Like the id, ego, superego aspect. Â For myself, I’m kind of on the fence. Â It seems like it explains some aspects of human behavior, but it also seems a bit arbitrary.
i don’t believe in it either, it seems to me -like you said- too arbitrary. He also described an attitude named Tanathos, to represent the spirit towards death that each of us should have. Maybe he had another for the life, i don’t know; but it seems so much like bullcrap of ancient greek mythology..
“Freud communicated in the only way he knew. Chances are, he did not capture the essence of all humanity.”
Exactly! I get sick of this perpetual expectation that someone, somewhere, has or will ever completely 100% perfectly articulate everything there is to know about… any topic, really.
The reality of it is: Freud was very likely very close to correct about many things… but that doesn’t mean he was 100% perfectly, immaculately correct, about everything he ever surmised or proposed. The guy was intelligent, there is probably some legitimate value to his works… but that doesn’t mean that anyone should just go-all-in and claim that “Freudian Psychology is Correct.”
OTOH: i don’t think labels are always necessarily, inherently worthless… but the way many/most people seem to perceive them, tends to decrease their validity.
It’s hard to label anything correctly, with so many people defining and interpreting words so many different ways.
This is why we should have and embrace communication standards. Without standards, effective verbal communication is virtually impossible. Therefore, people who refuse to embrace the already established standards, and arbitrarily deviate from them, as if some sort of rebellion, are “lesser beings” in my eyes, because they are actively disrupting communication, which is a huge and potentially vastly detrimental waste of our finite time.
5 comments
Everything “with (at least) a grain of salt.”
I observe human behavior in the raw. I need no ancient philosopher to tell me “people are fucked up and most of them don’t know it”.
Labels are worthless. Freud communicated in the only way he knew. Chances are, he did not capture the essence of all humanity.
i don’t believe in it either, it seems to me -like you said- too arbitrary. He also described an attitude named Tanathos, to represent the spirit towards death that each of us should have. Maybe he had another for the life, i don’t know; but it seems so much like bullcrap of ancient greek mythology..
I don’t resemble any of his constructs in me.
“Freud communicated in the only way he knew. Chances are, he did not capture the essence of all humanity.”
Exactly! I get sick of this perpetual expectation that someone, somewhere, has or will ever completely 100% perfectly articulate everything there is to know about… any topic, really.
The reality of it is: Freud was very likely very close to correct about many things… but that doesn’t mean he was 100% perfectly, immaculately correct, about everything he ever surmised or proposed. The guy was intelligent, there is probably some legitimate value to his works… but that doesn’t mean that anyone should just go-all-in and claim that “Freudian Psychology is Correct.”
OTOH: i don’t think labels are always necessarily, inherently worthless… but the way many/most people seem to perceive them, tends to decrease their validity.
It’s hard to label anything correctly, with so many people defining and interpreting words so many different ways.
This is why we should have and embrace communication standards. Without standards, effective verbal communication is virtually impossible. Therefore, people who refuse to embrace the already established standards, and arbitrarily deviate from them, as if some sort of rebellion, are “lesser beings” in my eyes, because they are actively disrupting communication, which is a huge and potentially vastly detrimental waste of our finite time.