Freud and the figure of Moses: the Moses of Freud.

Moses was a lifelong preoccupation of Freud, representing a double and idealized self and object. Freud identified with different aspects of Moses during different periods of development, from concrete hero to abstract ideal. He turned to Moses in the concluding phase of his relationship with Fliess and his self-analysis, and then at other times of crisis. The Moses recreated by Freud is important to the evolution of the concepts of the superego, and his Moses studies simultaneously illuminate the developmental significance of internalization, identification, and abstract symbolic thought. Latently autobiographical, the Moses motif is related to the analysis of unconscious conflict and trauma and to issues of Jewish identity and analytic ideals.     

The Perennial Freud: Method versus Myth and the Mischief of Freud Bashers

Nowadays Freud bashing is not only à la mode, in certain circles it has become de rigueur. Once a name of respect, Freud has become a name of ridicule. But like any scientific method, body of knowledge, and therapeutic procedure, psychoanalysis should be subjected to critical scrutiny. The recent crop of hostile Freud critics may have filled a vacuum left for decades by a psychoanalytic establishment which, like the Church of yesteryear, shunned all forms of criticism intramural and extramural. A central guiding idea of this essay is the distinction between the psychoanalytic method and psychoanalytic doctrines, hypotheses, and theories. This distinction has been invariably confused by both Freud's adherents and Freud's attackers. Moreover, arguments ad rem have been conflated with arguments ad hominem. A socially responsible criticism must seek to be constructive and not merely destructive. It is the latter course that was taken by the various hostile critics that came to be labeled as Freud bashers. The time has come to take a stand against the more egregious attacks on Freud and the psychoanalytic method.     

Freud and the Visual Arts

Freud was more interested in literature than painting and sculpture, as Louis Fraiberg and Richard Sterba note. The question is how this affected his analysis of Leonardo's paintings and Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses The author argues that because he regarded them as intellectual puzzles to be psychoanalytically deciphered, he reduced them to a species of literature, suggesting his reluctance to recognize their aesthetic significance, and perhaps his inability to do so. The visual work of art becomes something to be read rather than seen. Its sensuousness is given short shrift. For example, Freud makes no mention of chiaroscuro and sfumato in his study of Leonardo—just those elements for which his art is famous as art. As Freud said, his analytic turn of mind kept him from obtaining any pleasure from what he could not rationally explain. The author traces Freud's elevation of the literary over the visual, and with that of the analyzable over the unanalyzable, to his critique of Charcot, whom he described as a visuel,' a man who sees his patients (and photographed them) rather than listens to them. Finally, Freud's dislike of modern art is contrasted with Karl Abraham's appreciation of its sensuous uniqueness. The general point is made that Freud didn't understand that the key to art was the artist's engagement with the medium.     

Freud and the fall of man

This paper considers the presence in Freud's psychological theories of conceptual organizers found in the theory of the Fall of man. The search for such implicit and antecedent principles is conducted first in his ontogenetic model and then in his model for nosology. A Jungian explanation then follows which proposes that the presence of such organizing principles in Freud's ideas is an archetypal phenomenon.     

Freud and the problem of sexuality

This paper traces the development of Freud's views on sexuality and its relation to society from his early to his later writings. He shows that, although Freud provided important arguments for sexual reform, he also provided equally compelling arguments about its dangers and limits.     

Freud and hedonism

The Journal of Value Inquiry -     

Dynamic Reciprocity and Ontological Affinity in the Pauline Account of Solidarity

This article suggests that the dynamic elements of gift‐giving and reciprocity, which are incisively re‐evaluated in John Barclay's study Paul and the Gift, might fruitfully be combined with the classical incarnational understanding of the union of natures to better our understanding of Paul's soteriology. Setting Paul's account of salvation within the framework of the wider New Testament, the article highlights the presence of key elements that might best be articulated in terms of the dual kinship of Jesus with both God and humanity and that require some discussion of the ontology of the one who saves. When Paul speaks of the solidarity that exists within the Christian community, he does so in a way that links it to the presence of the Spirit, by whom we participate in the oneness of God through the one mediator; his development of this emphasis draws heavily upon the Shema, which Jewish traditions associate with the distinctive ‘being’ of God.