"In the following pages," he begins, "I shall prove that there exists a
psychological technique by which dreams may be interpreted and that upon the
application of this method every dream will show itself to be a senseful
psychological structure which may be introduced into an assignable place in
the psychic activities of the waking state."
The sweeping character of this pretension has not been justified. The
demonstration has succeeded only with that large class of dreams in which
there happens to be a trend of infantile reminiscence and of disguised
sexual phantasy. It fails to reveal the inner nature of other kinds of
dreams or the modus operandi of dreaming as a process of thinking. And while
it is asserted by the publishers of the English[3] edition that the main
contentions of his book have never been refuted, the fact is that his thesis
has not been accepted by the representatives of scientific psychology, as a
solution of the problem.
The exponents of Freudian interpretations today are medical men associated
with the practice of so-called "Psychoanalysis;" which means that they are
more concerned to apply Freud's ideas for the treatment of nervous ailments
than to cultivate pure psychology. An examination of the methods they
exemplify in individual practice and in the large literature of the
psycho-analytic movement shows sufficient reason, in my view, why the
psycho-analytic theory of dreams should still be greeted with skepticism.
Psycho-analysts tell us that repugnance for the subject-matter has delayed
acceptance of their essentially sexual interpretations. But there is also a
resistance based on sound logical criticism. Judged by this standard,
Freud's theory appears dangerously inaccurate and needs revision.