NationStates Jolt Archive

That's a course I'm taking this semester, so I'mma list our books and get a discussion going on here. I suspect much sadness will be mine. Especially when I wonder, what the fuck is the philosophy of psychology?

The Social Construction of Reality - Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (Might be Luchmann, my notes are hazy)

The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

Civilization and its Discontents - Sigmund Freud (I've read this, it's rubbish. Economy sucks? NOT ENOUGH SEX!!!!)

Synchronicity - Carl Jung

Fear and Trembling - Kierkegaard

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844/Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche

The World as Will and Idea - Arthur Shopenhauer

Sounds like fun to me, although I don't like Kierkegaard all that much. The course will probably cover the interesting mix of Philosophy and Psychology of the 19th and 20th centuries, if that's what you were asking.

Sounds like fun to me, although I don't like Kierkegaard all that much. The course will probably cover the interesting mix of Philosophy and Psychology of the 19th and 20th centuries, if that's what you were asking.

I'm not terribly sure what to expect is what I was getting at, I think. I'm looking forward to reading some of the big names in philosophy so I can skip down to the coffee shop and finally sound important ;).

Seriously though, I am looking forward to reading most of these, I think.

Also, this will be like my first psych course in a year. I'm such a bad psych major.

Sounds very interesting if you ask me.

other than jung...that looks to be rather lame. no class on the philosophy of psychology that doesn't mention buddhist treatises on the nature of consciousness is complete. those folks went further in than most shrinks ever do. perhaps if you just taped an existentialist masturbating with a model of the human brain, and then looped the video and played it for 45 minutes every three days, you could accomplish a bit more.

maybe that's a bit unfair. still...

I'm looking forward to the gasps of dismay when we start reading The God Delusion, and possibly the armed revolt during Species.

/cackle at Bible Belt

other than jung...that looks to be rather lame. no class on the philosophy of psychology that doesn't mention buddhist treatises on the nature of consciousness is complete. those folks went further in than most shrinks ever do. perhaps if you just taped an existentialist masturbating with a model of the human brain, and then looped the video and played it for 45 minutes every three days, you could accomplish a bit more.

maybe that's a bit unfair. still...

If the professor is cool I might drop that bomb on him, see what happens.

That's a course I'm taking this semester, so I'mma list our books and get a discussion going on here. I suspect much sadness will be mine. Especially when I wonder, what the fuck is the philosophy of psychology?

Pay attention. I'm sure this will all be useful to you in your later life.

It is quite interesting. And, in fact, it should be one of the first classes anyone doing psychology should do.

You learn some very basic skills, like watching reality through the eyes of someone else, not your own.

Civilization and its Discontents - Sigmund Freud (I've read this, it's rubbish. Economy sucks? NOT ENOUGH SEX!!!!)

Other way round, surely, economy sucks - too much sex, not enough sublimation.

The Kierkegaard and the Nietzsche are great.

other than jung...that looks to be rather lame. no class on the philosophy of psychology that doesn't mention buddhist treatises on the nature of consciousness is complete.

Nietzsche addresses Buddhism several times, but I can't remember if they come up in ToTI. Bizarrely enough he had great respect for their beliefs, but found their connection between the end of suffering and the end of existence to be wrong-headed.

It is quite interesting. And, in fact, it should be one of the first classes anyone doing psychology should do.

You learn some very basic skills, like watching reality through the eyes of someone else, not your own.

It's interesting that you think this should be an early psych course, because it's one of my level 400 courses. I'll have to see if I agree after taking it. It would make sense to get an idea of how the world views itself before leaping into it.

Other way round, surely, economy sucks - too much sex, not enough sublimation.

The Kierkegaard and the Nietzsche are great.

Hopefully they're better writers than Kant. My roommate had some Kant lying around, I cracked it open and my brain died upon reading the first sentence.

Hopefully they're better writers than Kant. My roommate had some Kant lying around, I cracked it open and my brain died upon reading the first sentence.


