Hi Yoshie:
> Why not follow your "slight embarrassment" to its logical
> conclusion? You actually don't think that "Freud's version of the
> mind and its drives" is correct, do you? Have you read _Inventing
> the Psychological: Toward a Cultural History of Emotional Life in
> America_, eds. Joel Pfister & Nancy Schnog (New Haven: Yale UP,
> 1998), for instance? You might find the book interesting.
>
Thanks for the citation; I'll chase it up. I don't whether or not
Freud's account is anything close to correct, although his terms do
seem silly, so my embarrassment came from dredging up these silly
terms to defend Adorno -- a thinker I obviously like -- on what's
obviously one of his weaker points.
This makes me curious about a general question, though. Are theories
of mind always suspect if they lack an historical element? I may be
opening up a very ugly can of worms, but what does this mean for
Chomsky's ideas about the innateness of language? I know this is
quite a swerve away from the original topic, but...
--
Curtiss