Sad Mask
Would you be so kind as to disable your ad-blocker on BasilMarket please? Your support is greatly appreciated.

White male privilege as a member of a semi-extinct ethnicity

Chat Forum Talk about topics not related to MapleStory

ashleyattacked Level 210 Scania Cannoneer 4 Reconcile Guild See what games, anime & art ashleyattacked is intoalisaattacked
I'm gonna do something else. Thread cancel for now but read on, past the part where I insult everyone over and over, practically tripping over myself and my words to come up with another insult. Don't worry, I don't mean it, I'm just being negative because there's nothing to be positive about right now. That all changes when I finish talking and start quoting Freud. It gets even better in the follow up responses where I bring up Civilization and Its Discontents. Seriously, it's really fun to read and applies to a lot of things in ways that, despite not being revolutionary...not even truly enlightening...but it's still awesome because Freud puts articulates and presents his thoughts so well that you can at least enjoy being in his mind and seeing what it's like to be someone else and figure out how they see whatever they see...and later you can learn the whole process and apply it to things that Freud never even saw - like Kanye West! And Maplestory.

Here's my harangue, Freud is at the end.

I'm bored of Basil behaving like stereotypically, mushie, derivative politically correct little marshmallows. There's not enough fun to be found from this sterile, uninspired mess of people. Trends or characteristics are seemingly noteworthy only in their cumulative, tired and banal mix of either watching water drip or the rare day featuring an occasional foray that initially burns bright, catches the eye...only to, time after time, be nothing more than the reflection of light off puss as it drips from someone's acne. One can only get so far before giving up and assuming that all previous promise, everything everything sparkly, anything that everecer shone - anywhere around here - was never more than another cascading light reflecting off another acne'd face as it bleeds out its puss - this time here, now over here. Then here. Time and again, the respective lumps here animate into life, finally betraying their sentience with the sound of throat clearing and knuckle cracking as the build up to the nose picking finale. The only light of life that ever flashes by and give definition to the bland mess is probably nothing more than the occasional eye drooping decidedly less for a moment as the brain behind it dwells momentarily on some crass carnal thought, likely chasing it down until idiot finds rapture in lining up more than one itch in a row.

This endlessly bland and uniform practice of nothing...always twirling around, only to be outdone by another twirling of nothing, this time slower, this time napping...till human voices wake it and it drowns. But I digress. There's more detail here when I close my eyes than the entire human expression heaved out at once. There's not even dynamism within the frequency of the endless let down.

Rather than any respective person doing anything original - be it insulting me, responding to me or ANY FRIGGIN THING other than stereotypically reiterating the same talking points their grade school teachers dole out to them with condescension and obvious contempt - only to find the insult doubled down on when, rather than be offended, these potatoes here shift, think, nod their head and - remember it for later. We're left with the lot who find more in a bowl of rice than they do in a their day to day lives...more in that same bowl of cold rice than in the face of adversity that would be a threat if there was anything defined enough to return even that mindless force requiring simply the unavoidable action made manifest ONLY by Newton's Third Law of Physics. I imagine such adversity is more often than not taken merely as impetus to try harder to blend in, quiet down, face forward and appear meeker than before...should push come to shove...timidly stepping aside presents a mental feat too sharp and piercing for Basil. Eye's clouded and dull, figures propped up from reclining as the mind excitedly gets ready to pack off for a mid morning nap.

It's depressing to imagine the inverse relationship most here find between inspiration and their used toilet paper. The bigger the mess, the more stimulated the mind. Who knows why the world is filled with people more inspired by their excrement than by discussion, reading or dynamic interactions with other people. It is what it is. All I can do is just rattle on endlessly wording and rewording the same endless assessment while waiting for something else to do since my mind is stuck dwelling on the depression of shared existence with this mess and my fear that - should everything turn round and all my goals be reached - it'll still be doomed since this is the world I have to measure I think I'd sooner just watch Obama sneer vacuously until I can find another video of Jon Stewart disguising his lack of intellectual wherewithal behind that same endless snark mixed occasionally with smug arrogance built up around obsequious, degenerate jokes. But, alas, they all hit dead on, hands clap, mouths drop and idiots guffaw because, if nothing else, they know Jon Stewart is making fun of THIS subject -- and those words, those words - they agree with them too! Swish. They're, finally, till the next youtube clip, fulfilled...bc...this time he...Jon Stewart on the tv screen, with the money and the all the stuff, is making fun of something they think sounds stupid too! You know what that means. Yep. That means, dream of all dreams, hope of all hopes...theres a chance that Jon Stewart might even think they're 'ok' too!

