"psychological medicine" wrote that while a few contributors to the book took "an overtly critical stand", the majority "indulge in tortuous ratiocination which does little more than transport the familiar arguments into their own conceptual spheres", concluding that in so doing they "tend to support freud's own mistrust of philosophical inquiry." baer maintained that while some contributors to the book tried to defend freud, their contributions amounted to defenses of their own philosophical positions. he argued that they used discussing freud as an opportunity to promote their personal opinions. he criticized the omission of any contribution from the philosopher paul ricœur's "freud and philosophy" (1965). he also suggested that many of the contributions expressed familiar views, and that those from anglo-saxon authors could be contrasted with views held by french authors such as the philosopher jacques derrida and the psychoanalyst jacques lacan. he criticized the contributions by nagel, thalberg, o'shaughnessy, and davidson, and maintained that while hampshire's contribution showed "philosophic acuity", it was also for the most part "not at all concerned with freud's text."