Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Freud's theories, do you believe in them?

24 replies to this topic
RATEDR307
  • RATEDR307

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2008

#1

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:49 AM

Sigmund Freud, the founding father of psychoanalysis had some controversial theories as to how our personalities developed. He believed that most of the mind is hidden, our conscious awareness is like the part of an iceberg that floats above the surface, beneath is the unconscious mind with its feelings and urges. He believed that all of our dreams were traced back by analysis to erotic wishes. If you dreamed about a gun, it represented a penis. He believed that our personalities were developed very early in our life, through 6 stages based on erogenous zones, and fixation on a certain stage results in a personality that has to do with that stage. For example, oral stage, if you stayed in the oral stage for too long, you would be come a smoker or an over eater. He believed when we at the age of 3-5 secretly wanted to have sex with our mother and kill our father, aka "Oedipus complex". This is just a very vague description of some of his theories, if you ever took a psychology class then you probably know what I'm talking about. So do you believe in his theories? A lot of psychologists dismiss his theories and think they're outdated. So did he really know what he was talking about, or was he just a perverted coke addict?

blitz
  • blitz

    pizzaqueen <3

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2011
  • None
  • Newcomer of the Year 2011

#2

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:59 AM

Isn't surrealistic art style inspired by Freud's theories?

He's got an interesting idea of the unconscious mind, however no doubt that a whole lot of it is just exaggerated superstitious nonsense.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#3

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:31 AM

He was the father of modern psychology, and in my view, one of the greatest men who ever lived. That said, if psychology is now in it's infancy, Freudian psychology was an embryo. The idea that our behaviour is all a manifestation of sub-conscious desires is frankly absurd, behaviour is simply learned over time by some form of social "trial and error". The importance of the childhood is greatly overstated in Freud's work, and it tends to assume that we stop developing socially emotionally once we reach maturity, quite the contrary, we continue to learn new and more effective behaviour and discard old ones that cease to be effective, for better or worse.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#4

Posted 20 December 2012 - 10:15 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Dec 12 2012, 20:31)
He was the father of modern psychology, and in my view, one of the greatest men who ever lived. That said, if psychology is now in it's infancy, Freudian psychology was an embryo. The idea that our behaviour is all a manifestation of sub-conscious desires is frankly absurd, behaviour is simply learned over time by some form of social "trial and error". The importance of the childhood is greatly overstated in Freud's work, and it tends to assume that we stop developing socially emotionally once we reach maturity, quite the contrary, we continue to learn new and more effective behaviour and discard old ones that cease to be effective, for better or worse.

You know, I've noticed you referencing Freud or his theories a few times lately--in the Gender Roles topic and of course with your comments about American "gun culture" in the "Breaking News" thread in General Chat, so suffice it to say I already gathered you held him in high regard. I thought it was kind of interesting in the Gender Roles topic, as you suggested my views were antiquated, yet you then expressed a very Freudian opinion of it, touching on the Oedipus complex which is far more antiquated than the concepts which I had discussed if I'm not mistaken.

Seemed off topic to bring it up in that thread, but hey what do you know someone made a thread about Freud... So I guess that gives me the opportunity to bring that up.

In any case, psychology isn't my strong suit... But I was under the impression that Freud was a bit... Obsolete?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#5

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:41 AM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Dec 21 2012, 08:15)
You know, I've noticed you referencing Freud or his theories a few times lately--in the Gender Roles topic and of course with your comments about American "gun culture" in the "Breaking News" thread in General Chat, so suffice it to say I already gathered you held him in high regard. I thought it was kind of interesting in the Gender Roles topic, as you suggested my views were antiquated, yet you then expressed a very Freudian opinion of it, touching on the Oedipus complex which is far more antiquated than the concepts which I had discussed if I'm not mistaken.

I'd say it's self-evident that our mothers are our first female role-models, thus it is natural that we would seek to punish women who don't meet our expectations. A far cry from the Oedipus complex proposed by Freud, as it has nothing to do with having any latent sexual feelings toward our parents, nor did I suggest men "date their mothers" simply that our parents give us our idea of how people of each gender should behave - thus society punishes those who deviate and identifiable "gender roles" are formed.

As for the gun thing, my assertion was that guns are viewed as an appendage, an extension of one's self (as opposed to a foreign tool, which is how they should rightfully be viewed). This is by no means a discredited concept, as it applies to other things, clothes and cars, to name a few. Describing it as "Freudian" makes it easier to understand, I wasn't trying to say they were actually intended to be penis-extensions (but that's a similar concept that is familiar to the layman) or had anything to do with the Freudian "our society is just a contest for the biggest penis, hence skyscrapers and missiles" model. wink.gif

QUOTE
In any case, psychology isn't my strong suit... But I was under the impression that Freud was a bit... Obsolete?