I'll share some stuff on psychoanalysis that I really enjoy and think most people, if willing to actually think, will find both meaning and application from too...if not to their own lives, then to art, culture, society, etc. Srsly give it a shot. The point isn't always in agreeing and standing in awe of how right it all is - more often than not the point is in using it as a springboard to stimulate your own selfdiscovery - as boring and cliche as that sounds. It's really pretty fun in practice.

  • Beyond the Pleasure Principle*

by Michael Cerliano

Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Jenseits des Lustprinzips) is a 1920 work by Sigmund Freud. The importance of the work lies in its revision of Freud's earlier theory of instincts, positing that in addition to the libido, there exists a competing death instinct. Freud's movement towards this new conception of his drive theory would continue in his later work The Ego and the Id in 1923.

In the first section of the work, Freud begins by addressing the concept of the pleasure principle itself, which is the idea that humanity possesses an instinctual drive toward experiencing pleasure and shielding itself from pain. Freud does not dispute the existence of a pleasure principle, but does take issue with the idea that the pleasure principle is the dominant mental drive. If it were, he argues, then most mental processes would result in pleasure or be accompanied by it; but because of various other instincts, one can only say that there is a general tendency towards the experience of pleasure that is often in conflict with other drives. One such drive is the reality principle, which according to Freud, is a result from the ego's impulse towards self-preservation and, in effect, forces pleasure to be postponed or attained in a roundabout way. Freud ends the opening chapter of the work by announcing his intent to examine the mind's reaction to external danger, which he describes as the mental perception of displeasure.
Section II opens with an analysis of the trauma experienced by veterans of the First World War. The traditional belief was that traumatic neuroses were the result of physical injuries, a belief that Freud feels has finally been put to rest. Additionally, Freud notes two important characteristics of ordinary, non-war-related traumatic neuroses: that they are primarily caused by surprise or fright (which Freud distinguishes from fear, which is related to a specific object, and anxiety, which is an expectation of danger rather than a reaction to it) and that a wound or other physical trauma simultaneously inflicted typically prevents the development of neuroses. Freud then turns to a discussion of his theory of dreams and its relation to traumatic experiences. In his first book, The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud postulated that dreams are wish-fulfillments, enabling the mind to resolve internal conflicts (in accordance with the pleasure principle). However, this seems to be contradicted by the experiences of those with traumatic neuroses, in which their dreams frequently place them back in the traumatic event which they experienced. Freud believes this has little to do with their minds being occupied with the traumatic events. If anything, he says, trauma patients tend to avoid thinking about their trauma during their waking hours; instead, Freud argues that the function of dreaming itself is disrupted by traumatic experiences. Freud then turns to a discussion of children's games, focusing in particular on the actions of a young boy who repeatedly threw his toys away from him while attempting to say fort ("gone" and da ("there". Freud speculates that this action had less to do with setting up the joyful experience of recapturing the toy, and more to do with the child's attempt to regain control over a situation that he found unpleasant (in this case, the frequent departures of his mother).
Section III consists of an analysis of what Freud terms the "compulsion to repeat," which refers to attempts by neurotic patients to recreate the experience that led to their current mental state. The compulsion to repeat seems to run counter to the notion of the pleasure principle, and Freud relates it to the recurring neurotic dreams and the repetition in the games of children that he discussed in the previous chapter. Often, these repetition compulsions manifest themselves during the patient's treatment, and Freud relates them to his concept of transference neuroses, in which the patient's fantasies and impulses, formerly repressed, are acted out in the present.
The fourth and fifth sections contain some of Freud's most controversial claims about biology and human consciousness; indeed, Freud opens section four with a warning to the reader that much of what follows will be purely speculative. Freud then launches into a long, detailed discussion of the creation and destruction of individual cells. Cells contain an imbalance of energy, and Freud takes their tendency to destruction as implying a natural inclination to return to an earlier state of nonexistence. Freud then applies this idea to an entire living organism, hypothesizing that humans possess an impulse to return to a previous state of equilibrium. In this case, the initial state of humans is one of non-existence. Freud claims that this death instinct was the first instinct developed by organic life, (and later in the book that death developed at a somewhat late stage in the evolutionary process). He attempts to present biological justification for this, stating that destruction of the self is a resolution of tensions produced by external stimuli. Furthermore, the death instinct finds itself in a constant struggle with the libido, which Freud presents as a substitution for perfection. That is to say, the creation of new life takes the place of the individual organism's attainment of perfection, which Freud believes is impossible, given the inevitability of death in the face of such a strong biological drive.
The sixth section contains Freud's exploration of the idea that death was acquired late in the development of higher organisms. He also draws an analogy between the libido and Eros, which he takes as the poetic representation of the force which binds together the universe and all living things. He then ruminates on the origin of sexuality, wondering whether the view put forward by Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium--that humans were split from their other half eons ago and constantly strive to reconnect with their other in the hope of being whole again--might serve as a useful metaphor for the individual's desire to lose himself in his partner during the sex act, and whether this is another drive to equilibrium, in which a distinct organism attempts to return to a primordial state in which there were not individual entities, but rather a great mass of single-celled creatures. Freud then reminds his readers that this work is simply speculation and that more research is needed before anything conclusive can be stated. He then follows with a brief seventh section in which he summarizes some points about the relation between the pleasure principle and the instincts and again calls for more research.
Reception and Analysis

