What do you think?
Rate this book
الانا و الهو
The Ego and the Id ranks high among the works of Freud's later years. The heart of his concern is the ego, which he sees battling with three forces: the id, the super-ego, and the outside world.
Of the various English translations of Freud's major works to appear in his lifetime, only one was authorized by Freud himself: The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud under the general editorship of James Strachey.
Freud approved the overall editorial plan, specific renderings of key words and phrases, and the addition of valuable notes, from bibliographical and explanatory. Many of the translations were done by Strachey himself; the rest were prepared under his supervision. The result was to place the Standard Edition in a position of unquestioned supremacy over all other existing versions.
Of the various English translations of Freud's major works to appear in his lifetime, only one was authorized by Freud himself: The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud under the general editorship of James Strachey.
Freud approved the overall editorial plan, specific renderings of key words and phrases, and the addition of valuable notes, from bibliographical and explanatory. Many of the translations were done by Strachey himself; the rest were prepared under his supervision. The result was to place the Standard Edition in a position of unquestioned supremacy over all other existing versions.
106 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1923
1,054 people are currently reading
28.9k people want to read
About the author
Sigmund Freud
4,179books8,133followersDr. Sigismund Freud (later changed to Sigmund) was a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, who created an entirely new approach to the understanding of the human personality. He is regarded as one of the most influential—and controversial—minds of the 20th century.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 416 reviews
February 24, 2025
I’ve often wondered why I, and so many other introverted Aspies, in all likelihood, have such a deucedly recalcitrant ego. Freud reminded me in three easy steps - his three categories: ego, id and superego - why that’s the case.
Normal egos bend. They’re more malleable in an environment of rapidly changing circumstances than mine. They’re more HUMAN.
Not mine. Until recently.
You see, now that postindustrial civilization has fast-forwarded so precipitously into what often seems like outright chaos to many of us, and we have been educated by our media to face the salient facts of our lives willy-nilly, we are all realizing that we must grow up. And fast.
The recent book Thank You For Being Late (see my review) encapsulates this process clearly. If, like me, you’re unable to face the raucous music of the world, it’s time to learn how. We can no longer beat retreat.
I had a real boost toward accomplishing this last night, after reading some of my old reviews here. It’s like this: I suddenly saw my personal memories are nothing to write home about.
And with this freeing thought, my rigidly calcified ego began to crumble...
Thank goodness.
What a relief to finally bend - and exercise my psychological joints a little. For Freud was right. These three structures delimit and circumscribe our little lives, and we’re right at home amid their awkward strictures, cause their conflictual interplay is the world's very identity.
But I haven’t had a real ego since I was four. That’s the age, you’ll know if you read my review of Lord of the Flies, that my parents pinned my personality to an ideal moral framework.
I froze. And - since I could no longer relax my ego, which was in reality my superego elevated onto the throne of my psyche - I retreated deep within myself, where there was still lotsa life!
Classic autism.
So while my superego seemed bubbly and buoyant, my id was lost in a funk.
Now they have finally bent, and made up! Laughing at it all has mitigated my mania.
To my friends, this will explain much of my weird behaviour - and to you readers, it tells you why I write my weird reviews.
All this is well and good - NOT. But, now that I am a creaky septuagenarian, I am gratified that I see more and more through myself.
As I know the Big Guy Upstairs is smiling too:
HE’s seen through me from the very beginning!
I'm just catching up.
Normal egos bend. They’re more malleable in an environment of rapidly changing circumstances than mine. They’re more HUMAN.
Not mine. Until recently.
You see, now that postindustrial civilization has fast-forwarded so precipitously into what often seems like outright chaos to many of us, and we have been educated by our media to face the salient facts of our lives willy-nilly, we are all realizing that we must grow up. And fast.
The recent book Thank You For Being Late (see my review) encapsulates this process clearly. If, like me, you’re unable to face the raucous music of the world, it’s time to learn how. We can no longer beat retreat.
I had a real boost toward accomplishing this last night, after reading some of my old reviews here. It’s like this: I suddenly saw my personal memories are nothing to write home about.
And with this freeing thought, my rigidly calcified ego began to crumble...
Thank goodness.
What a relief to finally bend - and exercise my psychological joints a little. For Freud was right. These three structures delimit and circumscribe our little lives, and we’re right at home amid their awkward strictures, cause their conflictual interplay is the world's very identity.
But I haven’t had a real ego since I was four. That’s the age, you’ll know if you read my review of Lord of the Flies, that my parents pinned my personality to an ideal moral framework.
I froze. And - since I could no longer relax my ego, which was in reality my superego elevated onto the throne of my psyche - I retreated deep within myself, where there was still lotsa life!
Classic autism.
So while my superego seemed bubbly and buoyant, my id was lost in a funk.
Now they have finally bent, and made up! Laughing at it all has mitigated my mania.
To my friends, this will explain much of my weird behaviour - and to you readers, it tells you why I write my weird reviews.
All this is well and good - NOT. But, now that I am a creaky septuagenarian, I am gratified that I see more and more through myself.
As I know the Big Guy Upstairs is smiling too:
HE’s seen through me from the very beginning!
I'm just catching up.
May 15, 2019
فروید رو با این مقاله شروع کردم و بهنظر� شروع خوبی بود. سهبا� خوندمش و کلی گوشه� جزوها� که پرینت کرده بودم یادداشت نوشتم. شاید خیلی از بخشها� نظریهها� فروید باطل شده باشن و حتی اینک� فروید اولین کسی بوده که اشاره کرده به وجود ناخودآگاه هم گزاره� درستی نباشه ولی چیزی که منو مجذوب فروید میکن� جسارتشه. یهجو� اعتماد به خودش و دونستهها�. یه اعتماد مطلق.
