I have always had a great respect for Freud and his work, and this lecture is the clearest concise explication of his profound conception of human nature and "civilization and its discontents."
I also enjoyed reading Freud's book of "Beyond the Pleasure Principle"; it revolutionized my understanding of how one deals with his inside and outside worlds. Freud made me realize pleasure is not the original goal of life, pain is, for life survives while dealing with pain, not with pleasure which only weakens us.
I can never get enough of Freud....If I really look deep inside myself..I love, I hate, I want what I want, I'm selfish, I LOVE sex, I love my family, my hobbies, interests...but I still feel uncertain about alot of things, insecure at the same time secure, love my cat, have a hard time living w/out my Mom, Get frustrated w/my Dad, am jealous of my Brother and Sister, Care and love more than anything about a woman I can't have, I am selfish, have anxiety, unsure about things, secure about things, afraid of everything, being with someone I am attracted to and care about...being intimate with them is ecstasy, Hurt most of the time, unsure about so many things...etc. Great lecture..Love it.
The first time I had listened to this lecture I was angry with Freud's views, but it was lingering in my mind. So I listened again and have to say, that the truth hurts. It wasn't called a "dog eat dog world" for nothing.
The hierarchy of needs by Maslow have a pyramid where self-actualization is at the top. You would have to achieve these steps become you are at peace with oneself. Some people would die whilst they was still in the first stage and these steps are not only based on desires, society has made it impossible to complete depending on background and opportunity. I think that Freud hit the nail on the head when he said that the pain that we inflict on people is the most pain of all.
Where does oneself draw a line in the sand ,to consider persons who's quotations,understandings, explanations and theoretical knowledge of human behaviour and every tangeable topic and actions related to the subject,have become popular,and caused polarisation of who oneself gets behind them and joins their team of believers,because there are so many of these thought provoking minds from our very past and present,that we may not have known those persons personally and we rely on literature ,some footage of them talking,and obscure folklore tales, that we have much to learn from all of their minds, and keep building the ever growing library of human behaviour that will always never cease to astound and shock us. I am grateful for the many different views we can have on this topic. May it never end.
Whether you agree with his different theories of not, Freud was inarguably a profoundly brilliant man. I believe that his many observations of human nature, although often pessimistic in nature, are profoundly brilliant and inciteful. However, although I don't agree with many of his assertions, such as the psychosexual stages of development, his insights are poignant and backed by solid empirical observation. I believe that his concept of the three stages of the psyche are brilliant and flawless, but I feel that Engel really nailed the stages of development with his biopsychosocial framework model. It is amazing to me that men like Freud could have so many brilliant observations and ideas all in the short time allotted to us.
The major problem with Freud was his over emphasis on sex, he was highly influenced by the environment he lived in where sex was a very taboo subject his theories were a bit hit and miss but it's hard to deny that Freud brought a lot of interest to the human psyche and Psychology wouldn't be where it is today without him, I recently bought The Interpretation of Dreams and I can't wait to read it so far I have only read the introduction where the author lays out the book and it has a snippet of Freud's analysis of one of his own dreams and the way he breaks it down and interprets the meaning of the symbols is just incredible he really shows you how many memories and thoughts it takes to construct a dream
the1andonlytitch Yes I can see The interpretation of Dreams over on my bookshelf from where I am currently sitting, and it was one of the most memorable books I have read. The symbolism in dreams is very intereesting and a great window into the subconscious and preconscious. I disagree though about his views on sex. Yes, Freud may have gone a little overboard at times on his views and the conclusions drawn from sex, but I think he was right about a great many of them. He seemed to think seeking it is the reason we get out of bed in the morning. I think that sleeping with a woman can be a great way to see if she is psychologically healthy. If she feels guilty and shameful, Freud might say she has a problem with the superego. Can't orgasm? This is purely psychological and he or she might have adequacy or issues with self consciousness. But some of his views were a lil far out and I heard he even went as far as to get some of his patients high on cocaine and sleep with them, but fine me a genius who isn't a lil crazy lol
the1andonlytitch That is debatable in my opinion lol. I think that sex is a powerful part of our psychology and a lot can be told about us through our sex life alone. But ya, check out the Interpretation of Dreams. After reading that I did what Freud did and kept some paper and pencils by my bed so if I had a weird dream I would record and it and try and interpret it. I wonder what Freud would say about zombie apocalypse dreams?
Totally agree...I love Freud.....Have read mostly all his books sometimes I have to read 2 or 3 times...but..There is no Human Nature because not everyone reacts the same way in every situation!...Sartre...Existentialism and human emotions...great book!
As a human being I can comment that I have witnessed impulses of compassion, love and kindness as well as impulses of aggression, lust and violence, I don't think the former are necessarily always a product of a sublimation of the latter
We stand on giants' shoulders. AI is starting to make us uncomfortable about ourselves and our perceptions of the real world. 5 years from now, I wonder how things will look...