Kant = lethal weapon?

I had it in my second year.

And I had to do it before starting to learn about cognitivism, since the belief systems in some theories are quite hard to understand if you dont have some basics.

And I hope its not one of those courses that are so shallow because you´ve already learned tons of more complex information in other classes.

I had it in my second year.

And I had to do it before starting to learn about cognitivism, since the belief systems in some theories are quite hard to understand if you dont have some basics.

That makes lots of sense. I wonder if I just had bad advisers. When I think about it, though, all I've really had have been Abnormal Psych and Theories of personality.

This should prove my most fruitful year yet!

Hopefully they're better writers than Kant. My roommate had some Kant lying around, I cracked it open and my brain died upon reading the first sentence.

Definitely: they are both passionate and evocative writers. Some people just don't get them, others fall in love with them, and not solely for their ideas, but for the way they present them.

If you ain't read no Nietzsche, then you're in for a treat. Have a quick butcher's at this: http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html#sect1

Oh yeah, and the Penguin edition of Fear And Trembling has the best. translator's. introduction. ever. - "God said to Abraham, go kill me a son/Abe said, Man, you must be puttin' me on"

Definitely: they are both passionate and evocative writers. Some people just don't get them, others fall in love with them, and not solely for their ideas, but for the way they present them.

If you ain't read no Nietzsche, then you're in for a treat. Have a quick butcher's at this: http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html#sect1

That's very encouraging! I'm looking forward to this class very much.

That makes lots of sense. I wonder if I just had bad advisers. When I think about it, though, all I've really had have been Abnormal Psych and Theories of personality.

This should prove my most fruitful year yet!

Dont know, looking at the list of books, maybe this course has a more historical aproach. The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin? What is that doing there? Maybe just to provide some basics on the most advanced theories when psychology started to develop.

Anyway, what models are more prevalent in your university? I´ve heard that in Europe psychoanalysis is more common, and in the US its the cognitive and gestalt sciences.

BTW, Nietzsche is amazing, but its important to know at which point of his life he wrote the material you are reading, because he went through some very diferent periods in his time. Check out Thus Spoke Zarathustra. There is a lot of interesting content in that, but you have to read it with some kind of mental filter.

Dont know, looking at the list of books, maybe this course has a more historical aproach. The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin? What is that doing there? Maybe just to provide some basics on the most advanced theories when psychology started to develop.

Anyway, what models are more prevalent in your university? I´ve heard that in Europe psychoanalysis is more common, and in the US its the cognitive and gestalt sciences.

BTW, Nietzsche is amazing, but its important to know at which point of his life he wrote the material you are reading, because he went through some very diferent periods in his time. Check out Thus Spoke Zarathustra. There is a lot of interesting content in that, but you have to read it with some kind of mental filter.

Honestly, as far as I can tell, chemicals are the US focus right now. We're throwing drugs at every problem we see.

From what I understand, as well, the trend seems to be moving away from psychoanalysis and even behavioral therapy. Again, the tendency to medicate has been very prevalent. I've heard that this is partly due to places like government hospitals trying to rush as many patients through as possible.

I guess I should start taking some psychology journals. I'm kind of obligated to do my best to keep up with my field, even if I haven't graduated yet.

EDIT: I'm not sure what the approach will be yet, the class doesn't start till Monday. I'll give a brief synopsis of the syllabus when I get it if anyone is interested.

BTW, Nietzsche is amazing, but its important to know at which point of his life he wrote the material you are reading, because he went through some very diferent periods in his time. Check out Thus Spoke Zarathustra. There is a lot of interesting content in that, but you have to read it with some kind of mental filter.

The main reason for the importance of including Nietzsche here would be that he was the first writer to recognise the existence and importance of subconscious psychological motivation - the fact that an agent's true motives are not always known to themselves. It wasn't Freud that opened this Pandora's box, it was Nietzsche.