James Strachey writes that "in the series of Freud's metapsychological writings, Beyond the Pleasure Principle may be regarded as introducing the final phase of his views" which would be developed further in late works such as The Ego and the Id and Civilization and its Discontents. Similarly, Peter Gay writes in an introductory note that "Beyond the Pleasure Principle is more remote from Freud's clinical experience than earlier theoretical papers" and that despite his use of some case studies, "there is a good deal of conjecture in this little, path-breaking book." Gay argues, nevertheless, for the importance of the work for its illustration of the shift in psychoanalytic thinking toward a "structural" theory of the mind.
Posted: November 2015 Permalink


Page TopHome 1 2
ashleyattacked Level 210 Scania Cannoneer 4 Reconcile Guild See what games, anime & art ashleyattacked is intoalisaattacked
Freud, on 'Civilization and Its Discontents.'

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. It looks, on the contrary, as though one had a right to dismiss the question, for it seems to derive from the human presumptuousness, many other manifestations of which are already familiar to us. Nobody talks about the purpose of the life of animals, unless, perhaps, it may be supposed to lie in being of service to man. But this view is not tenable either, for there are many animals of which man can make nothing, except to describe, classify and study them; and innumerable species of animals have escaped even this use, since they existed and became extinct before man set eyes on them.

We will therefore turn to the less ambitious question of what men themselves show by their behavior to be the purpose and intention of their lives. What do they demand of life and wish to achieve in it? The answer to this can hardly be in doubt. They strive for happiness; they want to become happy and to remain so. This endeavor has two sides, a positive and a negative aim. It aims, on the one hand, at an absence of pain and unpleasure, and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure. In its narrower sense the word 'happiness' only relates to the last. In conformity with this dichotomy in his aims, man's activity develops in two directions, according as it seeks to realize -- in the main, or even exclusively -- the one or the other of these aims.

As we see, what decides the purpose of life is simply the program of the pleasure principle. This principle dominates the operation of the mental apparatus from the start. There can be no doubt about its efficacy, and yet its program is at loggerheads with the whole world, with the macrocosm as much as with the microcosm. There is no possibility at all of its being carried through; all the regulations of the universe run counter to it. One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be 'happy' is not included in the plan of 'Creation.' What we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the (preferable sudden) satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon. When any situation that is desired by the pleasure principle is prolonged, it only produces a feeling of mild contentment. We are so made that we can derive intense enjoyment only from a contrast and very little from a state of things. Thus our possibilities of happiness are already restricted by our constitution. Unhappiness is much less difficult to experience. We are threatened with suffering from three directions: from our own body, which is doomed to decay and dissolution and which cannot even do without pain and anxiety as warning signals; from the external world, which may rage against us with overwhelming and merciless forces of destruction; and finally from our relations to other men. The suffering which comes from this last source is perhaps more painful to us than any other. We tend to regard it as a kind of gratuitous addition, although it cannot be any less fatefully inevitable than the suffering which comes from elsewhere.