Maybe also interesting: Freudian Nations: Freud's theory of the personality can be extended from individuals to nations. Freud argued that our personality is shaped by three components - the id, the ego and the superego - two of which are in conflict, with the third mediating between them. The "Id" is infantile, narcissistic and pursues the Pleasure Principle. It wants self-gratification at every moment and resents anything that stops it getting what it wants. It's the ultimate spoiled, overindulged child. Its supporters link it to freedom and self-expression. "Do whatever you want," is the id's mantra. The "Superego" is the ultimate stern parent. It's obsessed with right and wrong, morality, conscience, rulebooks, law and order, discipline, and obeys the Control Principle. Where the id cares only for itself, the superego is preoccupied with others, with group dynamics, with society. Its supporters link it to maturity and consideration for others. "Do as you would be done by," is the superego's mantra. The id and superego are always in conflict. Between the id and superego stands the "Ego", which listens to both and takes action according to the Reality Principle. The ego is the component most grounded in the real world and deals with the art of the possible. It seeks to express the id while operating within the superego rules of society. The tension between the id and superego is evident everywhere. Islamic nations are classic superego societies: black, drab, authoritarian. Women must conceal themselves. "Moral" police are everywhere. Thieves have their hands cut off. Homosexuals are hanged. Adulterers are beheaded. Fornicators are stoned to death. People must pray to Allah five times a day, including at night. They must orient themselves towards Mecca. No alcohol, no drugs. Sex is strictly within marriage. Islam is an example of the superego unrestrained. The id is suppressed, and the ego has no role. Islamic nations are on the verge of a nervous breakdown. "We love death more than you love life,"Muslims say to Westerners. This is a pathological statement, and Islam is an anti-life ideology. Muslims' collective mental illness makes them obsessed with suicide, which they choose to refer to as "martyrdom". Given that their lives are so lacking in pleasure, their love of death isn't surprising. Several fundamentalist Christian sects are also superego dominated, as are Orthodox Jews. Much of the trouble in the world stems from these inflexible societies. This is the world of the religious fanatic. These societies are always governed by grim, hateful old men in black clothes and long white beards: the ayatollahs of Iran, the elders of the Amish, the men in black suits, odd hairstyles and ill-fitting black suits who lead Orthodox Jewish communities. These societies are full of bitterness. They're suspicious of outsiders and terrified of change. They're wedded to tradition and the past. The West is an unrestrained id culture. Everything is geared up for self-gratification. Capitalism is the delivery system - the addict's syringe - of the ultimate drug: pleasure around the clock, delivered to you whenever and wherever you want it. Fast food. Fast sex. Fast entertainment. Fast cars. Fast talk. Everything is fast in order to get your dose of pleasure to you without delay. Capitalism is the smack dealer standing on the street corner. It's drug pushing turned into a political and economic ideology. It creates endless junkies, obsessed with their next fix. They suffer appalling withdrawal symptoms if they don't get their hit for the day. Ask any western woman what her favourite pastime is and she will say retail therapy. What kind of society has shopping as its most desirable activity? Ask any man and he will say watching sport. Does the meaning of life lie in football, baseball and basketball? Junk TV, junk computer games, junk Hollywood movies, peep shows, internet porn, social networking, theme parks, cheap alcohol, cheap drugs. The western world is Disney World run by drug pushers. The superego is extinguished. The West is the opposite of the superego societies. Whereas those are run by old men, western societies revolve around spoiled brats, men and women who never grow up, people suffering from arrested development, stuck in their baby phase. The West is an infantilised culture. The credit crunch is the inevitable consequence of an unrestrained id ideology. In an id culture, no one holds back. Those who can be as greedy as they like, invariably take everything they can get, regardless of the consequences, and regardless of others. Why would they stop? They are simply fulfilling the core ideology of the society they live in. Regulation, the superego mechanism for moderating markets, was dismantled in the West thanks to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the two Bush presidents, and thanks to Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK. Their collective ideology was that markets were more efficient than anything else. In fact, markets are reflections of the id and are driven by first greed and then fear (boom and bust), and always lead to disaster if not curbed by strong regulation. The whole basis of the free market approach to social governance is flawed. Markets - id forces - only work if blended with effective regulation - a superego force. The members of the regulatory bodies have to be as well paid and as highly talented as the people in the institutions they are regulating. This has never happened under western capitalism. No one wants to break up the party. Greed is good, remember. In that statement is contained the credit crunch. The many pay for the greed of the few. The members of the Old World Order(THE REAL ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE) prefer the Pleasure Principle society because this offers the best mechanism for manipulating the dumbed down, doped out, zombified masses. The Old World Order's greed can be indulged without restraint in such a society. Their ability to justify huge disparities in wealth is unchallenged. Wealth is control in id societies. If you have no wealth then you are a nobody with no future. Most people are nobodies with no future, but they have been conned into supporting the system that oppresses them. The new American president will change nothing since change can be effected only from without the system, never from within. It's the system itself that is at fault, and the system - the constitution - does not provide any scope for internal change. So change must come from an external source. Usually, from revolution. In most societies, the ego - the component that is supposed to ensure a healthy balance between id and superego - is overwhelmed. In most societies, the id or the superego becomes luridly magnified, until it is unstoppable within a particular culture. The sensible ego obeying the Reality Principle is nowhere to be seen. All we get instead is the undiluted Pleasure Principle or the undiluted Control Principle. A healthy society is one where the ego dominates, and the id and superego are each given healthy, but not excessive, expression. See also: The Idiotic Society!?: bit.ly/2bhFIwC meritocracynow.net/
😂 Ironic that you complain about the internet, computer games, tech and what not is dumbing society down and yet here you are taking the time to type out this long ,drawn out manifesto clearly exposing your ego's distain for society not to mention doing a "stupid is as stupid does" . Way to go pal, you have shown that you only love the smell of your own fecal matter. Everyone else's poo poo is dumb.🥴🤠🥸
01:28 Marx stole the phrases "Religion is the opium of the people" from Heine, ''The workers have no country'' from Marat, ''Working men of all countries, unite!'' from Karl Schapper, and so on. But this is a lecture from Freud, not Marx, so...
