What do you think?
Rate this book
General Psychological Theory: Papers on Metapsychology
In fifteen essays, sigmund freud explains his most controversial theories exposing the darkest corners of the human psyche. Best known for his research into the unconscious mind, Sigmund Freud challenged the mores of conventional American society during the early twentieth century. This collection presents many of Freud's revolutionary ideas, showing how his theories changed the way people think about their emotions and actions, opening a rich dialogue about the methods and science of the brain. In a series of essays written between 1911 and 1938, readers follow Freud through clear explanations of how neurology and psychology influence our actions and govern personality traits and emotions, including the libido, narcissism, mourning, repression, dreams, paranoia, and melancholy. This volume illustrates how Freud was not afraid to venture into unknown areas of the human mind and that he was superbly equipped to expose its secrets. Exploring the hypotheses of the most controversial psychologist of the twentieth century, in his own words, may help us understand our own behaviors.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 28, 1959
18 people are currently reading
428 people want to read
About the author
Sigmund Freud
4,449 books8,350 followersDr. Sigismund Freud (later changed to Sigmund) was a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, who created an entirely new approach to the understanding of the human personality. He is regarded as one of the most influential—and controversial—minds of the 20th century.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
March 14, 2018
I was pretty sure my star-bar was bigger than 5... Dad, what did you do to me?!?
So I didn't actually read this, it's a placeholder for an idiosyncratic cull through Freud's complete works (Strachey edition) in PDF format, which if anybody wants just let me know and I'll send you the file. My "reader" thus far has been:
Instincts and Their Vicissitudes
Repression
The Unconscious
A SPECIAL TYPE OF CHOICE OF OBJECT MADE BY MEN (CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOVE I) (1910)
ON THE UNIVERSAL TENDENCY TO DEBASEMENT IN THE SPHERE OF LOVE (CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOVE. II) (1912)
THE TABOO OF VIRGINITY (CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOVE III) (1918)
Inhibitions, Symptoms, and Anxiety
Character and Anal Erotism (1908)
ON TRANSFORMATIONS OF INSTINCT AS EXEMPLIFIED IN ANAL EROTISM (1917)
ON BEGINNING THE TREATMENT (FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUE OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS I)(1913)
REMEMBERING, REPEATING AND WORKING-THROUGH (FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUE OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS II) (1914)
OBSERVATIONS ON TRANSFERENCE-LOVE (FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUE OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS III)
On Narcissism: An Introduction (1914)
The Loss of Reality in Neurosis and Psychosis (1924)
Negation (1925)
On the Mystic Writing-Pad
On Transience
You can never have too much Freud. Except Schadenfreude. And honestly if you're not even interested in Freud you're probably not interesting. Even Nabokov (among countless other unfortunates) was interested enough to completely misunderstand everything about psychoanalysis. But according to Lacan almost no one since Freud understood psychoanalysis anyway. Maybe Melanie "Dick-is-going-into-Mummy" Klein sometimes. So, instead of ludicrous soul-searching manuals or neurotoxic HAPPY pills or any other sententious flummery, read more Freud.
P.S. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
So I didn't actually read this, it's a placeholder for an idiosyncratic cull through Freud's complete works (Strachey edition) in PDF format, which if anybody wants just let me know and I'll send you the file. My "reader" thus far has been:
Instincts and Their Vicissitudes
Repression
The Unconscious
A SPECIAL TYPE OF CHOICE OF OBJECT MADE BY MEN (CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOVE I) (1910)
ON THE UNIVERSAL TENDENCY TO DEBASEMENT IN THE SPHERE OF LOVE (CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOVE. II) (1912)
THE TABOO OF VIRGINITY (CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOVE III) (1918)
Inhibitions, Symptoms, and Anxiety
Character and Anal Erotism (1908)
ON TRANSFORMATIONS OF INSTINCT AS EXEMPLIFIED IN ANAL EROTISM (1917)
ON BEGINNING THE TREATMENT (FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUE OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS I)(1913)
REMEMBERING, REPEATING AND WORKING-THROUGH (FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUE OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS II) (1914)
OBSERVATIONS ON TRANSFERENCE-LOVE (FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUE OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS III)
On Narcissism: An Introduction (1914)
The Loss of Reality in Neurosis and Psychosis (1924)
Negation (1925)
On the Mystic Writing-Pad
On Transience
You can never have too much Freud. Except Schadenfreude. And honestly if you're not even interested in Freud you're probably not interesting. Even Nabokov (among countless other unfortunates) was interested enough to completely misunderstand everything about psychoanalysis. But according to Lacan almost no one since Freud understood psychoanalysis anyway. Maybe Melanie "Dick-is-going-into-Mummy" Klein sometimes. So, instead of ludicrous soul-searching manuals or neurotoxic HAPPY pills or any other sententious flummery, read more Freud.
