussed "the subconscious suppression of public opinion on the products of our reason" in his thesis, and believed that this subconscious suppression was more oppressive and tyrannical than "the government's censorship system". The introduction of the concept of "governmental censorship" recalled in a sense to Freud "the censorship which reappeared in psychoanalysis as a dream-unconscious inhibition." Freud asserted, "Therefore, It does not seem improbable that this suggestion may reveal fragments of latent memory that in so many cases have been speculated to lie behind superficial creativity." In another work, Freud invoked the concept of cryptimnesia (potential memory) when speaking of "Dual (Dual) Theory [1937]". "According to this dualism, a death-nature, or destructive-nature, or aggressive instinct, is as real as a cooperating partner with eros manifested in the libido" (1953, 23:244)—he notes that this theory is not universally accepted.He said how happy he was when he came across this theory of his in the writings of Empedocles of Acragos.Freud said (pp. 245-247): "I am fully prepared to give up the honor of originality for such a confirmation".He also says (p. 245) that "from the extent of my early reading, I can never be sure whether what I take to be a new discovery may not be a result of latent memory". Freud said in 1923 that the originality of many of the new ideas that I used "in my interpretation of dreams and in my psychoanalysis" turned out to have been thought and articulated by others.He said, "I ignore the source of only one of these thoughts", "I call this concept dream-subconscious inhibition" (1953, 19:261-263).He might say now, "It is this fundamental part of my theory of dreams that ... "Joseph] Popper-Dukes discovered alone" (1953, 19:262; see also 4:94- 95，102－1O3，308－309注解，14：13－20）。不过，弗络伊德并没有接着从这个独立发现的陈述推想一个共同的来源，他也没有探究（或思索）一种科学思想的相继出现中间的不同之处而非相似之处，从而使它成为一个根本上独创性的创造。 （关于这个一般性的主题，请参见科恩著作，1980。） 1956年，奈杰尔·沃克在《听众》杂志上发表了一篇文章。该文是在英国广播公司（BBC）电台一次谈话的基础上写成的，题为"弗洛伊德和哥白尼"。在1957年和1977年重新发表这篇文章时，他把标题改为"一个新的哥白尼吗？"