June 7, 2012
! كتاب متعب بحق
شعرت بالضياع بين فقراته و أسلوب فرويد العجيب فى الأنتقال من جزئية لجزئية ثم الرجوع مرة أخرى الى الجزئية الأولى و الأبتعاد فى كثير من الأحيان عن الموضوع ! , هذا الى جانب الحاجة الى اللجوء للهوامش التى وضعها المؤلف و أضاف اليها المترجم لشرح المصطلحات التى وردت بالكتاب و التى قد تصل فى بعض الأحيان لصفحة أو أكثر
- أعتقد أن ذلك قد قلل من فائدة الكتاب بالنسبة لى على الأقل
أما عن موضوع الكتاب ففرويد فى هذا الكتاب يحاول أن يشرح نظريته-التى قوبلت بالرفض فى ذلك الوقت- والتى تقول أن هناك 3 أقسام للجهاز النفسى للإنسان وهى:الشعور ,ما قبل الشعور ,واللا شعور و فى مرحلة متقدمة من الشرح أو فى تعديل النظرية أطلق فرويد مسميات (الهو , والأنا , والأنا الأعلى) على أقسام هذا الجهاز .
فالهو عند فرويد لا يتبع قواعد الأخلاق ولا يراعى المنطق أو الواقع على الإطلاق والكيفية الوحيدة التى تسود فيه هى اللاشعور . و هو يمثل غرائز الإنسان,
أما الأنا فهى تمثل كل ما له علاقة بعالم الإدراك الحسي و الشعور الذى يعتبرهما فرويد نواة الأنا .. و الأنا يعتبر مرحلة وسطى بين الهو و الأنا الأعلى فهو يجتهد فى إتباع القواعد الأخلاقية التى يفرضها عليه الانا الأعلى و فى نفس الوقت يحاول أن يكبح جماع غرائز الهو ليوجهها الى الطريق الصحيح . و هو يمثل ما نسميه الحكمة و سلامة العقل
أما الأنا الأعلى أو الأنا المثالي فهو يبالغ جدا فى إتباع الأخلاق فيصبح قاسى القلب و غير منطقى مثل الهو و لكن بصورة عكسية .وهو المسئول عن الشعور بالذنب و يمثل الضمير
بالرغم من أن ترجمة الكتاب من الإنجليزية جاءت حرفية تقريبا توخيا للدقة إلا إننى كنت أفضل أن يترجمها المترجم بأسلوبه هو دون الإبتعاد عن صيغة المؤلف خصوصا أن علم النفس هو مجال تخصص المترجم
شعرت بالضياع بين فقراته و أسلوب فرويد العجيب فى الأنتقال من جزئية لجزئية ثم الرجوع مرة أخرى الى الجزئية الأولى و الأبتعاد فى كثير من الأحيان عن الموضوع ! , هذا الى جانب الحاجة الى اللجوء للهوامش التى وضعها المؤلف و أضاف اليها المترجم لشرح المصطلحات التى وردت بالكتاب و التى قد تصل فى بعض الأحيان لصفحة أو أكثر
- أعتقد أن ذلك قد قلل من فائدة الكتاب بالنسبة لى على الأقل
أما عن موضوع الكتاب ففرويد فى هذا الكتاب يحاول أن يشرح نظريته-التى قوبلت بالرفض فى ذلك الوقت- والتى تقول أن هناك 3 أقسام للجهاز النفسى للإنسان وهى:الشعور ,ما قبل الشعور ,واللا شعور و فى مرحلة متقدمة من الشرح أو فى تعديل النظرية أطلق فرويد مسميات (الهو , والأنا , والأنا الأعلى) على أقسام هذا الجهاز .
فالهو عند فرويد لا يتبع قواعد الأخلاق ولا يراعى المنطق أو الواقع على الإطلاق والكيفية الوحيدة التى تسود فيه هى اللاشعور . و هو يمثل غرائز الإنسان,
أما الأنا فهى تمثل كل ما له علاقة بعالم الإدراك الحسي و الشعور الذى يعتبرهما فرويد نواة الأنا .. و الأنا يعتبر مرحلة وسطى بين الهو و الأنا الأعلى فهو يجتهد فى إتباع القواعد الأخلاقية التى يفرضها عليه الانا الأعلى و فى نفس الوقت يحاول أن يكبح جماع غرائز الهو ليوجهها الى الطريق الصحيح . و هو يمثل ما نسميه الحكمة و سلامة العقل
أما الأنا الأعلى أو الأنا المثالي فهو يبالغ جدا فى إتباع الأخلاق فيصبح قاسى القلب و غير منطقى مثل الهو و لكن بصورة عكسية .وهو المسئول عن الشعور بالذنب و يمثل الضمير
بالرغم من أن ترجمة الكتاب من الإنجليزية جاءت حرفية تقريبا توخيا للدقة إلا إننى كنت أفضل أن يترجمها المترجم بأسلوبه هو دون الإبتعاد عن صيغة المؤلف خصوصا أن علم النفس هو مجال تخصص المترجم
September 24, 2016
The entire history of 19th Century can be written through the biography of three revolutionary thinkers- Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, sigmund Freud. Freud has changed our understanding of human behavior, using analogies based on jokes, philosophy of Sophocles and Shakespeare's Macbeth. His theories have been influencing literary fields to this day. For me, it is hard to name any Woody Allen film without Freudian reference, such is influence of Freud on cinema.
Being a Freudian atheist, I must confess that my review cannot be balanced or fair. However anyone who is interested in speculations about why we do what we do. Freud's the ego and the id is best entry point.
Being a Freudian atheist, I must confess that my review cannot be balanced or fair. However anyone who is interested in speculations about why we do what we do. Freud's the ego and the id is best entry point.
May 27, 2012
The Ego and the Id is the product of Freud's clinical work and thinking about the structure of the Psyche. A theme of the books is the way the largely unconscious and primal Id (or "It") conflicts with the Superego (or "Ego Ideal"), and how the Ego attempts to mediate between them.
This is a quick read, and Freud's writing and style of argument are very clear and easy to follow. Although someone with no knowledge of psychoanalysis or Freud's language would have to do some extra work to get a good handle on what's happening, the book is very engaging. A short little text like this can't fit in detailed descriptions of concepts like "object-cathexis", although the footnotes help. The translations, which Freud endorsed, don't have the clunky feel that often comes with translated texts.