Indeed. As I said in my other post, he believed that personality was an expression of subconscious desires (boning your opposite-sex parent seems to be the most famous one) but I think the concept of personality is better explained thusly: we have intrinsic psychological desires much more broad than those identified by Freud, namely the need for: attention, power and harmony, among other things. As we grow up, our formative years (though this continues on for as long as we live) are a kind of "trial and error" where we learn what behaviours lead to us fulfilling those desires and our personalities come about as a result of this; think of neuroses - what we call personality disorders - as being personality in excess, or trying too hard to cope. So yes, while he was asking the same questions as psychologists today, his answers are certainly obsolete.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#6

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:01 AM

I think the theory of a lot of what we do being based around seeking sex is pretty true. I suppose not everything though.

But with regard to his theories, a lot of them are really deep and far-fetched - looking too far into things per se. I read somewhere once something that was like, instead of simply attributing a hoof print to a horse, his theories attributed the hoof print to an 8 legged orange unicorn that could fly.

Also - those more well versed on psychology, is it true he thought everyone was bisexual or something? I can't find a clear answer online.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#7

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:14 AM

I always found the psychoanalytical works of Carl Jung far more compelling than those of Freud. I'd personally argue that his foundation of the school of Analytical Psychology has had a bigger impact on the direction of psychological study than Freud's works, and is certainly more applicable when it comes to his studies of subconscious mental activity, instinct and irrational reaction, and the study of belief systems.

orbitalraindrops
  • orbitalraindrops

    Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2012
  • None

#8

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:43 PM

My dad who's a cognitive psychologist says contemporary psychology thinks Freud is a complete and utter joke and only a very select few even follow his practices or ideas anymore.

Brobinski
  • Brobinski

    PYPU

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012

#9

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Dec 21 2012, 08:14)
I always found the psychoanalytical works of Carl Jung far more compelling than those of Freud. I'd personally argue that his foundation of the school of Analytical Psychology has had a bigger impact on the direction of psychological study than Freud's works, and is certainly more applicable when it comes to his studies of subconscious mental activity, instinct and irrational reaction, and the study of belief systems.

Also, Jung was one of the most influential people who was properly critical of Freud's extreme approach to psychoanalysis. As in, lots of people were giving him sh*t for making every single thing link back to sex, but Jung was the one that really got to him, due to his own standing and the extent of their personal friendship.

I can't vouch for how accurate it is, not having explored the area much, but their relationship's explored in the film A Dangerous Method. It's pretty good. And it turns out Keira Knightley can act too!

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 07:18 PM

QUOTE (I So Brink @ Sunday, Dec 23 2012, 18:43)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Dec 21 2012, 08:14)
I always found the psychoanalytical works of Carl Jung far more compelling than those of Freud. I'd personally argue that his foundation of the school of Analytical Psychology has had a bigger impact on the direction of psychological study than Freud's works, and is certainly more applicable when it comes to his studies of subconscious mental activity, instinct and irrational reaction, and the study of belief systems.

Also, Jung was one of the most influential people who was properly critical of Freud's extreme approach to psychoanalysis. As in, lots of people were giving him sh*t for making every single thing link back to sex, but Jung was the one that really got to him, due to his own standing and the extent of their personal friendship.

It's certainly an interesting relationship between two very varied and disparate characters in the psycho-philosophical world. Empirically, I'd say that whilst Freud is the widely remembered individual for the extremity of his views and their influence on popular culture, Jung had a far greater impact in psychology, particularly the analytical realm that Freud is supposedly the "father" of. Practical applications abound too, like the Myers-Briggs Indicator which is used in practically every system of effective strategic or operational management, teamwork and team-building, marketing, personal development and relationship and emotional counselling; ideas about the collective unconscious which have formed the basis for much study into subconscious interaction and behavioural psychology, and synchronicity, which heavily influences modern understandings on perceptions of chance, statistical expression and persuasion.

Plus, his views on religion; particularly on the existence of deities; were astoundingly interesting.

Morpheus72
  • Morpheus72

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

#11

Posted 26 December 2012 - 02:48 PM

Certainly, they reduce man's boasted nobility to a hollowness woeful to contemplate. Although many of Freudianism's important points may be erroneous, I'm forced to agree that most of our beliefs are not the result of disinterested rationalism, but of ego-assertion, aggression and, in many cases, pure irrationalism.

psychny
  • psychny

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2013

#12

Posted 09 June 2013 - 06:55 PM Edited by sivispacem, 09 June 2013 - 07:26 PM.

