Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: “The disease called man”--Nietzsche

  1. #1 “The disease called man”--Nietzsche 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    “The disease called man”--Nietzsche

    Aristotle said that all men seek happiness. Freud said that the goal of the pleasure-principle is happiness. Man’s desire for happiness sets at odds to the reality-principle. It is the reality-principle that propels the world into tomorrow. Humans naturally seek what they wish but “reality imposes on human beings the necessity of renunciation of pleasures”.

    Therein lay the rub an the rub is called repression.

    Freud says that the whole edifice of psychoanalysis is constructed on the theory of repression—the essence of society is the repression of the individual--the essence of the individual is repression of him or her self—Freud’s theory is that the phenomena dreams, neurotic symptoms, and errors are caused—i.e. the principle of psychic determinism—they are meaningful because this means there is purpose or intention—“since the purport of these purposive expressions is generally unknown to the person whose purpose they express, Freud is driven to embrace the paradox that there are in a human being purposes of which he knows nothing, involuntary purpose”—i.e. unconscious ideas.

    Neurosis is “the disease called man” Nietzsche. “Neurosis is an essential consequence of civilization or culture.” Brown

    “Between “normality” and “abnormality” there is no qualitative but only a quantitative difference, based largely on the practical question of whether our neurosis is serious enough to incapacitate us for work.” The difference between “neurotic and healthy is only that the healthy have a socially useful form of neurosis.”

    Freud defined psychoanalysis as “nothing more than discovery of the unconscious in mental life”—the other hypothesis is that “some unconscious ideas in a human being are incapable of becoming conscious to him in the ordinary way, because they are strenuously disowned and resisted by the conscious life”.

    Norman Brown tells us that to comprehend Freud one must understand “repression”. “In the new Freudian perspective, the essence of society is repression of the individual, the essence of the individual is repression of the self.”

    Freud discovered the importance of repression when he discovered the meaning of the “mad” symptoms of the mentally deranged, plus the meaning of dreams, and thirdly the everyday happenings regarded as slips of the tongue, errors, and random thoughts. He concludes that dreams, mental derangements, and common every day errors (Freudian slips) have meaningful causes that can be explained. Meaningful is the key word here.

    Since these psychic phenomena are unconscious we must accept that we have motivation to action with a purpose for which we are unconscious (involuntary purposes). This inner nature of which we are completely unaware leads to Freud’s definition of psychoanalysis as “nothing more than the discovery of the unconscious in mental life.”

    Freud discovered that sapiens have unconscious causes which are hidden from her because they are disowned and hidden by the conscious self. The dynamic relationship between the unconscious and conscious life is a constant battle and psychoanalysis is a science of this mental conflict.

    The rejection of an idea which is one’s very own and remains so is repression. The essence of repression is in the fact that the individual refuses to recognize this reality of her very own nature. This nature becomes evident when it erupts into consciousness only in dreams or neurotic symptoms or by slips of the tongue.

    The unconscious is illuminated only when it is being repressed by the conscious mind. It is a process of psychic conflict. “We obtain our theory of the unconscious from the theory of repression.” Freud’s hypothesis of the repressed unconscious results from the conclusion that it is common to all humans. This is a phenomenon of everyday life; neurosis is common to all humans.

    Dreams are normal phenomena and being that the structure of dreams is common to neurotics and normal people the dream is also neurotic. “Between “normality” and “abnormality” there is no qualitative but only quantitative difference, based largely on the practical question of whether our neurosis is serious enough to incapacitate us for work…the doctrine of the universal neurosis of mankind is the psychoanalytical analogue of the theological doctrine of original sin.”

    Quotes from “Life against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History” Norman O. Brown

    If you do not perceive your self to be a cauldron of conflict does that mean that the science of psychology is just a bunch of baloney?

    If you look and cannot see it does that mean it does not exist?

    Must we prepare our self in order to see?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    If you do not perceive your self to be a cauldron of conflict does that mean that the science of psychology is just a bunch of baloney?
    No the whole point about freud's psychoanalysis is that everyone develops conflicts inside themselves but uses defence mechanisms to avoid exposing them as to do so would result in an emotional breakdown. As long as you are capable of functioning well, your defence mechanisms are working well and you dont need help.
    Conflict only becomes relevant when your defence mechanisms dont work sufficiently and you begin to behave oddly and cope badly with it.

    this is the problem with freud; it is very cyclical, if someone denies having a problem it may be that they are denying the problem as a defence mechanism or indeed that they dont actually have a problem and the difference to a psychologist may not be that clear.


    I dont understand you other two questions.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Robbie

    My other two questions focus upon the adage that "we cannot see that for which we are not prepared to see".

    This is, in my opinion, a very important truism that we need constantly to focus upon.

    As we stand in the forest you might point in a direction and say to me that over there is a great mountain range. I might answer that I cannot see that mountain range and you might say that I must climb to the top of this hill before I can see that mountain range in the distance. Such is the case in all matters; we can see only what we are prepared to see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If you do not perceive your self to be a cauldron of conflict does that mean that the science of psychology is just a bunch of baloney?
    You will likely perceive it to be so.