For someone new to Freud and this kind of writing, I'd recommend you maybe start with another book, like Beyond The Pleasure Principle, or even just going through the Wikipedia entries on psychoanalysis. This book would be ideal for someone who knows the basic Freudian concepts (Oedipus complex, etc.) and would like to jump in and get a little more technical.
This is a quick read, and Freud's writing and style of argument are very clear and easy to follow. Although someone with no knowledge of psychoanalysis or Freud's language would have to do some extra work to get a good handle on what's happening, the book is very engaging. A short little text like this can't fit in detailed descriptions of concepts like "object-cathexis", although the footnotes help. The translations, which Freud endorsed, don't have the clunky feel that often comes with translated texts.
For someone new to Freud and this kind of writing, I'd recommend you maybe start with another book, like Beyond The Pleasure Principle, or even just going through the Wikipedia entries on psychoanalysis. This book would be ideal for someone who knows the basic Freudian concepts (Oedipus complex, etc.) and would like to jump in and get a little more technical.
July 31, 2011
الأنا والهو مصطلحين شائعيّن في دراسة سلوكيات الإنسان من مدرسة فرويد للتحليل النفسي , والذي تفرد بهِ سيقموند عن بقية الباحثين الذي انصب إهتمامهم قبل ظهور مدرسة فرويد في دراسة الظواهر العقلية الشعورية ولم يتطلعوا في البحث وإستكشاف العمليات العقلية اللاشعورية التي تحرك سلوك الإنسان وتدفعه إلى القيام بصور النشاطات المختلفة، السوية والشاذة والعصابية وغيرها
وهذا جزءًا كبير من وراء سلوكنا في حياتنا العقلية هو- لا شعوري - ، وأن لهذا الجزء اللاشعوري من حياتنا العقلية تأثيرًا كبيرًا على سلوكنا ومشاعرنا سواء في حياتنا السوية أو فيما نتعرض له من اضطرابات وأمراض نفسية
وللتوضيح , فالذات والغرائز كلمتين مقاربة لمصطلحين سيقموند فرويد - فالأنا هي من ترادف الذات والغرائز تصدر من الهو وهو الجزء الأعظم منها ,
* لم يكن من السهل في ذلك الوقت اقتناع العلماء والفلاسفة بوجود عقل لاشعوري كما يقول فرويد , بينما ما كان سائد أن لابد أن وجود العقل شعوري فقط وأن مقولة فرويد عن لاشعوريته قول متناقض لايقبله منطق فلاقت نظريتة الكثير من السخرية والنقد , مما دفع فرويد في بداية ظهور النظرية الرد على النقد بإثبات براهين والحجج مستمدة من خبرته الإكلينيكية
ملخص النظرية الفرويدية| *
يرى إن الشعور حالة وقتية وليست دائمة , فالفكرة قد تظهر في الشعور لفترة قصيرة ثم تختفي ,وهي تستطيع الظهور مرة أخرى في الشعور بسهولة إذا توفرت شروط معنية , وحينما تبتعد الفكرة عن الشعور لحين ما فإنها تكون موجودة في قسم معين من الجهاز النفسي يسميه فرويد ما قبل الشعور , وذلك يقع في مكان متوسط بين الشعور واللاشعور
توجد بعض العمليات النفسية التي تستطيع أن تحدث في النفس جميع الآثار التي تحدثها الأفكار العادية بدون أن تكون هي نفسها شعورية , وهي تحتاج إلى كثير من المشقة والجد لكي تصبح شعورية
وهذه هي العمليات النفسية التي يسميها فرويد لاشعورية , وهي موجودة في ذلك القسم من الجهاز النفسي الذي يسمى اللاشعور , ويحتوي اللاشعور الدوافع الغريزية البدائية الجنسية والعدوانية التى غالباً ما تكتب في مجتمعاتنا المتحضرة تحت تأثير المعاير الخلقية والدينية والاجتماعية التي ينشأ فيها الفرد , وتنزع الدوافع والرغبات المكبوتة في اللاشعور إلى الإشباع وإلى الظهور في الشعور , وهي كثيراً ما تلجأ في سبيل ذلك إلى طرق شاذة ملتوية كما يشاهد مثلاُ في الأمراض العصابية
فسر جميع الظواهر النفسية بافتراض وجود مجموعتين أساسيتين من الغرائز , المجموعة الأولى "الغرائز الجنسية " التي تصدر عن طاقة خاصة تسمى الليبدو وهي تهدف دائماً إلى الإشباع واللذة والمجموعة الثانية هي "غرائز الأنا " ومهمتها العمل على حفظ الذات , وذلك بمراعاة العالم الخارجي ومقتضيات الواقع من جهة , وبكبت الدوافع الجنسية التى تتعارض مع مقتضيات الواقع أو مع وظائف غرائز الأنا من جهة أخرى
دفعته أبحاثه عن الأمراض إلى تركيزه وأهتمامه إلى ما هو مكبوت ويرى أن الشيء المكبوت في اللاشعور لا يظهر في الشعور مباشرة , ولكنة يظهر في الشعور عن طريقة اتصاله بالصور اللفظية الموجودة قبل الشعور وكبت هذه الدوافع الغريزية الموجودة في اللاشعور يتم على يد ما يسمى الرقيب , وهو القوة النفسية التي وضعها فرويد كحارس للممرين الموجودين بين اللاشعور وما قبل الشعور
يعرف الـلاشعور بأنه : مستودع الدوافع البدائية الجنسية وهو مقر الرغبات والحاجات الانفعالية المكبوتة التي تظهر في عثرات اللسان والأخطاء الصغيرة والهفوات وأثناء بعض المظاهر الغامضة لسلوك الإنسان. إنه مستودع ذو قوة ميكانيكية دافعة وليس مجرد مكان تلقى إليه الأفكار والذكريات غير الهامة.
