Sigmund Freud proposed that we have suffered three major blows to our self-image over the last few centuries: The Copernican Revolution showed us that we aren’t at the center of the universe. Darwinism showed us that we are just another kind of animal. Finally, Freud’s own theories showed that we’re not even masters of our own minds.
Let’s leave aside Freud’s nerve postulating that his theories have the same impact than those of Copernicus and Darwin. Piling on Freud is too easy to be fun. Instead, I’d like to focus on his claim regarding our self-image. It’s interesting and I’ve seen it repeated by others.
However, I doubt that for most of us, our sense of self depends on something that is as removed to our daily lives as chimps and us having a common ancestor. The obvious objection is, if those insights aren’t really such a big deal for us psychologically, why was there such vehement opposition to Copernicus and why is there still opposition to Darwin? If those insights don’t shake our self-image, why do they arouse such passion? Here’s Richard Dawkins on the topic:
The fury with which untenable beliefs are defended is inversely proportional to their defensibility […] When two incompatible beliefs are advocated with equal intensity, the truth does not lie half way between them.
But why defend old and wrong theories at all? I think the reason may partly be that their defenders don’t actually believe the old theories themselves, but like Freud, they believe that abandoning those theories will cause psychological or moral damage to others. The problem is that there is no evidence for this being the case: There is no dangerous knowledge.
One final thought: If Freud were alive today, would he think that AI adds further narcissistic injury by demonstrating that our minds aren’t that unique? If so, I think he’d have a better case than assuming injuries from Copernicus’, Darwin’s or his own theories.
Nehaveigur 