Few figures cast a shadow as long and complex across modern thought as Sigmund Freud. He was not merely a psychologist or psychiatrist; he was trained as a neuroscientist and acted as an insightful and prescient philosopher, ultimately creating an entirely new discipline: psychoanalysis.
Freud’s most profound and enduring contribution was his theory of the unconscious, conceptualized as a structured and dynamic realm governed by repression, conflict, and desire. This groundbreaking idea decisively broke away from the Enlightenment notion of the rational, self-knowing subject, challenging the philosophical orthodoxy of his day that equated mentality entirely with consciousness.
The path to this momentous discovery was anything but linear. It was paved with frustration, contradiction, and radical shifts in perspective. Freud’s unconscious is not a simple container for forgotten memories, but a theoretical architecture that continues to influence contemporary debates on human cognition and behavior.
To understand how Freud moved from being a Vienna-trained neurologist to the revolutionary cartographer of the mind, we must examine three critical turning points—three “epistemological breaks”—that shaped his revolutionary findings and allowed him to finally unearth the dynamic depths hidden beneath the thin veneer of consciousness.
The Epistemological Break in Paris (1885-1886)
Freud’s formal training in Vienna had rooted him firmly in the anatomical-explanatory paradigm of medicine. This approach sought objective causes for disease, believing that the working area of medicine should be the soma—objective, measurable body tissues—understood through anatomical methods.
The shift began in 1885 when the 29-year-old Freud journeyed to Paris to study under the renowned neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. This five-month sojourn constituted an important epistemological break in his career.
Charcot captivated Freud primarily through his studies on hysteria, a condition that had become a crisis for the Viennese medical model because it produced clear clinical signs but left no corresponding changes in the soma or brain. Charcot demonstrated hysterical symptoms, such as glove anaesthesia (numbness limited precisely to the hand), which defied neurological pathways but made perfect sense psychologically.
For Freud, observing this suggested that the disorder lay in the patient’s thoughts—thoughts which were often wholly inaccessible to the conscious subject. Hysterics, Charcot implied, suffered from a disease not of the brain but of the mind.
Charcot famously emphasized clinical observation over rigid theory: “Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing”. This statement resonated deeply with Freud, who had previously considered science to belong strictly to the laboratory. Charcot convinced him that the clinic could be a place for scientific inquiry, shifting Freud’s loyalty from the anatomical model to the clinical-descriptive paradigm.
This encounter provided Freud with the necessary orientation to embrace the fact that physical symptoms could be caused by psychological ideas, setting the stage for his focus on the hidden dynamics of the mind. He had learned to “see” the facts in the clinic, which was a crucial first step toward hearing the patients tell their story, leading him to realize that dynamic forces—not anatomy—were the root of these illnesses.
The Discovery of Repression and Resistance (1893-1895)
While Charcot introduced Freud to the idea of psychic causation, the mechanism by which pathogenic ideas operated remained mysterious. The answer emerged through his famous collaboration with Josef Breuer, culminating in Studies on Hysteria (1895).
Breuer’s work with “Fräulein Anna O.” (Bertha Pappenheim) demonstrated that her hysterical symptoms, such as paralysis or speech dysfunctions, could be temporarily or permanently removed if she was encouraged to speak about the original traumatic event—a process she famously dubbed the “talking cure” or “chimney-sweeping”. Breuer called this emotional discharge catharsis or abreaction. The fundamental finding was that hysterics suffered mainly from forgotten but powerful reminiscences, or trapped memories and their associated feelings.
Breuer’s theoretical explanation, however, relied on the idea of “hypnoid states”—altered states of consciousness during which the disturbing events were registered and split off from the normal mind.
Freud introduced a radically different and decisive hypothesis: the pathogenic content was dissociated not because the patient was momentarily spaced out, but because the content itself was disturbing, unacceptable, and in conflict with the rest of the person’s ideas. The material was, therefore, actively kept out of awareness.
This repelling process became known as defense and later, definitively, repression.
The clinical verification of repression occurred when Freud abandoned hypnosis, as he realized that symptoms removed during a trance often returned. The trance artificially circumvented the defense, but the underlying resistance was re-established when the patient awoke. When trying to access memories without hypnosis, Freud was confronted with a powerful counterforce—resistance—which caused memory failure and actively opposed the analytic work.
The theory of repression thus became the main pillar upon which rests the edifice of psychoanalysis. It provided the crucial link: resistance was the practical manifestation of the theoretical concept of repression, and the existence of this active force implied the existence of a psychic realm—the unconscious—where unacceptable desires and thoughts were stored. Repression and resistance were not assumptions, but rather observations extracted directly from the clinical setting.
The Crisis of Seduction Theory and the Birth of Psychic Reality (1897-1900)
Initially, Freud assumed the repressed material must relate to actual events. He posited the theory of infantile seduction: neuroses stemmed from the premature introduction of sexuality by an adult seducer, leading to unintegrated, traumatic memories.
However, by 1897, Freud faced a profound crisis. The more patients recalled experiences of sexual abuse, the less plausible the theory seemed, raising doubts about whether so many Viennese children were routinely victims of their caretakers. The foundation of reality seemed lost, as analysis led to infantile sexual traumas that were often not factually true.
