Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I once asked a professor of philosophy what is philosophy about, she said “philosophy is about radically critical self-consciousness”. I have decided that CT (Critical Thinking) is the first important step on to this stage of critical self-consciousness. CT is philosophy light.
Our mind tends to be dominated by the ego and the group when we have not yet become critically self-conscious. I am not an expert in these matters (such has never hindered me from expressing my considered opinion) but from the things I read regarding critical self-consciousness they make sense to me.
Ego influences me by:
I think it is true therefore it is.
I want it to be true therefore it is.
Group influences me by:
The group name identifies me.
The group influences my associations.
The group is us and the other group is the
What we do is good what they do is bad.
I suspect that the ego domination was the natural human condition during early evolution and slowly the ego morphed (transformed) into a group in some areas of consciousness (focused attention).
I think that Madison Avenue (advertising agencies) and the oligarchy (non elective group running the nation in that group’s interest) have learned to manipulate our egocentric and sociocentric characteristics for the advantages of marketing interests. Our ego drives us to buy the BIG car and our group drives us to dominate the other group in the interest of our group.
‘To be critical’ is often, I think, confused with ‘to be negative’. To be critical is to stop, think, analyze, and seek comprehension and possible improvement. To be critically self-conscious is to focus the critical effort inward with the self as the object of criticism.
I think that most of our personal and international tragedies are a direct result of our lack of critical self-consciousness.
Is that a ‘bunch of baloney’ or do you find truth contained therein?
I think that we can do much better job building a better society if we developed a critical self-consciousness. What do you think?
Ego is an interesting thing. While I generally tend to initially agree with your correlation of: "If I think it therefore it is true" AND "I want it to be true, therefore it is" there are a few instances where I have to disagree. Ego formation is dependent upon environment. Our egos are formed via internalization of those egos within our environment early on; namely, our parents and other primary care givers. Ego functioning thus plays a tremendous role in our capacity to both self identify and collectively identify.
At some point in our lives, to some degree, we do begin to question as we gain the capacity for abstract thought. Self critical thinking and questioning would appear to be one of the hallmarks of the adolescent mind. However, the extent to which one is truly capable of doing so cannot help but be vastly determined, driven, and dominated by the group influences which you cited above. Self critical thinking often taxes the ego and resulting emotions, hence, I cannot help but think that it would thereby look to group influences for validation along with a "collective sense of self." Philosophers who excelled in self critical thought I suspect thought "outside the box" of their collective group idenities and cultures.
From a personal perspective, I'm all for self critical thinking. The more one examines one's self and motivations, the greater the opportunity for personal growth. The sad part is that even in our doing so, our ego will seek out that which we know and are most familiar with. There is far more to the Freudian notion of repetition compulsion than I suspect we realize. As such, even self reflective aims towards furthering our individual selves (and as a result, hopefully society) are often limited, (at best) or thwarted, at worst.
Not sure I have even accurately addressed your querie; however, I can't help but wonder whether individual, self critical thinking within the overall context of the greater good of a society in general needs far more balance.
After thought: There is also a big difference between "I think it is true, therefore it is true" versus and "I want it to be true; therefore it is." The latter is far too primitive. It's primary process thinking; incapable of self reflective thought.
I often write about psychology and about Freud and very often I receive negative responses about both of these subjects. It is apparent that these negative attitudes are not based upon knowledge but are just the standard bias of the ignorant. I assume that our culture is strongly biased against these two matters. Do you have any other explanation for this negativity?
I often write about psychology and about Freud and very often I receive negative responses about both of these subjects. It is apparent that these negative attitudes are not based upon knowledge but are just the standard bias of the ignorant. I assume that our culture is strongly biased against these two matters. Do you have any other explanation for this negativity?
...Strongly biased against which two matters, coberst? Ego versus collective identity, or are you referring to bias regarding pscyh/Freud?
There is more than enough "bias" towards a man who not only forumulated such theories about the unconscious as did Freud, not to mention the fact that "Totem and Taboo" would not be a big "hit" among a believing population! (Attempting to keep it on topic here.) As well, "Civilization and It's Discontents" would only further add to the fire as regards how most believers would view/feel about poor old Freud...
I guess you are saying that religion is the reason many people have a bias against Freud and against psychology. Thet are biased against psychology because Freud developed it or they are biased against Freud because he developed psychology. Perhaps they are biased against Freud because they are anti-Semetic or they are anti-Semetic because Freud developed psychology.
I guess you are saying that religion is the reason many people have a bias against Freud and against psychology. Thet are biased against psychology because Freud developed it or they are biased against Freud because he developed psychology. Perhaps they are biased against Freud because they are anti-Semetic or they are anti-Semetic because Freud developed psychology.
Wow. Now that's a loaded question!
I suspect that people are biased about Freud for the very same reason(s) that Freud himself outlined. In a way, Freud almost proves his own point in all the controversy he incited.
I don't think that believers have such a problem with Freud due to his having been Jewish, or the fact that he was an atheist. I suspect it would have much more to do with the fact that Freud believed that the origins of religion are rooted in the Oedipal urges and strivings of mankind. In formulating the theory that Oedipal strivings originated in, and could be seen within primitive societies, Freud believed that religion was a mere outgrowth of such complex(s) and urges. "God the Father" thus was cast into a whole new light! No one would want to believe that their beliefs originated as a direct result of sexual drives and underpinnings! No one would want to believe that their religion was based in self compensatory behavior of unconsious (sexual!) feelings and beliefs! But Freud did.
The "bias" as regards Freud served a very real purpose in it's time, as it continues to serve an very real purpose today. Freud was perilously close to being cast out of the psychoanalytic community of his time, and the result was a huge schism within the psychoanalytic community. People were not willing to accept the notion of Freud's psychosexual theory of human development. As such, Freud later "revised" his theories/belief and thus came up with his theory of id, ego, and superego. That was far more acceptable to the great thinkers in Vienna at the time.
As a result of all the controversy surrounding Freud's concepts, such psychoanalytic schools such as Jungian psychoanalysis emerged. Jung was extremely "spiritually oriented" in a far more positive (and acceptable) way than Freud. Jung believed that what the healer in the therapist must ultimately do in order to "heal" a person is to address the spiritual strivings that collectively exist in mankind.
So in a way, I suppose one could say that the originial historical "bias" around Freud served both the psychoanalytic community along with the individual quite well, in the end!
Freud didn't develop psychology. He did invent 'psychoanalysis'.
Whoo! I am certainly no expert in such matters but if Freud did not develop (I agree he did not invent) psychology I will eat my cigar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Literally off the top of my head...
