John Buksbazen presents a contemporary philosophy below which is ultimately
nihilistic. It may be popular with some lit-crit types, but you will find no
scientist subscribing to this point of view.

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.

It will do the future of psychoanalysis little good to rely on a "there is no
real truth in this world" philosophy. Saying "everything is really subjective, so
we accept our own views as being as valid as any others" is ultimately
destructive. It is the logic of cults.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Dr Eisman posits a false dichotomy, when he contrasts "scientifically
> obtained DATA" with "a system of beliefs", and claims that he "... rejects a
> belief system."
>
> In fact, the criteria used to determine what constitutes such DATA are
> themselves beliefs, as well as the fundamental assumption that they furnish a
> higher order of validity about some objective reality than the sorts of data
> he derogates.
>
> Dr Eisman seems to be a fundamentalist, in the scientistic tradition. This is
> in itself a major belief system, and in ascribing to it global psychoanalytic
> primacy,  he is simply presenting his own credo.
>
> John Buksbazen
> Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute
>
> In a message dated 12°30°2000 8:25:05 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << Those of us who feel that psychoanalysis has failed to establish itself
> as science-to it's great detriment-are not "rejecters" of
> psychoanalysis. Many of us are trying to stop it from dying. One rejects
> a belief system. Psychoanalysis should be a body of scientifically
> obtained DATA, not a system of beliefs. >>
>
> Daishin