![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 1:29:53
Have been doing some reading trying to understand psychoanalytic theory.
‘According to Freud, the development of the libido, sometimes referred to as sexuality or the life instinct, is what drives our psychological development.
Freud’s theory of the death instinct was drawn from his experience of the outside world, particularly of the First World War, from his difficulty in understanding how human beings could put themselves through so much misery without rebelling.
He worked it into his metapsychology by arguing that both the life and death instincts come from the same root and have the same aim: a release of tension. However, they choose different ways to achieve that aim. The life instinct chooses a circuitous route through the formation of relationships with others, sexual activity and the production of children, the continuation of life. The death instinct chooses a more direct route: the release of tension forever. However, it can be subordinated to the life instinct when it is directed against an external enemy…
[What I'm wondering about now is whether we need to posit a ‘death instinct’ in addition to the ‘life instinct’, or whether we can make do with the libido?]
[Melanie Klein suggested] that we regard it as a natural destructive impulse, built into our physical movements and our ability to feel angry.
These two drives... Can be seen as providing the energy for psychic life and the basis of the psychic structures... The problem with carthartic release is that the energy builds up again so we get back to where we started from... Psychoanalytic therapy... aims at changing the structures through which the energy is processed.
"Psychoanalysis: A Critical Introduction" pp. 19-20
What I'm wondering about now is whether we need to posit an ‘agressive instinct’ in addition to the ‘life instinct’, or whether we can make do with the libido?
Posted by James K on January 17, 2006, at 11:29:50
In reply to Eros and Thanatos, posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 1:29:53
um, that was all over my head, so I wrote a poem using your words. sorry. carry on.
Freud’s Libido
Sexuality drives a circuitous route.
Our physical movements drives his root.
Energy builds up, Release of tension
against the outside world,
his theory formation.
We achieve forever from his difficulty.
He worked it into his metapsychology.
do> make with comeputso much directed feelaim.releaseIntroductionsexual act
libido, a release of tension.‘According to Freud, the development of the sometimes referred to as or the life instinct, is what our psychological development.need of the death instinct was drawn from experience of , particularly of the First World War, in understanding how human beings could themselves through misery without ebelling.
> He by arguing that both the life and death instincts from the same and have the same aim: However, they choose different ways to that The life instinct chooses through the of relationships with others, ivity and heproduction of children, the continuation of life. The death instinct chooses a more direct route: the.However, it can be subordinated to the life instinct when it is an external enemy…
>> [What I'm wondering about now is whether need to posit a ‘death instinct’ in addition to e ‘life instinct’, or whether we can make do with the ?]> [Melanie Klein suggested] that we regard it as a natural destructive impulse, built into and our ability to angry.
> These two ... Can be seen as providing the energy for psychic life and the basis of the psychic structures... The problem with carthartic is that again so we get back to where we started from... Psychoanalytic therapy... aims at changing the structures through which the energy is processed.>
> "Psychoanalysis: A Critical " pp. 19-20
> What I'm wondering about now is whether we to posit an ‘agressive instinct’ in addition to the ‘life instinct’, or whether we can the libido?
Posted by James K on January 17, 2006, at 15:25:23
In reply to Re: Eros and Thanatos » alexandra_k, posted by James K on January 17, 2006, at 11:29:50
Posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 16:20:01
In reply to Re: Eros and Thanatos » alexandra_k, posted by James K on January 17, 2006, at 11:29:50
Hey. No problem.
I liked your poem :-)I’m having a little trouble understanding it myself… At this point I suppose I’m aiming for a general overview of what psychoanalysts (fairly generally speaking) believe about the structure of mind. To this end they employ theoretical terms like ‘life instinct’, ‘death instinct’, ‘conscious’, ‘unconscious’, ‘preconscious’, ‘id’, ‘ego’, ‘superego’ etc. These structures are supposed to interact in various ways. So understanding the theory is a matter of understanding something of what each term is supposed to mean / refer to (what is each structure about?) and understanding something of the role that each term plays in the structure of the theory (how does the structure interact with other structures?). But each theoretical term… Is a concept that you need to acquire… And that can be hard going, yes. At the moment I’m aiming for a fairly minimalist description of each theoretical term so as to build up the general picture fairly swiftly and not to get too lost in the trees. After seeing the general shape of the woods we can go back and consider the nature / function of each structure in more detail if people would like. At this point I’m thinking… You just kind of need to go along with the structures they posit (in order to be able to see the woods) and I suppose we will see where we end up…
I was trying to summarize through selective quotation, but maybe I can do a little better than that...
