Random Folder
I have a "dump everything random in here" folder on my computer. I found this little beauty I wrote my final year of college, concerning Freud and humanism (this was for an ENGLISH class. And we were reading Freud). I put it here because I find it kind of interesting, reading it again for the first time since I wrote it over a year ago:
The concept of humanism focuses on the obtainment of knowledge of the world around us, and to gain knowledge about ourselves as individuals. The most common assumption of humanism lies in the supposition that knowledge can actually be gained; more specifically, the concept of humanism relies on outside influences defining the human more than the human himself. Freud challenges this assumption in his extremely ego-centric psychoanalytic theory, as well as his work Civilization and Its Discontents.
Rather than preserve the romantic notion of a harmonious relationship between the human and his element, Freud instead presents the human as an animal, following the primal, baser urges of domination and sexual reproduction. According to Freud, humans are not intrinsically interested in defining the self; rather, they find themselves feeble, fear the superiority of nature, and exist in a society of inadequate interpersonal relationships. In short, Freud defines the human as a suffering being, and “civilization” as the sum of human experience. Whereas “traditional humanism,” as it were, places an emphasis on the collective whole, Freud’s redefinition of “human” places the emphasis solely on the individual and his flaws. It is also important to note that Freud draws a distinction between the sexes in his definition, whereas “traditional humanism” is genderless.
Freud claims that “the liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization.” More specifically, Freud has challenged and rejected the aspect of the definition of “human” which states that human beings are given the privilege of free thought and, more importantly, free will. Such a challenge certainly has cultural ramifications. The very basis of psychoanalytic theory focuses on the development of the sex instinct (Eros, or the libido) and the death instinct (Thanatos) - evident in both human and animal. Bowing to these aspects of psychoanalysis, Freud has effectively destroyed the only established theoretical difference between man and beast. Interestingly enough, while his analysis focuses on traits of the individual, Freud notes the importance of inter-human relationships as essential to the development and advancement of a civilization. However, Freud continues by developing man’s natural tendency towards aggression. Each assumption that Freud attempts to disprove - consciously or unconsciously - forces modern humanists to redefine their working definitions of their practice.
Literarily-speaking, Freud’s analyses provide important (and worrisome) insight into any critical text. Freud’s distinction between the sexes forces readers into socially-determined stereotypes or categories of characters, based not on their intrinsic and overt traits, but rather, on perceived gender roles. Moreover, Freud’s emphasis on the libido and the Thanatos, as well as the aggression instinct, encourages the reader to effectively isolate any given character in a critical text and view his actions though only a filter of the character’s self-gain, therefore biasing any interpretation of the text (certainly a problem if one is to glean knowledge about the self from this cultural text). Politically, of course, Freud’s division of genders (and the stereotypes he has applied therein), if applied to critical texts in a modern-day setting, would completely unravel the work of feminist critical theorists and authors alike. The most pressing danger is simply (and perhaps ironically) that Freud’s interpretation leaves no room for interpretation. That the human is a selfish, suffering creature is a common assumption in psychoanalytic critical theory, and Freud’s redefinition of human denies the basic “humanist” practice of gleaning knowledge for self-actualization. Instead, Freud seems to imply that the sum of human knowledge is ingrained into the human at birth; that the environment does not impart knowledge, but serves as a trigger for man to access this information stored in the unconscious. Such an egocentric view is typical of psychoanalytical theory.
In other news: Thank you to everyone who commented on my last entry. I'm applying for the job. Wish me luck!
The concept of humanism focuses on the obtainment of knowledge of the world around us, and to gain knowledge about ourselves as individuals. The most common assumption of humanism lies in the supposition that knowledge can actually be gained; more specifically, the concept of humanism relies on outside influences defining the human more than the human himself. Freud challenges this assumption in his extremely ego-centric psychoanalytic theory, as well as his work Civilization and Its Discontents.
Rather than preserve the romantic notion of a harmonious relationship between the human and his element, Freud instead presents the human as an animal, following the primal, baser urges of domination and sexual reproduction. According to Freud, humans are not intrinsically interested in defining the self; rather, they find themselves feeble, fear the superiority of nature, and exist in a society of inadequate interpersonal relationships. In short, Freud defines the human as a suffering being, and “civilization” as the sum of human experience. Whereas “traditional humanism,” as it were, places an emphasis on the collective whole, Freud’s redefinition of “human” places the emphasis solely on the individual and his flaws. It is also important to note that Freud draws a distinction between the sexes in his definition, whereas “traditional humanism” is genderless.
Freud claims that “the liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization.” More specifically, Freud has challenged and rejected the aspect of the definition of “human” which states that human beings are given the privilege of free thought and, more importantly, free will. Such a challenge certainly has cultural ramifications. The very basis of psychoanalytic theory focuses on the development of the sex instinct (Eros, or the libido) and the death instinct (Thanatos) - evident in both human and animal. Bowing to these aspects of psychoanalysis, Freud has effectively destroyed the only established theoretical difference between man and beast. Interestingly enough, while his analysis focuses on traits of the individual, Freud notes the importance of inter-human relationships as essential to the development and advancement of a civilization. However, Freud continues by developing man’s natural tendency towards aggression. Each assumption that Freud attempts to disprove - consciously or unconsciously - forces modern humanists to redefine their working definitions of their practice.
Literarily-speaking, Freud’s analyses provide important (and worrisome) insight into any critical text. Freud’s distinction between the sexes forces readers into socially-determined stereotypes or categories of characters, based not on their intrinsic and overt traits, but rather, on perceived gender roles. Moreover, Freud’s emphasis on the libido and the Thanatos, as well as the aggression instinct, encourages the reader to effectively isolate any given character in a critical text and view his actions though only a filter of the character’s self-gain, therefore biasing any interpretation of the text (certainly a problem if one is to glean knowledge about the self from this cultural text). Politically, of course, Freud’s division of genders (and the stereotypes he has applied therein), if applied to critical texts in a modern-day setting, would completely unravel the work of feminist critical theorists and authors alike. The most pressing danger is simply (and perhaps ironically) that Freud’s interpretation leaves no room for interpretation. That the human is a selfish, suffering creature is a common assumption in psychoanalytic critical theory, and Freud’s redefinition of human denies the basic “humanist” practice of gleaning knowledge for self-actualization. Instead, Freud seems to imply that the sum of human knowledge is ingrained into the human at birth; that the environment does not impart knowledge, but serves as a trigger for man to access this information stored in the unconscious. Such an egocentric view is typical of psychoanalytical theory.
In other news: Thank you to everyone who commented on my last entry. I'm applying for the job. Wish me luck!