at 22.00 you mention, that we are split selfs because of the ego is the source of our fight and struggle against our suffering that is caused by a deny of our natural desires and there for deny a part of our self. Here you forget to mention, that Freud saw the pain of an individual, as a result of society and outer circumstances . As the ego and instinct is the purest truest form of our self, Natural. He quotes many times that society(Read. Civilazation) is the enemy of the healthy human.
Freud was absolutely correct about the true inner nature of man as being aggressive and animalistic! History is littered with evidence of this. There is nothing throughout the course of human evolution that can convince me otherwise; Humans are most certainly NOT benevolent, altruistic creatures by nature! As Freud alluded to so masterfully in this book, human suffering derives from the sublimation of ones true inner compulsion towards violence, hence, war will anyways be commonplace in civilization.
Hi everyone! Having read all the comments, I am still left unsatisfied with the answer to the question of who is the lecturer behind this expose or of which one of the TGC/TCC series is it a part? Thanks for any clues.
Freud is certainly a remarkable great mind of the 19th Century But the lecture here can impress me Despite its harsh realism ..that makes all the claims as if it is a singular truth is alltogether a dangerous patch While there is no common ground ....all have different opinions and it can not be reduced to one system of pehomenon With validty attachted to it
02:54 "...both Moral prophets...". This got to be a joke. Marx found many miserably paid workers, but never one that work for free, except Helen Demuth (''Lenchen''). Born in 1823 started to work to the Von Westphalen at 8 years old as a children's keeper. At 22 she was send to Jenny Marx house, working for free till she died in 1890. Not only that, Marx had a son with her, Henry Frederick Demuth, born June 1851. Marx never accept him and always denies to be the father. Morals? Yes, yes.
Eustáquio 7/01/2016 Caro leitor, Em meu artigo anterior (A ilusão religiosa e a realidade), mostrei alguns exemplos de ilusão religiosa, fazendo referência a um dos livros de Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939). Você, leitor amigo, ficou ciente de que a pessoa religiosa vive uma ilusão, uma alucinação. Por exemplo, quando uma pessoa religiosa escapa de algum acidente, qual é a divindade “espiritual” salvadora invocada? Ou seja, que divindade “espiritual” a pessoa religiosa invoca como sua salvadora? A resposta, obviamente, vai depender da crença da pessoa. Ou seja, a divindade “espiritual” salvadora variará de acordo com a ilusão religiosa da pessoa. Se, por exemplo, a pessoa religiosa for um cristão devoto de Cícero Romão Batista, o famoso “Padim Ciço” de Juazeiro do Norte, no Ceará, então afirmará que a divindade “espiritual” que a salvou do acidente foi o “Padim Ciço”. Se, ao contrário, a pessoa religiosa for um cristão evangélico, então a divindade “espiritual” invocada jamais será o “Padim Ciço”. Por quê? Porque o “Padim Ciço” não tem relevância alguma para a ilusão cristã evangélica. O cristão evangélico dirá que a divindade “espiritual” que o salvou do acidente foi Deus ou Jesus. E se a pessoa religiosa for um cristão católico? Aí o rol de divindades “espirituais” é imenso, tudo, é óbvio, dependendo da ilusão cristã católica. Se o católico for devoto de São Francisco de Assis, invocará essa divindade “espiritual” como sua salvadora. Se for devoto de Nossa Senhora Aparecida, afirmará que essa divindade “espiritual” o salvou do acidente. Se for devoto de São Benedito, essa será a divindade “espiritual” invocada, e assim por diante. Esses exemplos claros, públicos e cotidianos mostram que a divindade “espiritual” invocada dependerá do poder de imaginação da pessoa religiosa. Na verdade, deuses não existem, “santos” não existem, logo, deuses e “santos” não salvam ninguém. Neste artigo, mostrarei outra deformação dessa ideia religiosa. Só para facilitar o entendimento, trago novamente a afirmação do mestre Sigmund Freud, contida em seu fantástico livro “O futuro de uma ilusão”, L&PM editores, 2010, página 110. Veja, leitor, o que ele diz sobre a religião: “(...) ela contém um sistema