Also trying to approach much of the recent Continental philosophy (Virilio, Deleuze, Guattari, even Baudrillard) without a knowledge of Nietzsche is next to impossible, whereas for the most part the psychoanalytic tradition, with the exception of Lacan, has mainly flowed into feminist philosophy.

To say nothing of the parallels between Nietzsche's abstract notions of the Will (obviously influenced by Schopenhauer) and the way that it allows one to understand behaviourists, structuralists, post-structuralists and even post-modernists in their exploration of psychological drives.

Dont know, looking at the list of books, maybe this course has a more historical aproach. The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin? What is that doing there? Maybe just to provide some basics on the most advanced theories when psychology started to develop.

Without Darwin any of the evolutionary attempts to explain psychology, such as the Dawkins, are going to be without a foundation. Also his hard core materialist approach was something entirely new.

It would be interesting if you learned why man had to create religion. But I guess that topic is more in the social sciences.

If that offends you I'm sorry, let's not argue and Hijack the thread.

It would be interesting if you learned why man had to create religion. But I guess that topic is more in the social sciences.

If that offends you I'm sorry, let's not argue and Hijack the thread.

That's more of a psychology of religion question, though like all social sciences, there's going to be a good deal of overlapping.

The Social Construction of Reality - Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (Might be Luchmann, my notes are hazy)

The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

Civilization and its Discontents - Sigmund Freud (I've read this, it's rubbish. Economy sucks? NOT ENOUGH SEX!!!!)

Synchronicity - Carl Jung

Fear and Trembling - Kierkegaard

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844/Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche

The World as Will and Idea - Arthur Shopenhauer


What a crappy reading list. This class sounds more like an existentialist/Victorian ideas class than a serious Philosophy of Psychology class. I mean, where is Daniel Dennet -- you've got to have Dennet (it's basic)? You might get something good out of this class on Marx iff the Prof. examines Marx in a methodological fashion -- i.e. that Marx treats ideas or thoughts as something measurable only in relation to the economic environment in which those ideas take place. Thus, a scientific treatment of psychology can be produced. Yet, this will probably not happen because relatively few people think of Marx in this way. There are a million complaints I could make about this reading list (Freud?), but I'll shut up now. However, it probably will still be an interesting class.

That's more of a psychology of religion question, though like all social sciences, there's going to be a good deal of overlapping.

Plenty of it in the Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. I think there is some in that particular bit of Marx. Some in the Freud text too, and the Jung. Kierkegaard doesn't really tackle the why of religion, but spends a great deal of time on the how of it all (in a manner which works equally well whether you have religion or not).

Can't comment on that particular Dawkins.

There are a million complaints I could make about this reading list (Freud?), but I'll shut up now. Yet, it probably will still be an interesting class.

Please hold forth: why do you object to the inclusion of Freud?

You might get something good out of this class on Marx iff the Prof. examines Marx in a methodological fashion -- i.e. that Marx treats ideas or thoughts as something measurable only in relation to the economic environment in which those ideas take place. Thus, a scientific treatment of psychology can be produced. Yet, this will probably not happen because relatively few people think of Marx in this way.

Marx is primarily studied as a young Hegelian in most philosophy courses, and so I think your claim that 'relatively few' people approach him that way is mistaken.

What a crappy reading list. This class sounds more like an existentialist/Victorian ideas class than a serious Philosophy of Psychology class. I mean, where is Daniel Dennet -- you've got to have Dennet (it's basic)? You might get something good out of this class on Marx iff the Prof. examines Marx in a methodological fashion -- i.e. that Marx treats ideas or thoughts as something measurable only in relation to the economic environment in which those ideas take place. Thus, a scientific treatment of psychology can be produced. Yet, this will probably not happen because relatively few people think of Marx in this way. There are a million complaints I could make about this reading list (Freud?), but I'll shut up now. However, it probably will still be an interesting class.

