Despite its profound influence on modern thought, psychoanalysis remains peripheral to the concerns of most analytic philosophers. I suggest that one of the main reasons for this is intellectual reservation, and explore some philosophical arguments against psychoanalysis that may be contributing to such reservation. Specifically, I address the objections that psychoanalytic theories are unfalsifiable, that the purported findings of psychoanalysis are readily explained as due to suggestion, that there is a troubling lack of consensus in psychoanalytic interpretation, and that there (...) is a lack of support for psychoanalysis within mainstream science. I also consider a major obstacle to the acceptance of contemporary defenses of psychoanalysis: the “bad lot” argument against Inference to the Best Explanation. My conclusion is that, though these objections have some merit, they are not sufficient reasons for not taking psychoanalytic ideas seriously. (shrink)

The mind is not unitary. Despite enduring Cartesian influences, the idea that mental activity is the work of an assortment of processes remains one of the more plausible guiding assumptions of psychological research. Freud endorsed a distinctive variant of this broader explanatory commitment. Beginning with his earlier metapsychological works, he slowly developed a view of the mind as a collection of closely related systems. Famously, these ultimately became known as the id, ego, and super-ego. Like much of Freud’ s work, (...) the structural model was largely based on observation of fractures in the mental edifice resulting from various forms of psychopathology. The etiology of such cases was traced to destructive conflicts between the three central components. But while conflict is indeed definitional of these relations, it need not lead inexorably to the deployment of primitive defenses or to pathological outcomes. Freud described the workings of relatively typical minds in this way, with the constant tension between systems resolvable by way of ongoing negotiation. The model thus aspired to a full explanation of the varieties of mental life. All told, it is probably fair to say that it has had limited influence on psychological research outside the psychoanalytic tradition, although there is continuing interest in its relation to contemporary work in the cognitive sciences, including neuroscience. (shrink)

The idea of individual responsibility for action is central to our conception of what it is to be a person. Behavioural genetic research may seem to call into question the idea of individual responsibility with possible implications for the criminal justice system. These implications will depend on the understandings of the various agencies and professional groups involved in responding to violent and anti-social behaviour, and, the result of negotiations between them over resulting practice. The paper considers two kinds of approaches (...) to the question of responsibility and ‘criminal genes’ arising from a sociological and philosophical perspective respectively. One is to consider the social context and possible practical implications of research into ‘criminal genes’ which will later be examined through interviews and discussions with a range of experts including lawyers and social workers. A second and different kind of approach is to ask whether the findings of behavioural genetics ought to have implications for attributions of responsibility. Issues of genetic influence are central to both approaches. (shrink)

This article reflects on the phenomenon of self-deception in the context of the psychodynamic approach to defense mechanisms. Building on Giovanni Jervis’ criticism of psychoanalysis, I pursue the project of a full integration of that approach in the neurocognitive sciences. In this framework, the theme of self-deception becomes a vantage point from which to sketch out a philosophical anthropology congruent with the ontology of neurocognitive sciences.