de ilusões de desejo com recusa da realidade como apenas encontramos isolado na amência, uma confusão alucinatória radiante.” E que deformação é essa? É a seguinte: quando uma pessoa religiosa invoca uma divindade “espiritual” como sua salvadora, em conformidade com sua crença, não percebe a monstruosidade da própria divindade. Exemplo: fulano de tal, cristão católico, perdeu o voo que o levaria de Brasília a Juazeiro do Norte, no Ceará (existe essa linha aérea em Brasília). A aeronave caiu, matando instantaneamente 230 pessoas. Ao ser entrevistado pelo Jornal Nacional da Rede Globo de Televisão, o cristão católico, devoto de “Padim Ciço” disse: “Graças ao Padre Cícero, escapei. O “Padim Ciço” me fez perder aquele voo.” Percebeu, caro leitor? No mundo ilusório do cristão devoto de “Padim Ciço”, a monstruosidade da divindade invocada é latente. O “Padim Ciço” resolveu salvar apenas um tripulante, uma pessoa muito “especial”, abandonando à morte trágica 230 pessoas, incluindo aí crianças inocentes, mulheres grávidas, idosos e, pasmem, todos cristãos. Entendeu, agora, leitor, como a ideia religiosa conduz o homem ao absurdo, sem que ele perceba? E esse absurdo é comum no mundo da religião. Veja as catástrofes naturais como furacões, maremotos, terremotos, vulcões etc. Inúmeras pessoas religiosas que escapam invocam, de acordo com sua crença, as divindades “espirituais”: “Graças a Deus, escapei!”; “Graças aos deuses, escapei!”; “Graças a Jesus, escapei!”; “Graças a Maomé, escapei!”; Graças a Shiva, escapei!” E não percebem que, em cada catástrofe, perderam a vida milhares de pessoas (crianças, idosos e religiosos).
Freud's view about society's self imposed straightjacket still holds water. Of course, that view goes way back to Shakespeare, and, even further back, to Epicure.
I admited the pleasure of giving pain to others to myself at age 10. I had no guilt for it. I saw it as me and accepted it. So... freud is wrong about that part.
has no one else heard freud was on cocaine? i mean i doubt it helps with pain but back in the day that shit was in coca-cola so i dont know, i heard alex jones say it i just wanna know if its true. could be y he was so pesimistic he was on a perpetual come down....plz dont think im crazy for listening to that guy i take every piece of info with a grain of salt
Khalil Mason your mind is one. your dreams are beliefs just like your waking life is a result of your beliefs. just in a more symbolic form. there is no unconscious, there are just beliefs we havent slowed down enough to observe. dreams are great for that
This is one of the best lectures I have ever heard. It won't do well on youtube. Because It's actually good.
True
I have always had a great respect for Freud and his work, and this lecture is the clearest concise explication of his profound conception of human nature and "civilization and its discontents."
I also enjoyed reading Freud's book of "Beyond the Pleasure Principle"; it revolutionized my understanding of how one deals with his inside and outside worlds. Freud made me realize pleasure is not the original goal of life, pain is, for life survives while dealing with pain, not with pleasure which only weakens us.
My favorite of Freud's...I truly feel there is a "Death Instinct" in everyone...goes beyond Thanatos!
I can never get enough of Freud....If I really look deep inside myself..I love, I hate, I want what I want, I'm selfish, I LOVE sex, I love my family, my hobbies, interests...but I still feel uncertain about alot of things, insecure at the same time secure, love my cat, have a hard time living w/out my Mom, Get frustrated w/my Dad, am jealous of my Brother and Sister, Care and love more than anything about a woman I can't have, I am selfish, have anxiety, unsure about things, secure about things, afraid of everything, being with someone I am attracted to and care about...being intimate with them is ecstasy, Hurt most of the time, unsure about so many things...etc. Great lecture..Love it.
i can never describe my self that good I don't even know if i know myself but i'm trying.
The first time I had listened to this lecture I was angry with Freud's views, but it was lingering in my mind. So I listened again and have to say, that the truth hurts. It wasn't called a "dog eat dog world" for nothing.