Dennet is another name I'll write down to toss at the professor if he's the talkative type. I dunno what the focus is yet, I've yet to see the syllabus. I'm going to probably post a short synopsis of it here on Monday when I've been to the class.

well i dont know about the other books there but jung totally rocks, he's the one who said whether god exists or not every1 who believes in him just sees him as part of themselves i.e an extension of there own ego and thats why what god wants always seems to be the same as what the people want

you'll get some good laughs from richard dawkins, cause he's an idiot and shud stick to what he's good at, biology, rather than tryin to disprove religion when he is the most religous person ive ever seen, he basically worships science

Dennet is another name I'll write down to toss at the professor if he's the talkative type.

Dennett (sic) is more concerned with philosophy of mind, rather than psychology and so his exclusion is hardly surprising given the focus of the course.

well i dont know about the other books there but jung totally rocks, he's the one who said whether god exists or not every1 who believes in him just sees him as part of themselves i.e an extension of there own ego and thats why what god wants always seems to be the same as what the people want

you'll get some good laughs from richard dawkins, cause he's an idiot and shud stick to what he's good at, biology, rather than tryin to disprove religion when he is the most religous person ive ever seen, he basically worships science

I've liked everything I've read by Jung so far...mostly essays if I recall correctly. His books are expensive!

Dennett (sic) is more concerned with philosophy of mind, rather than psychology and so his exclusion is hardly surprising given the focus of the course.

Ahhhh ok.

Please hold forth: why do you object to the inclusion of Freud?

Because Freud is no longer relevant. The only good thing about his theory is that it is supposed to be based on a theory of the physical workings of the brain. Indeed, the fact that he got the biology/biophysics wrong places a heavy burden on the rest of his theory (Ego, Id and all that), since it is supposed to be based in the Biology. Freud's view of the human being in Civilization and its Discontents leaves out the most fundamental aspect of a psychology in society -- i.e. a conscience. If people do not have consciences, then interaction is basically impossible.

Because Freud is no longer relevant. The only good thing about his theory is that it is supposed to be based on a theory of the physical workings of the brain. Indeed, the fact that he got the biology/biophysics wrong places a heavy burden on the rest of his theory (Ego, Id and all that), since it is supposed to be based in the Biology. Freud's view of the human being in Civilization and its Discontents leaves out the most fundamental aspect of a psychology in society -- i.e. a conscience. If people do not have consciences, then interaction is basically impossible.

that may all be true but he makes some good points, like he discovered you look for certain qualities in ur partners based on your mum or dads qualities (dependin on gender of partner) and he made the point that for there to be something taboo there must be a desire to do that taboo or it isn't needed as a taboo

Freud's view of the human being in Civilization and its Discontents leaves out the most fundamental aspect of a psychology in society -- i.e. a conscience. If people do not have consciences, then interaction is basically impossible.

Is the superego not equivalent in function to the conscience? No?

Is the superego not equivalent in function to the conscience? No?

i thought the super ego is a subconcious urge to be perfect and please yourself and others in a non hedonistic way?

im pretty sure freud didnt think we were conscious beings, just machines that are constantly programmed

that may all be true but he makes some good points, like he discovered you look for certain qualities in ur partners based on your mum or dads qualities (dependin on gender of partner) and he made the point that for there to be something taboo there must be a desire to do that taboo or it isn't needed as a taboo

Sure, I'm not saying all his ideas are false. Yet, from a scientific point of view, how do you measure Oedipus complexes?

I don't know about the taboo one. I could just as easily say that there is no desire to do that which is taboo, people genuinely find it disgusting -- e.g. child molestation. For some taboos what Freud claims may be right, but for others he's wrong. So, his theory of Taboo is unreliable and, consequently, of little scientific importance.

i thought the super ego is a subconcious urge to be perfect and please yourself and others in a non hedonistic way?

im pretty sure freud didnt think we were conscious beings, just machines that are constantly programmed

No, I'm pretty sure the super-ego functions as a conscience. It could also be that it seeks ways to satisfy the id that are acceptable in society.