It is no wonder if, under the pressure of these possibilities of suffering, men are accustomed to moderate their claims to happiness -- just as the pleasure principle itself, indeed, under the influence of the external world, changed into the more modest reality principle --, if a man thinks himself happy merely to have escaped unhappiness or to have survived his suffering, and if in general the task of avoiding suffering pushes that of obtaining pleasure into the background. Reflection shows that the accomplishment of this task can be attempted along very different paths; and all these paths have been recommended by the various schools of worldly wisdom and put into practice by men. An unrestricted satisfaction of every need presents itself as the most enticing method of conducting one's life, but it means putting enjoyment before caution, and soon brings its own punishment.... Against the dreaded external world one can only defend oneself by some kind turning away from it, if one intends to solve the task by oneself. There is, indeed, another and better path: that of becoming a member of the human community, and, with the help of a technique guided by science, going over to the attack against nature and subjecting her to the human will. Then one is working with all for the good of all. But the most interesting methods of averting suffering are those which seek to influence our own organism. In the last analysis, all suffering is nothing else than sensation; it only exists in so far as we feel it, and we only feel it in consequence of certain ways in which our organism is regulated.

Another technique for fending off suffering is the employment of the displacements of libido which our mental apparatus permits of and through which its function gains so much in flexibility. The task here is that of shifting the instinctual aims in such a way that they cannot come up against frustration from the external world. In this, sublimination of the instincts lends its assistance. One gains the most if one can sufficiently heighten the yield of pleasure from the sources of psychical and intellectual work. When that is so, fate can do little against one. A satisfaction of this kind, such as an artist's joy in creating, in giving his phantasies body, or a scientist's in solving problems or discovering truths, has a special quality which we shall certainly one day be able to characterize in metapsychological terms. At present we can only say figuratively that such satisfactions seem 'finer and higher'. But their intensity is mild as compared with that derived from the sating of crude and primary instinctual impulses; it does not convulse our physical being. And the weak point of this method is that it is not applicable generally: it is accessible to only a few people. It presupposes the possession of special dispositions and gifts which are far from being common to any practical degree. And even to the few who do possess them, this method cannot give complete protection from suffering. It creates no impenetrable armour against the arrows of fortune, and it habitually fails when the source of suffering is a person's own body.

In spite of the incompleteness, I will venture on a few remarks as a conclusion to our enquiry. The program of becoming happy, which the pleasure principle imposes on us, cannot be fulfilled... Happiness, in the reduced sense in which we recognize it as possible, is a problem of the economics of the individual's libido. There is no golden rule which applies to everyone: every man must find out for himself in what particular fashion he can be saved. All kinds of different factors will operate to direct his choice. It is a question of how much real satisfaction he can expect to get from the external world, how far he is led to make himself independent of it, and finally, how much strength he feels he has for altering the world to suit his wishes. In this, his psychical constitution will play a decisive part, irrespectively of the external circumstances. The man who is predominantly erotic will give first preference to his emotional relationships to other people; the narcissistic man, who inclines to be self-sufficient, will seek his main satisfactions in his internal mental processes; the man of action will never give up the external world on which he can try out his strength.... A person who is born with a specially unfavorable instinctual constitution, and who has not properly undergone the transformation and rearrangement of his libidinal components which is indispensable for later achievements, will find it hard to obtain happiness from his external situation, especially if he is faced with tasks of some difficulty. As a last technique of living, which will at least bring him substitutive satisfactions, he is offered that of a flight into neurotic illness -- a flight which he usually accomplishes when he is still young. The man who sees his pursuit of happiness come to nothing in later years can still find consolation in the yield of pleasure of chronic intoxication; or he can embark on the desperate attempt at rebellion seen in a psychosis.

