Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JohnRgt

Where did Freud's Id come from?

28 posts in this topic

We watched The Avengers a couple of weeks ago. I've been wondering if Freud's id is his own disaster or if it was based on someone else's horrific outlook on the human condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We watched The Avengers a couple of weeks ago. I've been wondering if Freud's id is his own disaster or if it was based on someone else's horrific outlook on the human condition.

Are you denying the existence of the Id?

I believe there is a potential Destruction and Evil bomb in our intellects put their by our genes. Our burden is to learn how to control it and not let it explode. I seriously doubt whether there are any human beings who are Good through and through. Most of us spend the first fifteen years of our lives learning how to behave in a civilized manner.

Have you read "Lord of the Flies" by Golding?:

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We watched The Avengers a couple of weeks ago. I've been wondering if Freud's id is his own disaster or if it was based on someone else's horrific outlook on the human condition.

Are you denying the existence of the Id?

I believe there is a potential Destruction and Evil bomb in our intellects put their by our genes. Our burden is to learn how to control it and not let it explode. I seriously doubt whether there are any human beings who are Good through and through. Most of us spend the first fifteen years of our lives learning how to behave in a civilized manner.

What you are describing is a secular version of Christianity's "Original Sin", and is equally ridiculous. No one is anything except for what they are, whether it is good or bad. Society isn't a progression of inherited evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albert Camus said at least one interesting thing in The Myth of Sisyphus: "We learn to live before we learn to think.". People learn an great deal about appraising and responding to the behavior, remarks, etc. before they are capable of being fully rational; there's a reason why the behavior of children and juviniles is controlled. What is known about brain development now shows that a lot of behavior is automatic response learned, "conditioned" in the past. Freud would have observed behavior that was not rational, not explicable, or fully explicable, by systematic examination of the facts surrounding an event, so he posited a source. The more mysterious, tumultuous, unruly and beyond reason it was , the more it "explained" (away).

What is genetic and what is learned - the product of experience - is in part a scientific question. If a mind - a real mind - is infact tabula rasa, as some insist, then everything is learned, including behavior Freud ascribed to the Id.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We watched The Avengers a couple of weeks ago. I've been wondering if Freud's id is his own disaster or if it was based on someone else's horrific outlook on the human condition.

Of more interest is why people accepted such a description when simple introspection refutes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We watched The Avengers a couple of weeks ago. I've been wondering if Freud's id is his own disaster or if it was based on someone else's horrific outlook on the human condition.

Are you denying the existence of the Id?

I believe there is a potential Destruction and Evil bomb in our intellects put their by our genes. Our burden is to learn how to control it and not let it explode. I seriously doubt whether there are any human beings who are Good through and through. Most of us spend the first fifteen years of our lives learning how to behave in a civilized manner.

Have you read "Lord of the Flies" by Golding?:

ruveyn

Please, don't hide behind the word "we" or "us" or "our". Just substitute the word "my" in each case to see how silly this sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We watched The Avengers a couple of weeks ago. I've been wondering if Freud's id is his own disaster or if it was based on someone else's horrific outlook on the human condition.

Are you denying the existence of the Id?

I believe there is a potential Destruction and Evil bomb in our intellects put their by our genes. Our burden is to learn how to control it and not let it explode. I seriously doubt whether there are any human beings who are Good through and through. Most of us spend the first fifteen years of our lives learning how to behave in a civilized manner.

Have you read "Lord of the Flies" by Golding?:

ruveyn

Please, don't hide behind the word "we" or "us" or "our". Just substitute the word "my" in each case to see how silly this sounds.

I believe there is a potential Destruction and Evil bomb in my intellect put their by my genes. My burden is to learn how to control it and not let it explode. I seriously doubt whether there are any human beings who are Good through and through. I spent the first fifteen years of my life learning how to behave in a civilized manner.

There.

It doesn't sound silly at all. It sounds true.

Ta!

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We watched The Avengers a couple of weeks ago. I've been wondering if Freud's id is his own disaster or if it was based on someone else's horrific outlook on the human condition.

Are you denying the existence of the Id?

I believe there is a potential Destruction and Evil bomb in our intellects put their by our genes. Our burden is to learn how to control it and not let it explode. I seriously doubt whether there are any human beings who are Good through and through. Most of us spend the first fifteen years of our lives learning how to behave in a civilized manner.

Have you read "Lord of the Flies" by Golding?:

ruveyn

Please, don't hide behind the word "we" or "us" or "our". Just substitute the word "my" in each case to see how silly this sounds.