The hierarchy of needs by Maslow have a pyramid where self-actualization is at the top. You would have to achieve these steps become you are at peace with oneself. Some people would die whilst they was still in the first stage and these steps are not only based on desires, society has made it impossible to complete depending on background and opportunity. I think that Freud hit the nail on the head when he said that the pain that we inflict on people is the most pain of all.
+Meesee black great analysis. .
I thought when I heard civilisation and its discontents. So truthful to me it was painful to hear.
Outstanding superb
life is not easy n is suffering too..as i am facing now and I hope I will be able to overcome my heart aches n my misery..
hope you're well 1 year on...
Where does oneself draw a line in the sand ,to consider persons who's quotations,understandings, explanations and theoretical knowledge of human behaviour and every tangeable topic and actions related to the subject,have become popular,and caused polarisation of who oneself gets behind them and joins their team of believers,because there are so many of these thought provoking minds from our very past and present,that we may not have known those persons personally and we rely on literature ,some footage of them talking,and obscure folklore tales, that we have much to learn from all of their minds, and keep building the ever growing library of human behaviour that will always never cease to astound and shock us. I am grateful for the many different views we can have on this topic. May it never end.
I just start learning his concept about our human nature of being good , kind, smart ,evil, selfishness and abnormalities...
hi from California
Hi there..
May I ask what are your ideas after a year of your learning experience?
Freud was correct in his analysis. I am afraid.
When you arrive here its like reaching a point in the road thats now just earth, gravel and growth. No destination. Just nature in all its harshness.
Whether you agree with his different theories of not, Freud was inarguably a profoundly brilliant man. I believe that his many observations of human nature, although often pessimistic in nature, are profoundly brilliant and inciteful. However, although I don't agree with many of his assertions, such as the psychosexual stages of development, his insights are poignant and backed by solid empirical observation. I believe that his concept of the three stages of the psyche are brilliant and flawless, but I feel that Engel really nailed the stages of development with his biopsychosocial framework model. It is amazing to me that men like Freud could have so many brilliant observations and ideas all in the short time allotted to us.
The major problem with Freud was his over emphasis on sex, he was highly influenced by the environment he lived in where sex was a very taboo subject his theories were a bit hit and miss but it's hard to deny that Freud brought a lot of interest to the human psyche and Psychology wouldn't be where it is today without him, I recently bought The Interpretation of Dreams and I can't wait to read it so far I have only read the introduction where the author lays out the book and it has a snippet of Freud's analysis of one of his own dreams and the way he breaks it down and interprets the meaning of the symbols is just incredible he really shows you how many memories and thoughts it takes to construct a dream
the1andonlytitch
Yes I can see The interpretation of Dreams over on my bookshelf from where I am currently sitting, and it was one of the most memorable books I have read. The symbolism in dreams is very intereesting and a great window into the subconscious and preconscious. I disagree though about his views on sex. Yes, Freud may have gone a little overboard at times on his views and the conclusions drawn from sex, but I think he was right about a great many of them. He seemed to think seeking it is the reason we get out of bed in the morning. I think that sleeping with a woman can be a great way to see if she is psychologically healthy. If she feels guilty and shameful, Freud might say she has a problem with the superego. Can't orgasm? This is purely psychological and he or she might have adequacy or issues with self consciousness. But some of his views were a lil far out and I heard he even went as far as to get some of his patients high on cocaine and sleep with them, but fine me a genius who isn't a lil crazy lol
the1andonlytitch
That is debatable in my opinion lol. I think that sex is a powerful part of our psychology and a lot can be told about us through our sex life alone. But ya, check out the Interpretation of Dreams. After reading that I did what Freud did and kept some paper and pencils by my bed so if I had a weird dream I would record and it and try and interpret it. I wonder what Freud would say about zombie apocalypse dreams?
Totally agree...I love Freud.....Have read mostly all his books sometimes I have to read 2 or 3 times...but..There is no Human Nature because not everyone reacts the same way in every situation!...Sartre...Existentialism and human emotions...great book!
This is brilliant... truly.
This brilliant lecture is by Dennis Dalton of Barnard College.
what an awesome lecture !!!
Excellent piece of work!
As a human being I can comment that I have witnessed impulses of compassion, love and kindness as well as impulses of aggression, lust and violence, I don't think the former are necessarily always a product of a sublimation of the latter
Now that's what I call a lecture on Freudian thought
WONDERFUL reader
Who is the lecturer?
When was that recorded and with what occasion?
Thanks
this is an interesting video about Freud. I suggest that my students watch this video.
do you know who gave this lecture? i would like to use a clip for a video and would like to give proper credit?
Very good! helped me with my dissertation :) It's on interpersonal and metaphysical representation in expressionistic art :) :)
Freud ideas r realistic in nature
We stand on giants' shoulders. AI is starting to make us uncomfortable about ourselves and our perceptions of the real world. 5 years from now, I wonder how things will look...