P.S. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
Read
January 14, 2021só as mais gatinhas no wpp
May 2, 2023
I tried reading this book five years ago when I had bought it, as a sort of immersion to Freud's works. I failed to finish it, because Freud isn't a systematic writer and is too allusive for a purported scientist.
I once again started from the very beginning, but once again stumbled. His style is too heavy-handed and unwieldy, and it doesn't help that he refers to either obscure or difficult writers (either fellow psychoanalysts or philosophers). He even refers to Kant in his explanation of how conscience is the sadomasochism dynamic at work. At one point in time, I decided to simply scan through the book: I understand the "sunk cost" fallacy, but there's also a part of me that's quite compulsive. Simply put, I wanted to finish the book so that I would no longer revisit Freud.
I do not minimize Freud's contributions toward the modern science of psychology: the foundation he provided was necessary for psychology to grow and flourish, because with his theses were the antitheses of other psychologists who disagreed with him (such as Adler and Jung). Even in psychology, Hegelian dialectic still applies.
What I fundamentally disagree with, especially given with developments in cognitive neuroscience, is that not everything is driven by sex. One of Freud's foremost drivers toward action is the pleasure principle, but this has now been made obsolete by the discoveries of luminaries such as Andrew Huberman who showed that the pursuit of pain is actually necessary to maximize pleasure. This is because the peaks of pleasure are mediated by dopamine, and a greater sense of pleasure can be felt by a greater difference between the pre- and post-dopamine spike.
Drug addicts, for instance, tend to overdose the longer they are addicted because the dopamine spikes become smaller and smaller as they only pursue the "pleasure" of the next high. In essence, this already debunks one of Freud's central concepts.
Modern science has debunked a lot of Freudian concepts; however, psychology would not have developed the way it did without Freud. There are also more hypotheses that tend to be questionable especially with more knowledge on what Freud alludes to: for instance, Freud states that Kant's categorical imperative is a direct inheritance of the Oedipus complex.
Restated, the categorical imperative is to only do the things what one can will to become universal law. In more religious concepts, this is the Golden Rule. The Oedipus complex, on the other hand, is the wish for the young boy to have sex with his mother along with a concomitant rivalry for the same-sex parent.
I don't see how these things are connected, because wishing for all young men to be incestuous with their mothers seems a bit, questionable, don't you think?
Freud nevertheless remains historically important, because without this system of thought, psychology would have remained stagnant, and for that, he still deserves respect.
I once again started from the very beginning, but once again stumbled. His style is too heavy-handed and unwieldy, and it doesn't help that he refers to either obscure or difficult writers (either fellow psychoanalysts or philosophers). He even refers to Kant in his explanation of how conscience is the sadomasochism dynamic at work. At one point in time, I decided to simply scan through the book: I understand the "sunk cost" fallacy, but there's also a part of me that's quite compulsive. Simply put, I wanted to finish the book so that I would no longer revisit Freud.
I do not minimize Freud's contributions toward the modern science of psychology: the foundation he provided was necessary for psychology to grow and flourish, because with his theses were the antitheses of other psychologists who disagreed with him (such as Adler and Jung). Even in psychology, Hegelian dialectic still applies.