这篇文章过分强调约翰·弗里德里希·赫尔巴特等人心理学思想对弗洛伊德的影响，并同时指出，弗络伊德把自己与哥白尼和达尔文相比是没有根据的，因为被弗洛伊德视为"我们关于心灵概念中的一场科学革命"的东西其实是"一个技术上的进步"，这一进步以一种引人注意的方式使19世纪德国思想家们已经提出的一个概念"通俗化"。因此，在沃克看来，弗洛伊德在历史上的作用似乎像是"环球航行者"的作用，因为他们"所做的是让人们相信地球是圆形的，而不是所有地理学家的论点。"所以，沃克把弗洛伊德与18世纪英国的航海者和探险者C.库克而不是哥白尼或达尔文相比。他在1957年把这个比较由C．库克提高到麦哲伦并已说："在把弗洛伊德与麦哲伦而不是哥白尼相比时，我并不是在贬低他的成就的价值。"为辩护他的观点，他断言，像瓦特和马可尼这样的技师"对于他们下一代人的生活人式可能会产生比牛顿或道尔顿更伟大的影响"。 沃克一再发表的这篇文章有许多历史错误（例如，约翰·道尔顿推翻了"声名狼藉的燃素说"）。这样一个错误也许会使拔们注意对弗洛伊德关于哥白尼和达尔文的论述的一种普遍误解：弗洛伊德自比这两位伟大的科学家。事实与此相反，在弗洛伊德讨论哥白尼和达尔文的三种场合的任何一个场合中，弗洛伊德都非常谨慎地避免作一种涉及个人的比较，而是强调哥白尼、达尔文和精神分析理论及其影响的相同之处。他的传记作家恩斯特·琼斯说（1953，2：45）："我非常怀疑是否弗洛伊德曾把自己看作是一名伟人，或者他曾把自己与他认为伟大的人——歌德、康德、伏尔泰、达尔文、叔本华、尼采——相比"。当玛丽·波拿巴曾评论说弗洛伊德是"兼有巴斯德和康德特点的一个人物"时，弗洛伊德回答说："这是非常善于辞令的，但是我不能同意你的看法。这并不是因为我谦虚和客气，而是因为事实上毫无根据。我对于我已经发现的东西有比较高的评价，但是，那并不是我自己的发现或功劳。伟大的发现者不一定就是伟人。有谁比哥伦布更多地改变了这个世界？他是谁？他是一个探险家。的确，他与众不同，但是，他并非一个伟人。所以你看到，一个人可以发现没有其意义的伟大东西，但他是真正伟大的"。 琼斯（1953，3：304）大胆和直率地"赋予弗洛伊德与达尔文相同的思想人师的地位。"琼斯实际上早在1913年就赋予了达尔文这个"非常恰当的称号"（见萨洛韦1979，4），而且在1930年对这一主题作了进一步的论述。他指出，"弗洛伊德的工作即精神分析的创生，是其重要性只能与达尔文的工作相比的对生物学的贡献。"萨洛韦对此讥讽地评论说（p.5）：琼斯"后来同其他弗洛伊德的信徒一道，在确立弗洛伊德随后作为一个纯粹心理学家的身份和地位方面，发挥了关键作用。" 弗洛伊德1917年在《意象》（lmago）杂志上发表《精神分析学道路上的一个难题》一文。在该文中，他论述了对人的自我形象的三个打击（1953，17：139-143），并且大胆地提出，怕我在它自己的屋里也不能自为主宰。 "此后不久，他的朋友和同事卡尔·亚伯拉罕"温和地作了评论"。他说，这篇论文"看上去是一个个人的文献"（琼斯1953，2：226）。弗洛伊德在1917年3月25日的一封信中答复说，亚伯拉罕说他给人留下了"理应获得与哥白尼和达尔文同样的地位的印象"时，他是"正确的"。但是他评论说，他并不想"因此而放弃这个有趣的思路"，而且因此他"至少把叔本华放在最显著的地位。 "弗洛伊德在此涉及了这样一个事实，即他并没有直接提到他本人，但在最后一段文字中他倒介绍了他的先驱者。在陈述了"认识无意识的精神过程对于科学和生活革命[弗洛伊德用了momentous]意义"之后，他接着说，"首先迈出这一步的并不是精神分析学说"（1953，17：143）。应当"视为先驱者的"还有"哲学家中的"那些人——"首先包括伟大的思想家叔本华"。弗洛伊德坚持认为，叔本华的"无意识的意志相当于精神分析学的精神（心理）本能"。而且，也是叔本华"告诫人类现在仍然被它如此极力贬低或低估的它的性的渴望的重要性是不可忽视的"。弗洛伊德断言，精神分析只是"在一个抽象的[即科学的而非哲学的]基础上""证明了""性的重要性和精神生活的无意识"，而且"从涉及到每一个个人的重要问题上对它们作了说明。 " 人们也许会认为，弗洛伊德，以及——在弗洛伊德之后——他的传记作家恩斯特·琼斯在否认弗洛伊德自比哥白尼和达尔文这个问题上过于敏感。沙科和拉帕波特（1964）发现，这种"敏感是难以理解的，因为弗洛伊德曾反复把精神分析与其他两个历史发展相提并论，如果不是把它们完全视为等同的话。"他们推测，"这两位作者和传记作家的谨慎和谦虚也许妨碍了他们对这个比较作出客观的辨明。"而且，对弗洛伊德实际所写的东西的认真分析表明，就对人类的"自我陶醉的自我形象"的（宇宙论的，生物学的和心理学的）打击而言，他并不关心自己作为一个创造者或革命者的形象。弗洛伊德关注的是这些对于地球中心说、人类中心说和自我中心论的打击的革命含义，而且，也许只能通过间接的含义——如果有的话——才能表明，他本人在科学史中的位置可能是与人们给予哥白尼和达尔文的地位相同的。