As someone who had never previously read any of Freud’s writings, the only conception I had of his work was his incredibly uncomfortable familial sexual theories and perhaps a little bit of stuff surrounding the unconscious. Strangely enough, after reading Freud, it was one of the few texts within which I actually liked a large part of the ideas which luckily for me weren’t as complicated as I was fearing.

It was from his opening, talking about the oceanic feeling some people get when part of a religion, that I could tell that Freud wasn’t just obsessed with sexual theories, but rather had some really solid ideas. Funnily enough, I found out that I agree with a lot of Freud’s ideas and theories. While I’m not religious myself, I grew up with some relatively religious grandparents who often took me to grand Venetian churches to admire not only the religious aspect, but also the artistic aspect. In fact, while I’m not religious, I’ve almost found a bit of wonder in how devoted people are to their religion. I find it incredibly impressive how in many cases religion is an incredibly uniting factor for many groups of people. The feeling of being part of something greater is what it can provide (that “oceanic” feeling that Freud describes), and honestly, sometimes I’d like to be part of something like that.

While it seems easy to constantly criticize religion, it’s amazing the way religion has helped guide people’s lives. Part of my childhood was spent in Dallas, Texas, a hotbed of very religious people. And I remember after having sleepovers at friend’s houses on Saturday night, Sunday morning their family would take me to church with them.The first time I was blown away by the feeling of inclusion I found. Even though I had spent a couple of hours sitting and listening to a man tell stories which may or may not have been true, amongst the choir singing and praying around me, it was a nice feeling to be part of something greater.

But this is all slightly off topic from Freud. To sum up my experience with Freud, I was very pleasantly surprised. I think that while Freud and his theories had faults, many of them were extremely spot on. Part of the reason that some seem to dislike his writings is perhaps due to the fact that they don’t want to acknowledge that perhaps they do in fact have strong sexual urges towards their mother. I remember there’s an old Italian saying which goes along the tune of, “A man will always find love in a woman who cooks just like his mother”. While Freud might have left out the cooking part, in Italy there’s a noticeable and almost eerie pattern of men who marry women who are extremely physically similar to their mothers. Perhaps this is just a strange occurrence, but I’m of the opinion that Freud hit a lot of nails on the head in “Civilization and its Discontents”.

            The Victorian era is one that I love to learn about. They are such a fun group of people to research, I just love the pomp and the façade and the clothes and the fog and Sherlock and mummies and Jack the Ripper and Knick knacks… So fun!
            Anyways, I was really looking forward to reading Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde since it is one of those books people know the jist of. I think the lecture was a good one and I really enjoyed it. When reading the book I totally read over the allusions to prostitution and all that stuff. It was nice to go over that and some of the history regarding the Victorian Era. It would definitely be hard to understand the criticisms of the era if we did no know the context it was in! The part that stood out to me was the talk about the strictness in the era of not only practically everything, but the way even furniture is even dressed as it is too provocative.

            There was reminded me very much of Jack the Ripper, when Mr. Hyde was caught by the maid looking through her window and the police trying to find the culprit. Although the execution was not the same, but had the fog been there and the moon not so bright he might not have been caught in the act. Not going to lie, I love Mr. Utterson. He is just so oblivious. But rather I like how he perseveres in trying to help his friend out. Also how he has the best of intentions in what he does, even if only some of it is genuine, and that he does like to stick his nose wherever. As someone who knows what is coming it is humorous to watch him stumble along the clues. Although in his position I would probably have thought the same.

            I feel sad that we aren’t doing more books of the time, but now this book has me a list of books to read over the summer while I hang out in the sun and on the beach… I hope.

Well, after a bit of stress, I’m finally getting this post up. I almost consider Freud to be in the ranks of Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll, or Beowulf. He’s so commonly known and referred to, that it seems impossible that an individual hasn’t at least heard of some of his ideas. In my opinion, while Freud is very interesting to read, I don’t trust anything he says. I’m fascinated by some of his topics and theories, but in the back of my mind, I’m constantly doubting their validity. This is because Freud is unprovable. His theories can’t be tested and I remember while reading this text, I found myself saying, “Prove it.” That being said, I think that despite it’s reliability, Freud offers very important glimpses into human nature.

Unlike Nietzsche, who was rather blunt and unlikeable in his views regarding religion, I found Freud to be a loveable atheist. His ideas regarding religion and the oceanic feeling actually made a lot of sense, and I found myself at points flat out agreeing with him. Religion really does put us back in that infantile state. One of the things I love about religion is that oceanic feeling that Freud speaks of. The idea that you aren’t all alone, but rather part of a larger, more significant community is something very comforting, and may explain the draws of religion to many people. Not sure if I agree with him that it’s a regressive memory, but I do agree that it allows us to lose the pressures of the superego, ego, and id, and just become a part of a seemingly more important moment.