What I fundamentally disagree with, especially given with developments in cognitive neuroscience, is that not everything is driven by sex. One of Freud's foremost drivers toward action is the pleasure principle, but this has now been made obsolete by the discoveries of luminaries such as Andrew Huberman who showed that the pursuit of pain is actually necessary to maximize pleasure. This is because the peaks of pleasure are mediated by dopamine, and a greater sense of pleasure can be felt by a greater difference between the pre- and post-dopamine spike.
Drug addicts, for instance, tend to overdose the longer they are addicted because the dopamine spikes become smaller and smaller as they only pursue the "pleasure" of the next high. In essence, this already debunks one of Freud's central concepts.
Modern science has debunked a lot of Freudian concepts; however, psychology would not have developed the way it did without Freud. There are also more hypotheses that tend to be questionable especially with more knowledge on what Freud alludes to: for instance, Freud states that Kant's categorical imperative is a direct inheritance of the Oedipus complex.
Restated, the categorical imperative is to only do the things what one can will to become universal law. In more religious concepts, this is the Golden Rule. The Oedipus complex, on the other hand, is the wish for the young boy to have sex with his mother along with a concomitant rivalry for the same-sex parent.
I don't see how these things are connected, because wishing for all young men to be incestuous with their mothers seems a bit, questionable, don't you think?
Freud nevertheless remains historically important, because without this system of thought, psychology would have remained stagnant, and for that, he still deserves respect.
Read
March 30, 2024"It is easy to observe that libidinal object-cathexis does not raise the self-regard. The effect of the dependence upon the loved object is to lower that feeling: the lover is humble. He who loves has, so to speak, forfeited a part of his narcissism, which can only be replaced by his being loved."
Kind of mid but had some good stuff on narcissism and repression. Gagged me a bit when he said that female jealousy is really just sexual attraction to other women.
Kind of mid but had some good stuff on narcissism and repression. Gagged me a bit when he said that female jealousy is really just sexual attraction to other women.
March 21, 2011
I read this for Ann Ulanov's course on Depth Psychology and Theology during the second semester of 1974/75 at Union Theological Seminary. Some had been assigned, but, as usual, I didn't want to read just part of a book.
The book consists of fifteen essays composed from 1911 through 1938.
The book consists of fifteen essays composed from 1911 through 1938.
August 14, 2018
Beaucoup plus un livre de philosophie que de psychologie. Le titre est trompeur. On y retrouve différents articles écrits surtout sur les états psychiques.
Read
June 10, 2019i want to read
November 26, 2022
This is a small anthology published for popular audiences, apparently in the 60s; the cover advertises hot takes on paranoia, masochism and depression, but in reality this is a mostly clinical, scientific volume, or at least an attempt at such. However, this volume mostly records the conclusions of Freud's attempts at the mapping of the psychotopography; nowhere are included case studies (even examples are rare and far between), nor the 'hard-minded' work of demonstrating the existence-as-such of the psychological entities in discussion. One can only wonder at the readers of the volume during its publication, expecting edifying explanations of the human mind and instead receiving a bureacratic-like, ad-hoc array of preconscious and unconscious phenomenon, brute facts ascribed to the 'ego', 'id', and 'super-ego' (about the latter of which very little substantial is said), and above all the anatomies of the mechanisms that apparently result -- regression, neurosis, sublimation. For reasons unknown, Oedipus appears only a few times, although the mother-father matrix is employed throughout as a presupposable (somehow) truism. From the best of my abilities to tell, this volume seems to signify mostly an attempt of Freud to 'scientize' his theories, although in a way satisfactory to few: he seems to begin with pre-assumed judgments about associations between 'unconscious' and 'conscious' acts, and then seeks to demarcate precisely the nature of the relations between.