Two drives / instincts (that seek reduction in tension):
EROS – (aka ‘life instinct’ aka ‘libido’) functions to motivate interpersonal relationships, sex, reproduction, survival)
THANATOS – (aka ‘death instinct’) functions to motivate ‘the release of tension forever (ie by death).
Melanie Klein replaces the ‘death instinct’ with a ‘destructive instinct’.
But still two drives...
The role of these drives in the theory is that they are supposed to provide the energy / motivation for mental activity and hence the energy / motivation for the mental structures (id, ego, and superego I’m guessing at this point). Just how they function to do that is coming up next (conscious, preconscious, unconscious).
Posted by James K on January 17, 2006, at 16:42:11
In reply to Eros and Thanatos, posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 1:29:53
>
> ‘According to Freud, the development of the libido, sometimes referred to as sexuality or the life instinct, is what drives our psychological development.
>
>
> He worked it into his metapsychology by arguing that both the life and death instincts come from the same root and have the same aim: a release of tension. However, they choose different ways to achieve that aim. The life instinct chooses a circuitous route through the formation of relationships with others, sexual activity and the production of children, the continuation of life. The death instinct chooses a more direct route: the release of tension forever. However, it can be subordinated to the life instinct when it is directed against an external enemy…
>
> [What I'm wondering about now is whether we need to posit a ‘death instinct’ in addition to the ‘life instinct’, or whether we can make do with the libido?]---Is the part in brackets you speaking/thinking?
> [Melanie Klein suggested] that we regard it as a natural destructive impulse, built into our physical movements and our ability to feel angry.
>
> These two drives... Can be seen as providing the energy for psychic life and the basis of the psychic structures... The problem with carthartic release is that the energy builds up again so we get back to where we started from... Psychoanalytic therapy... aims at changing the structures through which the energy is processed.---Does Klein introduce the idea of two seperate drives instead of two manifestations of the same drive (libido)
>
> "Psychoanalysis: A Critical Introduction" pp. 19-20
>
> What I'm wondering about now is whether we need to posit an ‘agressive instinct’ in addition to the ‘life instinct’, or whether we can make do with the libido?
>
---Now this is definitely you talking here. I'm not clear if you are wondering about adopting Klein as your belief or if you are postulating a new version of the old ideas.---One of the reasons I quit school 20 years ago was because when I was expected to analyze the ideas of the great thinkers, I was overwhelmed. What can I offer to what the greatest minds have written about Plato, Shakespeare, Freud etc.
--- One of the things I'm hearing is thantanos can be used against others in war or conflict, but in the abscence of above conflict, It can be used against ourselves. In practical terms I need to focus on Eros. Is this how maladaptive coping skills enter the picture.
--- It's always about me huh. Good luck in your studies. If this helps in any way I'd be proud and amazed, but your explanations helped me.
Thanks,
James K
Posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 17:49:44
In reply to Re: Eros and Thanatos » alexandra_k, posted by James K on January 17, 2006, at 16:42:11
> ---Is the part in brackets you speaking/thinking?
Yep.
> ---Does Klein introduce the idea of two seperate drives instead of two manifestations of the same drive (libido)She seems to consider the 'destructive / agressive instinct' to be a seperate drive from the 'life instinct', yup. Freud seems to consider the 'death instinct' to be a seperate drive from the 'life instinct' as well. So they seem to be in agreement as to their being two drives. They seem to agree over the 'life instinct' but seem to disagree over the precise nature of the second drive (death as opposed to destruction).
> ---Now this is definitely you talking here.
Yep.
> I'm not clear if you are wondering about adopting Klein as your belief or if you are postulating a new version of the old ideas.
I was wondering whether we can make do with a single drive rather than positing two different drives.