And yeah, my thoughts on Freud pretty much follow your second statement. I don't think he was much for free-will at all.

i thought the super ego is a subconcious urge to be perfect and please yourself and others in a non hedonistic way?

No, it is the internal manifestation of inculcated values which we are given by society.

im pretty sure freud didnt think we were conscious beings, just machines that are constantly programmed

The Ego is the conscious part of the human for Freud. To claim that he didn't believe we were in part conscious is deeply mistaken. Certainly the Id which is almost entirely subconscious exists and provides our main drive (as filtered through the Superego and to a lesser extent through the Ego) exists, but we experience it through our actions and desires as consciously felt by the Ego.

And yeah, my thoughts on Freud pretty much follow your second statement. I don't think he was much for free-will at all.

For Freud free will most definitely exists, but not as a single centralised decision making process. He rejects the idea of a single homonculus at the core of our being, instead there is a conflict of flows and drives and desires. Whatever force is momentarily strongest is the one that decides.

Sure, I'm not saying all his ideas are false. Yet, from a scientific point of view, how do you measure Oedipus complexes?

I don't know about the taboo one. I could just as easily say that there is no desire to do that which is taboo, people genuinely find it disgusting -- e.g. child molestation. For some taboos what Freud claims may be right, but for others he's wrong. So, his theory of Taboo is unreliable and, consequently, of little scientific importance.

Who died and made science king?

If there is no desire to break taboos, then why bother labelling them as taboos? The very fact that they survive in society as forbidden acts shows that the desire to carry out those acts also survives.

Sure, I'm not saying all his ideas are false. Yet, from a scientific point of view, how do you measure Oedipus complexes?

I don't know about the taboo one. I could just as easily say that there is no desire to do that which is taboo, people genuinely find it disgusting -- e.g. child molestation. For some taboos what Freud claims may be right, but for others he's wrong. So, his theory of Taboo is unreliable and, consequently, of little scientific importance.

well he said anything you find taboo you secretely want to do and the reason you find it taboo is because most of your brain doesnt wont you to do it so stops the other part from doing it by making it taboo

by taboo i mean something you find socialy disgusting, e.g you can dislike or even hate child molestation wivout finding it taboo, you just need a reason other than disgusting like it destroys society or summin

plus didnt freud come up wiv why we get scared and disgusted? i.e we copy what are parents and idols get disgusted and scared of, i think thats true

generally i agree tho, i aint a fan of freud because he didnt seem to like humans much whereas jung who was virtually his apprentice (a rebellious one tho) seemed to like them alot

For Freud free will most definitely exists, but not as a single centralised decision making process. He rejects the idea of a single homonculus at the core of our being, instead there is a conflict of flows and drives and desires. Whatever force is momentarily strongest is the one that decides.

That makes sense. It's been awhile since I've had to deal with Freud so I get a bit shakey on my details. Perhaps I should find my Psch 101 book and peruse it, heh.

Is the superego not equivalent in function to the conscience? No?

No, it is not at all. The superego is a punishing device that is basically unreliable. For example, in Civ. and it Dis. Freud uses the example of someone that steals some petty thing -- that is, he does something petty that could be deemed as wrong. The superego punishes the man if the man is in generally unhappy in his life -- I guess Freud means that there is a lot of psychic conflict. However, if the man is generally untroubled, the Superego does nothing.

I mean, you are right that the Superego is Freud's equivalent of a Conscience. The problem with the superego is that it develops out of the Oedipal complex and it further develops, as I remember it, in relation to the institutions of society and what they deem as right or wrong. Freud's conscience is essentially a punishing agent that operates in an inverse relationship to what the individual really wants (i.e. selfish interest). The main problem here is that Freud concieves of a conscience and society as something antithetical to the individual. The empirical evidence seems to suggest that a Child's conscience develops independently of their parents -- that a child's conscience develops mainly in situations of social interction with peers. Instead of playing a negative role, a conscience can forward the interests of an individual -- e.g. people like to have friends who have consciences; companies like to hire people that will not steal.