Maybe also interesting:
Freudian Nations:
Freud's theory of the personality can be extended from individuals to
nations. Freud argued that our personality is shaped by three components
- the id, the ego and the superego - two of which are in conflict, with
the third mediating between them.
The "Id" is infantile, narcissistic and pursues the Pleasure Principle.
It wants self-gratification at every moment and resents anything that
stops it getting what it wants. It's the ultimate spoiled, overindulged
child. Its supporters link it to freedom and self-expression. "Do
whatever you want," is the id's mantra.
The "Superego" is the ultimate stern parent. It's obsessed with right
and wrong, morality, conscience, rulebooks, law and order, discipline,
and obeys the Control Principle. Where the id cares only for itself, the
superego is preoccupied with others, with group dynamics, with society.
Its supporters link it to maturity and consideration for others. "Do as
you would be done by," is the superego's mantra.
The id and superego are always in conflict.
Between the id and superego stands the "Ego", which listens to both and
takes action according to the Reality Principle. The ego is the
component most grounded in the real world and deals with the art of the
possible. It seeks to express the id while operating within the superego
rules of society.
The tension between the id and superego is evident everywhere. Islamic
nations are classic superego societies: black, drab, authoritarian.
Women must conceal themselves. "Moral" police are everywhere. Thieves
have their hands cut off. Homosexuals are hanged. Adulterers are
beheaded. Fornicators are stoned to death. People must pray to Allah
five times a day, including at night. They must orient themselves
towards Mecca. No alcohol, no drugs. Sex is strictly within marriage.
Islam is an example of the superego unrestrained. The id is suppressed,
and the ego has no role.
Islamic nations are on the verge of a nervous breakdown. "We love death
more than you love life,"Muslims say to Westerners. This is a
pathological statement, and Islam is an anti-life ideology. Muslims'
collective mental illness makes them obsessed with suicide, which they
choose to refer to as "martyrdom". Given that their lives are so lacking
in pleasure, their love of death isn't surprising. Several
fundamentalist Christian sects are also superego dominated, as are
Orthodox Jews. Much of the trouble in the world stems from these
inflexible societies.
This is the world of the religious fanatic. These societies are always governed by grim, hateful old men in black clothes and long white beards: the ayatollahs of Iran, the elders of the Amish, the men in black suits, odd hairstyles and ill-fitting black suits who lead Orthodox Jewish communities. These societies are full of bitterness. They're suspicious of outsiders and terrified of change. They're wedded to tradition and the past.
The West is an unrestrained id culture. Everything is geared up for self-gratification. Capitalism is the delivery system - the addict's syringe - of the ultimate drug: pleasure around the clock, delivered to you whenever and wherever you want it. Fast food. Fast sex. Fast entertainment. Fast cars. Fast talk. Everything is fast in order to get your dose of pleasure to you without delay. Capitalism is the smack dealer standing on the street corner. It's drug pushing turned into a political and economic ideology. It creates endless junkies, obsessed with their next fix. They suffer appalling withdrawal symptoms if they don't get their hit for the day.
Ask any western woman what her favourite pastime is and she will say retail therapy. What kind of society has shopping as its most desirable activity? Ask any man and he will say watching sport. Does the meaning of life lie in football, baseball and basketball?
Junk TV, junk computer games, junk Hollywood movies, peep shows, internet porn, social networking, theme parks, cheap alcohol, cheap drugs. The western world is Disney World run by drug pushers. The superego is extinguished. The West is the opposite of the superego societies. Whereas those are run by old men, western societies revolve around spoiled brats, men and women who never grow up, people suffering from arrested development, stuck in their baby phase. The West is an infantilised culture.
The credit crunch is the inevitable consequence of an unrestrained id ideology. In an id culture, no one holds back. Those who can be as greedy as they like, invariably take everything they can get, regardless of the consequences, and regardless of others. Why would they stop? They are simply fulfilling the core ideology of the society they live in. Regulation, the superego mechanism for
moderating markets, was dismantled in the West thanks to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the two Bush presidents, and thanks to Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK. Their collective ideology was that markets were more efficient than anything else. In fact, markets are reflections of the id and are driven by first greed and then fear (boom and bust), and always lead to disaster if not curbed by strong regulation.
The whole basis of the free market approach to social governance is flawed. Markets - id forces - only work if blended with effective regulation - a superego force. The members of the regulatory bodies have to be as well paid and as highly talented as the people in the institutions they are regulating. This has never happened under western capitalism. No one wants to break up the party. Greed is good, remember. In that statement is contained the credit crunch. The many pay for the greed of the few.
The members of the Old World Order(THE REAL ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE) prefer the Pleasure Principle society because this offers the best mechanism for manipulating the dumbed down, doped out, zombified masses. The Old World Order's greed can be indulged without restraint in such a society. Their ability to justify huge disparities in wealth is unchallenged. Wealth is control in id societies. If you have no wealth then you are a nobody with no future. Most people are nobodies with no future, but they have been
conned into supporting the system that oppresses them.