Religion restricts this play of choice and adaptation, since it imposes equally on everyone its own path to the acquisition of happiness and protection from suffering. Its technique consists in depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner -- which presupposes an intimidation of the intelligence. At this price, by forcibly fixing them in a state of psychical infantilism, by forcibly fixing them in a state of psychical infantilism and by drawing them into a mass-delusion, religion succeeds in sparing many people an individual neurosis. But hardly anything more. There are, as we have said, many paths which may lead to such happiness as is attainable by men, but there is none which does so for certain. Even religion cannot keep its promise. If the believer finally sees himself obliged to speak of God's 'inscrutable decrees', he is admitting that all that is left to him as a last possible consolation and source of pleasure in his suffering is an unconditional submission. And if he is prepared for that, he probably could have spared himself the detour he has made. [from pp. 22-32]
Nov 14 2015
tiesandbowties Level 50 Broa Assassin
lol this is so dumb
Nov 14 2015
ashleyattacked Level 210 Scania Cannoneer 4 Reconcile Guild See what games, anime & art ashleyattacked is intoalisaattacked
Freud continued from above:


We come upon a contention which is so astonishing that we must dwell upon it. This contention holds that what we call our civilization (Kultur) is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions. I call this contention astonishing because, in whatever way we may define the concept of civilization, it is a certain fact that all the things with which we seek to protect ourselves against the threats that emanate from the sources of suffering are part of that very civilization.

How has it happened that so many people have come to take up this strange attitude of hostility to civilization? I believe that the basis of it was a deep and long-standing dissatisfaction with the then existing state of civilization and that on that basis a condemnation of it was built up, occasioned by certain specific historical events. I think I know what the last and the last but one of those occasions were. I am not learned enough to trace the chain of them far back enough in the history of the human species; but a factor of this kind hostile to civilization must already have been at work in the victory of Christendom over the heathen religions. For it was very closely related to the low estimation put upon earthly life by the Christian doctrine. The last but one of these occasions was when the progress of voyages of discovery led to contact with primitive peoples and races. In consequence of insufficient observation and a mistaken view of their manners and customs, they appeared to Europeans to be leading a simple, happy life with few wants, a life such as was unattainable by their visitors with their superior civilization. Later experience has corrected some of those judgements. In many cases the observers had wrongly attributed to the absence of complicated cultural demands what was in fact due to the bounty of nature and the ease with which the major human needs were satisfied. The last occasion is especially familiar to us. It arose when people came to know about the mechanism of the neuroses, which threaten to undermine the modicum of happiness enjoyed by civilized men. It was discovered that a person becomes neurotic because he cannot tolerate the amount of frustration which society imposes on him in the service of its cultural ideals, and it was inferred from this that the abolition or reduction of those demands would result in a return to possibilities of happiness.

There is also an added factor of disappointment. During the last few generations mankind has made an extraordinary advance in the natural sciences and in their technical application and has established his control over nature in a way never before imagined. The single steps of this advance are common knowledge and it is unnecessary to enumerate them. Men are proud of those achievements, and have a right to be. But they seem to have observed that this newly-won power over space and time, this subjugation of the forces of nature, which is the fulfillment of a longing that goes back thousands of years, has not increased the amount of pleasurable satisfaction which they may expect from life and has not made them feel happier .

If the development of civilization has such a far-reaching similarity to the development of the individual and if it employs the same methods, may we not be justified in reaching the diagnosis that, under the influence of cultural urges, some civilizations, or some epochs of civilization possibly the whole of mankind have become 'neurotic'. [from pp. 33-35]


With every tool man is perfecting his own organs, whether motor or sensory, or is removing the limits to their functioning. Motor power places gigantic forces at his disposal, which, like his muscles, he can employ in any direction; thanks to ships and aircraft neither water nor air can hinder his movements; by means of spectacles he corrects defects in the lens of his own eye; by means of the telescope he sees into the far distance; and by means of the microscope he overcomes the limit of visibility set by the structure of his retina. In the photographic camera he has created an instrument which retains the fleeting visual impressions, just as a gramophone disc retains the equally fleeting auditory ones; both are at bottom materializations of the power he possesses of recollection, his memory. With the help of the telephone he can hear at distances which would be respected as unattainable even in a fairy tale. Writing was in it's origin the voice of an absent person; and the dwelling-house was a substitute for the mother's womb, the first lodging, for which in all likelihood man still longs, and in which he was safe and felt at ease.

