tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post1185654510754350641..comments2023-12-20T19:30:28.788-05:00Comments on Fixing Psychology: Eugene Taylor and E. B. HoltEric Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-86259867790862973472013-03-15T01:07:47.338-04:002013-03-15T01:07:47.338-04:00In his essay featured in A New Look at New Realism...In his essay featured in A New Look at New Realism, the late Mr. Taylor accuses Holt of “cherry-picking” in regard to his discussions of Freudian theory; while Holt may exhibit some preoccupation with the idea of the “wish” (at least in regard to The Freudian Wish), his close analysis of Freud’s initial ideas provide a broadening of a somewhat ambiguous concept. Similarly, Holt’s analysis and Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-77972309545336490872013-03-14T11:12:28.823-04:002013-03-14T11:12:28.823-04:00I believe that Eugene's blatant almost disresp...I believe that Eugene's blatant almost disrespect for Holt and his work is more of a competitive issue rather than actual disagreement with his works. How can you put full faith in James and not support Holt? It seems impossible to me at least to not integrate both as Holt's works are in fact expansions on James. Eugene also recognizes James' influene on Tollman and Gibson, but Erika Hemingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-64126869703313249292013-03-13T22:15:42.113-04:002013-03-13T22:15:42.113-04:00Jim,
I couldn't imagine that Eugene would have...Jim,<br />I couldn't imagine that Eugene would have been effected by that. Eugene really was as close as I have seen to a living incarnation of William James. If James was not bothered... <br /><br />Eugene felt strongly about the importance of James's legacy, and disliked anyone he saw as misrepresenting or corrupting that legacy. My guess is that Eugene didn't think Holt got James Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-70878298444616453592013-03-13T20:20:04.231-04:002013-03-13T20:20:04.231-04:00Is his dismissal of Holt (as you said, how does Ja...Is his dismissal of Holt (as you said, how does James get to influence Tolman and Gibson without having Holt as at least *some kind* of throughput?) borne out of a possible distaste for Holt's homosexuality? Certainly, in my own undergrad experience, my history-and-systems professor had little to say about Holt beyond the "standard course" of Holt and that Holt was "tied by hisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-87297562650055930192013-03-12T16:01:30.307-04:002013-03-12T16:01:30.307-04:00It is easy for one to agree that there were many c...It is easy for one to agree that there were many complications that arose around Holt's and James' ideas of psychology. I believe that Eugene made their ideas clearer. After reading the chapter in the book and this post, it is evident that Eugene didn't necessarily agree with Holt's and James' ideas. Even though he didn't agree, he aimed to make their ideas more Dan Reillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17230291274628889403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-19637718770371515132013-03-10T19:31:45.580-04:002013-03-10T19:31:45.580-04:00Although I agree with Trever and Daniel's asse...Although I agree with Trever and Daniel's assessments, I feel the need to reiterate Eugene's contributions. It appears from what we can see, Eugene's assertions on Holt's accuracy (or lack there of) of James's work may have been largely unsupported. However, much like the lesson discussed on developing theories, taking steps, and not simply restating what has already been Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16048694357531008271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-43490393659145180262013-03-10T17:44:23.812-04:002013-03-10T17:44:23.812-04:00I agree with trevor's assessment. If you simp...I agree with trevor's assessment. If you simply memorize and recite the work of another I'd argue that that is not true intelligence or perhaps not even true understanding. It's basically simple memory. However, adding to a work and expanding on what you've been given is indeed true understanding and intelligence. It's like building a house. If you simply lay some bricks Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17612388826616928629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-26360991326609686702013-03-09T15:13:16.208-05:002013-03-09T15:13:16.208-05:00In addition to the previously mentioned biblical p...In addition to the previously mentioned biblical parallel, I think there is also another very common issue at the heart of this debate. That issue is one of how strictly or loosely the definition of "getting it right" is interpreted. This is also present in the bible, and is rampant in political arguments today regarding the constitution. To me at least, I think it would be unfair to Trever Dangelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15098097082239261786noreply@blogger.com