No, it is the internal manifestation of inculcated values which we are given by society.





okay so minus the please self i sed and its the same thing? just the desire to help others manifested by social conditioning



The Ego is the conscious part of the human for Freud. To claim that he didn't believe we were in part conscious is deeply mistaken. Certainly the Id which is almost entirely subconscious exists and provides our main drive (as filtered through the Superego and to a lesser extent through the Ego) exists, but we experience it through our actions and desires as consciously felt by the Ego.

okay maybe he did think we were conscious but he certainly thought the conscious side of of us had almost no control over the subconscious and it just worked wiv wat the subconscious allowed it to work wiv

okay maybe he did think we were conscious but he certainly thought the conscious side of of us had almost no control over the subconscious and it just worked wiv wat the subconscious allowed it to work wiv

Yes, the id (the subconscious part of us) is the main source of all our drives and desires, but it is filtered through the superego and the ego into primarily socially acceptable ways of achieving satiation which are then expressed consciously.

well he said anything you find taboo you secretely want to do and the reason you find it taboo is because most of your brain doesnt wont you to do it so stops the other part from doing it by making it taboo

by taboo i mean something you find socialy disgusting, e.g you can dislike or even hate child molestation wivout finding it taboo, you just need a reason other than disgusting like it destroys society or summin

plus didnt freud come up wiv why we get scared and disgusted? i.e we copy what are parents and idols get disgusted and scared of, i think thats true

generally i agree tho, i aint a fan of freud because he didnt seem to like humans much whereas jung who was virtually his apprentice (a rebellious one tho) seemed to like them alot

My objection is that his argument for Taboo is not a reliable concept. I think that people can generally find child molestation disgusting without it actually meaning that they really want to do it. There are other Taboos though -- e.g. puking on the bus in public and then eating your own sick in front of other people. Whomsoever witnesses this will feel disgust, but that does not mean they want to secretly eat their own puke. A better explanation is that disgust is felt because eating your own puke can lead to illness -- same reason that eating crap makes people disgusted. Thus, we could conclude, that feelings of disgust serve a evolutionary role -- they can protect the individual. From this, we could claim further that taboos also serve an evolutionary role, they protect society from something that would be to its disadvantage.

Who died and made science king?

If there is no desire to break taboos, then why bother labelling them as taboos? The very fact that they survive in society as forbidden acts shows that the desire to carry out those acts also survives.

Well, science is the most reliable method for getting at the truth (inductively speaking).


Say you're right about the desire existing along with the taboo. What is the significance?

Instead of playing a negative role, a conscience can forward the interests of an individual -- e.g. people like to have friends who have consciences; companies like to hire people that will not steal.

Is that not the whole argument of Civ and Dis - that we create internal social structures which allow us satisfaction through socially acceptable means? The superego does not act to disallow the drives of the id, it tempers them and redirects them in ways which will allow a portion of satisfaction and an avoidance of punishment. Thus we may get less fucking and less feeding and less feeling if we just push mops in a company, but we also are more likely to avoid censure, rejection and punishment than if we just went out and raped, stole and destroyed.

...or are you saying something else here? We may be arguing at cross purposes when we are really in agreement.

Well, science is the most reliable method for getting at the truth (inductively speaking).

Asymptotically, and only within those areas which are amenable to falsification.


Say you're right about the desire existing along with the taboo. What is the significance?

That the existence of taboos and their specific nature tell us about the repressed desires of members of a culture, and are thus insights into the subconscious mind.