These things that, 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 fulfilment of every--or of almost every-fairy-tale wish. All these assets he may lay claim to as his cultural acquisition. Long ago he formed an ideal conception of omnipotence and omniscience which he embodied 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. Only, it is true, in the fashion in which ideals are usually attained according to the general judgement of humanity. Not completely; in some respects not at all, in others only half way. Man has, as it were, become a kind of prosthetic God. When he puts on all his auxiliary organs he is truly magnificent; but those organs have not grown on to him and they still give him much trouble at times. Nevertheless, he is entitled to console himself with the thought that this development will come to an end precisely with the year 1930 A.D. Future. ages will bring with them new and probably unimaginably great in this field of civilization and will increase man's likeness to God still more. But in the interests of our investigations, we will not forget that present-day man does not feel happy in his Godlike character. [from pp. 37-39]


The element of truth behind all this, which people are so ready to disavow, is that men are not gentle creatures, who want to be loved, who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result, their neighbor is for them not only a potential helper or sexual object, but also someone who tempts them to satisfy their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without compensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him. Homo homini lupus [man is wolf to man]. Who in the face of all his experience of life and of history, will have the courage to dispute this assertion? As a rule this cruel aggressiveness waits for some provocation or puts itself at the service of some other purpose, whose goal might also have been reached by milder measures. In circumstances that are favorable to it, when the mental counter-forces which ordinarily inhibit it are out of action, it also manifests itself spontaneously and reveals man as a savage beast to whom consideration towards his own kind is something alien....

The existence of this inclination to aggression, which we can detect in ourselves and justly assume to be present in others, is the factor which disturbs our relations with our neighbor and which forces civilization into such a high expenditure [of energy]. In consequence of this primary mutual hostility of human beings, civilized society is perpetually threatened with disintegration. The interest of work in common would not hold it together; instinctual passions are stronger than reasonable interests. Civilization has to use its utmost efforts in order to set limits to man's aggressive instincts and to hold the manifestations of hem in check by psychical reaction-formations. Hence, therefore, the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibited relations of love, hence the restriction upon sexual life, and hence too the ideal's commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself -- a commandment which is really justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to the original nature of man. In spite of every effort, these endeavors of civilization have not so far achieved very much. It hopes to prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence by itself assuming the right to use violence against criminals, but the law is not able to lay hold of the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness. The time comes when each one of us has to give up illusions the expectations which, in his youth. he pinned upon his fellow men, and when he may learn how much difficulty and pain has been added to his life by their ill-will. At the same time, it would be unfair to reproach civilization with trying to eliminate strife and competition from human activity. These things are undoubtedly indispensable. But opposition is not necessarily enmity; it is merely misused and made occasion for enmity.

The communists believe they have found the path to deliverance from our evils. According to them, man is wholly good and as well-disposed to his neighbor; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The ownership of private wealth gives the individual power, and waited the temptation to ill-treat his neighbor; while the man who is excluded from possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, and everyone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men. Since everyone's needs would be satisfied, no one would have any reason to regard another as his enemy; all would willingly undertake the work that was necessary. I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot inquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the systems 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 reigned almost before property had given up its primal, anal form; it forms the basis of every relation of affection and love among people (with the single exception, perhaps, of the mother's relation to her male child). If we do away with personal rights over material wealth, there still remains prerogative in the field of sexual relationships, which is bound to become the source of the strongest dislike in the most violent hostility among men who in other respects are on an equal footing. If we were to remove this factor, too, by allowing complete freedom of sexual life and thus abolishing the family, the germ-cell of civilization, we cannot, it is true, easily foresee what new paths the development of civilization could take; but one thing we can expect, and that is that this indestructible feature of human nature will follow at there.

