Moreover, Lear fails to distinguish the Freudian unconscious from the nonFreudian unconscious central to cognitive psychology. Evidence for the nonFreudian unconscious does not help as an argument for seeking psychoanalytic treatment. Another problem with Lear's argument is that much of it is ad hominem, focusing on the motivations of Freud bashers and, thus, contributing to the stereotype that analysts are addicted to ad homimen arguments. I agree with Lear on some points and focus here on the disagreements. Humans make meaning, for themselves and for others, of which they have no direct or immediate awareness.
People make more meaning than they know what to do with.
This is what Freud meant by the unconscious. And whatever valid criticisms can be aimed at him or at the psychoanalytic profession, it is nevertheless true that psychoanalysis is the most sustained and successful attempt to make these obscure meanings. This description of Freud's achievement is extremely vague, and his claim for the success of psychoanalysis is unsupported by any argument. Lear discusses the controversy over Freud's seduction theory, but this chapter in the history of psychoanalysis does not bring credit to psychoanalysis. Janet Malcolms's description of the response Masson encountered to the initial presentation of his ideas to psychoanalysts accurately conveys how psychoanalysts often respond to new heretical ideas, regardless of Masson's genuine failings as a scholar.