Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see author affiliation information in an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To see author affiliation and contact information (as available) in an article, simply click on the Information icon next to the author’s name in every journal article.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Solms, M. (1997). Commentaries: Response by Mark Solms. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 45:765-778.

(1997). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 45:765-778

Commentaries: Response by Mark Solms

Mark Solms

I shall not address areas of agreement (or apparent agreement) between the commentators and me. However, I would like to express my deep pleasure at discovering the extent of the agreement between my approach to the problem of consciousness (based on Freud) and the approaches of Humphrey and Velmans (based on intellectual traditions far removed from mine). I shall also not take up arguments that are tangential to my own. As I am limited to approximately four thousand words, I shall restrict my responses to the disagreements and criticisms. It is noteworthy that the closer the commentators are to psychoanalysis, the sharper their disagreements and criticisms become. The criticisms can be grouped under seven headings.

1. My transcendental idealism places the unconscious outside of science. This charge, in one form or another, is made by Brakel, Cavell, Rosenthal, and Shevrin.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.