(Neuro)psychoanalysis, its critique, its critics / One-day symposium

(Neuro)psychoanalysis, its critique, its critics FLYER

Psychoanalysis is a critique: a critique of psychiatry (e.g. Freud), a critique of psychology (e.g. Lacan), or, more broadly, a critique of society (e.g. Adorno, Marcuse… Žižek). Psychoanalysis has also always been a critique of psychoanalysis. And, recently, psychoanalysis can also be, besides a critique of neuroscience, a critique of neuropsychoanalysis.

But, of course, neuroscience itself is a critique: a critique of our humanistic, psychologistic conceptions and illusions such as free will, love or the unified Ego (e.g. Dennett, Metzinger) and their effects on society. And clearly, neurosciences can also be, besides a critique of psychoanalysis, a critique of neuropsychoanalysis.

And finally, neuropsychoanalysis is a critique: especially, besides a critique of neuroscience, a critique of psychoanalysis (the scanner might prove Freud wrong on certain points).  

At the very least there is no lack of critique! No lack of critics neither. Or should one even say: we are all so critical now? Then it is not clear what it would take to save us now.