أما الـ(هو): فهي مجموعة من الدوافع الغريزية الموجودة لدى الطفل عند ولادته التي تحتاج إلى الشعور الموجه، وهي غرائز يشترك فيها الجنس البشري بكافة. إنها باطن النفس، وقد نتجت عن (الأنا) إلا أنها تبقى ممزوجة بها في الأعماق أي حينما تكون � الأ��ا- لا شعورية، وهي تشمل القوى الغريزية الدافعة، فإذا ما كبتت هذه الرغبات فإنها تعود إلى إل هو
والأنا- بعد فترة من ميلاد الطفل يزداد شعوراً بالواقع الخارجي فينفصل جزء من مجموعة الدوافع الـ (هي) لتصبح ذاتاً ووظيفتها الرئيسية هي اختيار الواقع حتى يستطيع الطفل بذلك تحويل استجاباته إلى سلوك منظم يرتبط بحقائق الواقع ومقتضياته، إنها ظاهرة النفس التي ترتبط بالمحيط.
الأنا العليا - هي الضمير الذي يوجه سلوك الفرد والجانب الأكبر منه لا شعوري وهو ما نسميه بالضمير أو الوجدان الأخلاقي، لها زواجر وأوامر تفرضها على (الأنا)، وهي سمة خاصة بالإنسان، إذ إنها ��مور حتمية صادرة من العالم الداخلي
*ملاحظة |
بعد فهم ووعي الإنسان بالفرق بين الشعور واللاشعور أو الوعي واللاوعي , سيدخل في مرحلة ذهبية عندما يصبح قادر لصنع النضج في إخضاع واحدة منهن للآخرى و العكس صحيح
September 18, 2022
Novantotto
There is a great person called Me
Who lives deep inside of everybody
The Greeks call it Ego
The Italians Io
Me? I call it by its only name: Me
A sinistra... / A destra...
.
There is a great person called Me
Who lives deep inside of everybody
The Greeks call it Ego
The Italians Io
Me? I call it by its only name: Me
A sinistra... / A destra...
.
July 21, 2019
I’m new to Freud.
I’m learning as I go.
So please take all of this with a grain of salt.
That being said. I have been deep diving on the topic of psychoanalysis lately.
My experience with Freud’s work, and with the worldview it engenders has been very life affirming and rewarding.
In fact.
I’m somewhat of a convert.
This is particularly surprising to me, considering the fact that I previously held a lot of contempt for Freud and psychodynamic modalities in general.
I don’t view psychodynamic models as the one true way of viewing the human experience.
Far from it.
But I do view many psychodynamic constructs as interesting and useful, and I am finding myself increasingly incorporating psychodynamic conceptualizations and methods into my work as a therapist.
That being said.
I’m still a bit confused about what (precisely) psychoanalysis is for me.
I can’t consider it psychology because it’s not grounded in science.
I can’t think of it simply as a therapeutic orientation, because of the vast scope of its observations and claims.
It’s not simply a philosophy or some other branch of the humanities because of its therapeutic utility and methods.
It’s not simply interesting for its historical value because it’s very much alive and in use today.
For me.
Psychoanalysis is kind of it’s own thing.
That’s how I’m making peace with it.
Psychoanalysis is part of the western, secular wisdom tradition.
In a sense, psychoanalysis is the last myth of the west.
But it’s not a an ordinary myth.
Its a myth in a mirror.
It’s an origin myth of the self.
It’s a myth that describes the universe within.
And like Buddhism, it’s a myth with a method for awakening.
Psychoanalysis is a valiant attempt to gain purchase on the machinations of the human being, embedded in relationships, caught in the trap that that is human existence, and desperately groping in the dark for answers, for relief, and for an escape from the fetters and confines of the human condition.
The Ego and The Id represents an early attempt by Freud to model the anatomy of human psyche (i.e. soul, mind, spirit, whatever).
Freud proposed that the psyche was comprised of ‘parts� with distinct agendas:
1. the Id (it), represents the bestial, primitive, instinctual, down and dirty, reactive, Jerry Springer guest that resides within all of us.
2. the super ego (over I), represents the uptight as fuck part of us that wants to screw the lid down on all of that Id shit.
3. the ego (I), represents the reasonable part of us that wants to broker a deal between 1 and 2.
Freud also postulated that people are driven by a sex-instinct and a death-instinct, and that these are also in conflict.
Freud viewed the human inner world as typified by boiling tension and conflict between all of these parts.
Game of Thrones my provide us with an apt metaphor.
The Id is like Cerci Lannister, who wants what the fuck she wants, and wants it NOW, and doesn’t give a FUCK what you or any one else thinks.
The super ego is like the high sparrow in the faith of septon cult who made Cerci do the walk of shame.
The ego is like Jon Snow, who is trying to be reasonable, pragmatic and focused on the real problems.
Maybe the white walkers are like the death instinct. Not sure who the sex instinct is. Perhaps it’s producers who kept making Melisandre show her boobs 1000 times.
Anyway.
In Freuds model, all of these characters are constantly duking it out for the iron throne in the Westeros of your soul.
That’s what I got for ya here.
Not my favorite of Freuds works.
But important as all get out.
So I’m giving it 5 stars.
Partially because it feels odd to give it less given the impact this work has had on our culture.
I’m learning as I go.
So please take all of this with a grain of salt.
That being said. I have been deep diving on the topic of psychoanalysis lately.
My experience with Freud’s work, and with the worldview it engenders has been very life affirming and rewarding.
In fact.
I’m somewhat of a convert.
This is particularly surprising to me, considering the fact that I previously held a lot of contempt for Freud and psychodynamic modalities in general.
I don’t view psychodynamic models as the one true way of viewing the human experience.
Far from it.
But I do view many psychodynamic constructs as interesting and useful, and I am finding myself increasingly incorporating psychodynamic conceptualizations and methods into my work as a therapist.
That being said.
I’m still a bit confused about what (precisely) psychoanalysis is for me.
I can’t consider it psychology because it’s not grounded in science.
I can’t think of it simply as a therapeutic orientation, because of the vast scope of its observations and claims.
It’s not simply a philosophy or some other branch of the humanities because of its therapeutic utility and methods.
It’s not simply interesting for its historical value because it’s very much alive and in use today.
For me.
Psychoanalysis is kind of it’s own thing.
That’s how I’m making peace with it.
Psychoanalysis is part of the western, secular wisdom tradition.
In a sense, psychoanalysis is the last myth of the west.
But it’s not a an ordinary myth.
Its a myth in a mirror.
It’s an origin myth of the self.