I believe there is a potential Destruction and Evil bomb in my intellect put their by my genes. My burden is to learn how to control it and not let it explode. I seriously doubt whether there are any human beings who are Good through and through. I spent the first fifteen years of my life learning how to behave in a civilized manner.

There.

It doesn't sound silly at all. It sounds true.

Ta!

ruveyn

Not to me. Sounds like I should stay far away from you and that you are a good case for a psychotherapist. But, then, since you can't introspect, that wouldn't help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read "Lord of the Flies" by Golding?:

Have you read Rand?

Every word she published. I'll bet I read Atlas Shrugged end to end more times than you have (since I have been alive longer than you).

Reading Rand does not mean agreeing with everything she wrote or asserted.

But soft! I am pro-capitalist and NOT for religious or altruistic reasons, I assure you.

There I two things I hate more than anything: zits and altruism.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to me. Sounds like I should stay far away from you and that you are a good case for a psychotherapist. But, then, since you can't introspect, that wouldn't help you.

Been there, done that. The shrinks are a pathetic lot. The only shrink I would go to now is one who can prove that the Tychinoff compactification theorem is equivalent to the axiom of choice. And even then I would take his judgement con grano salus.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freud's id was both a secularized version of Original Sin and medieval demonology, and a reflection of his own sick, twisted, festering soul. (As a child he wanted to make love to his own mother. He then proceeded to claim, without evidence, that everybody does.)

As for Golding's Lord of the Flies, the claims made for it by its author are laughable. Golding claims it's a demonstration of Original Sin. But it's no such thing. Throughout its pages, his characters are shown choosing to originate their own actions--good in some cases, evil in others--not forced by some power beyond their control. Golding certainly wrote well (in a sensuous, anti-conceptual style) but he was not a very good thinker. At the end, the appearance of the British naval officer is supposed to remind the reader of the nuclear war, presumably involving Great Britain and Soviet Russia--who he, as a modern "liberal," apparently held were morally equivalent.

As a Montessori teacher I spent over a decade surrounded by children, mostly 2-6 year olds but some younger and some older. Out of hundreds of children, I knew only one who I would say had developed an evil moral character.(hyperactive and aggressive). Most of the others almost literally glowed with virtue. I would even be tempted to say there's such a thing as Original Virtue; but of course people are volitional. What I think is true is that nature gives children a head start toward being virtuous -- read what Miss Rand wrote about infants, in "The Comprachicos."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Rand does not mean agreeing with everything she wrote or asserted.

Of course not. But if you're going to reference Lord of the Flies as some accurate depiction of the human condition, then you need to explain what exactly appeals to you about Ayn Rand.

There I two things I hate more than anything: zits and altruism.

Do you mean to cheapen your hatred of altruism by including something as irrelevant as zits in your duo, or do you seriously hate altruism about as much or only less than zits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for Golding's Lord of the Flies, the claims made for it by its author are laughable. Golding claims it's a demonstration of Original Sin. But it's no such thing. Throughout its pages, his characters are shown choosing to originate their own actions--good in some cases, evil in others--not forced by some power beyond their control...

As a Montessori teacher I spent over a decade surrounded by children, mostly 2-6 year olds but some younger and some older. Out of hundreds of children, I knew only one who I would say had developed an evil moral character.(hyperactive and aggressive)...

Lord of the Flies may not resemble real children, but you don't have to look far to find a group of obnoxious, nerd programmers acting like they are reenacting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Rand does not mean agreeing with everything she wrote or asserted.

Of course not. But if you're going to reference Lord of the Flies as some accurate depiction of the human condition, then you need to explain what exactly appeals to you about Ayn Rand.

There I two things I hate more than anything: zits and altruism.

Do you mean to cheapen your hatred of altruism by including something as irrelevant as zits in your duo, or do you seriously hate altruism about as much or only less than zits?

I shall not assail you with my sardonic wit anymore. You just don't appreciate it.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responding to Bill Bucko: Having raised two children and having been involved in parent-child nurseries and an open school, my experiences have been the same as yours; I do believe there is a propensity in most children for what we would call virtuous behavior, but it depends early and often on the right environmental cues. My wife taught in a really tough inner city elementary school and the difference between first graders and third graders was marked; her last year was in a middle school (where she was fired for not passing enough students regardless of their performance) and the number of attentive, civilized students was down from third grade.