To a less scrupulous eye, this would have all the airs of 'serious' scientific work, but it remains the case (as with many of the quasi-scientific writers of the 1890s-1920s epoch) that he proceeds no differently than would a scholastic, presupposing the black-box behaviorist truths (which are never justified rigorously, if at all) and then proceeding to spend time speculating about possible theories, of causation among the various psycho-entities. In classic cases like paranoiac cathexis, thinly concealed repression, etc, this proceeds plausibly, as he is able to generate plausible (but nevertheless unjustified) explanations; in cases such as the 'melancholia' essay he cannot find one but never is in doubt there is one, and in cases like the masochism essay he is seemingly forced to simply assert that obvious contradictions to his schema are simply unconscious verifications thereof. This culminates all very humorously with the negation essay, where denial of something asserted by the Freudian schema is always actually an affirmation -- how easy this makes the life of the psychoanalyst! The Freudian objects that this anathema against self-trust proceeds from the nature of the unconscious, but all the same this follows the same disingenuous method of taking a few facts obvious to pre-psychological eyes (eg, hyper-cathexis implies a web of personal associations) and then using them to justify a network of assertions about mysterious entities which are only ever justified in a circular way. Somewhere in the Lacanian algebra is a defense against this sort of claim, celebrating the psychoanalytic circularity in terms of "metastructures", but even those dubieties don't appear event nascently here (by the way, has there ever been a philosophical employment of the concept of 'metastructure' that doesn't invariably fall either to a fortiori arguments, or else insane schizophrenic amplifications, ten years later -- continental OR analytic?).
A friend once argued to me that Freud, despite being so often wrong, was valuable for providing a basic framework for later sciences to improve upon; even without importing the Deleuzean attitude of anti-psychoanalsis, one can start to wonder about the value of psychological frameworks such as these, given not only the therapeutic effect of impressing these frameworks onto individuals' self-conception but, moreover, also the more immediately acidic nature of academic theories, which do not seem different in shape to Freud's -- theories derived from single case studies or idiosyncratic justifications, awkwardly and forcibly loosened to acquiesce new cases until the point where rigorous study of evidence is less important than pencil-pusher sophistry to preserve frameworks. Is it any wonder that even as few as five years ago, fewer than half of psychological case studies could be replicated at all? If one is serious about avoiding these errors (and I am not sure if anyone involved has the motivation to be), then this probably cannot be denounced as hard-line as possible. For the rest of us, this is another alchemical tract, read only to study the culture diseased enough to believe it -- how many such cultures are there ?
To a less scrupulous eye, this would have all the airs of 'serious' scientific work, but it remains the case (as with many of the quasi-scientific writers of the 1890s-1920s epoch) that he proceeds no differently than would a scholastic, presupposing the black-box behaviorist truths (which are never justified rigorously, if at all) and then proceeding to spend time speculating about possible theories, of causation among the various psycho-entities. In classic cases like paranoiac cathexis, thinly concealed repression, etc, this proceeds plausibly, as he is able to generate plausible (but nevertheless unjustified) explanations; in cases such as the 'melancholia' essay he cannot find one but never is in doubt there is one, and in cases like the masochism essay he is seemingly forced to simply assert that obvious contradictions to his schema are simply unconscious verifications thereof. This culminates all very humorously with the negation essay, where denial of something asserted by the Freudian schema is always actually an affirmation -- how easy this makes the life of the psychoanalyst! The Freudian objects that this anathema against self-trust proceeds from the nature of the unconscious, but all the same this follows the same disingenuous method of taking a few facts obvious to pre-psychological eyes (eg, hyper-cathexis implies a web of personal associations) and then using them to justify a network of assertions about mysterious entities which are only ever justified in a circular way. Somewhere in the Lacanian algebra is a defense against this sort of claim, celebrating the psychoanalytic circularity in terms of "metastructures", but even those dubieties don't appear event nascently here (by the way, has there ever been a philosophical employment of the concept of 'metastructure' that doesn't invariably fall either to a fortiori arguments, or else insane schizophrenic amplifications, ten years later -- continental OR analytic?).
