The Right to Speak of an Unconscious
How can anyone know about mental life that no one is aware of? The essay's opening section answers critics on their own ground, with an inference everyone already makes.
Consciousness, Freud argues, gives us only scraps: slips, dreams and sudden ideas that fit nowhere. We grant other people minds by inference from their behaviour; the same inference turned on ourselves shows acts that belong to no consciousness at all. A second, hidden consciousness would be a contradiction, so he speaks of mental acts that lack consciousness. To the objection that such things are merely brain processes he replies that nothing about the brain explains them, while they can be translated into conscious thought.
- unconscious
- consciousness
- evidence
- methodology
- psychoanalysis
Enter a dialogue
- Nobody perceives another person's mind directly but infers it from what they say and do. Why should the same inference, turned on ourselves, reveal an unconscious?
- Kant warned that perception does not show things as they are in themselves. Why should our inner perception be any more trustworthy about the mind?
- Critics say unconscious ideas are simply processes in the brain and need no psychology at all. Why do you insist on treating them as mental?
- A thought pops up from nowhere and its owner cannot say where it came from. Why treat such stray ideas as gaps in a chain?