The book attempts to describe the complete process of neurotic personality development: how and why it starts, how it affects a person's behavior and life choices. It's full of references to real-life cases Horney encountered as a psychoanalyst.
Many concepts presented in this book where a revelation to me, and I believe it significantly deepened my understanding of myself and human psychology in general.
I think anyone could benefit from reading this, because even if you're not neurotic at all, you will inevitably meet someone who is.
I honestly have no idea. I did a quick search and I couldn't find any notable further works on neurosis in the field of psychoanalysis (perhaps E.Fromm, Adler? But this is the same generation). Surely other branches of psychology keep studying the subject.
To me personally, Horney's observations felt enough accurate and complete, so I wasn't really looking for other books on the subject.
The constructions I have described show how to make precise mathematical sense of the Buddhist views. This does not, of course, show that they are true.
> How can contradictions be true? What’s all this talk of ineffability? This is all nonsense. The constructions I have described show how to make precise mathematical sense of the Buddhist views. This does not, of course, show that they are true. That’s a different matter. But it does show that these ideas can be made as logically rigorous and coherent as ideas can be.
No, they are nonsense. Nothing that claims that something can be true and false can be logically rigorous. To be logically rigorous means to be logical---and to be logical means to obey the law of non-contradiction.
Anyway, it's at least gross negligence for the author to write an article like this and then not explicitly declare that these ideas are nonsensical.
I think I have made my point, I don't want to continue the discussion, though I will be interested to read any further follow-ups.
while i don't agree with priest either, your reasoning is bad.
the point is not to argue against how people define logic, or anything as arbitrary or seemingly self-defeating as that.
the point is to provide a functional logic in the face of the liar's paradox and the like. regardless of the motivations of individual philosophers, the work itself posits as motivations actual technical problems. the technical problems generally arise from self-reference, but (as you can see with varieties of incompleteness proofs as well) you don't need outright self-reference to get the truth of a statement resting on its negation.
yell all you want about rigor, the onus is on you to use conventional logic to resolve these tensions. again, i personally think that proponents of many-valued logic are misguided in their large scale view of truth functional representation (and i probably think the same of you!). however, i respect that they seek to defend it by solving problems rather than saying "hurr, 'this is a lie' just doesn't mean anything at all. and oh yeah, language is compositional, truth is correspondence, and i'll hear nothing saying otherwise!"
https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d...