What do you think?
Rate this book
Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus's Criticism of Psychoanalysis & Psychiatry
Book by Szasz, Thomas
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
165 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Szasz
101 books319 followersThomas Stephen Szasz (pronounced /sas/; born April 15, 1920 in Budapest, Hungary) was a psychiatrist and academic. He was Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York. He was a prominent figure in the antipsychiatry movement, a well-known social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, and of the social control aims of medicine in modern society, as well as of scientism. He is well known for his books, The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement which set out some of the arguments with which he is most associated.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 1, 2012
Often described as the "H.L. Mencken of the German language", Karl Kraus was a fairly well known and revered thinker during his time, especially among German speaking nations. Kraus was also an early critic of Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis. Due to the unconditional love most modern academics and related pedantic pencil-pushers have for Freud, Kraus has been unjustly ignored by many scholars over the years. Despite being a Jew himself, Kraus is often described as an "anti-semite" by many, both during and after his time. Kraus described psychoanalysis as nothing more than a modern form of Jewish gnosticism that -- instead of helping people (as it was supposed to) -- thoroughly debased them. In "Anti-Freud", Szasz gives sufficient overview of Kraus' career, ideas, friends, and foes (most specifically, Freud and psychoanalysis). Thankfully, the book also includes some of Kraus' brilliant writings and aphorisms.
If you have an interest in the work and life of Karl Kraus, "Anti-Freud" is the book to buy. If you enjoy the work of Otto Weininger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and/or Egon Friedell, "Anti-Freud" is a must read.
If you have an interest in the work and life of Karl Kraus, "Anti-Freud" is the book to buy. If you enjoy the work of Otto Weininger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and/or Egon Friedell, "Anti-Freud" is a must read.
December 28, 2023
“Let us admit once and for all that all poets are mad; perhaps that will spare us from the spectacle of psychiatrists proving this in each and every case separately.”
“Ours, after all, is the age of the Mass Man and of Liberalism: its hero is the lover of Mankind, who supports the freedom and dignity of all nations, religions, and professions and opposes only the freedom and dignity of individuals; and who, by conducting himself accordingly, is hated by everyone who actually knows him and is loved by Mankind.”
“Ours, after all, is the age of the Mass Man and of Liberalism: its hero is the lover of Mankind, who supports the freedom and dignity of all nations, religions, and professions and opposes only the freedom and dignity of individuals; and who, by conducting himself accordingly, is hated by everyone who actually knows him and is loved by Mankind.”
June 6, 2020
What stellar reading. Szasz illuminates for us one of the great thinkers of our age, who unfortunately has been (by and large) forgotten. I only encountered Kraus after surveying Walter Benjamin’s influences. What this book delivered was a reconstruction of an intense intellectual battle between Kraus and Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry. What was the battle over? Language and it’s place in the salvation of humanity. Through excellent scholarship Szasz provides a daunting picture of the original Psychoanalytic movement in Vienna, and the detrimental and deleterious consequences of Freud’s own whimsy. Further than a titillating piece of historical drama, Szasz continually returns to how each figure viewed language and its place in understanding the human mind.
Kraus saw one’s language as a deep reflection of who they were as a human being, and how problems in one’s use of language reflected actual problems. Moreover, he saw the visceral and organic power of language that could penetrate across time and space. Like Kraus, Freud was deeply attuned to the power of language and its relation to the psyche. Freud saw one’s language archeologically to uncover sickness. Freud’s remedy included cataloging behaviour under cold pseudoscientific language, and a psychotherapeutic prescription. The pseudoscientific language was - and is - dehumanizing, and the interpretation of the “patient’s” language was - and remains - (often enough) arbitrarily determined against a framework that was constructed by a man who was also deeply flawed. Kraus saw it differently - the people weren’t reducible to this fragile problematic framework, and moreso were not reducible to brutally dehumanizing pseudoscientific neologisms. Kraus didn’t pretend to have a universal framework that would net the woes of humanity and the tragedies of language; and he certainly did not want “Krausianism.” He saw dignity and humanity.
But anyway, that’s enough out of me. Read the book; it’s good. Kraus reminds me a lot of another underrated figure who was famous in his day for his integrity and care - Lessing.
Kraus saw one’s language as a deep reflection of who they were as a human being, and how problems in one’s use of language reflected actual problems. Moreover, he saw the visceral and organic power of language that could penetrate across time and space. Like Kraus, Freud was deeply attuned to the power of language and its relation to the psyche. Freud saw one’s language archeologically to uncover sickness. Freud’s remedy included cataloging behaviour under cold pseudoscientific language, and a psychotherapeutic prescription. The pseudoscientific language was - and is - dehumanizing, and the interpretation of the “patient’s” language was - and remains - (often enough) arbitrarily determined against a framework that was constructed by a man who was also deeply flawed. Kraus saw it differently - the people weren’t reducible to this fragile problematic framework, and moreso were not reducible to brutally dehumanizing pseudoscientific neologisms. Kraus didn’t pretend to have a universal framework that would net the woes of humanity and the tragedies of language; and he certainly did not want “Krausianism.” He saw dignity and humanity.