My objection is that his argument for Taboo is not a reliable concept. I think that people can generally find child molestation disgusting without it actually meaning that they really want to do it. There are other Taboos though -- e.g. puking on the bus in public and then eating your own sick in front of other people. Whomsoever witnesses this will feel disgust, but that does not mean they want to secretly eat their own puke. A better explanation is that disgust is felt because eating your own puke can lead to illness -- same reason that eating crap makes people disgusted. Thus, we could conclude, that feelings of disgust serve a evolutionary role -- they can protect the individual. From this, we could claim further that taboos also serve an evolutionary role, they protect society from something that would be to its disadvantage.

its more complicated then that tho, its not the puke eating thats the taboo in that case because that isnt socially disgusting its instinctively disgusting (due to evolution apparently) its the doing it on a bus thats taboo and people who find it taboo just want the willpower to be able to do something that shocking in public themselves


think of the wisemaster stereotype, who if he was on the bus and u vomited and ate it he would probly just be like "watever, do wat u want"

he would stop a man raping a child not because he finds it disgusting but for the childs sake instead

i thought the super ego is a subconcious urge to be perfect and please yourself and others in a non hedonistic way?

im pretty sure freud didnt think we were conscious beings, just machines that are constantly programmed

I recomend that you study Freud again. He had some very interesting models that said the mind is in a constant process of trying to achieve the desires and restrictions of the Id, Ego and SuperEgo.

Its quite interesting. I doubt anyone else had done a model as good as his when he presented it to the public.

The problem with psychoanalysis is that its not just a science, its a language. If you dont understand the language first, you wont understand the theory. I have a lot of respect for his theories, and I understand how hard it must be for him to try to explain things in ways no one ever had tried to.

Asymptotically, and only within those areas which are amenable to falsification.




That the existence of taboos and their specific nature tell us about the repressed desires of members of a culture, and are thus insights into the subconscious mind.

This can only be claimed theoretically and, as such, is useless except when taught in English departments. I mean, we can't seriously test these things, all we can do is argue the "logic" of his theory.

I'm not sure what you mean by Asymptotically as I thought this concept is a way of measuring growth. Yes, falsification, but falsification is a technical term used to describe the idea that hypothesis can only be shown to be false. If you mean merely "shown to be false" then there are many propositions that can be shown to be false without resorting to science.

I'm not sure what you mean by Asymptotically as I thought this concept is a way of measuring growth.

Never actually reaching a point: in this instance truth. Science can reject what is false, and can gather supporting evidence for other things which may be true, but it can never attain certainty.

I recomend that you study Freud again. He had some very interesting models that said the mind is in a constant process of trying to achieve the desires and restrictions of the Id, Ego and SuperEgo.

Its quite interesting. I doubt anyone else had done a model as good as his when he presented it to the public.

The problem with psychoanalysis is that its not just a science, its a language. If you dont understand the language first, you wont understand the theory. I have a lot of respect for his theories, and I understand how hard it must be for him to try to explain things in ways no one ever had tried to.

i will sometime, sounds interesting but at the moment im busy trying to understand quantum mechanics

i will sometime, sounds interesting but at the moment im busy trying to understand quantum mechanics

Lol, yes, do it first, because understanding quantum mechanics is easier than fully understanding the Oedipus complex.

After you understand the Oedipus complex, your mind never goes back to what it once was. It leaves a mark.

Is that not the whole argument of Civ and Dis - that we create internal social structures which allow us satisfaction through socially acceptable means? The superego does not act to disallow the drives of the id, it tempers them and redirects them in ways which will allow a portion of satisfaction and an avoidance of punishment. Thus we may get less fucking and less feeding and less feeling if we just push mops in a company, but we also are more likely to avoid censure, rejection and punishment than if we just went out and raped, stole and destroyed.

...or are you saying something else here? We may be arguing at cross purposes when we are really in agreement.