It’s a myth that describes the universe within.
And like Buddhism, it’s a myth with a method for awakening.
Psychoanalysis is a valiant attempt to gain purchase on the machinations of the human being, embedded in relationships, caught in the trap that that is human existence, and desperately groping in the dark for answers, for relief, and for an escape from the fetters and confines of the human condition.
The Ego and The Id represents an early attempt by Freud to model the anatomy of human psyche (i.e. soul, mind, spirit, whatever).
Freud proposed that the psyche was comprised of ‘parts� with distinct agendas:
1. the Id (it), represents the bestial, primitive, instinctual, down and dirty, reactive, Jerry Springer guest that resides within all of us.
2. the super ego (over I), represents the uptight as fuck part of us that wants to screw the lid down on all of that Id shit.
3. the ego (I), represents the reasonable part of us that wants to broker a deal between 1 and 2.
Freud also postulated that people are driven by a sex-instinct and a death-instinct, and that these are also in conflict.
Freud viewed the human inner world as typified by boiling tension and conflict between all of these parts.
Game of Thrones my provide us with an apt metaphor.
The Id is like Cerci Lannister, who wants what the fuck she wants, and wants it NOW, and doesn’t give a FUCK what you or any one else thinks.
The super ego is like the high sparrow in the faith of septon cult who made Cerci do the walk of shame.
The ego is like Jon Snow, who is trying to be reasonable, pragmatic and focused on the real problems.
Maybe the white walkers are like the death instinct. Not sure who the sex instinct is. Perhaps it’s producers who kept making Melisandre show her boobs 1000 times.
Anyway.
In Freuds model, all of these characters are constantly duking it out for the iron throne in the Westeros of your soul.
That’s what I got for ya here.
Not my favorite of Freuds works.
But important as all get out.
So I’m giving it 5 stars.
Partially because it feels odd to give it less given the impact this work has had on our culture.
July 12, 2019
Đầu tiên phải nói là bản dịch rất cẩn thận, chú thích t� t�; một cuốn rất khá so với vài cuốn khác của Freud mà mình biết. V� nội dung thì là một cuốn rất hay, nói v� ch� đ� trọng yếu trong phân tâm học là các phần của tâm trí, bao gồm Nó, Tôi và Siêu-Tôi; bên cạnh đó là những giải thích thú v� v� phức cảm Oedipe, ái k�, đa nhân cách, bản năng chết bên cạnh bản năng tính dục... Tóm lại là nhiều cái thú v� kinh lên =))
Ban đầu mình đọc cuốn này với tâm trạng bình thường, d� vào. Tuy nhiên, khi đến đoạn nhạy cảm, dường như cái Siêu-Tôi trong mình không hài lòng, quyết định dùng quyền thống tr� của mình đàn áp cái Tôi khiến mình mất hết c� libido và do đó, bản năng chết lấn át, th� hiện � việc hai lần mình đập sách vào đầu (ch� yếu do Siêu-Tôi ngăn cản mình đọc khiến mình đọc mà không vào). Sau đó đến gi� tập đàn, mình lại suýt đập gẫy cái vĩ vì tức giận. Sau đó, cái Tôi bèn hòa giải bằng cách đưa mình ra ngoài đi dạo và mua đ� ăn ngon. Tuy nhiên, khi mình v� nhà, cái Nó lại đòi mình phải đọc tiếp vì trong đó có nhiều cám d� v� nó. Mình lại tiếp tục đọc trong tình trạng gần nửa không hiểu gì. Cuối cùng, may quá vì sách ngắn nên mình đã đọc xong và Siêu-Tôi, Tôi và Nó tạm thời không làm loạn nữa. Tuy nhiên, dư âm của các bên đánh nhau vẫn khiến mình khá mệt và lâu nữa mới đoc lại Freud. Anw, cái Nó nói với mình là mày phải đọc lại quyển này khi tinh thần cao, tức là kiềm ch� được cái Siêu-Tôi.
Tóm lại loạn não phết và vì bọn nó đánh nhau quá nên mình chưa đọc k� nữa =))) S� đọc thêm cuốn khác và đọc lại từng đoạn cuốn này khi tỉnh táo haha
Ban đầu mình đọc cuốn này với tâm trạng bình thường, d� vào. Tuy nhiên, khi đến đoạn nhạy cảm, dường như cái Siêu-Tôi trong mình không hài lòng, quyết định dùng quyền thống tr� của mình đàn áp cái Tôi khiến mình mất hết c� libido và do đó, bản năng chết lấn át, th� hiện � việc hai lần mình đập sách vào đầu (ch� yếu do Siêu-Tôi ngăn cản mình đọc khiến mình đọc mà không vào). Sau đó đến gi� tập đàn, mình lại suýt đập gẫy cái vĩ vì tức giận. Sau đó, cái Tôi bèn hòa giải bằng cách đưa mình ra ngoài đi dạo và mua đ� ăn ngon. Tuy nhiên, khi mình v� nhà, cái Nó lại đòi mình phải đọc tiếp vì trong đó có nhiều cám d� v� nó. Mình lại tiếp tục đọc trong tình trạng gần nửa không hiểu gì. Cuối cùng, may quá vì sách ngắn nên mình đã đọc xong và Siêu-Tôi, Tôi và Nó tạm thời không làm loạn nữa. Tuy nhiên, dư âm của các bên đánh nhau vẫn khiến mình khá mệt và lâu nữa mới đoc lại Freud. Anw, cái Nó nói với mình là mày phải đọc lại quyển này khi tinh thần cao, tức là kiềm ch� được cái Siêu-Tôi.
Tóm lại loạn não phết và vì bọn nó đánh nhau quá nên mình chưa đọc k� nữa =))) S� đọc thêm cuốn khác và đọc lại từng đoạn cuốn này khi tỉnh táo haha
May 23, 2018
صراحة....... مافهمت والوا
July 29, 2023
Achiziționată chiar de la casa lui Freud din Viena, "The Ego & The ID" reprezinta o scurtă incursiune în clasicul periplu freudian "eu - supraeu - sine".