Spambot post removed

DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#13

Posted 09 June 2013 - 08:42 PM

When it comes to Freud verse Jung; it's seems that Freud was always looking back, while Jung was more interested in where the person is headed - not physically but mentally, spiritual, ect. Jung wanted to see people's potential come to fruition. I think he had a more complete and healty outlook on life.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#14

Posted 18 June 2013 - 02:01 AM

I wholeheartedly follow Freud's concept of the subconscious - and unconscious - mind. The brain is much too complex to be grown by mere "trail and error" or Pavlovian thought. Whilst a lot of his views are far-fetched, I believe most of Freudian concepts are true, disregarding their extreme and ridiculous content.

In my opinion - at the very core of human behavior - is sex. The fulfillment we seek, the knowledge we wish to learn, the wealth we wish to obtain, almost every non-mundane aspect of our lives revolves around seeking sex and our drive to find a mate. Among this drive, the id, is established in early years where a complex network of schemas derived from experiences both crediting and discrediting our deepest beliefs delicately erect into certain directions of personality. I believe our conscious minds are nothing but this said network of personal life that molds into who we are, heavily swayed by biological disposition - more so, neurological levels.

Here, Freud's emphasis of "one-on-one" therapeutic sessions and the idea that psychological problems stem from an explorable, unconscious reasoning holds true to my personal understanding of psychology. As negative and somewhat condescending as his concepts are - regarding his more hollow, defensive, and regressive views of the human psyche - I think it holds some logic.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#15

Posted 18 June 2013 - 02:42 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 12:01)
The brain is much too complex to be grown by mere "trail and error"

So what does this mean exactly? Could you quantify the "simplicity" of the "personality= learned behaviour" model, and the supposed complexity of the brain, in relation to behaviour? How does our brain's complexity preclude us from learning behaviour? What does the former have to do with the latter?

QUOTE
In my opinion - at the very core of human behavior - is sex. The fulfillment we seek, the knowledge we wish to learn, the wealth we wish to obtain, almost every non-mundane aspect of our lives revolves around seeking sex and our drive to find a mate

How about actually explaining your contentions rather than just mentioning them in passing? Why do you think that?

QUOTE
Here, Freud's emphasis of "one-on-one" therapeutic sessions and the idea that psychological problems stem from an explorable, unconscious reasoning holds true to my personal understanding of psychology.

Right, well your personal understanding of psychology is bogus. There's a reason psychoanalysis has been completely supplanted by cognitive behaviour therapy: one works and the other doesn't. A depressive who can't hold a job or a stable relationship and is on the verge of suicide doesn't need to regale some twat with leather patches on his elbows about how his father never hugged him, he needs to learn more effective behaviour and break habits. A schizophrenic who can't dress herself and cries at business meetings but giggles at funerals doesn't need some chump theorising that it's all because someone snapper her crayon on the first day of kindergardern, she needs social and occupational rehabilitation.

I can't believe people still accept psychoanalysis! I can't imagine this exchange taking place in a modern mental health context:

Patient: I'm bulimic! I'm doing permanent damage to my body and suffering daily but I can't stop!
Psychologist: You see, your problems will go away once you face your sexual attraction to your mother.
Patient: Yeah, I-- wait, what?
Psychologist: Don't resist treatment.
Patient: My last doctor said it was something to do with competitive habits and that I should learn more healt--
Psychologist: Don't simplify my narrative.

Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • None

#16

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:55 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 12:42)
QUOTE
In my opinion - at the very core of human behavior - is sex. The fulfillment we seek, the knowledge we wish to learn, the wealth we wish to obtain, almost every non-mundane aspect of our lives revolves around seeking sex and our drive to find a mate

How about actually explaining your contentions rather than just mentioning them in passing? Why do you think that?

More importantly, I'm curious as to where asexuals would fit in that hypothesis. If every motivation in life is driven by sex, would that mean that, by default, asexuals have no motivations, no desires, no goals, and no proactive willpower to work towards those personal goals? I'd say that's, well, complete sh*t (mind my French) when they obviously do.

Rudy
  • Rudy

    Mack Pimp

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2013
  • France

#17

Posted 18 June 2013 - 04:52 AM

The first time I stumbled upon Freud's theory, I really found it quite difficult to wrap my head around it.

It's no longer used by contemporary psychologists, as Orbitalraindrops' father said, and that the only people who do still use it are fiction writers, i.e., people who aren't psychologists.