The new American president will change nothing since change can be effected only from without the system, never from within. It's the system itself that is at fault, and the system - the constitution - does not provide any scope for internal change. So change must come from an external source. Usually, from revolution.
In most societies, the ego - the component that is supposed to ensure a healthy balance between id and superego - is overwhelmed. In most societies, the id or the superego becomes luridly magnified, until it is unstoppable within a particular culture. The sensible ego obeying the Reality Principle is nowhere to be seen. All we get instead is the undiluted Pleasure Principle or the undiluted Control Principle.
A healthy society is one where the ego dominates, and the id and superego are each given healthy, but not excessive, expression.
See also:
The Idiotic Society!?: bit.ly/2bhFIwC
meritocracynow.net/
Seems like some nimble mental gymnastics to get to communism being the way
😂 Ironic that you complain about the internet, computer games, tech and what not is dumbing society down and yet here you are taking the time to type out this long ,drawn out manifesto clearly exposing your ego's distain for society not to mention doing a "stupid is as stupid does" . Way to go pal, you have shown that you only love the smell of your own fecal matter. Everyone else's poo poo is dumb.🥴🤠🥸
simply great. Who is the man talking?
Sick
Such a great lecture!
prof menzi is great
That strange great leap of faith made from Plato to Kant to Freud? Group thought.
I don't think faith has anything to with this regurgitated crap.
01:28 Marx stole the phrases "Religion is the opium of the people" from Heine, ''The workers have no country'' from Marat, ''Working men of all countries, unite!'' from Karl Schapper, and so on. But this is a lecture from Freud, not Marx, so...
No wonder Jesus said. Who can know the mind of a man. Evil continuously.
Who is the lecturer? Is it from The Great Courses?
at 22.00 you mention, that we are split selfs because of the ego is the source of our fight and struggle against our suffering that is caused by a deny of our natural desires and there for deny a part of our self.
Here you forget to mention, that Freud saw the pain of an individual, as a result of society and outer circumstances . As the ego and instinct is the purest truest form of our self, Natural.
He quotes many times that society(Read. Civilazation) is the enemy of the healthy human.
HEIDI YIUDI DOLL AND WOILME HEAART DOLL STOP LOOKING AT YOUNG AND GUILEDED PEOPLE IN HISTORY. YUIM IUMI HIOSTERY.P.
Freud was absolutely correct about the true inner nature of man as being aggressive and animalistic! History is littered with evidence of this. There is nothing throughout the course of human evolution that can convince me otherwise; Humans are most certainly NOT benevolent, altruistic creatures by nature! As Freud alluded to so masterfully in this book, human suffering derives from the sublimation of ones true inner compulsion towards violence, hence, war will anyways be commonplace in civilization.
Hi everyone! Having read all the comments, I am still left unsatisfied with the answer to the question of who is the lecturer behind this expose or of which one of the TGC/TCC series is it a part? Thanks for any clues.
thanks
Me too. He made some tantalizing references to the first 2 lectures!
Best presentation ever! Who is the lecturer?
Donald Trump
Freud is certainly a remarkable great mind of the 19th Century
But the lecture here can impress me
Despite its harsh realism ..that makes all the claims as if it is a singular truth is alltogether a dangerous patch
While there is no common ground ....all have different opinions and it can not be reduced to one system of pehomenon
With validty attachted to it
Pedophilia and violence sooner or later attract consequences and the bible speaks/talk about that.
02:54 "...both Moral prophets...". This got to be a joke. Marx found many miserably paid workers, but never one that work for free, except Helen Demuth (''Lenchen''). Born in 1823 started to work to the Von Westphalen at 8 years old as a children's keeper. At 22 she was send to Jenny Marx house, working for free till she died in 1890. Not only that, Marx had a son with her, Henry Frederick Demuth, born June 1851. Marx never accept him and always denies to be the father. Morals? Yes, yes.
Psychology Psychiatry
To b or not to b
GRAÇAS A DEUS, ESCAPEI!
