Thank you so much for delivering and posting these lectures. I know you will focus on The Interpretation of Dreams. I was wondering about your opinion of Introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis (and the New Introductory Lectures, which "update" the theory). These have always struck me as an excellent pathway into Freud's thought. Is there a particular reason why you focus on the "breakthrough" work rather than the more comprehensive one?
I focus on The interpretation of Dreams for three reasons: First, because it shows Freud at work, as it were; Second, because dreams are the royal road to the unconscious; and Third because Freud thought it was his greatest work.
However, how does Marcuse's theory about the revolutionary potential of great art hold up when faced with the fact that S.S. commanders in extermination camps listened to Bach?
I was married to a classical musician (viola), whose parents were both professional classical violinists and our son is a professional classical guitarist. Most of their friends, whom I met, were classical musicians too. Spending so much time around people who played Bach and other similar compositors all day, I never noticed any special revolutionary consciousness in them nor was their commitment to radical social change any greater than that of any other social group of similar socio-economic status (say, university professors).
I particularly enjoyed the link to Marcuse and the apparent instantaneous gratification through "moments" in art. Watching any number of great artists perform (Lang Lang, for example) suggests this is true. The larger implication - that these moments serve to ignite revolutionary fervor - is also an idea (if I have it right!) that I find interesting. It counters or adds to the notion that revolutions emerge, essentially, out of great despair and immiseration. This is a reason why I'm troubled with the overuse of the term "struggle." If instead of having to struggle endlessly, it were announced that in the process of resisting we would all feel "larger, more powerful, more beautiful" (Emma Goldman), I think you'd get more people to meetings.
Thank you so much for delivering and posting these lectures. I know you will focus on The Interpretation of Dreams. I was wondering about your opinion of Introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis (and the New Introductory Lectures, which "update" the theory). These have always struck me as an excellent pathway into Freud's thought. Is there a particular reason why you focus on the "breakthrough" work rather than the more comprehensive one?
ReplyDeleteIt was so fascinating. Thanks Prof
ReplyDeleteI focus on The interpretation of Dreams for three reasons: First, because it shows Freud at work, as it were; Second, because dreams are the royal road to the unconscious; and Third because Freud thought it was his greatest work.
ReplyDeleteCan't argue with that!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your lecture.
ReplyDeleteHowever, how does Marcuse's theory about the revolutionary potential of great art hold up when faced with the fact that S.S. commanders in extermination camps listened to Bach?
I was married to a classical musician (viola), whose parents were both professional classical violinists and our son is a professional classical guitarist. Most of their friends, whom I met, were classical musicians too. Spending so much time around people who played Bach and other similar compositors all day, I never noticed any special revolutionary consciousness in them nor was their commitment to radical social change any greater than that of any other social group of similar socio-economic status (say, university professors).
I particularly enjoyed the link to Marcuse and the apparent instantaneous gratification through "moments" in art. Watching any number of great artists perform (Lang Lang, for example) suggests this is true. The larger implication - that these moments serve to ignite revolutionary fervor - is also an idea (if I have it right!) that I find interesting. It counters or adds to the notion that revolutions emerge, essentially, out of great despair and immiseration. This is a reason why I'm troubled with the overuse of the term "struggle." If instead of having to struggle endlessly, it were announced that in the process of resisting we would all feel "larger, more powerful, more beautiful" (Emma Goldman), I think you'd get more people to meetings.
ReplyDelete