Cel mai mult mi-a plăcut ultimul capitol, despre somatizare:
"[...] it is due to tension between the ego and the ego-ideal and is the expression of a condamnation of the ego pronounced by its criticizing function."
"As the child was once compelled to obey its parents, so the ego submits to the categorical imperative pronounced by its super-ego."
Merită citită chiar și ca studiu de caz, mai ales ca atinge subiecte încă actuale (și care vor deveni, din păcate, din ce în ce mai actuale), precum anxietatea.
Cel mai mult mi-a plăcut ultimul capitol, despre somatizare:
"[...] it is due to tension between the ego and the ego-ideal and is the expression of a condamnation of the ego pronounced by its criticizing function."
"As the child was once compelled to obey its parents, so the ego submits to the categorical imperative pronounced by its super-ego."
Merită citită chiar și ca studiu de caz, mai ales ca atinge subiecte încă actuale (și care vor deveni, din păcate, din ce în ce mai actuale), precum anxietatea.
April 17, 2024
هذا الكتاب خير دليل علي أن الإنسان أصله حزلئوم !
ينقسم الجهاز النفسي الي جزئين رئيسيين هما الأنا و الهو
ولكم يذكرني الهو المندفع الي يعمل بلامنطقية شديدة وفقاً لمبدأ الحيطة و اللذة تحقيقاً لرغبات البشر بحزلقوم المندفع
فهو البشر لا يتبع اي منطق الا تحقيق رغبات الإنسان وفقاً لمبدأ اللذة كذلك يحاول علي قدر الامكان ضمان بقاء البشري بشكل أو بآخر
أما نقيضه الانا الاعلي
فيذكرني بغسان مطر !
#إعمل الصح
"المتأثر بقواعد الاخلاق و الدين و الذي دائماً ما يحث الانسان علي تلك الأفعال التي يعتبرها " الصح
اما نتاج تناقض الإنسان فيكون حل وسط ما بين تزمت الأنا الأعلي و رغبات الهو
الأنا !
فما اشبه الإنسان بكائن الحزلقوم
ينقسم الجهاز النفسي الي جزئين رئيسيين هما الأنا و الهو
ولكم يذكرني الهو المندفع الي يعمل بلامنطقية شديدة وفقاً لمبدأ الحيطة و اللذة تحقيقاً لرغبات البشر بحزلقوم المندفع
فهو البشر لا يتبع اي منطق الا تحقيق رغبات الإنسان وفقاً لمبدأ اللذة كذلك يحاول علي قدر الامكان ضمان بقاء البشري بشكل أو بآخر
أما نقيضه الانا الاعلي
فيذكرني بغسان مطر !
#إعمل الصح
"المتأثر بقواعد الاخلاق و الدين و الذي دائماً ما يحث الانسان علي تلك الأفعال التي يعتبرها " الصح
اما نتاج تناقض الإنسان فيكون حل وسط ما بين تزمت الأنا الأعلي و رغبات الهو
الأنا !
فما اشبه الإنسان بكائن الحزلقوم
August 17, 2023
فروید با فرض وجود ناخودآگاه و نیمه خودآگاه نمی توانست ساختار روان را توضیح دهد. به همین دلیل مفاهیم ایگو و اید و سوپرایگو را مطرح کرد. با آنها ساختاری مکان نگارانه و پویا ساخت برای توضیح اقتصاد انرژی روانی.
من ترجمه� انگلیسی را خواندم و در بعضی جاها ترجمه� حسین پاینده به من کمک کرد. ولی حداقل در نسخه ی پی دی اف ی که من از ترجمه� فارسی دارم پاینده دو بند آخر ۴ و ۵ را ترجمه نکرده. در دو بند آخر فروید می خواهد ارتباط بین این ساختار روان (اید/ایگو/سوپر ایگو) را با دو رانه� اروس و مرگ که در مقاله ورای اصل لذت تئوریزه کرده، بررسی کند.
من ترجمه� انگلیسی را خواندم و در بعضی جاها ترجمه� حسین پاینده به من کمک کرد. ولی حداقل در نسخه ی پی دی اف ی که من از ترجمه� فارسی دارم پاینده دو بند آخر ۴ و ۵ را ترجمه نکرده. در دو بند آخر فروید می خواهد ارتباط بین این ساختار روان (اید/ایگو/سوپر ایگو) را با دو رانه� اروس و مرگ که در مقاله ورای اصل لذت تئوریزه کرده، بررسی کند.
December 19, 2020
تقسيم لتركيبة عقل الانسان النفسية وشرح لطرق الانسان اللاواعية في الموازنة بينها
April 4, 2020
"The Ego and the Id" is an important work for the development of the psychoanalysis, in general. This study presents prominent theories about Personality structure and dynamics.
Freud divided personality into three structures: the id, the ego, and the superego. He states that his analytical study has a major role in one's personality, how it influences the individual's actions in the environment and how the individual character can be in constant conflict.
The Id is the unconscious part, the pleasure principle that dictates our urges, needs and instant gratification. This section is also the reservoir of the libido, a major biological component that affects our personality. Meanwhile, Ego is the reality principle, our own self that works in a realistic manner to obtain pleasure and avoid pain. The ego is moulded by the external world. For example, it mediates one self's needs and pleasures according to other people needs.
Freud also claims that there's another section that works as an ideal ego, the Superego. This part is tied to the moral and ethics that is directed to us during our lives.
Based on all these features, the Ego is the strongest force. However, it's in constant conflict with the Id and entangled in an interplayed position against the Superego.
"The ego is not only the ally of the id; it is also a submissive slave who courts the love of his master"
Sigmund, regarding his views on Consciousness and Unconsciousness, states that "there is nothing new to be said... the division of mental life into what is conscious and what is unconscious is the fundamental premise on which psycho-analysis is based". According to him, the interaction that exists within all these structures can result in many possible psychic conflicts, like Hysteria, Melancholia, etc. For that reason, the purpose of Freud's psychoanalysis methods is to connect the unconscious elements, transport them into consciousness and, hence, take them into words.
The last part of the book brings interesting points concerning The Ego and its tasks. The Ego has to mediate the desires of the id but, at the same time, it seats between the super-ego and the events of the external world.