Eustáquio
7/01/2016
Caro leitor,
Em meu artigo anterior (A ilusão religiosa e a realidade), mostrei alguns exemplos de ilusão religiosa, fazendo referência a um dos livros de Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939). Você, leitor amigo, ficou ciente de que a pessoa religiosa vive uma ilusão, uma alucinação. Por exemplo, quando uma pessoa religiosa escapa de algum acidente, qual é a divindade “espiritual” salvadora invocada? Ou seja, que divindade “espiritual” a pessoa religiosa invoca como sua salvadora? A resposta, obviamente, vai depender da crença da pessoa. Ou seja, a divindade “espiritual” salvadora variará de acordo com a ilusão religiosa da pessoa. Se, por exemplo, a pessoa religiosa for um cristão devoto de Cícero Romão Batista, o famoso “Padim Ciço” de Juazeiro do Norte, no Ceará, então afirmará que a divindade “espiritual” que a salvou do acidente foi o “Padim Ciço”. Se, ao contrário, a pessoa religiosa for um cristão evangélico, então a divindade “espiritual” invocada jamais será o “Padim Ciço”. Por quê? Porque o “Padim Ciço” não tem relevância alguma para a ilusão cristã evangélica. O cristão evangélico dirá que a divindade “espiritual” que o salvou do acidente foi Deus ou Jesus. E se a pessoa religiosa for um cristão católico? Aí o rol de divindades “espirituais” é imenso, tudo, é óbvio, dependendo da ilusão cristã católica. Se o católico for devoto de São Francisco de Assis, invocará essa divindade “espiritual” como sua salvadora. Se for devoto de Nossa Senhora Aparecida, afirmará que essa divindade “espiritual” o salvou do acidente. Se for devoto de São Benedito, essa será a divindade “espiritual” invocada, e assim por diante. Esses exemplos claros, públicos e cotidianos mostram que a divindade “espiritual” invocada dependerá do poder de imaginação da pessoa religiosa. Na verdade, deuses não existem, “santos” não existem, logo, deuses e “santos” não salvam ninguém.
Neste artigo, mostrarei outra deformação dessa ideia religiosa. Só para facilitar o entendimento, trago novamente a afirmação do mestre Sigmund Freud, contida em seu fantástico livro “O futuro de uma ilusão”, L&PM editores, 2010, página 110. Veja, leitor, o que ele diz sobre a religião:
“(...) ela contém um sistema de ilusões de desejo com recusa da realidade como apenas encontramos isolado na amência, uma confusão alucinatória radiante.”
E que deformação é essa? É a seguinte: quando uma pessoa religiosa invoca uma divindade “espiritual” como sua salvadora, em conformidade com sua crença, não percebe a monstruosidade da própria divindade. Exemplo: fulano de tal, cristão católico, perdeu o voo que o levaria de Brasília a Juazeiro do Norte, no Ceará (existe essa linha aérea em Brasília). A aeronave caiu, matando instantaneamente 230 pessoas. Ao ser entrevistado pelo Jornal Nacional da Rede Globo de Televisão, o cristão católico, devoto de “Padim Ciço” disse:
“Graças ao Padre Cícero, escapei. O “Padim Ciço” me fez perder aquele voo.”
Percebeu, caro leitor? No mundo ilusório do cristão devoto de “Padim Ciço”, a monstruosidade da divindade invocada é latente. O “Padim Ciço” resolveu salvar apenas um tripulante, uma pessoa muito “especial”, abandonando à morte trágica 230 pessoas, incluindo aí crianças inocentes, mulheres grávidas, idosos e, pasmem, todos cristãos. Entendeu, agora, leitor, como a ideia religiosa conduz o homem ao absurdo, sem que ele perceba?
E esse absurdo é comum no mundo da religião. Veja as catástrofes naturais como furacões, maremotos, terremotos, vulcões etc. Inúmeras pessoas religiosas que escapam invocam, de acordo com sua crença, as divindades “espirituais”: “Graças a Deus, escapei!”; “Graças aos deuses, escapei!”; “Graças a Jesus, escapei!”; “Graças a Maomé, escapei!”; Graças a Shiva, escapei!” E não percebem que, em cada catástrofe, perderam a vida milhares de pessoas (crianças, idosos e religiosos).
Freud had an antipathy tiwards the gentiles
Scribing souls
MARX WAS BORN IN JEWISH FAMILY WHICH HAD LONG CONVERTED TO LUTHERAN CHRISTIANITY, AND DID NOT PRACTICE JEWISH RELIGION.
Which may explain his own antisemitism..
Nalle puh
Freud's view about society's self imposed straightjacket still holds water. Of course, that view goes way back to Shakespeare, and, even further back, to Epicure.
I admited the pleasure of giving pain to others to myself at age 10. I had no guilt for it. I saw it as me and accepted it. So... freud is wrong about that part.
has no one else heard freud was on cocaine? i mean i doubt it helps with pain but back in the day that shit was in coca-cola so i dont know, i heard alex jones say it i just wanna know if its true. could be y he was so pesimistic he was on a perpetual come down....plz dont think im crazy for listening to that guy i take every piece of info with a grain of salt
the unconscious is a myth
Steph Ler fucking moron
Steph Ler so what's producing your dreams? Dream Fairies? You yourself?
Khalil Mason your mind is one. your dreams are beliefs just like your waking life is a result of your beliefs. just in a more symbolic form. there is no unconscious, there are just beliefs we havent slowed down enough to observe. dreams are great for that
Is this pseudoscience still being banded around ?.
VERALAND POLITICS I second that, for lack of a greater enthusiasm for a broader discussion.
How dare you John?!