Now, Freud’s views of humanity seem sort of cynical. His discussion of the universal ideal of loving your neighbour was really very depressing in a way. His views that we shouldn’t or can’t love our neighbours out of fear and knowledge that they’re just going to trample on us is rather harsh. Maybe it’s just me, but I believe that not every individual would be willing to harm you just for the sake of it. He’s rather depressing in his views of humanity…

All in all, I’m not the biggest Freud fan. Sure, it’s entertaining to ponder the mysterious motives behind our actions, but in reality, Freud’s theories are write-offs. It’s very easy to say AFTER something happens that that is the cause, but how can you prove it? I can’t really take Freud seriously, because there is no way to prove his theories.

I’ll begin by saying that although I don’t often read the introductions to our texts (shamelessly, I skim through them at best) there was no way of avoiding reading this one. I’m quite fond of Christopher Hitchens, and keep meaning to read a book of his, though I haven’t gotten around to it yet. Some of his opinions on religion are a little too aggressive for me to wholeheartedly agree with (that’d be the Canadian in me), but I definitely think he’s an intelligent man with more than a few points to be taken note of. Anyway, point being, I read the introduction and found it quite helpful. He brought up Plato’s Republic and Oedipus Rex, and although the later is frequently associated with Freud, the former was a less expected connection for me. All-in-all it was a nice transition into the text, and I especially liked the quotes he brought up, such as the one by Ernest Jones. He said that “Human happiness, therefore, does not seem to be the purpose of the universe”. Surprise surprise.

Getting into the text itself, I found myself entering it with many preconceived notions about Freud. Mostly I knew that he put quite a lot of emphasis on sex and sexual desire. Then of course I knew about the id, ego, and superego, terms which he coined himself. I put a small note at the front of my book, however, as I had to keep reminding myself about the meanings of each. Got it all down pat though now. I learned a little about him in grade 11 for a class on psychology, sociology and anthropology. I don’t think knowing about him and his theories beforehand hindered my reading in any way though, as it was mostly just helpful to recognize a few ideas throughout the text. I was frequently reminded of Rousseau and Hobbes as read through “Civilization And Its Discontents”. For one thing I held a wary eye as I saw him criticizing civilization for much unhappiness in humanity, and was waiting for him to propose “going back to nature” in some form. However, he quickly surprised me by criticizing the vary people who believe this. On the second page of chapter 3, he says its “astonishing” that people would take up “this strange attitude of hostility” toward civilization. Though he doesn’t believe things should stay exactly as they are, he doesn’t believe we should abandon it completely. He later makes a point Rousseau would wholeheartedly agree with by saying (on page 73) that we should not believe that civilization is synonymous with perfecting. This also brings up Frankenstein, and the belief that pursuing science too aggressively is not necessarily “progress”.

I also felt hints of Hobbes’ Leviathan at certain parts as he mentioned that civilization requires the removal individual power in exchange for communal power, a power “bigger” than the individual. Though he is not an advocate for the civilization that Hobbes wants us all to believe in, Freud saw some truth in this understanding of it.

Though I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about some of his arguments, I found this to be a text I enjoyed. He’s certainly interesting and I didn’t frequently find my self lost, as I have with many of the past texts.

Looking forward to the lecture, hope everyone had a great weekend!

I have been exposed to Freud only in psychology class, hearing his strange concepts on the importance of sex and the rather interesting idea of incestuous relationships. I was surprised to see this jawless, cocaine-addicted psychologist delving into the depths of religion, and philosophy in general. Personally I am not a fan of religion, actually scratch that, I’m against the restrictions it indiscriminately places on the individual. Therefore, I was intrigued to read the argument made by a psychologist regarding the fallacy he considers religion to be.

He states that there are many mediums by which happiness and pleasure can be found. These methods depend on the individual. Some will find happiness internally, some will find it externally, etc. He argues that religion is detrimental towards happiness by blindly categorizing everyone under guidelines which do not cater to the individual. This is the first time i have heard such a Humanistic argument made by the King of Psychoanalysis. However, I completely agree with the idea he presents. Under a society religious congruence  the level of happiness will be unequal. This is destined because some individuals will find more happiness through the religious medium than others who are equally forced into the way of living. It is only by separating ourselves and putting emphasis on the individual that happiness and pleasure can be maximized.

I disagree with Freud stating the Roussea-like idea of civilization and science not aiding in the happiness of society. He says that in the thousands of years of scientific improvement, there lacks an improvement in the happiness of society. He states that we are no closer to happiness despite the improvements of technology, science, and health care. However, those past issues are no longer the issues of today. Infections are no longer a life-threatening issue, but simply a easily solved issue for humanity. There are still many problems which remain in society, however, many of the past issues have been resolved. This is not a matter of perception or taste; what is questioned is if this does or does not create new problems for humanity. To that, my answer is uncertain.

First of all, I actually found this to be one of my favorite books we have read so far. It was simple, concise, but most importantly, exciting! The thrill of uncovering the mysteries of Dr. Jekyll as Utterson and Poole break into the lab was engaging and made the reading of this story incredibly enjoyable. The lingering ideas of what plagued Jekyll, which is which, and the nature of denial all came to mind upon the completion of this text.

