tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post7950657717874119873..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: A REPLY TO MAGPIERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-72062570570522050002013-10-05T15:33:25.969-04:002013-10-05T15:33:25.969-04:00I do not believe that Freud ‘gave very little thou...I do not believe that Freud ‘gave very little thought’ to ‘the larger social and economic world of himself and his patients’; on the contrary, his research is mainly an analysis of the social world he found around himself. <br /> Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens is a work of social (meta--)psychology. Totem und Tabu: Einige Übereinstimmungen im Seelenleben der Wilden und der Neurotiker, Die Zukunft einer Illusion, Das Unbehagen in der Kultur are all books that embrace the widest world of the human realities. From his 50s on, Freud took on issues of a critical theory of culture, religion, etc.—the books mentioned, and also Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion. It is true he never wrote sociology of economy, but he gave very much thought to what by the would have been considered philosophy of culture. So, by his areas of research into the social, Freud’s daring hypotheses show him more related, or closer to Engels‘ topics, than to Marx‘.<br /> Discussing Freud’s large theories, Marcuse take over not only his theories of individual psychology, but also his comprehensive, broad picture of the main traits of the civilization, the symbolic template of the conflicts inside the primeval horde, etc..<br /> In fact, Freud’s speculations in this area, thoughts highly original, sometimes strikingly uncanny, have been comapred to Engels‘ (by the Romanian Leninist official Tertullian), who was also concerned with outlining a hypothetical primeval society, with its dynamics, etc..<br /> So, no, Freud isn’t solely the psychologist of the individual, but also the theoretician of the socio—cultural life in some of its main aspects. His results are often surprising, always interesting and intriguing. His hypotheses deserve at least a charitable interpretation.<br /> Now, as to why did Marcuse mix Marxism and Freudism, he mixed them because he felt like.<br />Doctor Singularis et Invincibilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07498947639761749290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-89103599580004574762013-09-30T13:34:39.341-04:002013-09-30T13:34:39.341-04:00On the one hand Freudian theory is a form of liter...On the one hand Freudian theory is a form of literary analysis concerned with motives and character; on the other hand it is concerned with economic and biological issues; for example, the pleasure principle combines a notion of utility with drive and motive too.<br />So Marcuse in your example is merely elaborating upon this idea.<br />The debates from my youth when I was in and into psychoanalysis were between thinkers like Reiff and Becker, who stressed the necessity for repression and thinkers like Marcuse who pleaded for setting the psyche free from too much repression.<br />Repression is not just a matter of libido, it is a matter of restricting experience and carving a finite piece of the world.<br />A lot of Freud's ideas can be retained but need to be modified.<br />He built on the right plot of land, but the materials he used were shoddy.<br />So you have to bracket out his theory and look at the phenomenon; ie what is the unconscious? It is more something cognitive than made of drives. And so on.<br />Biology, cognitive behavioral psychology, and social psychology better account for everything.<br />I'd throw in the existential.<br />Professor Bloom speaks of Shakespeare's invention of interiority which is changed by Freud into the unconscious. You can have depth of emotion and thought without the unconscious.<br />That is the right way to go and people have made that caseHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-67285530496168967642013-09-30T08:00:28.842-04:002013-09-30T08:00:28.842-04:00I think T Gent's comment is very acute. Capi...I think T Gent's comment is very acute. Capitalism is in fact opposed to any discrimination that introduces imperfections into the labor market. Capitalism, let us remember, was the economic theory and policy of 19th century liberals. It was conservatives and the Roman C atholic Church that were opposed to it. Capitalism just wants cheap labor, and if racial discrimination keeps Black workers out of the labor market and drives up wages, capitalism is opposed to it. Thatm is why big corporations weighed in on the side of affirmat ive actrion in the Supreme Court University of Michigan case. [I think that was it.]Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-2087380353977110292013-09-30T05:31:51.214-04:002013-09-30T05:31:51.214-04:00Magpie, I don't think the fact that capitalism...Magpie, I don't think the fact that capitalism used these movements for advertisement takes away their revolutionary value, they did achieve enormous change. Obviously, it was possible to do so because capitalism could tolerate and even in some ways perhaps benefit from these changes - unlike from better conditions for workers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13337589981696719316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-42219001866052892502013-09-30T04:36:26.215-04:002013-09-30T04:36:26.215-04:00Thanks, Professor, for your answers.
I can see ho...Thanks, Professor, for your answers.<br /><br />I can see how the integration you speak of (economic, politic and institutional structures, plus individual actions) would be desirable.<br /><br />However, I wonder whether it is feasible.<br /><br />----------<br /><br />Regarding the civil rights and especially the women's liberation movements: I wonder if this doesn't also apply to them:<br /><br />"Modern capitalism, Marcuse suggests, has learned to convert those rebellions into emasculated, denatured tools of advertising and the sale of cultural commodities".<br />Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-8134641471127953132013-09-29T19:25:53.851-04:002013-09-29T19:25:53.851-04:00I do not see that he does. The whole point of the...I do not see that he does. The whole point of the notion of surplus repression is that some repression is necessary, just as labor is necessary to produce the food and clothing and shelter we need. It is the surplus repression that Marcuse decries. Freud spent his professional career trying to relieve what he saw as neurotic repression, unnecessary repression. He did not call it "surplus repression," but he perfectly well could have.<br /><br />I see Marcuse as in synch with Freud on this issue.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-60339200099363031492013-09-29T18:09:44.865-04:002013-09-29T18:09:44.865-04:00Professor Wolff:
Could you explain why Marcuse see...Professor Wolff:<br />Could you explain why Marcuse seemingly abandons the Freud of Civilization and Its Discontents?<br />There Freud reconciles himself with repression, and even perhaps calls for more repression.<br />Or am I missing something?<br />It's been a while since I've engaged with Freud or thought about him. Psychologists today make less use of him. They've borrowed and modified a few key ideas and from their perspective moved forwardUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17831623283383275467noreply@blogger.com