So much of this early programming/learning takes place at a time when it is much more automatic that it becomes very difficult to overcome it later in life, to "unlearn" it and I think that accounts for what sometimes seems like responses that come from some mysterious source. Being so far removed from the conscious critical/analytical mind, it's little wonder it seems mysterious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall not assail you with my sardonic wit anymore. You just don't appreciate it.

I'd appreciate it in the appropriate context. Here, however, you're tossing out an underlying idea of Miss Rand's work, and doing so in a tone I find offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall not assail you with my sardonic wit anymore. You just don't appreciate it.

I'd appreciate it in the appropriate context. Here, however, you're tossing out an underlying idea of Miss Rand's work, and doing so in a tone I find offensive.

Sorry about that. No offense intended.

I probably hate altruism more than you. I have seen some people I know ravaged by it. I came to dislike altruism, self sacrifice, and abnegation long before I read a word published by Ayn Rand. My first encounter with Ms. Rand was at age 26 so I had plenty of time and lots of brains to deconstruct the entire altruistic world view. It may surprise you to know that many people have come to some of Ayn Rand's conclusion without any input from Ayn Rand.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably hate altruism more than you.

I don't see how you're in a position to know that, don't see why it's relevant.

It may surprise you to know that many people have come to some of Ayn Rand's conclusion without any input from Ayn Rand.

Being such a person, and having met many such people, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ayn Rand said in response to someone asserting that Man was basically evil: "Speak for yourself, brother!" Your assessment of Man and whether he has Original Sin or an Id is your assessment of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ayn Rand said in response to someone asserting that Man was basically evil: "Speak for yourself, brother!" Your assessment of Man and whether he has Original Sin or an Id is your assessment of yourself.

Man has the capacity for evil. He also has the capacity for good. Which prevails? It is a matter of the choices a man makes.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's true; it is a matter of the choices a man or woman makes. But isn't it a little like being presumed innocent before being proven guilty, especially in regard to oneself? So the question of which "prevails"--good or evil (and by what standard!)--makes no sense. Why not assume that people--including oneself--are basically good to start with. I think that's a huge part of possessing a benevolent sense-of-life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's true; it is a matter of the choices a man or woman makes. But isn't it a little like being presumed innocent before being proven guilty, especially in regard to oneself? So the question of which "prevails"--good or evil (and by what standard!)--makes no sense. Why not assume that people--including oneself--are basically good to start with. I think that's a huge part of possessing a benevolent sense-of-life.

I am interested in the matter of self-control. That is the one thing infants do not have and the thing little children do not have much of. The first portion of a young person's life is learning to control his impulse and discovering the boundaries between permissible behavior and forbidden behavior (note, these are a function of mores and culture). I figure by the age 10-15 a normal human has all the controls and skills he needs to surpress undesireable behavior (if he wishes to!!!!). Thus we learn to control our tempers and not permit anger to drive to violent actions.

I believe good and evil (in a physiologically normal human) is under volitional control. All bets are off during an epileptic seizure or under the influence of a nasty drug like PCP.

But the capability of violence and wickedness is in all of us. However this is controllable by an act of mental focus.

Have you ever had the urge to kill? I have. But I have not killed, because I can sit on the urge and prevent myself from doing something unfortunate.

If we did not have the capability of killing we would not be able to defend ourselves properly in a dangerous or mortal civilization. I believe evolution has wired in that ability. Those unfortunates who cannot kill are very likely not to survive to the age of reproduction, at least in primitive nasty societies.

We all can be bad, but we don't have to be bad.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ayn Rand said in response to someone asserting that Man was basically evil: "Speak for yourself, brother!" Your assessment of Man and whether he has Original Sin or an Id is your assessment of yourself.

Man has the capacity for evil. He also has the capacity for good.

He has the capacity to chose one or the other. That's a very, very different thing from the claim that he's in constant internal turmoil, always trying to keep some internal destructive force under control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ayn Rand said in response to someone asserting that Man was basically evil: "Speak for yourself, brother!" Your assessment of Man and whether he has Original Sin or an Id is your assessment of yourself.

Man has the capacity for evil. He also has the capacity for good.

He has the capacity to chose one or the other. That's a very, very different thing from the claim that he's in constant internal turmoil, always trying to keep some internal destructive force under control.

Right, it is not constant. However when anger boils up we learn to keep our behavior under control and act reasonably. When the time comes we can prevent our strongest passions and emotions from overcoming reason. The ability to do so is learned early in life and lies ready to be used when necessary. One of the main lessons we learn in our childhood is self control.

Most of the time we are not provoked to anger and violence so we do not have to fight our combative urges constantly.

Whoever said it was constant? Not I.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0