242
PARTISAN REVIEW
to is "not proven." You could not prove that you didn't commit fraud, nor
could I prove that you did.
Gunther Stent:
Yes, that's why the application of crinunal jurisprudence
to scientific fraud is highly problematic. For a verdict of "guilty," proof of
fraudulent intent is required, in addition to false data. This proof is very
difficult to provide in cases of scientific fraud because of the wild cards of
sloppiness or so-called "honest errors."
Alfred Pfabigan:
This is in response to Professor Kurzweil's paper. She
spoke about cultural influences on psychoanalysis. In this context, I think
we should rank literature and philosophy higher, as a source of psychoan–
alytical thinking. I am not so sure if it really broke wi th tradi tions as Dr.
Meyers said. To cite a classic example, the relation between Freud's ideas
and those of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have been under discussion
since 1905. There are many analogies; for instance, the idea that reason and
ego are not the masters of the house, that there is a broad unconscious
field. Nietzsche describes what Freud later called defense and repression. A
monograph on Freud and Nietzsche by German philosopher Monika
Kaiser EI-Safti is titled "Der Nachdenker," which translates as "the over–
thinker," and also the "after-thinker."
Freud himself reacted strangely in the discussion about Nietzsche's
influence on psychoanalysis. He said he hadn't read Nietzsche, did not have
the time to read him. We know now he was a member of the "Leseverein
deutscher Studenten," an organization inspired by Nietzsche's ideas.
Freud's friend, Joseph Panetch, visited Ni etzsche. So we don't believe
Freud, and I think that there is a pool of ideas in li terature and philosophy
which came before clinical experience.
Edith Kurzweil:
Freud himself said that he was not the one who invent–
ed the unconscious. He said that the poets who came before him knew
about it. I don't think it was the kind of break that you seem to think I
meant. What I argued was that Freud was the first to investigate the uncon–
scious in a scientific sort of way.
Helen Meyers: I
was just going to agree with both Edith and you. I have
notlUng new under the sun along those lines. Obviously everything is in the
air. When you talk about new ideas, even new theories in psychoanalysis in
other countries, the same new theories always seem to come up more or less
at the same time in different places, apparently from nowhere. Actually, the
different strands are there; and I don't think Freud claimed that he invent–
ed something new. What he did do is put things together in a particular
way, and maybe to stress and underline it, which as a whole then was a new