    If you look and cannot see it does that mean it does not exist?
    From your perspective, it doesn't exist in the present. However, if you live long enough, it will probably come to exist in the future. I mean, you'll eventually discover that it existed all along.

    Failing to perceive something is just a stay of execution.


    Must we prepare our self in order to see?
    Sometimes. It's more like you have to prepare yourself in order to understand what you're seeing. A dog can see a TV screen as well as you or I, but it can't see the picture on the screen (they're just a bunch of random dots to a dog).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Freud has been pretty well debunked, defenestrated and defamed. Promotion of his 'theories' would be most at home in pseudo science along with all the nonsense about faked moon landings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Freud has been pretty well debunked, defenestrated and defamed. Promotion of his 'theories' would be most at home in pseudo science along with all the nonsense about faked moon landings.
    I often encounter negativity toward the sciences of psychology and psychoanalysis but I always discover it is just sophomoric bluff and bluster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Freud has been pretty well debunked, defenestrated and defamed. Promotion of his 'theories' would be most at home in pseudo science along with all the nonsense about faked moon landings.
    I often encounter negativity toward the sciences of psychology and psychoanalysis but I always discover it is just sophomoric bluff and bluster.
    I am not denigrating the science of psychology. Freud's psychoanalytic theories, however, have no place in modern psychology. [I noted with interest elsewhere in the forum, after posting my original comments, remarks to the effect that Karl Popper had placed psychoanalysis firmly in the realm of pseudoscience. I'm happy to be associated with him.]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Freud 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Frued is correct in that he notates sex as the primary motive force in biology (concurrent with evolution). And I do believe that his analysis methods are pertainent to that kind of merit, which, as it IS the most prominant kind of "merit to an organism", his analysis methods are not completely blind. I do believe that allows Freud to be placed above mere pseudoscience on a hierarchy of applicable mental analysis.

    concerning different takes on repression: If you assume it is merely a biological construct (or that the term merely defines a recognizable biological structure that has multifaceted utilization), it should not be taken, in semantics, to represent so completely an inherent social ineptitude. That is the problem with phsycoanalysis, it is it's interperatation, not in it's notation of the biological construct that motivates action.

    In interperatation, you open a pandoras box of inherent moral concerns. You must define what is "healthy" absolutely in a manner that is concurrent with the actual needs physical organs and cells themselves(an action that phsycologists still have not endeavored to try. Which, in some respects is a good thing in my opinion, because there is no absolutely correct way to live that is the trump of every other (morality)). That is what phsycology has yet to do though; the intricate and complex task of unifying it's self with neurology (an undeveloped science in freuds day).

    Beyond these points, I am not sure what questions to address.
    -jon kuder
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Freud is by no means debunked, it is still central to psychology today although his theory has been developed and tested further.
    His psychoanalysis is still quite fundamental and although his writings are an extreme, they are still quite useful. I think the fact that it can cause harm if inappropriately used proves the deep understanding of the theory.
    You can say that he has no place in psychology today but he is still the founder of modern psychology and indeed if you are a Ramachandran fan, the basis/explanation of some neurological conditions.

    (Also the reason you reject him is a defence mechanism against your failure to comprehend the implications of the theory, or perhaps your full understanding of the implications for you on a subconscious level )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Freud is by no means debunked, it is still central to psychology today although his theory has been developed and tested further.
    No it is not. The fact that it isn't debunked means that it can't be falsified. I should add that to Popper, for example, that doesn't mean its meaningless. Just that it isn't scientific. Of course, the belief that pixies live under our beds is just as reliable a belief as in Freud's psychoanalysis. Although, the belief in pixies has a more reliable track record. Freud was a fraud, after all.

    His psychoanalysis is still quite fundamental and although his writings are an extreme, they are still quite useful. I think the fact that it can cause harm if inappropriately used proves the deep understanding of the theory.
    Fundamental? To what? As for useful? To whom? Certainly not modern cognitive science, neuroscience or related fields.

    You can say that he has no place in psychology today but he is still the founder of modern psychology and indeed if you are a Ramachandran fan, the basis/explanation of some neurological conditions.
    Err. No, he is not the founder. Wundt, James.. There are many individuals that can claim that title. If you are looking for falsifying patient records, inventing theories that can not be tested, stealing ideas then - and only then - do you want Freud.

    (Also the reason you reject him is a defence mechanism against your failure to comprehend the implications of the theory, or perhaps your full understanding of the implications for you on a subconscious level )
    Defence mechanisms are much more Anna Freud's realm anyway. And unless you invested many thousands of dollars in psychoanalysis, you won't comprehend either. It's really a lot like scientology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    223
    I think with anything, whether it be philosophy, psychology, politics and even religion, which are mostly all beliefs and theories,
    there always seems to be some grains of truth and certainty amidst the ideas.

    Sort the wheat from the chaff.

    Basically what works and what doesn't.

    We can have a tendancy to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' by being for or against something.

    Even the bible, which is subject to much scorn or disregard contains some valuable ideas and theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •