Dictionary of Psychoanalysis

by Nandor Fodor (Editor), Theodor Reik (Preface by), Frank Gaynor (Editor)

A dictionary of Freud's psychoanalysis terms. " Everybody who has studied psychoanalysis thoroughly has, of course, the right to criticize the opinions of Freud. Nobody has the right to distort and misrepresent them. There ought to be a law!" - from the Preface by Theodor Reik.

Genres: Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Nonfiction, Dictionaries

208 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1950

About the author

Nandor Fodor was a British and American parapsychologist, psychoanalyst, author and journalist of Hungarian origin.

Fodor was one of the leading authorities on poltergeists, haunting and paranormal phenomena usually associated with mediumship. Fodor, who was at one time Sigmund Freud's associate, wrote on subjects like prenatal development and dream interpretation, but is credited mostly for his magnum opus, Encyclopedia of Psychic Science, first published in 1934. Fodor was the London correspondent for the American Society for Psychical Research (1935-1939). He worked as an editor for the Psychoanalytic Review and was a member of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Fodor in the 1930s embraced paranormal phenomena but by the 1940s took a break from his previous work and advocated a psychoanalytic approach to psychic phenomena. He published skeptical newspaper articles on mediumship, which caused an opposition from spiritualists.

Reviews

[bojfischer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Namanya juga kamus.. ya baguslah udah ada yang mau mengumpulkan istilah-istilah psikoanalisis Freud.

[A Z · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love this handy, little, interesting book. I know the editor's tried hard to put Freud in a good light. I do respect him for being the godfather of psychology but I still have my issues with how much of a (lack of better words) pervert he turned into in his later age. Everything seemed to be revolved around sex. Maybe he just wasn't brazen enough to come out and say it like that in his younger years but it seemed like a 180 from the research I did on Freud. Once again, all due respect.He IS the godfather of psychology. He had good sense to him. It's just THE later years that I question. If I have to choose between Freud and Jung, I am by far A junk fan. I can only imagine how Jung felt being torn between his respect for Freud as his older Hero or whatever and not fully believing in all of his expeditions. I mean, I never even met the man in I almost feel guilty giving my honest opinion about Freud ha ha

[Dean Mayer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I stumbled upon an earlier print of this book(circa 1958) at a decommissioned library- so to speak. The front cover fell off on its own a few years ago, simply due to its archaic creation date. Upon reading this book cover to cover, in its self-contained 'old library' scent, and cracking noise upon the turning of each page, I was able to sink into a different era of social normalities- quite fluidly. I imagine a new copy of this book is just as fulfilling; however, grasping my artifact-version and gingerly turning the near solidified pages, just allowed the imbibing of Freud's era, to be a bit more realistic. Call me weird if you must, but it adds a lot of effect, to this already insightful publication. :)

[Erik Graff · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not precisely the edition I purchased in college. That was a cheap mass market paperback which basically was a dictionary of the terminology employed in Freud's psychoanalytic writing. Definitions were provided by relevant quotations. I thought it would be a handy reference, but after skimming through it once I never used it again. Better references, such as the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis, exist.

I picked up this hardcover edition later, trading in the original at The Book Nook in Sawyer, Michigan.

[Jevon Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a deep thinker so I loved this book. It gets into the depths about how Freud defined not only words but theories and concepts, if you're a deep person try it out and don't be throw-ed off by the the fact that it says it's a dictionary, doesn't really read like one.