So...
----------------------------->
libidoSounds a lot like Darwins notion of survival and reproduction to me... If there is a mismatch between the object of the drive (what one needs / desires) and reality then that could produce the energy for the psychic structures... But maybe I need to wait and see the role that the death instinct / destructive impulse is supposed to play in the theory.
I think... That you can redescribe a 'death wish' as loss of hope that your libido drive can be fulfilled. You can redescribe war as the drive to preserve your society / way of life. Agressiveness as hunting (libido drive) or not appreciating the destruction to you and others around you...
But thats just what I'm thinking.
Probably need to wait and see...
> ---One of the reasons I quit school 20 years ago was because when I was expected to analyze the ideas of the great thinkers, I was overwhelmed. What can I offer to what the greatest minds have written about Plato, Shakespeare, Freud etc.
Well. They just offer their opinion. And nobody has it all worked out. Different theorists have different good points and different failings. Often it is about trying to synthesise the good points into a coherent theory that avoids the failings. But at the end of the day you end up with just another opinion yup :-)
> --- One of the things I'm hearing is thantanos can be used against others in war or conflict, but in the abscence of above conflict, It can be used against ourselves.Yeah. So everybody needs to have an enemy so that the death instinct is serving the life instinct? I don't like that. I don't think people need to have enemies in order to be psychologically healthy. In fact... I would think that absence of enemies could be healthier... But maybe the death instinct is supposed to be reduced via the process of therapy? Nope. Still don't like it.
> In practical terms I need to focus on Eros. Is this how maladaptive coping skills enter the picture.
Yeah. I don't see how we need a death instinct / a destructive instinct. I don't see what it buys us that can't be explained in terms of the life instinct.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 17:59:06
In reply to Re: Eros and Thanatos » James K, posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 17:49:44
Also... Leamings (mass suicide) turned out to be a myth...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 17:19:41
In reply to Re: Eros and Thanatos, posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2006, at 17:59:06
the more i read... the worse it gets lol.
i have been searching high and low for something within the analytic philosophy framework that is on psychoanalysis. i've only managed to find a couple of things. both were in a philosophy of science vein. looking at whether psychoanalysis was a science or not. they were reasonable efforts. showed how the 'usual' objections didn't really apply... but fairly much concluded that it is best not to consider it as a science (or it ends up in trouble).
but thats okay. i've heard there is debate as to whether it is a scientific theory or a... um... literary / interpretive device or something like that.
but now i'm worrying about its claim to that too.
i mean...
if it is merely an interpretive device then why adopt the psychoanalytic interpretive device over alternative interpretive devices?
why not adopt more charitable ones?
or...
more to the point...why not integrate folk-psychology (a systematised version of what the folk believe about mental states etc), cognitive neuro-psychology, and evolutionary theory?
figure out the sciences...
figure out the scope of possible interpretations...
figure out charitable interpretations that fall within that scope.i mean... if it isn't a matter of truth (as correspondance)... and there are alternative theories that are equally coherent... then why not go with pragmatism?
why not be charitable?
crap.
i hoped this was going to be good :-(
the interpretation of dreams and symbols
is like the interpretation of tea leaves
is like a rosarch test
maybe the interpretations the client offers (when in the grip of the theory) do reveal something about the 'unconscious'this wonderful magical unconscious
this little genius in the head who carefully screens what gets let into the conscious
that works really hard to disguise the contents of the unconsciousthere is no little genius in the head.
sigh.
but apparantly psychoanalytic theory offers (or considers or whatever) multiple levels of meaning and so on and so forth.
it seems to me...
that the unconscious contains stuff the person / society considers unacceptable (by definition)
and thus if you want to get into touch with your unconscious just start spouting those kinds of thoughts.
lol
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 17:51:39
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-(, posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 17:19:41
:-)
I suspect that good therapists of all different backgrounds can give reasonable insight, perhaps using different words, when one on one with a client in the therapy room.
And less good therapists try to cram clients into molds that fit their own beliefs.