Sigmund Freud's impact on the study of the individual personality is quite remarkable. His researches and theories had a controversial impact during his time, but his influence has also helped shape the approach towards personality, memory, sexuality and therapy.
Rating:4/5 stars
Freud divided personality into three structures: the id, the ego, and the superego. He states that his analytical study has a major role in one's personality, how it influences the individual's actions in the environment and how the individual character can be in constant conflict.
The Id is the unconscious part, the pleasure principle that dictates our urges, needs and instant gratification. This section is also the reservoir of the libido, a major biological component that affects our personality. Meanwhile, Ego is the reality principle, our own self that works in a realistic manner to obtain pleasure and avoid pain. The ego is moulded by the external world. For example, it mediates one self's needs and pleasures according to other people needs.
Freud also claims that there's another section that works as an ideal ego, the Superego. This part is tied to the moral and ethics that is directed to us during our lives.
Based on all these features, the Ego is the strongest force. However, it's in constant conflict with the Id and entangled in an interplayed position against the Superego.
"The ego is not only the ally of the id; it is also a submissive slave who courts the love of his master"
Sigmund, regarding his views on Consciousness and Unconsciousness, states that "there is nothing new to be said... the division of mental life into what is conscious and what is unconscious is the fundamental premise on which psycho-analysis is based". According to him, the interaction that exists within all these structures can result in many possible psychic conflicts, like Hysteria, Melancholia, etc. For that reason, the purpose of Freud's psychoanalysis methods is to connect the unconscious elements, transport them into consciousness and, hence, take them into words.
The last part of the book brings interesting points concerning The Ego and its tasks. The Ego has to mediate the desires of the id but, at the same time, it seats between the super-ego and the events of the external world.
Sigmund Freud's impact on the study of the individual personality is quite remarkable. His researches and theories had a controversial impact during his time, but his influence has also helped shape the approach towards personality, memory, sexuality and therapy.
Rating:4/5 stars
January 21, 2014
كتاب معقد و كما يقال "يصعب على أمثالي فهمه" لا لشئ إلا لأنه يتطلب أربع أو خمس مرات قراءة لتبدأ تفهمه، ده غير مصطلحات علم النفس الكثيرة التي لا تفي دراستي البسيطة لهذا العلم بفهمها.
فرويد عند الكثيرين هو الرجل الذي فسر الأحلام وقال أن الجنس هو أساس كل شئ، لكن فرويد هو أكثر من ذلك بكثير، فقد وجد تفسيراُ لأمراض وتعقيدات نفسية بإستنتاجات لم يتقبلها أحد وقت إكتشافها ولكنها أثبتت صحتها فيما بعد
ميزة فرويد تكمن بأنه مع كل كتاب يأتي بتحليلات وإستنتاجات جديدة وقد تنفي هذه الإستنتاجات، إستنتاجات سابقة كان قد توصل لها. فالعلم وخاصة علم النفسي هو في تطور دائم، ومن المستحيل أن تصل إلى نتيجة ثابتة.
الترجمة كانت جيدة جداً، ربما جودتها ترجع إلى أن المترجم أصلاً متخصص في ذلك المجال -علم النفس- وقد ترجم لفرويد كتب كثيرة أخرى كذلك. وقد ساعدتني هوامش المترجم كثيراً أثناء القراءة. ولكن يظل الكتاب صعباً وخاصة أن قرائتي لعلم النفس لمتتعدى الكتب المدرسية والجامعية، وهذا أول كتاب أقرأه لعلم النفس خارج إطار الدراسة، وقد شجعني أن أقرأ المزيد وأعود لهذا الكتاب مرة أخرى لأفهمه أكثر.
الكتاب مفيد جداً للمهتمين بعلم النفس عامة، وبتفسيرات وتحليلات فرويد خاصة
فرويد عند الكثيرين هو الرجل الذي فسر الأحلام وقال أن الجنس هو أساس كل شئ، لكن فرويد هو أكثر من ذلك بكثير، فقد وجد تفسيراُ لأمراض وتعقيدات نفسية بإستنتاجات لم يتقبلها أحد وقت إكتشافها ولكنها أثبتت صحتها فيما بعد
ميزة فرويد تكمن بأنه مع كل كتاب يأتي بتحليلات وإستنتاجات جديدة وقد تنفي هذه الإستنتاجات، إستنتاجات سابقة كان قد توصل لها. فالعلم وخاصة علم النفسي هو في تطور دائم، ومن المستحيل أن تصل إلى نتيجة ثابتة.
الترجمة كانت جيدة جداً، ربما جودتها ترجع إلى أن المترجم أصلاً متخصص في ذلك المجال -علم النفس- وقد ترجم لفرويد كتب كثيرة أخرى كذلك. وقد ساعدتني هوامش المترجم كثيراً أثناء القراءة. ولكن يظل الكتاب صعباً وخاصة أن قرائتي لعلم النفس لمتتعدى الكتب المدرسية والجامعية، وهذا أول كتاب أقرأه لعلم النفس خارج إطار الدراسة، وقد شجعني أن أقرأ المزيد وأعود لهذا الكتاب مرة أخرى لأفهمه أكثر.
الكتاب مفيد جداً للمهتمين بعلم النفس عامة، وبتفسيرات وتحليلات فرويد خاصة
April 20, 2023
Forgiving some repetition from earlier papers and some weedier passages here and there, this essay is the foremost statement of Freud's second theory, the structural model, which is the greatest theoretical and clinical achievement of psychoanalysis. It is also the real starting point of the two most noteworthy post-Freudian psychoanalytic movements -- ego psychology and object relations. The material in here on the ego, id, and most importantly superego, unconscious guilt, the Oedipus complex, drive fusion and defusion, and anxiety are all essential.
September 13, 2018
My first try on Freud. It's a quick read and more accessible than I thought it would be.
For those who are not a stranger to psychoanalysis but haven't read any of Freud, this might be a good starting point.
For those who are not a stranger to psychoanalysis but haven't read any of Freud, this might be a good starting point.