It is clearly not easy for man to give up the satisfaction of this inclination to aggression. They do not feel comfortable without it. The advantage which a comparatively small cultural group offers of allowing this instinct an outlet in the form of hostility against intruders is not to be despised. It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness. I once discussed the phenomenon that is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and in ridiculing each other -- like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for instance, the North Germans and South Germans, the English and Scotch, and so on. I gave this phenomenon the name of "the narcissism of minor differences", a name which does not do much to explain it. We can now see that it is a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression, by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier. In this respect the Jewish people, scattered everywhere, have rendered most useful services to the civilizations of the countries that have been their hosts; but unfortunately all the massacres of the Jews in the Middle Ages did not suffice to make that period more peaceful and secure for their Christian fellows....
Neither was it an unaccountable chance that the dream of a Germanic world-dominion called for anti-Semitism as its complement; and it is intelligible that the attempts to establish a new, communist civilization in Russia should find its psychological support in the persecution of the bourgeois. One only wonders, with concern, what the Soviets will do after they have wiped out their bourgeois.

If Civilization imposes such great sacrifices not only on man's sexuality but on his aggressivity, we can understand better why it is hard for him to be happy in that civilization. In fact, primitive man was better off in knowing no restrictions of instinct. To counterbalance this, his prospects of enjoying this happiness for any length of time were very slender. Civilized man has exchanged a portion of his possibilities of happiness for a portion of security. We must not forget, however, that in the primal family only the head of it enjoyed this instinctual freedom; the rest lived in slavish suppression. In that primal period of civilization, the contrast between a minority who enjoyed the advantages of civilization and a majority who were robbed of those advantages was, therefore, carried to extremes. As regards the primitive peoples who exists to-day, careful researches have shown that their instinctual life is by no means to be envied for its freedom. It is subject to restrictions of a different kind but perhaps of greater severity than those attaching to modern civilized man.

When we justly find fault with the present state of our civilization for so inadequately fulfilling our demands for plan of life that shall make us happy, and for allowing the existence of so much suffering which could probably be avoided -- when, with unsparing criticism, we try to uncover the roots of its imperfection, we are undoubtedly exercising a proper right and are not showing ourselves enemies of civilization. We may expect gradually to carry through such alterations in our civilization as will better satisfy our needs and will escape our criticisms. But perhaps we may also familiarize ourselves with the idea that there are difficulties attaching to the nature of civilization which will not yield to any attempt at reform. Over and above the tasks of restricting the instincts, which we are prepared for, there forces itself on our notice the danger of a state of things which might be termed "the psychological poverty of groups". This danger is most threatening where the bonds of a society are chiefly constituted by the identification of its members with one another, while individuals of the leader type do not acquire the importance that should fall to them in the formation of a group. The present cultural state of America would give us a good opportunity for studying the damage to civilization which is us to be feared. But I shall avoid the temptation of entering upon a critique of American civilization; I do not wish to give an impression of wanting myself to employ American methods. [from pp. 58-63]
Nov 14 2015
astry Level 207 Scania Kanna 4 Reconcile Guild
ya but if i'm not snarkily disenchanted i'm not cool.
Nov 14 2015
juxos Level 101 Bera Kaiser 4
Plot was decent, climax lacked action and there was not enough character development. No emotional ties with any characters either, plot twist at the end was boring and whatever. 1/10 would not make into a movie
Nov 14 2015
ashleyattacked Level 210 Scania Cannoneer 4 Reconcile Guild See what games, anime & art ashleyattacked is intoalisaattacked
@sirkibblex2: The second part is an analysis of an entirely different book.

I couldn't delete my thread...but I was done using it to I just edited it to something else that I thought might interest someone. I was blown away when I first read some of Freud books - the whole world simplifies him and his ideas into such cliche stupidity that has nothing to do with anything at all...let alone what he actually ever thought or when you actually sit down with it and pay attention to what he's really all about - it's really awesome. Problem is - I had like three responses. So I had to fill them with three things on the fly.

Again - people always mistake my enthusiasm for such and such a writer with the idea that I find them 100% right, genius and someone whose ideas and writings I am directly, tit for tat, influenced by. No. It's not that. Some of my favourite writers present ideas that I nearly completely disagree with. For example: Marx. Lenin. Schopenhauer. Farley Mowat. Terry Eagleton. there are so many. I love those authors...avidly read everything they write...and I literally disagree with everything they say. The fun part is in assessing it, seeing how I feel about it, doing the research, if needed, to fact check it and figure out my own genuine feeling (it's easy to nod your head and agree with books just because you understand the pages - without really even taking note of your own personal stance on anything they said.