I doubt that good psychoanalytic therapists are less "charitable" towards their clients than, say, CBT ones. :) It probably depends more on therapist than school of thought.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 19:32:01
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 17:51:39
> :-)
well... i'm glad someone is getting a smile out of it
:-(> I suspect that good therapists of all different backgrounds can give reasonable insight, perhaps using different words, when one on one with a client in the therapy room.
Ah. But what is 'insight'?
Knowledge of the real motives?
How do you distinguish between the 'real' and the 'phoney' motives?
Thats where the theory comes into it...
> I doubt that good psychoanalytic therapists are less "charitable" towards their clients than, say, CBT ones. :) It probably depends more on therapist than school of thought.mmm.
i guess i'm not so much thinking of therapy...
as i am thinking about what the different theories have to say about what people REALLY believe and desire. What the REAL motivations are for our behaviour.Is there a fact of the matter?
(If there is then psychoanalysis would be trying to be a science)
If there is no fact of the matter... If it is a matter of interpretation...
Then why o why go on about all the rubbish they go on about for???
?
I don't understand
:-(
one of the main criticisms of psychoanalysis is that it forms something along the lines of a closed group. you have to be a member to learn about it... you have to choose your particular orientation (from within the major branches) and there is little room to manouver with respect to changing orientations.
it comes across as something of a secret society or a cult.
and because they don't welcome 'outsiders' and because they don't acknowledge or respond to critisms / critiques they alienate themselves from the rest of the disciplines.
i've mentioned it to analytic philosophers...
they typically screw up their faces...
:-(
dammit.
i thought i might be able to learn about that. but no go. i'd have to write something on how it is of interest to analytic philosophers...
yeah they'd be interested.
it would compare nicely to Dennett's 'astrological stance'
(where predictions are no better then guesses and explanations are pseudo-explanations)
though...
if you internalise the theory...
you can make it so in your own life.
but what i don't understand is...
why the hell would you want to do that?
i mean... the majority of the severest judgements... come from the psychoanalytic literature... from what i've noticed anyways...
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 19:48:49
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 19:32:01
I think the more recent psychoanalytic writings aren't all that negative. Have you read the more recent stuff?
I think an interpretation is "true" if it is true for that client. My therapist always proposes things, he doesn't assert them. It's up to me to decide if he's right or not.
But how are those different than what CBT therapists do, in the long run? Aren't they always having you figure out what your secondary gain, or internal dialogues are? And don't they try pretty hard to *tell* you what those are?
Maybe it is more of an art.
Isn't literature supposed to tell great truths about the human condition? Yet isn't it just as likely that the authors who you would identify as speaking great truths aren't necessarily the same ones who I would identify? It doesn't mean the author isn't speaking truths about the human condition, just not about everybody's human condition.
And it doesn't mean that a therapist can't point out our unconscious motivations, or our truths, or why we do the things we do.
Sigh. I don't know, and I'm not sure my thinking is clear enough to even know what I'm talking about.
I just know that when I was going to therapy twice a week and things were working, I sure was doing better than I am now. :(
Posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 19:55:12
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 19:32:01
yet there is some truth in it...
it seems to capture something...
i wondered if the explanandum was different. that maybe psychoanalysis attempts to explain processes that recurr in peoples lives. whereas cognitive behaviour theorists attempt to explain present behaviour (and don't really care about what has happened in the past except how it may manifest in the present and don't really care about recurrent patterns...)
but i'm not sure that thats it...
there seems to be something...
(which is why it hasn't vanished like alchemy)
the defence mechanisms...
projection
etc...i think there is something to those...
but they still need a folk-psychological / cognitive neuro-psychological / evolutionary explanation
instead of a two drives / conscious, unconcsious, preconscious / id, ego, superego explanation
IMHO
can you translate the insights into the language of modern science????
i thought that might be an interesting project...
but i really do despair at times...
it would really help things along if an analytic philosopher had done a general overview of the theory...
(no offense intended but it is a little hard to cope with tracts on how the main resistence to psychoanalysis is that behaviour is determined and people don't always have direct first person access to their real motivations and intentions)
and the greatest trouble would be...
doing away with the unconscious (as an intelligent agent who censors etc)
but if you do away with that...
apparantly its not psychoanalytic anymore.
in which case...
it would be like trying to turn tea leaf reading into a science...
