Scan barcode
greden's review against another edition
Civilization and Its discontents are one of Freud's later essays, and it seems to me to be directed at those who have been reading his works all along. As I've only read his Introductory Lectures, it was hard to follow every line of thought, which was frustrating because I knew what he was talking about was interesting, yet I couldn't follow his thoughts.
I think the essay started off as a sort of "housekeeping" updating his readers on his newest ideas, rather than a complete standalone essay. An interesting point, which I couldn't seem to weave into the other content, was his idea that the spiritual experience of oneness with the world, sought after by the yogis, is not a transcendental experience, but rather retardation into the archaic, childish mode of being before the ego had been developed.
Freud asserts that as the repression of the libido causes neurosis, the repression of aggression cause guilt. Freud goes to length describing the super-ego. The super-ego can be described as being put to jail at an early age, and as you grow older, you begin to be the jailkeeper of yourself.
Aggression, if not acted upon, must go somewhere. When outward aggression is suppressed, we direct the aggression onto ourselves. Freud believes the reason why our conscience bothers us when we do something wrong is not an intrinsic knowledge of what's right, but that we have been socially conditioned to turn aggression onto ourselves, and this stems from fear of losing love from society.
It's worthwhile to meditate on the idea of the super-ego. When you blame yourself for doing, or even wanting, inappropriate things, it might be valuable to try to distinguish what is your own moral compass based on past experiences and reason or whether it's the super-ego that's speaking to you.
The idea of the super-ego totally makes sense. It's much easier psychologically to make yourself think that you don't want [inappropraite thing], this is bad, and feel guilty about it rather than admitting your desires are at odds with society and you're adherence to society's demands is out of fear. Fear of lost love, safety, fear of punishment of society.
It's more flattering on the ego to feel guilty than admit one's an immoral coward.
I suppose another way to look at is because society's power over the individual is so great, it's better to make yourself believe they are a part of you. The Stockholm Syndrome is a bad analogy, but sort of not. I suspect human beings have a mechanism for convincing ourselves anything in order to preserve our safety, self-esteem, and sanity.
Freud is a very balanced and nuanced thinker and doesn't advocate for the demolishment of society, and lets people unleash their libido and aggression whenever it seems convenient for the individual. He criticizes civilization and property but doesn't advocate communism. Even if all property were distributed equally, sexual 'property could not be, and it is the sexual inequality that is the root of the problem. I believe this to be right. The equal distribution of resources is secondary to the equal distribution of sexual partners.
I feel like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is a direct response to this essay.
It was a short, dense read. Most went over my head. Will definitely return to this after reading more Freud.
I think the essay started off as a sort of "housekeeping" updating his readers on his newest ideas, rather than a complete standalone essay. An interesting point, which I couldn't seem to weave into the other content, was his idea that the spiritual experience of oneness with the world, sought after by the yogis, is not a transcendental experience, but rather retardation into the archaic, childish mode of being before the ego had been developed.
Freud asserts that as the repression of the libido causes neurosis, the repression of aggression cause guilt. Freud goes to length describing the super-ego. The super-ego can be described as being put to jail at an early age, and as you grow older, you begin to be the jailkeeper of yourself.
Aggression, if not acted upon, must go somewhere. When outward aggression is suppressed, we direct the aggression onto ourselves. Freud believes the reason why our conscience bothers us when we do something wrong is not an intrinsic knowledge of what's right, but that we have been socially conditioned to turn aggression onto ourselves, and this stems from fear of losing love from society.
It's worthwhile to meditate on the idea of the super-ego. When you blame yourself for doing, or even wanting, inappropriate things, it might be valuable to try to distinguish what is your own moral compass based on past experiences and reason or whether it's the super-ego that's speaking to you.
The idea of the super-ego totally makes sense. It's much easier psychologically to make yourself think that you don't want [inappropraite thing], this is bad, and feel guilty about it rather than admitting your desires are at odds with society and you're adherence to society's demands is out of fear. Fear of lost love, safety, fear of punishment of society.
It's more flattering on the ego to feel guilty than admit one's an immoral coward.
I suppose another way to look at is because society's power over the individual is so great, it's better to make yourself believe they are a part of you. The Stockholm Syndrome is a bad analogy, but sort of not. I suspect human beings have a mechanism for convincing ourselves anything in order to preserve our safety, self-esteem, and sanity.
Freud is a very balanced and nuanced thinker and doesn't advocate for the demolishment of society, and lets people unleash their libido and aggression whenever it seems convenient for the individual. He criticizes civilization and property but doesn't advocate communism. Even if all property were distributed equally, sexual 'property could not be, and it is the sexual inequality that is the root of the problem. I believe this to be right. The equal distribution of resources is secondary to the equal distribution of sexual partners.
I feel like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is a direct response to this essay.
It was a short, dense read. Most went over my head. Will definitely return to this after reading more Freud.
deukalion's review against another edition
1.0
a good read until it wasn't
i can't understand if it's this shallow on purpose or if it's all a troll
i can't understand if it's this shallow on purpose or if it's all a troll
harlando's review against another edition
3.0
I probably need to read this again. I think there was some good stuff in here, but I certainly didn’t absorb all of it.
Why is modern man unhappy? It’s a great question. He wasn’t the first, or the last, person to ask it, but it remains one of the most important contemporary philosophical questions. Freud thinks its guilt. I don’t agree, but he makes some interesting associations.
His description of man as a prosthetic god was particularly memorable, and probably more true now with smart phones, pacemakers, and a vast number of new drugs. He acknowledges that people should be happy while the book is mostly focused on misery. He was probably biased by his practice. Happy people weren’t seeking psychoanalysis. There must have been some happy people in Vienna. Did Freud know any of them?
Why is modern man unhappy? It’s a great question. He wasn’t the first, or the last, person to ask it, but it remains one of the most important contemporary philosophical questions. Freud thinks its guilt. I don’t agree, but he makes some interesting associations.
His description of man as a prosthetic god was particularly memorable, and probably more true now with smart phones, pacemakers, and a vast number of new drugs. He acknowledges that people should be happy while the book is mostly focused on misery. He was probably biased by his practice. Happy people weren’t seeking psychoanalysis. There must have been some happy people in Vienna. Did Freud know any of them?
tritlo's review against another edition
4.0
Byrjar vel en fer svo út í smá rugl. Stutt lesning samt, þannig það sakar ekki.