But anyway, that’s enough out of me. Read the book; it’s good. Kraus reminds me a lot of another underrated figure who was famous in his day for his integrity and care - Lessing.
January 11, 2023
Bir psikanalist olan Thomas Szasz’ın Psikanalize kökten karşı çıkışının kitabı.
Anti Freud adıyla kitabını kaleme almasının nedeni, sistemin ödipus kompleksi merkezli olarak Freud’un teorileri kapsamında yükselmesinden dolayı bu adı tercih etmiştir. Guattari ve Deleuze’ün Anti-Ödipus kitabına ek olabilecek bir kitap bu. Keza Szasz politik görüşleri ve sistem muhalifi olmasından ötürü sistemin kullandığı Freud kuramına karşı ötekilerin psikanalizini savunmaktadır.
Örneğin Freud erkek hastalar odaklı olarak kuramını ortaya koyarken kadını dışlamıştır. Szasz bu noktada kadının varlığını savunmuştur. Buna binaen doğanın psikanalizi de Szasz’ın odak noktası olmaktadır. Salt erkek odaklı bir analiz sağlıklı bir analiz olmayıp aksine tedavi süreçlerinde büyük sorunlar yaratabilecek bir bilgi ağı oluşturmaktaydı. Szasz’a göre erkek, kadınsız yaşayamayacağı için bozulan ruh sağlığının nedeni yine kendisi olacaktır. Bu yüzden şunu ifade etmiş kitabında; ‘’ Psikanaliz, ilacı olduğunu iddia ettiği şeyin hastalığıdır.''
Özellikle Szasz’ın üslubuna da değinmek gerekir diye düşünüyorum. Öyle hiciv ve ironi dolu bir üslubu var ki eleştirdiği şeyi sadece eleştirmeyip yerin dibine sokuyor diyebilirim.
Szasz bu kitabıyla akıl hastalığı diye bir şeyin olmadığını savunmakta ve psikiyatriyi iktidar silahı, psikiatriyi de burjuva mahkemesine benzetmektedir. Yaşanan sistem sorunlarının ceremesini çeken bireyler de otomatikman hasta* konumunda değerlendirilmektedir. Szasz da burada haklı eleştirisini sunmuş ve hasta olarak suçlanarak insanların kandırıldığını iddia etmektedir.
Alanının en güzel kitaplarından biri diyebilirim.
Anti Freud adıyla kitabını kaleme almasının nedeni, sistemin ödipus kompleksi merkezli olarak Freud’un teorileri kapsamında yükselmesinden dolayı bu adı tercih etmiştir. Guattari ve Deleuze’ün Anti-Ödipus kitabına ek olabilecek bir kitap bu. Keza Szasz politik görüşleri ve sistem muhalifi olmasından ötürü sistemin kullandığı Freud kuramına karşı ötekilerin psikanalizini savunmaktadır.
Örneğin Freud erkek hastalar odaklı olarak kuramını ortaya koyarken kadını dışlamıştır. Szasz bu noktada kadının varlığını savunmuştur. Buna binaen doğanın psikanalizi de Szasz’ın odak noktası olmaktadır. Salt erkek odaklı bir analiz sağlıklı bir analiz olmayıp aksine tedavi süreçlerinde büyük sorunlar yaratabilecek bir bilgi ağı oluşturmaktaydı. Szasz’a göre erkek, kadınsız yaşayamayacağı için bozulan ruh sağlığının nedeni yine kendisi olacaktır. Bu yüzden şunu ifade etmiş kitabında; ‘’ Psikanaliz, ilacı olduğunu iddia ettiği şeyin hastalığıdır.''
Özellikle Szasz’ın üslubuna da değinmek gerekir diye düşünüyorum. Öyle hiciv ve ironi dolu bir üslubu var ki eleştirdiği şeyi sadece eleştirmeyip yerin dibine sokuyor diyebilirim.
Szasz bu kitabıyla akıl hastalığı diye bir şeyin olmadığını savunmakta ve psikiyatriyi iktidar silahı, psikiatriyi de burjuva mahkemesine benzetmektedir. Yaşanan sistem sorunlarının ceremesini çeken bireyler de otomatikman hasta* konumunda değerlendirilmektedir. Szasz da burada haklı eleştirisini sunmuş ve hasta olarak suçlanarak insanların kandırıldığını iddia etmektedir.
Alanının en güzel kitaplarından biri diyebilirim.
January 5, 2018
Szasz is right. He was light years ahead of his time. Everyone ought to know who Thomas Szasz was, and everyone ought to know who Karl Kraus was as well. Read this book. Discover the truth about psychiatry. https://psychiatricsurvivors.wordpres...
June 14, 2025
which way is up?
February 1, 2015
How tedious, my half-written review got deleted. I can't be bothered to repeat what I already said.
Szasz hates Freud and loves Karl Kraus. His book is simultaneously a championing of KK and a hatchet job on SF.
It made me like KK a bit more than the last book on/of KK I read (also reviewed by me on goodreads, I forget the title: a very unappetising collection of bad translations of what seemed in many cases like very strained aphorism).