This moment of absolute helplessness forced Freud into a revolutionary realization: If hysterics refer their symptoms to imaginary traumas, then this new fact signifies that they create such scenes in their fantasies, and hence psychic reality deserves to be given a place next to actual reality.
He concluded that what he had taken for memories of actual events were frequently memories of wishes and longings. This watershed moment—the abandonment of the seduction theory—led directly to the realization that children are not sexually innocent and catalyzed the formation of the theory of infantile sexuality. Freud now understood that conflictual sexuality, including a wide array of diffuse sensual impulses and pregenital desires, was intrinsic to the development of all human beings, not just neurotics who had been traumatized.
This intellectual shift was paralleled by a monumental technical shift: the definitive adoption of free association. Free association, in which the patient says whatever comes to mind without censorship, became the backbone of analytic technique, aiming to dismantle defenses and reveal the unconscious contents.
The immediate “first fruits” of this new technique were the secrets contained in dreams. Freud realized that dreams are disguised fulfillments of conflictual wishes. By tracing the surface narrative (manifest content) back to the underlying secrets (latent dream thoughts), he found that the compromise structure used by the mind to conceal forbidden material in dreams was the same structure underlying neurotic symptoms and everyday slips of the tongue.
This triumvirate of discoveries—the necessity of Repression (derived from resistance), the power of Infantile Sexuality (derived from the crisis of the seduction theory), and the interpretive method revealed in Dream Analysis (derived from free association)—provided Freud with the complete theoretical and technical apparatus needed to posit and explore the dynamic unconscious, organizing his findings into the early topographical model (Unconscious, Preconscious, Conscious).
The unconscious, therefore, was confirmed not merely by speculation, but by the relentless observation of clinical phenomena: the mysterious power of non-anatomical hysterical symptoms, the active force of resistance, the universal presence of childhood sexual fantasy, and the linguistic disguises found in dreams. This reconceptualization of subjectivity as fundamentally divided and opaque remains Freud’s enduring legacy.
The Enduring Legacy of the Divided Self
Freud’s journey to the unconscious—marked by his scientific break with Charcot, his theoretical split with Breuer over the necessity of repression, and his critical abandonment of the seduction hypothesis—resulted in a paradigm shift that viewed human subjectivity as fundamentally divided, mediated, and opaque.
His metapsychological framework, detailed in seminal works like The Interpretation of Dreams and later refined in structural models like The Ego and the Id, revealed that the mind is driven by forces (Triebe) that exist at the borderline between the psychic and the somatic. The drive is characterized by a “being-towards” the world, yet remains bound by internal antinomies, such as the dialectic between Eros (life drive) and Thanatos (death drive).
Although critics like Karl Popper have questioned the scientific status of psychoanalysis, ongoing developments in neuroscience and psychology, particularly concerning unconscious processing and emotional regulation, suggest that Freud’s ideas retain significant value. Contemporary neuroscientific models, such as the Free Energy Principle (FEP), demonstrate remarkable consistency with Freudian concepts like the primary and secondary processes, helping to bridge the gap between neural and psychological understanding of the mind-brain system.
Ultimately, Freud’s intense work resulted in a shift of psychoanalytic technique from merely interpreting secrets to directly confronting resistances and enabling patients to re-experience repressed material within the transference. His monumental efforts in charting the unknown terrain of the mind continue to provide a rich theoretical foundation for understanding the complex depths of being.
References
Aqsa Maheen, & Poznjakova, O. L. (2025). The depths of being: Freud’s unconscious and its philosophical legacy. (O. L. Poznjakova, Tutor). Belarusian State Medical University.
Beyond the Pleasure Principle. (n.d.). Open School East.
Breuer, J. (1893). Fräulein Anna O, Case histories from Studies on hysteria. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Volume II (1893–1895): Studies on hysteria (pp. 19–47).
Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1893). On the psychical mechanism of hysterical phenomena: Preliminary communication from Studies on hysteria. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Volume II (1893–1895): Studies on hysteria (pp. 1–17).
Cieri, F., & Esposito, R. (2019). Psychoanalysis and neuroscience: The bridge between mind and brain. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01983
Dyer, R. (2023). Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud’s Studies on Hysteria 1893, 1895. The Victorian Web.
Freud, S. (1917). The history of the psychoanalytic movement (A. A. Brill, Trans.). Nervous and Mental Disease Pub. Co. (Original work published 1914).
Mitchell, S. A., & Black, M. J. (1996). Freud and beyond: A history of modern psychoanalytic thought. Basic Books.
Sinatora, F., & Mezzalira, S. (2021). Freud’s concept of “Trieb”. A psychoanalytical account of its antinomic nature. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.32111/SAS.2021.1.2.3
Smith, D. L. (2017, August 10). Before fathering psychoanalysis, Freud first slayed the dominant Cartesian intellectual tradition of mind-body dualism. Aeon.
Yılmaz, Y. A. (2021). Freud’s encounter with Charcot and his epistemological break. USBAD Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Akademi Dergisi – International Journal of Social Sciences Academy, 3(6), 887–908. https://doi.org/10.47994/usbad.896740
Leave a Reply