Not to mention that you can't get results from using Freudian analysis, it's just that it mostly works among people who believe in Freudian theory and thus conduct and understand their lives according to Freudian thought. It's like how people who believe in astrology or personality typing point to their lives as being examples of the reality of their beliefs, they're already living according to their principles and so of course their lives neatly demonstrate the efficacy of their beliefs. icon14.gif

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#18

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:11 AM Edited by TheJonesy, 19 June 2013 - 03:23 AM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 02:42)
So what does this mean exactly? Could you quantify the "simplicity" of the "personality= learned behaviour" model, and the supposed complexity of the brain, in relation to behaviour? How does our brain's complexity preclude us from learning behaviour? What does the former have to do with the latter?

Quantify the model's simplicity? At what point did I state that this theory was simple? Don't let my statement of the brain's complexity - unless you're saying it has none, in which case please school me in all things psychology, doctor - to negate the complexity of the learning model.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Jun 18 2013, 02:42)
How about actually explaining your contentions rather than just mentioning them in passing? Why do you think that?


Well, I didn't think any explanation was necessary since I assumed the statement was somewhat obvious and correct in an evolutionary sense - despite our higher levels of abstraction, we're still animals, right?

QUOTE (Melchior @ Jun 18 2013, 02:42)
Right, well your personal understanding of psychology is bogus. There's a reason psychoanalysis has been completely supplanted by cognitive behaviour therapy: one works and the other doesn't. A depressive who can't hold a job or a stable relationship and is on the verge of suicide doesn't need to regale some twat with leather patches on his elbows about how his father never hugged him, he needs to learn more effective behaviour and break habits. A schizophrenic who can't dress herself and cries at business meetings but giggles at funerals doesn't need some chump theorising that it's all because someone snapper her crayon on the first day of kindergardern, she needs social and occupational rehabilitation.


Yeah, your ridiculous and exaggerated examples aren't helping with your reasoning.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#19

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:07 PM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 13:11)
Quantify the model's simplicity? At what point did I state that this theory was simple?

Erm, when you said the brain's complexity precludes the model from being correct?

QUOTE
Well, I didn't think any explanation was necessary since I assumed the statement was somewhat obvious and correct in an evolutionary sense - despite our higher levels of abstraction, we're still animals, right?

Well, it isn't. We're still animals, but animals' lives don't revolve around sex. An animal still functions without a sex drive- a neutered dog still seeks social status, food, security, affection and to protect its loved ones. Have you ever owned a dog or a cat (or a goldfish, for that matter)? Did its life appear to revolve around sex?

QUOTE
Yeah, your ridiculous and exaggerated examples aren't helping with your reasoning.

It's called hyperbole. The point is, how can psychoanalysis treat eating disorders or depression or obsessive love? Especially when most of our understanding of those disorders point us towards behaviour, nor past experiences?

Ziggy455
  • Ziggy455

    I'm the writer.

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [Expression]

#20

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:31 PM Edited by Ziggy455, 19 June 2013 - 05:38 PM.

I find that Freud's sexual analysis seems to ring true considering the notion that we are sexual beings. Guns, when viewed in a social-sense are very much related to sex, performance, judgment, and the ability to control an environment. I could be babbling but I believe his theories remain at least partially true.

Penises and guns have a lot in common though too. Both can go off in your hand, both need cocking, both shoot, and you can get them both in a different range of sizes, colors, and calibres! tounge2.gif

QUOTE
Did its life appear to revolve around sex?


I can see your point to this. The fact that most would disagree and say that life revolves around sex, I think we're looking at this from a biological, natural instinctive view. That is our main purpose in this world; to populate, to spread the proverbial seed. So why wouldn't all things in life be additions to that noble goal? This is from a neutral viewpoint, mind you. There are people who are successful that do not pursue reproduction or anything. Somehow though, sex plays a substantial part in our health and existence, and to deny Freud's sexual analysis is wrong.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#21

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:45 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 14:07)
Erm, when you said the brain's complexity precludes the model from being correct?

Uhm you just totally didn't get what I said. When I stated that, I was not giving the notion that the model is precluded, but rather reduced to a part of overall human psychology among others. That is to say, can a psychological theory not always be applicable to everyone? Unless you believe one school of thought completely encompasses the understanding of the brain more than any other?

QUOTE
Well, it isn't. We're still animals, but animals' lives don't revolve around sex. An animal still functions without a sex drive- a neutered dog still seeks social status, food, security, affection and to protect its loved ones. Have you ever owned a dog or a cat (or a goldfish, for that matter)? Did its life appear to revolve around sex?

Well no sh*t there exists other important facets of living; sex is still an intricate part of life nonetheless.