I've always taken Freud to be more severe than what you have put forward here -- I really think that he sees the individual and society in conflict. He makes the claim that society can't survive if an individual follows his own interests and I suppose that society is necessary for the individual to survive. Thus, there is some reciprocal situation. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of conflict that plays itself out.

The essential difference between us, perhaps, is that I would argue that an individual uptakes social rules and these inform the conscience and prohibit behavior. However, I don't believe that there is a type of trade off between the Id and Superego or any such entities. Rather, transgression is avoided for pragmatic reasons -- as I said before, people won't like you if you follow your own interests. It is, then, the peer group and not institutions or parents that inform the conscience.

I guess we might have similar ends, but different ways of getting there.

Never actually reaching a point: in this instance truth. Science can reject what is false, and can gather supporting evidence for other things which may be true, but it can never attain certainty.

Yes, but we don't need to talk about truth and falsity with a scientific language, we can talk about liklihoods and degrees of confirmation doing away with the falsifibility concept.

I've always taken Freud to be more severe than what you have put forward here -- I really think that he sees the individual and society in conflict. He makes the claim that society can't survive if an individual follows his own interests and I suppose that society is necessary for the individual to survive. Thus, there is some reciprocal situation. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of conflict that plays itself out.

Yes, and this conflict is mirrored inside any indidivual living in a society. Short term gratification is inhibited by the superego, which has inculcated the values and rules of society. This allows both society and the individual to survive. Without the temperance of the superego there naught but a Hobbesian war.

its more complicated then that tho, its not the puke eating thats the taboo in that case because that isnt socially disgusting its instinctively disgusting (due to evolution apparently) its the doing it on a bus thats taboo and people who find it taboo just want the willpower to be able to do something that shocking in public themselves


think of the wisemaster stereotype, who if he was on the bus and u vomited and ate it he would probly just be like "watever, do wat u want"

he would stop a man raping a child not because he finds it disgusting but for the childs sake instead

OK, lets say that you are right. Yet, explain to me how Freud can account for change, e.g.,

At time t1 S is taboo

At time t2 S is not taboo.

(think of the kid on the bus with piercings all over his face, at t1 this is taboo, at t2 this is not-taboo). How does Freud sufficiently explain this change.

Twilight of the Idols is an odd choice. That's, uh... well, fairly representative of Nietzsche's later work, right before he went mad.

Maybe that's why it's there. The ravings of a madman, perhaps?

If I were taking that class, I'd read up on the Neurodiversity movement and use that as the basis for all my papers. It's a defensible position, one most other students won't even know about, and it's applicable to almost any aspect of the psychology.

How does Freud sufficiently explain this change.

Society has changed in such a manner that the breaking of the taboo is no longer threatening to the continued existence of the society.

Yes, and this conflict is mirrored inside any indidivual living in a society. Short term gratification is inhibited by the superego, which has inculcated the values and rules of society. This allows both society and the individual to survive. Without the temperance of the superego there naught but a Hobbesian war.

This is exactly where I differ with Freud and Hobbes for that matter: they both have an overly negative view of human nature. Of course, that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

I agree that the rules of conscience have been taken up by the individual -- this is obvious or we would be dealing with innate ideas or God. Yet, the objection can be made that this continued battle between the Id and Superego is psychologically unlikely -- it would take too much energy. A simpler idea would be to merely follow the rules subconciously without conflict. Indeed, I think that internal conflicts of conscience happen rarely and only in relation to what me might call large problems.

OK, lets say that you are right. Yet, explain to me how Freud can account for change, e.g.,

At time t1 S is taboo

At time t2 S is not taboo.

(think of the kid on the bus with piercings all over his face, at t1 this is taboo, at t2 this is not-taboo). How does Freud sufficiently explain this change.

changes in the persons mind change whether the smaller part of his mind that wants the taboo or not and this varies due to outside stimuli, so at one time your distracted by say loss of a loved one and you just dont care whether someone eats vomit or not but b4 this person died you are more focused on it