(ie a pointless waste of time)
and regarding it as an 'interpretive strategy' is... well... a matter of personal decision. and what does it buy you? a pretty morbid view of people and their place in the world, i have to say.and really... since darwin... we are starting to develop a view of people and their place in the world in terms of their biological (and social) drives and their cognitive structures (which have evolved in order to help people achieve more of their goals)
i mean... a mind all divided in on itself... why would that evolve for? whats the point? we are a biological system? when all goes well... there is supposed to be harmony. not intrinsic internal conflict...
f*ck knows.
not having a good day :-(
Posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 20:13:58
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 19:48:49
sorry we crossed posts with my last rant...
> I think the more recent psychoanalytic writings aren't all that negative. Have you read the more recent stuff?
er... like that piece on massification that you didn't like so much ;-)
> I think an interpretation is "true" if it is true for that client.so you don't think that there is a fact of the matter as to why someone did what they did? what their real motivations are? because if it is a matter of interpretation... then it follows that there is not a fact of the matter.
regarding 'true for me'... i'm not so sure about this... i don't know... i'll try and think of an example or two...
> My therapist always proposes things, he doesn't assert them. It's up to me to decide if he's right or not.
yes. i wonder if he sees it the same way or if he thinks you are in denial for not accepting his view of your real motivation?
> But how are those different than what CBT therapists do, in the long run? Aren't they always having you figure out what your secondary gain, or internal dialogues are? And don't they try pretty hard to *tell* you what those are?
not really... especially not if they are fairly behavoiurally focused. intentions don't matter. are irrelevant... in fact... according to behaviourism there isn't any such thing as an intention. behaviour is under the control of rft contingencies and a persons conscious experience is irrelevant.
> Maybe it is more of an art.
okay. but then it isn't a theory of what people really believe and desire. it isn't a theory of mind at all. it has no predictive leverage. it has no explanatory leverage. it is... like reading poetry or gazing at tealeaves to figure out the meaning of life.
> Isn't literature supposed to tell great truths about the human condition?
depends who you ask.
i think literature is about... entertainment. we enjoy it :-)what claims to they make that are candidates for truth or falsity?
> I just know that when I was going to therapy twice a week and things were working, I sure was doing better than I am now. :(
hmm.
i guess i'm just interested in why people do what they do.
intentions
motivations
is there a fact of the matter?
if so then how do we know what is true?
if not then what is the scope of possible interpretations?
what should the criteria be on 'better' or 'worse' interpretations to adopt?i dunno...
just raving really and not making a lot of sense.i guess i wanted to look at psychoanalysis as a theroy of mind. but it isn't a credible theory of mind. so... there it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 20:17:15
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 20:13:58
in fact...
i've been reading...
and there was something that sounded relevant to you...
and sounded particularly relevant to what some t's have said about you...i dunno if you want to hear it or not...
it makes some sense of why they said what they did.
and what they think is going on.but i have to say...
i think it is b*llshit myself.
and i think it is based on a view that shows a complete disregard for darwin and the fact that we are EVOLVED beings.
where cognition and emotion etc are supposed to be ON OUR SIDE helping us achieve our goals / desires
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:23:20
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-(, posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 20:17:15
I think we won't make any real headway discussing this because we have different views of how positive a viewpoint Darwinism is.
I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution. I'm just saying that I don't see it as a particularly happy view of humanity.
After all, sickle cell anemia is a Darwinian adaptation. But it certainly isn't a positive thing for modern man.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:48:17
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:23:20
> After all, sickle cell anemia is a Darwinian adaptation. But it certainly isn't a positive thing for modern man.
Our evolved brains have provided us with the cognitive means to develop the natural sciences. Science has provided the means to test people for genetic conditions. If people had that knowledge BEFORE deciding to have children... Science has also provided the means to test pre-embryos for genetic conditions. If people don't want their child to have a serious genetic disorder... The technology is there.
There is no logical compulsion from eliminating pre-embryos with serious genetic conditions to selecting pre-embryos for blue eyes and blonde hair.
