Skip to content
1882
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2295-5267
  • E-ISSN: 2507-0304

Abstract

Abstract

In the mid-Twentieth Century the psychoanalyst James Strachey attempted an intervention during a crisis within British psychoanalysis which demonstrated that he had some acquaintance with philosophy and the philosophy and history of science. In effect, he sought to address difficulties that were emerging from psychoanalysis's firm identification with the natural sciences by resorting to these other disciplines. Strachey's sources will be examined including his contact with the University of Cambridge philosophers G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell and Frank Ramsey. The case will be made that Strachey had been prescient in comparing the difficulties occurring in the 1940s in the regular Scientific Meetings of his analytical Society to the incidents of superseded theories that were predicted by some philosophers and recorded by historians of science.

© Brepols Publishers NV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1484/J.EYHP.5.116300
2018-01-01
2025-12-15

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Brooke, C. N. L. (1993). A history of the University of Cambridge 1870–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Dokic, J., & Engel, P. (2002). Frank Ramsey: Truth and success. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Forrester, J. (2004). Freud in Cambridge. Critical Quarterly, 46(2), 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Forrester, J., & Cameron, L. (2017). Freud in Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Freud, S. (1955). Studies on hysteria. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works, vol. 2. London: Hogarth Press/Institute of Psychoanalysis. (Original work published 1895)
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Freud, S. (1964). Moses and monotheism. Three essays. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works, vol. 23. London: Hogarth Press/Institute of Psychoanalysis. (Original work published 1934–38)
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Griffin, N. (2015). Russell and Moore’s revolt against British Idealism. In M. Beaney (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy (p. 383–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. King, P., & Steiner, R. (Eds.). (1991). The Freud-Klein controversies 1941–1945. London: New Library of Psychoanalysis.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Laplanche, J., & Pontalis, J.B. (1973). The language of psycho-analysis. London: Karnac. (Original work published 1967).
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Meisel, P., & Kendrick, W. (Eds.). (1986). Bloomsbury/Freud. London: Chatto & Windus.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Mellor, D. H. (Ed.). (1990). F. P. Ramsey: Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Russell, B. (1914). Scientific method in philosophy: The Herbert Spencer Lecture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Strachey, J. (1934). The nature of the therapeutic action of psycho analysis. International Journal of Psycho Analysis, 15, 127–159.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Strachey, J. (1939). The work of Freud. The New Statesman, 30/9/1939, 453–454.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Strachey, J. (1943). Discussion Memorandum. In P. King & R. Steiner (Eds.), The Freud-Klein controversies 1941–1945 (p. 629–634). London: New Library of Psychoanalysis, 1991.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1484/J.EYHP.5.116300
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field.
Please enter a valid email address.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred.
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error:
Please enter a valid_number test
aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYnJlcG9sc29ubGluZS5uZXQv