I had a problem with KK's hostility to Freud inasmuch as I like Freud. But now I feel better about it, because KK's hostility focuses on what for me is the worst side of Freud, viz. the setting up of a psychoanalysis as a "science". I'm pretty much with KK's view on that; it's Freud's more general reflections (many contained within his psychoanlytical writings, though) that I like, such as his various ruminations about where religion comes from, which always strike me as pretty convincing and tonally preferable to the shrillness of a Dawkins or the debaty pugnaciousness of Hitchens (to say nothing of the carefully measured concessive reasonableness, however compulsory, of Americans like Sam Harris). Plus intellectually, he towers over that lot.
But all that said, it does seem that he was manipulative, unscrupulous, machiavellian - these are qualities I don't like, much less admire. For instance he defended the use of electric-shock torture to prod soldiers onto the front line during WWI - at least when it was done by a very prominent and powerful Vienna psychiatrist who might have some influence over Freud's destiny. This is quoted here in a footnote citing the biography by Freud's number 1 UK fan and biographer Ernest Jones, so we can be confident it isn't slander.
Of course, and here TS, SF, KK and I can all agree, the fact that someone does something loathsome at one point or in one arena doesn't per se invalidate all her other achievements.
KK was notable, it seems, for not being such a standard mix of admirable and regrettable qualities; he was purer than most of us, and dared take on the powerful of his time, and was punished for it - primarily by a conspiracy of silence, it seems. Hats off to him! But it seems fair to point out that he never depended on anybody's favour for his living, in that he lived off a large inheritance - though he seems to have put his money where his mouth was till it ran out; and Wittgenstein was among those who helped out financially when it became necessary.
Well, back to the book as a book. It's a short and angry polemic by Szasz, which was intriguing but not well enough documented to be fully convincing, especially as to what made KK so great. Szasz refers repeatedly to KK's crusading on behalf of "the proper use of language" - in some rather mystical sense it seems - without clarifying quite what the notion is supposed to mean. Perhaps he is thinking of the use of language in the construction of psychiatry and psychoanalysis as a major misuse - but he doesn't clarify.
And then the KK selecction; it's appetising but again insufficient to get a clear picture.
So my next Kraus attempt will be J Franzen's book, when I get round to it. This one - it's worth reading, in that it's a quick read (the TS) and will give some idea; but unsatisfying. And it seems there is still a dearth of good translations - or even bad ones - available in English. And really, I still don't know whether the guy will repay my continuing attention or not.
Szasz hates Freud and loves Karl Kraus. His book is simultaneously a championing of KK and a hatchet job on SF.
It made me like KK a bit more than the last book on/of KK I read (also reviewed by me on goodreads, I forget the title: a very unappetising collection of bad translations of what seemed in many cases like very strained aphorism).
I had a problem with KK's hostility to Freud inasmuch as I like Freud. But now I feel better about it, because KK's hostility focuses on what for me is the worst side of Freud, viz. the setting up of a psychoanalysis as a "science". I'm pretty much with KK's view on that; it's Freud's more general reflections (many contained within his psychoanlytical writings, though) that I like, such as his various ruminations about where religion comes from, which always strike me as pretty convincing and tonally preferable to the shrillness of a Dawkins or the debaty pugnaciousness of Hitchens (to say nothing of the carefully measured concessive reasonableness, however compulsory, of Americans like Sam Harris). Plus intellectually, he towers over that lot.
But all that said, it does seem that he was manipulative, unscrupulous, machiavellian - these are qualities I don't like, much less admire. For instance he defended the use of electric-shock torture to prod soldiers onto the front line during WWI - at least when it was done by a very prominent and powerful Vienna psychiatrist who might have some influence over Freud's destiny. This is quoted here in a footnote citing the biography by Freud's number 1 UK fan and biographer Ernest Jones, so we can be confident it isn't slander.
Of course, and here TS, SF, KK and I can all agree, the fact that someone does something loathsome at one point or in one arena doesn't per se invalidate all her other achievements.
KK was notable, it seems, for not being such a standard mix of admirable and regrettable qualities; he was purer than most of us, and dared take on the powerful of his time, and was punished for it - primarily by a conspiracy of silence, it seems. Hats off to him! But it seems fair to point out that he never depended on anybody's favour for his living, in that he lived off a large inheritance - though he seems to have put his money where his mouth was till it ran out; and Wittgenstein was among those who helped out financially when it became necessary.
Well, back to the book as a book. It's a short and angry polemic by Szasz, which was intriguing but not well enough documented to be fully convincing, especially as to what made KK so great. Szasz refers repeatedly to KK's crusading on behalf of "the proper use of language" - in some rather mystical sense it seems - without clarifying quite what the notion is supposed to mean. Perhaps he is thinking of the use of language in the construction of psychiatry and psychoanalysis as a major misuse - but he doesn't clarify.
And then the KK selecction; it's appetising but again insufficient to get a clear picture.
So my next Kraus attempt will be J Franzen's book, when I get round to it. This one - it's worth reading, in that it's a quick read (the TS) and will give some idea; but unsatisfying. And it seems there is still a dearth of good translations - or even bad ones - available in English. And really, I still don't know whether the guy will repay my continuing attention or not.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews