Opinion of Sigmund Freud

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bit of a huckster. A talented one, and one who paid his dues intellectually speaking, but even so...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The only form of science that I've never really understood from a methodological standpoint.

There are many words you could use to describe Freud's work, but "science" is not one of them.

And yet open any book published in the 1960s or 1970s, nay even a contemporary psychology textbook, and his word is treated as gospel, or at least Important. One does not become Freud simply by making some random assertions, however fascinating they may be. There must have been something in there to cause so many to give him such a high place.

Well, like traininthedistance said, it's an in many ways fascinating and compelling modernist myth system.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

An imaginative fiction writer who was pretty good at fashioning a post-religious myth system for the "modernist" age.  In that capacity, his influence endures (especially in certain humanities corners of the academy), and is only somewhat undeserved.

Obviously, his claims have less than zero empirical value, and are at best the psychological profession's equivalent of phlogiston.

Much superior to "postmodernist" age. At least a a myth is grounded in something unlike the bullsh**t we have to deal with today where words change their definitions & ideas mean different things depending on the speaker & time they are spoken.

That's how language has always worked. It just wasn't weaponized as openly before.