But some peoples cognitive development... Has a way to go yet
;-)
Foresight and empathy...
Evolved characteristics.Better to duck an incoming brick than to duck once the brick has already hit you. Even though the ability to duck an incoming brick doesn't come cheap (requires a visual system hooked up to a motor system etc). But I guess it was worth it because all people (unless they are very severely disabled) have a ducking reflex.
Better to prevent global warming / nuclear holocaust etc than to leave future generations to clean up our messes.
Though thats not quite a reflex / a self evident truth just yet...
Cognitively...
We are still evolving.
Compassion
ForesightBut maybe that is a matter of faith...
Or hope.
Or something
Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 4:00:38
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:48:17
I am in a funny head space today...
Sorry Dinah, I don't know what happened to this thread. Except that I started out all excited and became fairly disillusioned fairly quickly.Maybe it is because for a while now I have been wanting to understand more about psychoanalytic theory. Because in terms of therapy... It seems preferable (to me) than CBT (which isn't really a coherant theory so much as a hodge podge of different types of interventions kludged together for their pragmatic value). But maybe thats not very charitable.
I don't know. I was hoping I would find something... But I don't think... I really don't think that it is something that I can accept. And they would say I'm in denial. And there simply isn't a way to refute that.
But I'm probably being uncharitable.
I don't know.
I'm just going through something or other right now. Some kind of conflict about what it is that I'm going to do. I really wanted to do more coursework. Learn some more about lots of different things. But no can do. Need to pick something... Something that I will be focusing on for 3 (or 4) years. And so... I really need to hurry up with that. And the topic I liked... Well someone has already written a book on that and I finished the book kind of going 'well, that is that then' and I've sort of lost interest...
So what on earth am I going to do?
And I'm kind of going 'anything anything I can do anything at all and so what would I most like to do?'
And I don't know. I don't know.
Maybe...
Beliefs / Desires / Motivations / Intentions.
Is there a fact of the matter?
If so then what is the relationship between the mental facts (about those states) and the physical facts (about ones brain)?It is an old topic...
Has been around for centuries...
Still. Maybe I should just jump on the bandwagon and hope that along the way... I learn stuff / figure out stuff...
Because who am I kidding, it amounts to the same old: what the f*ck is wrong with me? and how the hell is it supposed to go (ie if there wasn't anything wrong with me) at any rate?
?
Angst.
Or something.
Maybe I'm getting my period
sigh
Posted by Declan on January 20, 2006, at 13:03:16
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 17:51:39
Excuse me if not reading the full thread leads to redundancy. My understanding is that Freud originally had a tricammeral thingo, Id, Ego, Superego, and then later superimposed a not entirely consistant life/death thingo on top. This may not matter too much if achieving theoretical coherance is unimportant.
Libido can be understood as anything from interest to sex. Aggression? How come aggression is so close to sex? Does that make it libido, or not, or I shouldn't worry?
Freud's increasing pessimissm was associated with the worsening political situation in Central Europe (2, I think, of his sisters in their 80's were sent to Theresenstadt, perishing.)
Declan
Posted by Declan on January 20, 2006, at 13:12:46
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:23:20
I've read further. That's what the Victorians, Darwin himself, agonised about. Evolution is not a happy view of humanity, which, in my opinion does not deserve one. We are an imaginative species, and the same imagination that led to Bach led those german bureaucrats to imagine, and draw up the plans, to desroy 1/3 of the population of the USSR west of the Urals. Imagination cuts both ways. Isn't that the meaning of evil? And isn't that, our imagination, what makes us so much worse (and better, I suppose) than all the other life forms. Why am I angry? I seem to have run away with myself. History? Maybe it's all a bit much.
With peace, hopefully
Declan
Posted by Declan on January 20, 2006, at 13:22:27
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-(, posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 4:00:38
I'm rather keen on psychoanalysis, I've no idea why, certainly not because it works. Maybe because I like the architecture of Central europe and the pessimism of it. But I read a great book arguing against it by Ernest Gellner "The Psychoanalytic Movement. The Cunning of Unreason", which tries to take the Nietzche out of Freud, or rather the reverse.
Declan
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.