QUOTE
It's called hyperbole. The point is, how can psychoanalysis treat eating disorders or depression or obsessive love? Especially when most of our understanding of those disorders point us towards behaviour, nor past experiences?

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. Second, are you suggesting disorders that have a gradual onset as oppose to Freudian ideas of post-traumatic change? If so, that would bring me to the point I made above: just because I think it can be right doesn't negate its ability to be wrong; there exists context and thus situations where it isn't as applicable to other theories.

But I don't see how my affinity for Freudian logic needed an argument.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#22

Posted 19 June 2013 - 07:06 PM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 18:45)
But I don't see how my affinity for Freudian logic needed an argument.

That's kind of the point of debates and discussion. The clue is in the title. So can we endeavour to avoid unnecessary hostility? The whole purpose of this sub-forum is to critique and be critiqued.

That goes for everyone here.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#23

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:04 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 19:06)
The whole purpose of this sub-forum is to critique and be critiqued.

Let my statement be omitted then. Melchior gets me fired up sometimes. Consider it a defensive remark.

I like this statement, though - it rubs off well on me:

QUOTE (rudy @ Jun 18 2013, 04:52)
...it's just that [Freudian analysis] mostly works among people who believe in Freudian theory and thus conduct and understand their lives according to Freudian thought.

Failure
  • Failure

    My life has no meaning

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2007
  • None

#24

Posted 22 June 2013 - 05:02 PM Edited by elanman, 22 June 2013 - 05:07 PM.

QUOTE (Ziggy455 @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 17:31)
I find that Freud's sexual analysis seems to ring true considering the notion that we are sexual beings. Guns, when viewed in a social-sense are very much related to sex, performance, judgment, and the ability to control an environment. I could be babbling but I believe his theories remain at least partially true.

Penises and guns have a lot in common though too. Both can go off in your hand, both need cocking, both shoot, and you can get them both in a different range of sizes, colors, and calibres! tounge2.gif

QUOTE
Did its life appear to revolve around sex?


I can see your point to this. The fact that most would disagree and say that life revolves around sex, I think we're looking at this from a biological, natural instinctive view. That is our main purpose in this world; to populate, to spread the proverbial seed. So why wouldn't all things in life be additions to that noble goal? This is from a neutral viewpoint, mind you. There are people who are successful that do not pursue reproduction or anything.

Yes, but many of these people create legacies which far outlive their mortal existence. Take Newton--all school-children learn of his three laws which underpin classical mechanics, and the great man will be remembered indefinitely. The same could be said of Galois, who died very young, had no children but founded group theory, with which every mathematician and many physicists have experience. The best example is probably Paul Erdos, who was celibate all his life and produced more mathematical papers than anyone in history (except maybe Leonhard Euler) and is remembered by every mathematician, be they interested in his fields of research or otherwise.

The point I'm trying to make is that the purpose of human existence is simply to create a legacy which will have some tangible effect on the future. For the vast majority this means ensuring the survival of one's progeny. However, it can also mean being remembered for doing things which will benefit humanity in some way or another, like the successful people whom you've mentioned. For this reason one could say that Freud's work is wrong in reducing man to a beast dominated by basic urges, as whilst sex definitely drives almost everyone in some way, it is frankly insulting to say that it governs our very nature and all of our decisions.

Of course, I'm not into social studies/psychology so I can't really comment on his work as I've only a superficial understanding of it. I think a lot of answers about our behavior will come from a rigorous understanding of the neuroscience.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#25

Posted 23 June 2013 - 06:28 PM

That's the difficulty with psychology: finding a theory that universally defines all human psychology. It's a fair observation to say that our progression in sciences and much more abstract ideas that animals don't share is a profound human aspect, but the ability to become great or achieve greatness isn't allotted - or at least obtainable - to everyone; all of us humans share very contrasting lifestyles that may inhibit our ability to be celebrities, politicians, mathematicians, etc.

What I find in Freud's theory is some applicability; more so in his idea of psychological defensiveness. We have the unique environment of social pressure as seen in our family, friends, peers, and media; ideas of success and assimilation in several cultures. At some point we choose to be an individual aligned with certain types of music, fashion, social groups, and so on. And for what? In an evolutionary sense, what do these things provide?

As for sexual concerns, it still governs our lives - our sexual identity and the choices we make in hopes to secure the best future for a potential mate and thus potential offspring. That's why I believe sex, in a much more broader aspect rather than simply just having sex, is important. The combination of our own psychological well being - that innate drive to better ourselves (big or small) so as it may align with our inner desires and cope with any fears or insecurities - as well as the need to be successful in our own respective ways so that we may find the best mate, and in turn, provide for them is exactly why humans choose to just not run amok with no desire.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users