It's not just about knowing what you disagree with or stuff as cliche as 'knowing your enemies.' That stuff has its place...but mostly its stupid. The good stuff, in my experience, comes from understanding what someone says, learning to apply their reasoning and see how it impacts what they see in life, take away from life, and how it impacts their personal experiences in the whole mess. It goes a lot deeper than this and theres a lot more to look for and find in reading stuff regardless of your personal stance with regards to the author. But I guess the easiest point to make is that these people had huge and direct impacts on the course of human history and the development of various societies, which further bounce back and forth with other societies that were influenced by other people who you should also read. It helps to get a much deep understanding of history if you approach it from a deeper point of view than just rote memorization.

Hope that makes sense and doesn't sound like intellectual psychobabble. It makes sense in my head and its why I love this stuff. I started running short on books written by people I respect and agree with...had to settle with whatever I could find...and I honestly found the take away from reading that other stuff was way more rewarding and meaningful than just reading what is essentially just like that saying 'preaching to the choir.'

I actually find fairly often that stuff I know I disagree with, know why I disagree with it - and can hold a decent argument surrounding my thoughts about it - I've actually found more than a few times that I changed my entire opinions about what it all meant and what the person was even saying after reading it closer, doing the background working, putting things in perspective, etc Everything impacts everything and you really can't even know that you know anything unless you know everything - and thatll never happen. So best I try for is to know what I think and why I think it. I'm not comfortable till I know that I can say, in my own words from memory, not quotation, not using direct source material or notes, why a person thot what they thot, what was going on in their lives that could have influenced it, what was going on in the world, what was the political situation, the religious situation - everything casts everything in different shades of light...its like that cliche that 'nothing means everything and everything means nothing.' Words are really tenuous and fluid...and just knowing all the right ones in the right order doesn't always mean you know every facet of what you're saying.

It's awesome when you find out that you're like totally wrong bout something. Happened to me the other day when I was reading a book about Neville Chamberlain.
Nov 14 2015
ashleyattacked Level 210 Scania Cannoneer 4 Reconcile Guild See what games, anime & art ashleyattacked is intoalisaattacked
@sirkibblex2: It is what it is. I can't possibly hope to couch and present everything in the best possible light from the best possible angle all the time. Half the time the goal isn't even about convincing people. A lot of times the goal is just being me, being honest, enjoying myself..and sometimes just idly talking about what I find fun in life...doing it partially because it helps to cement my memory and evaluate how I feel about all of it...and partially just because I enjoy being around people who play the same game I play. I don't pretend to think everyone would or should understand or agree with me, not even on any specific level. It's nice, yeah, but mostly like I said - it's just about being myself, having fun talking about what I like and doing it in the company of people who relate to a large portion of my life (Maple.)

That sounds really nice and friendly - way more than I typically act, I think...but I'm not nearly as edgy or angry as people seem to think. I wouldn't be here if that was the case. I genuinely enjoy the company and know full well that next to no one will ever read the majority of what I write - let alone closely enough to understand what it means to me...and that step to the next step...not only understand it but become someone I can talk to about it, who understands me and enjoys what I, I gave up on that ever happening in my life and never looked back. Hope like that is a joke, lol. No one likes stuff this nerdy but me. I don't know use in trying to figure it out. I definitely don't judge anyone for it...more than anything I prolly judge myself for being such a bizarre unrelatable person. It's slightly sad, kinda depressing, but that's that and it is what it is. Like I said - I mostly just have fun talking out my thoughts and feelings and memories about stuff I read. I love reading - its such an important thing to me. I can't help talk it all out over and over, rewording it from memory to work on my comprehension, etc. lol. I'm trying to convey something else here but can't find the right english words for it...thats why I keep repeating myself. Meh. I just enjoy the company.
Nov 14 2015
Page TopHome 1 2

Become a member

Signup or login to join the conversation.