I was drawn to the idea that perhaps Jekyll’s potion was never actually effective. It seems as though Dr. Jekyll never fully has a grip on his situation. He finds himself questioning the time he has left and the state of his sanity and self perception. I believe that the problem was specific to Jekyll, and he looked for ways to explain, or at least blame his conflict with his alter-ego. He describes how the newer batches of salt he receives no longer contain the impurity required to fabricate his elixir. I believe that he never actually had a effective potion to battle his ailment. He used the drug as a barrier between himself and Hyde. He does not want to accept this monstrous part of himself. The potion is a way of circumnavigating around what Jekyll considers his bad self. Reaching his death, the potion no longer seems to work because it has never worked. Jekyll has lost control of the situation, but he is not willing to blame himself. Claiming an impurity in the salt displaces the responsibility away from Jekyll.

Another interesting idea is whether Jekyll or Hyde represents the individual. Simply because we are exposed to the milder tempered individual known as Jekyll, it is not fair to assume he is what the being is identified by. Hyde also can be present within the body of this doctor. The identity cannot be identified since both personas inhabit this body. I personally like to think that Jekyll is inhabiting the body, as it is suggested in the story. Jekyll seems to be the one creating the initiative to cure himself as opposed to Hyde maintaining his evil state. However I cannot be certain due to the mysterious nature of each character.

Well… Freud is.. interesting.

Okay seriously, as the first philosopher we’ve ever studied to equate practically everything we do to our desires, love and need for sex, he’s pretty darn revolutionary.  I mean Plato, Hobbes, they all talk about how desire is a bad thing.  In fact, they try to severely repress desires severely, through the Kalliopolis and the Leviathan.  Freud is probably the first to say that desires and libido are necessary or else we’ll self-destruct ourselves.  And he’s darn fascinating, in fact, his ideas may explain many things we are confused about.

I’ll get to the point, porn.  Why is porn, particularly internet porn so popular these days? Seriously, it’s skyrocketed and the adult media industry has grown hugely. The priest in my church keeps focusing on the issue, so when I read Freud, I thought of the issue.  Well if we look at Freud, its kind of explained.  Humans know that sexual love affords the greatest pleasure.  Of course, the risk (as Freud explains) is that getting married, and getting bonded to a particular love-object has great risks, particularly of betrayal, of rejection and so forth. Therefore, it makes sense why man and men of this time have become so bloody interested in internet pornography.  There are no risks.  The love-object, is anonymous, a piece of media, and it satisfies sexual desires.  Of course the attachment is very temporary, but it does explain why people are so attracted to adult media of this time.  This shows that Freud’s ideas on sex and pleasure can be quite easily applied.  I also quite liked his idea on how saints direct their desires, by diverting their love toward everything.

Then again, Freud does have his drawbacks.  I mean it seems very unlikely that EVERYTHING in the world is motivated by sexual desire.  Pain and pleasure do play a part of it and the superego as well but everything by sexual desire?  That’s a little pushing it.  However, I can’t think of a convincing argument against it yet, so I’ll leave that in the air.

I also understand why we are reading this after jekyll and Hyde.  It raises questions on what part of Hyde is Jekyll… I mean is Hyde the ego and Jekyll the superego?  But if Jekyll is the superego… that means he has to have an ego… but Jekyll is Hyde… well I’m getting off track, the point is, Freud offers some convincing explanations on how Hyde and Jekyll developed and how human conscience developed.

All in all, I found Freud very informative, though I tended to get lost as he began to explain more advanced concepts.

Having heard vague – and somethings strange – references and ideas relating to Freud throughout high school it was interesting to finally read his book. Although I expected a compilation of essays, or something else of the sort, I was surprised by his simple writing and a rather normal chapter form book. Freud raises some interesting points about religion, and the idea that it is there in order for humans to have something to rely on/give blame to/feel as if something else control their life. He looks at this as if it were a pitiful fault of humanity that they cannot rise above the idea of the “exalted father” who takes care, hears, prayers of, and is the person in charge of everything that happens to us. Freud also takes about the things which threaten to cause suffering in human lives: the internal, as in our own bodies inevitable decay; the external, our world around us, I suppose perhaps similar to Hobbes’ idea of humans beings afraid of being violently and suddenly killed; and the relations with other humans, the idea of this is how other people affect us and cause us suffering, this, according to Freud, is the kind of potential suffering which is ” more painful to us than any other”  (44).  Freud further talks about how intoxicating substances help alleviate suffering and increase happiness because they blank out suffering and it is interesting that while his ideas are not all right, or even good for us in some cases such as this, he writes so convincingly that it is important, in my opinion, not to get convinced by what he’s saying.

Freud paints an interesting picture of humanity and the things which affects it. While the most memorable things about Freud, from what people say, are his strange ideas this book shows otherwise. While the book is devoid of the usual disturbing Freudian ideas (the popular ideas, the ideas that everyone remembers) it shows another side to his theories and ideas and these are not as controversial seeming or as disturbing as the other ones. Its interesting to see how people choose one aspect of a persons ideology or theories and those become the only generally known, or ‘popular’, ideas from the individual. However when reading further and actually learning about the individual they are more than just one idea or one hypothesis.