[lit-ideas] Re: Conscious after the fact?
- From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Never mind about reading Freud, unless anybody wants to. I don't believe
mankind has aggressive instincts. I believe mankind, and womankind, is
immature and shut down, and I believe that with proper, adequate nurturing by
two parents, one of each sex, all the so called aggressive instincts can be
dispensed with. Certainly the sun doesn't rise and set on sex except that the
immature use it as a weapon and/or in place of the relating that they don't
know how to do. But I still applaud Freud for his misanthropy. We differ in
that I think humanity's evil is reversible and he thinks it's instinctual,
which means don't even think about reversing it.
There's also a broader issue of how to keep the economy going if only needs are
attended to, so enter the likes of Edward Bernays. But if consumerism wasn't
an opiate of the masses, which is to say, if there was little to numb, the
economy would take care of itself and we'd have true civilization instead of
the pseudo stuff that's out there.
--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Conscious after the fact?
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 11:13 PM
Yes, it is an empirical claim. Everything I say is empirical even if the
citation is lost to the ages. And I don't read novels. Too much interesting
reality to read about. I assume your response is probably the only response.
There is no excuse for not treating incipient humans far far better than
they're treated except for the chicken and egg thing, i.e. it takes a
relatively nurtured human to raise a relatively nurtured human and nurtured
humans are in short supply. But nurturing can be taught except nobody wants to
learn. So, paraphrasing Freud, that's humans for ya. Speaking of Freud, would
anybody want to read Civilization and Its Discontents? I can't find it online
so I'll have to get it from the library. I understand he basically went
misanthropic. If Freud gave up on humanity, then I'm certainly vindicated, not
that I need to be vindicated, but I am.
--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Conscious after the fact?
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 10:41 PM
Irene wrote
> Just curious, how do you or anyone respond to the fact that a human
> being makes a decision regarding his position vis-a-vis his world, i.e.,
> whether it's a trustworthy place or not, which is to say, whether he
> feels secure or insecure, by the time he's nine months old? If the
> child's cries, etc. aren't met timely and he decides the world is
not a
> trustworthy place, basically he's been rendered 'insecure',
which is to
> say, he's been damaged for the rest of his life.
I take it that this is an empirical claim? I have, myself, no particular
response to it, except that you might be amused by the wildly
contradictory (but fashionable) theories of child raising described in
Mary McCarthy's novel, The Group.
> I suspect, though, that it's a
> concept above the scope of philosophical musings. One has to wonder
> what the excuse is for everybody else in the world.
If I understand this at all, you seem to be saying that this concept (?)
is one that isn't the subject matter of 'philosophical musings,'
and
that that is my excuse for something or other. You seem also to be under
the misapprehension that, as an academic philosopher, I think in some
constrained way. This is like supposing that a particle physicist must
have a professional view on the best translation of 'akrasia.'
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