A friend once argued to me that Freud, despite being so often wrong, was valuable for providing a basic framework for later sciences to improve upon; even without importing the Deleuzean attitude of anti-psychoanalsis, one can start to wonder about the value of psychological frameworks such as these, given not only the therapeutic effect of impressing these frameworks onto individuals' self-conception but, moreover, also the more immediately acidic nature of academic theories, which do not seem different in shape to Freud's -- theories derived from single case studies or idiosyncratic justifications, awkwardly and forcibly loosened to acquiesce new cases until the point where rigorous study of evidence is less important than pencil-pusher sophistry to preserve frameworks. Is it any wonder that even as few as five years ago, fewer than half of psychological case studies could be replicated at all? If one is serious about avoiding these errors (and I am not sure if anyone involved has the motivation to be), then this probably cannot be denounced as hard-line as possible. For the rest of us, this is another alchemical tract, read only to study the culture diseased enough to believe it -- how many such cultures are there ?
November 26, 2023
I've been hearing about Freud all my life, including in much of the literature that I currently read, so I decided to give him a shot. I've known that Freud has been, for lack of a better word, "debunked" as a scientist for a lot of his claims, and those who claim to follow him today teeter on the razor's edge of well-meaning experimentation and blatant pseudoscience.
And while I would agree that I didn't get much scientifically from this, I do think that PHILOSOPHICALLY this is a great introduction to Freud and the merits of his thought. Freud has some very interesting claims about Man's mental processes that, even to this day, lead to some inner pondering. Of course, a lot of it is not very empirical or verifiable, no more than Sartre's claim that "existence precedes essence" is verifiable via scientific test, but that doesn't mean that it's not compelling and thought-provoking.
Leaving aside the misogyny and casual racism of his time (of which this particular collection is actually pretty light), Freud mentions many topics of everyday life that are nonetheless mysterious to us: love, hate, neuroses, psychosis, sadism and masochism, sleep, comedy, et cetera et cetera. I think the real merit of reading this old nerd even today is not in the answers he provides to us, but in the questions and ideas that we can build off of. This will be my first in many Freud books, if my reading queue stays consistent, and I hope to build a deeper and more philosophical perspective of the human psyche that may help out my more empirical studies in the future.
And while I would agree that I didn't get much scientifically from this, I do think that PHILOSOPHICALLY this is a great introduction to Freud and the merits of his thought. Freud has some very interesting claims about Man's mental processes that, even to this day, lead to some inner pondering. Of course, a lot of it is not very empirical or verifiable, no more than Sartre's claim that "existence precedes essence" is verifiable via scientific test, but that doesn't mean that it's not compelling and thought-provoking.
Leaving aside the misogyny and casual racism of his time (of which this particular collection is actually pretty light), Freud mentions many topics of everyday life that are nonetheless mysterious to us: love, hate, neuroses, psychosis, sadism and masochism, sleep, comedy, et cetera et cetera. I think the real merit of reading this old nerd even today is not in the answers he provides to us, but in the questions and ideas that we can build off of. This will be my first in many Freud books, if my reading queue stays consistent, and I hope to build a deeper and more philosophical perspective of the human psyche that may help out my more empirical studies in the future.
Read
March 19, 2024nice
July 16, 2024
In college and pretty much stoned for 4 years (we sometimes grew our own, in closets with grow lights), my scribblings in the margins here are mostly nonsensical. But I do remember enjoying this then, and I still do. I'm glad I held on to some college paperbacks!
September 30, 2008
A couple of interesting points, but overall, intensly boring and a little self-indulged. I'm sticking with my young-adult fiction, y'all.
September 14, 2010
Psikoanalisa dan Freudian Slip.. Nice work Freud. Sayang, Jung, ga sebagus dirimu...
December 10, 2013
This volume contains short papers published from 1908 through 1923 which I read while studying continental depth psychology at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.
December 28, 2011
This book is pretty great. I had to re-read certain parts of it to understand it. It is definitely a book that improves vocabulary, as well as perspective.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews