Status
Available
Genres
Publication
New York : W.W. Norton, c1989.
Description
Originally published in 1930, this book seeks to answer ultimate questions. What influences led to the creation of civilization? How did it come to be? What determines its course? In this classic work, Freud addresses the contest between aggression and eros, and speaks to issues of human creativity and fulfillment, the place of beauty in culture, and the effects of repression.
Media reviews
This, written in 1930, on the eve of destruction as it were, is a summary of Freud's beliefs, the potted essence of his system as applied to the broad picture. Those who decry the Freudian technique as far as our interior mental landscapes go would do well to remember that, whatever his flaws as a
Show More
scientist, he was a first-rate essayist. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member WalkerMedia
OK, so we all disagree with Freud...it isn't *all* about repressed sexuality. And culture has adapted to become more tolerant of diversity than it was in his stricter times. In these ways, Freud is out-of-date.
But this brief text remains a classic. Understanding the interactions between the
But this brief text remains a classic. Understanding the interactions between the
Show More
individual and society is a task no less important now versus then. (Just observe a soccer mom in an SUV to see the redirected frustration when one is asked to conform in impossible ways. Also witness the reactions of marginalized sub-populations.) Just as you don't have to agree with the sexual nature of the Oedipus complex to accept the reality, as most psychologists do, of defense mechanisms, you don't have to agree with everything in this book to accept the validity of other parts. Freud is...well, Freud...and you can expect to find a bit of his off-balanced-ness in the text, but also insight. At the least, anyone who aims to read very far in social psychology will need to understand the ideas put forth here. Show Less
LibraryThing member eromsted
Utter nonsense.
The basic intellectual procedure seems to be thus:
Take commonplace and stereotyped social observations and jam them into dubious theoretical constructs. Then build these constructs into an edifice that purports to explain all of human behavior. Never look back for alternate
Furthermore, Freud's main argument sells humanity extremely short. He seems to believe that human behavior can be explained as the attempt to seek pleasure in the fulfillment of instinctual drives like sex and aggression, or as the "sublimation" (whatever that means) of these drives into other activities. What a dim and constricted worldview.
I have a difficult time understanding how Freud could ever have been taken so seriously.
The basic intellectual procedure seems to be thus:
Take commonplace and stereotyped social observations and jam them into dubious theoretical constructs. Then build these constructs into an edifice that purports to explain all of human behavior. Never look back for alternate
Show More
explanations, or even to see if the resulting theory stands up to reality.Furthermore, Freud's main argument sells humanity extremely short. He seems to believe that human behavior can be explained as the attempt to seek pleasure in the fulfillment of instinctual drives like sex and aggression, or as the "sublimation" (whatever that means) of these drives into other activities. What a dim and constricted worldview.
I have a difficult time understanding how Freud could ever have been taken so seriously.
Show Less
LibraryThing member gbill
I’m not an expert in psychology or a believer in many of Freud’s theories, but I found “Civilization and its Discontents” to be an interesting read for its ideas on history and culture.
At the outset of the book, Freud states that religion is infantile, that there is no inherent meaning to
This rub between the individual and society is the basis for the book; Freud essentially says that the civilization we built to protect us and to preserve our happiness from what would otherwise be a wilderness turns out to be the prime source of our misery.
I don’t believe all of what follows, e.g. the ego-instinct of thatanos and that type of thing, but found a good portion of it to be thought provoking. It also brought a smile to read his descriptions of the ways in which unhappiness can be avoided in chapter two. I would briefly summarize these as isolation from people, intoxication, mastering or controlling one’s instincts, seeking pleasure internally, utilizing imagination, looking for all one’s satisfaction in love, and looking for happiness in the enjoyment of beauty.
As an aside, where does translator James Strachey get off being listed as the author of this book? This is like seeing “War and Peace” listed as written by Constance Garnett because she wrote the introduction and translated it. Sheesh. I manually changed it to Freud.
Quotes:
On God:
“…by his science and technology, man has brought about on this earth, on which he first appeared as a feeble animal organism and on which each individual of his species must once more make its entry (‘oh inch of nature!) as a helpless suckling – these things do not only sound like a fairy tale, they are an actual fulfillment of every – or of almost every – fairy-tale wish. … Long ago he formed an ideal conception of omnipotence and omniscience which he embodies in his gods. To these gods he attributed everything that seemed unattainable to his wishes, or that was forbidden to him. One may say, therefore, that these gods were cultural ideals. To-day he has come very close to the attainment of this ideal, he has almost become a god himself.”
On meaninglessness:
“The question of the purpose of human life has been raised countless times; it has never yet received a satisfactory answer and perhaps does not admit of one. Some of those who have asked it have added that if it should turn out that life has no purpose, it would lose all value for them. But this threat alters nothing. … Nobody talks about the purpose of the life of animals, unless, perhaps, it may be supposed to lie in being of service to man.”
On religion:
“The common man cannot imagine this Providence otherwise than in the figure of an enormously exalted father. Only such a being can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of their remorse. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.”
At the outset of the book, Freud states that religion is infantile, that there is no inherent meaning to
Show More
life, and that what drives us is the fulfillment of the pleasure principle. Pretty strong stuff for 1930. Our pleasure is threatened by our own mortality and the breakdown of our body as we age, but more importantly it is threatened by civilization, which naturally must erect laws to prevent individuals from wreaking havoc by following their baser instincts of pleasure, e.g. violence and sex. This societal force also applies to man’s more noble instinct to love, which it restricts by creating various laws and taboos.This rub between the individual and society is the basis for the book; Freud essentially says that the civilization we built to protect us and to preserve our happiness from what would otherwise be a wilderness turns out to be the prime source of our misery.
I don’t believe all of what follows, e.g. the ego-instinct of thatanos and that type of thing, but found a good portion of it to be thought provoking. It also brought a smile to read his descriptions of the ways in which unhappiness can be avoided in chapter two. I would briefly summarize these as isolation from people, intoxication, mastering or controlling one’s instincts, seeking pleasure internally, utilizing imagination, looking for all one’s satisfaction in love, and looking for happiness in the enjoyment of beauty.
As an aside, where does translator James Strachey get off being listed as the author of this book? This is like seeing “War and Peace” listed as written by Constance Garnett because she wrote the introduction and translated it. Sheesh. I manually changed it to Freud.
Quotes:
On God:
“…by his science and technology, man has brought about on this earth, on which he first appeared as a feeble animal organism and on which each individual of his species must once more make its entry (‘oh inch of nature!) as a helpless suckling – these things do not only sound like a fairy tale, they are an actual fulfillment of every – or of almost every – fairy-tale wish. … Long ago he formed an ideal conception of omnipotence and omniscience which he embodies in his gods. To these gods he attributed everything that seemed unattainable to his wishes, or that was forbidden to him. One may say, therefore, that these gods were cultural ideals. To-day he has come very close to the attainment of this ideal, he has almost become a god himself.”
On meaninglessness:
“The question of the purpose of human life has been raised countless times; it has never yet received a satisfactory answer and perhaps does not admit of one. Some of those who have asked it have added that if it should turn out that life has no purpose, it would lose all value for them. But this threat alters nothing. … Nobody talks about the purpose of the life of animals, unless, perhaps, it may be supposed to lie in being of service to man.”
On religion:
“The common man cannot imagine this Providence otherwise than in the figure of an enormously exalted father. Only such a being can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of their remorse. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member paradoxosalpha
Civilization and Its Discontents presents itself as a direct sequel to Freud's Future of an Illusion. Where the earlier text was chiefly concerned with the irrational adherence to religious ideas, this one starts out inquiring into the "deepest sources of religious feeling" (9), what might in more
In the third of its eight sections, Freud's essay pivots to concentrate on the business indicated by its title. He begins to explore the tensions between individual gratification on one hand and social growth and welfare on the other. In particular, he focuses at first on the occasional hostility toward cultural development as such, and the idealization of a pre-lapsarian state. As the discussion continues on to the etiology of culture generally, it becomes distinctly androcentric ("Women represent the interests of the family and sexual life; the work of civilization has become more and more men's business," 33) and culminates with a presentation of 1930s family life and sexual discipline that seems positively Victorian in the most pejorative sense of the term.
Returning to religion, Freud identifies the social instrumentality of the religious "love of neighbor," as well as the insupportable demands that it makes of individuals. This context is the one in which he develops an outline of the conflict between Eros and Thanatos, the life-instinct and the death-instinct. The instinctual bind is what he then hypothesizes as the motive force in the development of the super-ego (i.e. conscience) in the individual.
In the closing passages, the idea of the super-ego of a community or of "an epoch of civilization" is introduced, and Freud proposes that such super-egos take their particular forms in reaction to perceived human figures, such as Jesus bestowing the "love of neighbor" fixation on the collective super-ego of Christian culture. The possibility to personify such a collective psychic function makes it provocatively similar to the "Aeon" as used in Thelemic parlance, especially when Freud posits the derangement and replacement of such a super-ego. And in this final section, while disclaiming "any opinion regarding the value of human civilization" (70), he does seem to come full circle to the critique of culture, suggesting that the survival of humanity itself may be dependent on the arrival at a new covenant between Eros and Thanatos at the collective level.
Show More
sympathetic hands be termed the psychology of mysticism. In section II of the essay, Freud at first tries to relate such sources to the chief means of palliating life's suffering: i.e. "powerful diversions of interest, ... substitutive gratifications, ... and intoxicating substances" (10), which three may be taken as another iteration of the chief Platonic frenzies (dropping the Muses as was done by Ficino and his successors): oracular, erotic, and mantic. (In the writings of Aleister Crowley these become the musical, sexual, and pharmaceutical methods of inspiring ecstasy.) At the end of this section, Freud seems to imply that a chief function of religion is to guard against the abusive individual indulgence in the frenzies, and to supply a deferred substitute in the form of metaphysical guarantees. (As Crowley wrote, "No religion has failed hitherto by not promising enough; the present breaking up of all religions is due to the fact that people have asked to see the securities.")In the third of its eight sections, Freud's essay pivots to concentrate on the business indicated by its title. He begins to explore the tensions between individual gratification on one hand and social growth and welfare on the other. In particular, he focuses at first on the occasional hostility toward cultural development as such, and the idealization of a pre-lapsarian state. As the discussion continues on to the etiology of culture generally, it becomes distinctly androcentric ("Women represent the interests of the family and sexual life; the work of civilization has become more and more men's business," 33) and culminates with a presentation of 1930s family life and sexual discipline that seems positively Victorian in the most pejorative sense of the term.
Returning to religion, Freud identifies the social instrumentality of the religious "love of neighbor," as well as the insupportable demands that it makes of individuals. This context is the one in which he develops an outline of the conflict between Eros and Thanatos, the life-instinct and the death-instinct. The instinctual bind is what he then hypothesizes as the motive force in the development of the super-ego (i.e. conscience) in the individual.
In the closing passages, the idea of the super-ego of a community or of "an epoch of civilization" is introduced, and Freud proposes that such super-egos take their particular forms in reaction to perceived human figures, such as Jesus bestowing the "love of neighbor" fixation on the collective super-ego of Christian culture. The possibility to personify such a collective psychic function makes it provocatively similar to the "Aeon" as used in Thelemic parlance, especially when Freud posits the derangement and replacement of such a super-ego. And in this final section, while disclaiming "any opinion regarding the value of human civilization" (70), he does seem to come full circle to the critique of culture, suggesting that the survival of humanity itself may be dependent on the arrival at a new covenant between Eros and Thanatos at the collective level.
Show Less
LibraryThing member rampaginglibrarian
We used this book for my history of film class which gives you a really interesting perspective on Freud--a rather different one than a got from my psychology classes anyway. Anyway this is a seminal text that i think every person who considers himself well-read should read.
LibraryThing member GaryWolf
The impact of Sigmund Freud on contemporary Western thought can hardly be underestimated. Many of the key "psychological" terms we employ can be traced back to his writing. Although fascinating and often insightful, much of his influence has been destructive, providing comfort and a scientific
Let us first dispose of several misconceptions that have clouded the popular image of this brilliant thinker. To begin with, Freud is no touchy-feely, tree-hugging, crystal-gazing therapist from Vermont. He is a hardened observer of human nature, quite Hobbesian, convinced that aggression and unbounded self-interest are primary factors in the motivation of human behavior. He mocks those who preach unlimited love, as well as those who would coddle criminals. His views on women would shock many an unsuspecting feminist.
Likewise, Freud is clear in his opposition to utopian political schemes, such as communism. He writes that the Marxist view of private property is based on a fallacy:
"The psychological premises on which the [communist] system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property."
It is quite possible that Freud's psychoanalytic treatment of mentally ill individuals, or even of merely miserable ones, has proven to be highly effective. This is arguable, but it belongs to another discussion. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that his contribution in this field was worthy of his reputation.
The problem begins where psychoanalysis ends and the development of a comprehensive theory of human society begins. Percolating throughout his writing is a misapplication of concepts from the psychology of the individual to the level of civilization--which, incidentally, is one of Freud's favorite words. For example, take the notion of guilt, which he claims is the "most important problem in the development of civilization." Guilt certainly has a role to play in our lives, and the shedding of unnecessary guilt goes a long way to ameliorating one's peace of mind, but the most important problem?
Freud's highly influential work, "Civilization and Its Discontents," abounds with such sweeping, grandiose statements, the applicability of which seldom extends further than the Viennese café in which he was seated when the epiphany struck him. Here's another one:
"Civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this. These collections of men are to be libidinally bound to one another."
One might think that the study of aesthetics could somehow rise above the fray of the battling instinct gods, but this also is traced back to the shadowy domain of individual impulses:
"All that seems certain is [beauty's] derivation from the field of sexual feeling. The love of beauty seems a perfect example of an impulse inhibited in its aim. `Beauty' and `attraction' are originally attributes of the sexual object. It is worth remarking that the genitals themselves, the sight of which is always exciting, are nevertheless hardly ever judged to be beautiful..."
One could easily imagine this being said by a character in a film by Fellini, in a scene satirizing the mumbo-jumbo of ivory tower academics.
Freud's remarks on religion, which he holds in the highest contempt, are indicative of an abysmal ignorance. He claims that religion derives from the "infant's helplessness and the longing for the father aroused by it." Other factors are later admitted, but (as in the case of aesthetics) everything is traced back to the individual and his instincts. There is no consideration of the actual content of religion, its insight and its wisdom. Even Nietzsche, certainly no friend of Judeo-Christian teachings, once remarked that the Old Testament was the greatest work of literature ever produced by man.
Freud's macro-level analysis fails because he has seized upon a certain realm, individual psychology, and inflated it to supernatural dimensions. Certainly, it has an impact, but it is only one slice of the societal pie, or more accurately, one ingredient therein. It can never explain all of human existence. Human society is a complex organism, with multiple and criss-crossing influences.
Freud's error is only too typical of the modern mind, estranged as it is from the profound ocean of history. What escapes Freud completely is the fact that culture has an existence that is independent of any given individual or group of individuals. Culture is produced layer upon layer. It is much greater than the sum of its human parts, and does not result from the intent or design of any single person, group, or generation.
Thus an analysis (were it possible) that could aggregate the thoughts and impulses of every human mind that has ever existed would still be insufficient for understanding the essence of culture.
In Freud's world view, man is wrested from his culture; he is fragmented, alienated, and made a slave of his animal self. Freud inherited and expanded the legacy of Darwin, who attempted to prove that man is nothing more than an animal. Freud went one step further, in attempting to demonstrate that all of man's creations--so utterly at variance with the animal world--can nevertheless be traced back to instincts and bodily functions that we have in common with apes and aardvarks. To say that this has provided fuel for deconstructionists of every variety would be to state the obvious.
Freud's most impressive feat may have been to complete the work of Hegel and Darwin in constructing the new secular religion for Western man. Hegel, through his "world-historical spirit" and immutable "laws" of society's development, strips man of his free will, and paves the way for the unbounded totalitarianism that has so marked modern society. Darwin teaches that man is an animal, a shock treatment that has led people to despair of the perennial search for a higher nature--a quest that had run like a thread through the annals of Western civilization. Freud adds the third idol of the trinity, that of the instincts, particularly the sexual.
Put the three together, and there is nothing left of God, reason, art, the intellect, purpose, wisdom, or contemplation.
Show More
imprimatur for a large portion of the anti-Western diatribes of the last generation.Let us first dispose of several misconceptions that have clouded the popular image of this brilliant thinker. To begin with, Freud is no touchy-feely, tree-hugging, crystal-gazing therapist from Vermont. He is a hardened observer of human nature, quite Hobbesian, convinced that aggression and unbounded self-interest are primary factors in the motivation of human behavior. He mocks those who preach unlimited love, as well as those who would coddle criminals. His views on women would shock many an unsuspecting feminist.
Likewise, Freud is clear in his opposition to utopian political schemes, such as communism. He writes that the Marxist view of private property is based on a fallacy:
"The psychological premises on which the [communist] system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property."
It is quite possible that Freud's psychoanalytic treatment of mentally ill individuals, or even of merely miserable ones, has proven to be highly effective. This is arguable, but it belongs to another discussion. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that his contribution in this field was worthy of his reputation.
The problem begins where psychoanalysis ends and the development of a comprehensive theory of human society begins. Percolating throughout his writing is a misapplication of concepts from the psychology of the individual to the level of civilization--which, incidentally, is one of Freud's favorite words. For example, take the notion of guilt, which he claims is the "most important problem in the development of civilization." Guilt certainly has a role to play in our lives, and the shedding of unnecessary guilt goes a long way to ameliorating one's peace of mind, but the most important problem?
Freud's highly influential work, "Civilization and Its Discontents," abounds with such sweeping, grandiose statements, the applicability of which seldom extends further than the Viennese café in which he was seated when the epiphany struck him. Here's another one:
"Civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this. These collections of men are to be libidinally bound to one another."
One might think that the study of aesthetics could somehow rise above the fray of the battling instinct gods, but this also is traced back to the shadowy domain of individual impulses:
"All that seems certain is [beauty's] derivation from the field of sexual feeling. The love of beauty seems a perfect example of an impulse inhibited in its aim. `Beauty' and `attraction' are originally attributes of the sexual object. It is worth remarking that the genitals themselves, the sight of which is always exciting, are nevertheless hardly ever judged to be beautiful..."
One could easily imagine this being said by a character in a film by Fellini, in a scene satirizing the mumbo-jumbo of ivory tower academics.
Freud's remarks on religion, which he holds in the highest contempt, are indicative of an abysmal ignorance. He claims that religion derives from the "infant's helplessness and the longing for the father aroused by it." Other factors are later admitted, but (as in the case of aesthetics) everything is traced back to the individual and his instincts. There is no consideration of the actual content of religion, its insight and its wisdom. Even Nietzsche, certainly no friend of Judeo-Christian teachings, once remarked that the Old Testament was the greatest work of literature ever produced by man.
Freud's macro-level analysis fails because he has seized upon a certain realm, individual psychology, and inflated it to supernatural dimensions. Certainly, it has an impact, but it is only one slice of the societal pie, or more accurately, one ingredient therein. It can never explain all of human existence. Human society is a complex organism, with multiple and criss-crossing influences.
Freud's error is only too typical of the modern mind, estranged as it is from the profound ocean of history. What escapes Freud completely is the fact that culture has an existence that is independent of any given individual or group of individuals. Culture is produced layer upon layer. It is much greater than the sum of its human parts, and does not result from the intent or design of any single person, group, or generation.
Thus an analysis (were it possible) that could aggregate the thoughts and impulses of every human mind that has ever existed would still be insufficient for understanding the essence of culture.
In Freud's world view, man is wrested from his culture; he is fragmented, alienated, and made a slave of his animal self. Freud inherited and expanded the legacy of Darwin, who attempted to prove that man is nothing more than an animal. Freud went one step further, in attempting to demonstrate that all of man's creations--so utterly at variance with the animal world--can nevertheless be traced back to instincts and bodily functions that we have in common with apes and aardvarks. To say that this has provided fuel for deconstructionists of every variety would be to state the obvious.
Freud's most impressive feat may have been to complete the work of Hegel and Darwin in constructing the new secular religion for Western man. Hegel, through his "world-historical spirit" and immutable "laws" of society's development, strips man of his free will, and paves the way for the unbounded totalitarianism that has so marked modern society. Darwin teaches that man is an animal, a shock treatment that has led people to despair of the perennial search for a higher nature--a quest that had run like a thread through the annals of Western civilization. Freud adds the third idol of the trinity, that of the instincts, particularly the sexual.
Put the three together, and there is nothing left of God, reason, art, the intellect, purpose, wisdom, or contemplation.
Show Less
LibraryThing member tnilsson
Utter, made-up, nonsense. Read Frederick Crews' book, Freud: The Making of an Illusion, for a (very long) description of what a pseudo-scientist Freud was and how his writings, including this one, are based on nothing but his personal delusions and ambitions. If I could give this 0 stars, I would.
LibraryThing member goosecap
Freud loved civilization; and he was also ambivalent about it. Freud is moderately interesting in that he was both influenced by and part of, the thoughts of the men (women?) of his own time and immediately before, and a big influence on subsequent decades, as well as a ‘unique’ take on
Anyway, this seems to be basically Freud’s book about happiness. ‘Interpretation of Dreams’ was sorta okay—it’s a great topic—although I feel like he tried way too hard, you know. (His favorite book!) In this book he kinda keeps it simpler—happiness; barriers to happiness—and in Freud’s world, when he simplifies himself, he kinda barely brushes the top of the hills, instead of floating in the path of the spy planes, you know.
…. Freud’s occasional weirdo-sexism won’t surprise the students of reputation, but more central to his point is that there is more to civilization than just-academics-and-nothing-but-the-academics; the-isolated-man-and-nothing-but-the-isolated-man, you know.
…. I’m sure that what Siggy writes can be interpreted in different ways, but I don’t think I’m as positive, or sanguine, about hostility as he is, and I don’t think that people need to earn love. I don’t know; love isn’t marriage, but people shouldn’t have to earn love. Although he is quite brave to state as his belief what most people usually believe, when most people usually by no means consider their own beliefs to be correct, you know—their real beliefs. And it’s true that Christian and communist (etc.) love in general has been based on the exclusion of the other. So there are some things he’s right about, I guess, although he is both very common, and rather weird.
…. I don’t think that Freud was trivial, the way that we want to believe; Eckhart Tolle dismissed him in about a sentence, you know. “He didn’t talk about meditation, so screw him.” Freud wasn’t completely deluded, or completely without aid for humanity, really: you could at least stop blaming yourself, attacking yourself, taking it out on yourself—that only increases the total amount of aggression, in the end…. Sometimes the religion of Freud’s day took dying on a cross of one’s own construction to be almost the goal of the human project, but….
…. So it’s basically about happiness, although other related topics are brought in, such as guilt, social structures, and parental relations (mostly that of the father as family law-giver vs resentful children, basically).
…. “(The cultural super-ego) issues a command and does not ask whether it is possible for people to obey it.”
This is true I think of the Jewish and I guess the Catholic god. The Calvinist one IMO issues a command while asserting that it cannot be obeyed, you know. 🤓🤪😠
…. I guess properly it is about the ~barriers~ to happiness, of course.
(Calvinist) Yes, this is the law. It’s a good law. No, you are constitutionally and inherently unable to obey it. This law will find you guilty; it will make you unhappy. What’s wrong with that? 😠
(Freud) (does crazy/loony tunes gestures behind his back)
Show More
relevant human questions. Anyway, this seems to be basically Freud’s book about happiness. ‘Interpretation of Dreams’ was sorta okay—it’s a great topic—although I feel like he tried way too hard, you know. (His favorite book!) In this book he kinda keeps it simpler—happiness; barriers to happiness—and in Freud’s world, when he simplifies himself, he kinda barely brushes the top of the hills, instead of floating in the path of the spy planes, you know.
…. Freud’s occasional weirdo-sexism won’t surprise the students of reputation, but more central to his point is that there is more to civilization than just-academics-and-nothing-but-the-academics; the-isolated-man-and-nothing-but-the-isolated-man, you know.
…. I’m sure that what Siggy writes can be interpreted in different ways, but I don’t think I’m as positive, or sanguine, about hostility as he is, and I don’t think that people need to earn love. I don’t know; love isn’t marriage, but people shouldn’t have to earn love. Although he is quite brave to state as his belief what most people usually believe, when most people usually by no means consider their own beliefs to be correct, you know—their real beliefs. And it’s true that Christian and communist (etc.) love in general has been based on the exclusion of the other. So there are some things he’s right about, I guess, although he is both very common, and rather weird.
…. I don’t think that Freud was trivial, the way that we want to believe; Eckhart Tolle dismissed him in about a sentence, you know. “He didn’t talk about meditation, so screw him.” Freud wasn’t completely deluded, or completely without aid for humanity, really: you could at least stop blaming yourself, attacking yourself, taking it out on yourself—that only increases the total amount of aggression, in the end…. Sometimes the religion of Freud’s day took dying on a cross of one’s own construction to be almost the goal of the human project, but….
…. So it’s basically about happiness, although other related topics are brought in, such as guilt, social structures, and parental relations (mostly that of the father as family law-giver vs resentful children, basically).
…. “(The cultural super-ego) issues a command and does not ask whether it is possible for people to obey it.”
This is true I think of the Jewish and I guess the Catholic god. The Calvinist one IMO issues a command while asserting that it cannot be obeyed, you know. 🤓🤪😠
…. I guess properly it is about the ~barriers~ to happiness, of course.
(Calvinist) Yes, this is the law. It’s a good law. No, you are constitutionally and inherently unable to obey it. This law will find you guilty; it will make you unhappy. What’s wrong with that? 😠
(Freud) (does crazy/loony tunes gestures behind his back)
Show Less
LibraryThing member heinous-eli
A lot of what Freud theorizes in this book has become part of common knowledge and speech. Understanding where terms like "unconscious," "subconscious," "repression," "sublimation," and even "Freudian slip" come from is highly valuable.
LibraryThing member justine
Classic Freud where he extends his psychological theory from the individual's development toward a universal theory of cultural development.
LibraryThing member Fledgist
Civilisation frustrates our destructive urges.
LibraryThing member Torikton
The single most important book I've ever read.
LibraryThing member sgarnell
Even though not every theory of Freud can be easily understood or even accepted, he has a lot to say about civilization. What I found quite striking was his detailed analysis of freedom, and the tradeoffs we make of it in order to be part of our chosen society. I for one feel there is much to learn
Show More
here, and recommend this book to all those who wish to pursue the question of who we are, and what we can become as a species. Show Less
LibraryThing member madepercy
It is quite clear that Freud was so far ahead of his time that some of his theories may still prove to be correct, in spite of what "modern" evidence suggests. Freud resonates with so many unspoken thoughts it would seem that psychoanalysis provided his laboratory of the unspoken, enabling him to
Show More
grasp what others had or could not. Given the context of the times, Freud appears to me to have seen through the veneer of the Victorian era, and even grasped the problems of the present era. It is more than obvious he was well-read in art and literature and rightly deserves the title of "genius". I went to Freud after reading Andy Warhol (despite the seemingly disparate connection it made sense to me) and now I am compelled to explore Voltaire and Kant. Voltaire to comprehend the context of the sublime and Kant to try to discover how one could articulate so much from so little observation. Show Less
LibraryThing member SerinaChaoAlonzo
It's very clear the Freud was way ahead of his time. That is what I love about his books personally. With this one, however... I usually don't stop and go back to read the chapter until I got its meaning.. But this time I did. Freud made me realize how society is now. A huge example is religion.
This is such a great read, and such an eye opener on society.
Show More
Which is mentioned in the book. It made me realize that it is just something that was brought on to us. It's not a 'real' thing. It's an ideal thing that has been embedded into our own minds to make it seem real. This is such a great read, and such an eye opener on society.
Show Less
LibraryThing member macleod73
Freud's a divisive author, no doubt about it. So often he'll create a reaction in people (particularly men) when they learn that he posits that all men want to sleep with their mothers. As wild and possibly misplaced as his fixation on the Oedipus Complex is, Freud tends to gesture successfully at
Show More
truths in the human condition. He won't lead us to concrete proof, but neither does he claim to. "There is something going on here" he'll say in wonderfully worded prose. His ideas on the dual nature of humanity being tied between Eros and Thanatos may not be dead-on but he gives us the material through which to investigate drives of pleasure and aggression more fully. As a foundational work in today's modern thinking and, with Russia's current aggression in the world, I've got to give this one a 5/5. Show Less