January 28, 2022
This is my first time reading Freud. I was brought to him when I realized that my philosophical interests seem to align with phenomena that he focuses on. I've been interested in how it seems that we often imagine that the world stands in a certain way; the contents of such imaginings may often show up as factual, when in fact they fail to align with reality. We then need to correct ourselves and remember it is in fact make-believe. Or conversely, when we try to remind ourselves of reality, we will imagine how reality stands, and sometimes this fails to show up to us as indeed factual, even though we "know" in a certain sense that it is factual.
Freud does get at this topic in this book, but treats it only briefly. His focus, instead, is to explain what the id, ego, and superego are, to explain how they develop over an individual's psychological maturation, and to detail the relationships between them. Let me summarize some of his main claims, and my concerns about them. First, Freud claims that unconscious states, which belong primarily to the id, can have the same effects on our behavior, or generally occupy the same psychological functional role, as conscious states. For example, an unconscious desire can drive behavior in the same way a conscious desire can. He even implies that unconscious states are structured and have content in the exact same way as conscious states, but they are simply repressed (he does not explicitly claim this however, and so this might be a misreading on my part).
This seems suspicious to me. Of course there are many factors that are other than our conscious intentions that drive behavior. But I'd think the intuitive view would be that these factors are simply subpersonal or causal in nature (e.g., a purely physiological, affective state; a circumstance involving threat to the body that causes that state). Behavior can automatically follow from such causes due to our enculturation and conditioning. Why call these factors unconscious states, as if they were psychological in character in the sense of possessing intentional or semantic content, but which are simply not consciously accessible? I see no reason to construe these factors in this way, and Freud does not provide an argument for this.
It seems equally suspicious that unconscious states could share the same structure as conscious states but simply be unconscious. I've been sympathetic to R. G. Collingwood's expressionism and Bergson's metaphysics of mind, which share the claim that there is a realm of preconscious states of which we can become conscious but which in themselves are highly indeterminate. The process of becoming explicitly conscious of such states requires that we express them in conceptually determinate terms; this is because whenever we are explicitly conscious of something it needs to be determinate. There are many possible interpretations to give to any preconscious state. Freud does not theorize in this direction at all; he suggests unconscious states are as determinate as conscious ones, and psychoanalysis is just a matter of making the former conscious (rather than of our creating/enacting new states out from old materials). Freud provides no argument for this view, unlike Collingwood and Bergson for theirs.
Second, Freud claims that the superego (which is like the conscience) is formed due to this psychological process: as infants, we are sexually attracted to our mothers. But we realize we cannot have the mother in that way. We see that the father does get the mother in that way. So to cope we try to be more like the father. Freud claims we do this by internalizing the father's perspective; we have a sense of how the father sees the world and evaluates himself, and we try to see the world and evaluate ourselves in a similar way. He provides no argument for why this would be the case; if it is indeed true we try to create a surrogate situation to sexually attaining the mother (and I don't agree with this starting premise at all), it seems more likely we'd directly imagine what sort of person the mother would like, and so internalize her evaluative perspective, rather than the father's. Freud conflates our trying to become more like a certain person (and the evaluate perspective that would be discipline ourselves towards becoming that person) and our adapting the inner voice of a certain other person. These two are independent conditions; I could try to become more like my friend, for example, without adapting his evaluative perspective, especially if he is highly self-critical and tries to become someone other than himself. Freud wants to say that we adopt another person's evaluative perspective in order to become more like that person, when these are just separate conditions.
I do appreciate Freud's insight that we "internalize" other people's perspectives, however. We come to evaluate ourselves as other people with whom we've been close or whom we trust would evaluate us. Freud moreover admits that whatever perspective we've "internalized" can develop quite variably and fluidly in our own lives, so that it comes to not resemble the original person from whom we borrowed it in the first place. I'm curious about this process of "internalization". Maybe this word itself is misleading; I doubt that we can just take someone else's way of seeing us and see ourselves that way directly. There's probably a more non-linear, complex process here, and the outcome is also probably so as simple as borrowing or adopting someone else's perspective. For example, it seems that generally infants come to learn about the meanings and affordances of the world by example and testimony from their caretakers. Maybe coming to evaluate oneself in a certain way is just any ordinary instance of this general phenomenon of learning from others? If so, this learning process is not a matter of "internalizing" another's perspective, but it is a matter of taking another person as seeing an object in a certain way and attempting to treat the object similarly. Our own background and various cirucmstantial factors will influence how we take another person and the character of our attempt; this is no simple internalization.
Nonetheless I think Freud is onto something with his idea that when we "internalize" a parent's perspective, as aspect of the parent's relationship to us that is preserved in the resultant super-ego or conscience is that the voice of this perspective is authoritative. We related to our parents by trying to heed to them when we were children. Now, we have certain inner voices that also rile up our sense of urgency and necessity to obey. This sense can hold even if we "intellectually" know that whatever this inner voice says is irrational or ought not to be followed. I'd like to think more about this; it is not the particular content of another person's perspective that we internalize, but rather there are general qualities of types of relationship that might come to hold between our inner voices and our spontaneous experience to which those voices respond.
Freud also claims that the superego comes to occupy almost the same functional role of the id. Just as the id's impulses rile up the ego to heed it, the supergo does so as well. The main differences are the character of the content of whatever the id v. superego "says" (e.g., the id conveys wishful thinking and desires not grounded in reality; the superego is grounded in reality), and the ego endorses the superego while tries to reject the id. I wonder whether this commonality between the power for the id and the superego to dispose the ego towards certain actions is superficial, or whether the superego is developmentally continuous with the id in such a way that the power arises from the same underlying processes. It seems to me when I am tempted to do something reckless, it is a very different kind of propulsion towards action compared to when I remind myself of what I ought to do. But there is also a commonality; my emotions are evoked and alter which actions to which I am disposed in both cases.
A last, less theoretically substantial criticism of Freud; when he discusses the superego, he focuses solely on its role of chiding us and making us feel guilty. But I'd think the superego would have the more general role of reminding us what reality consists in, or of relaying to us our aspirations, related to long-term planning. Pursuing our aspirations and successfully acting in accordance with reality can be invigorating and delightful; it is not always a matter of chiding and guilt. Just as friends encourage us and we do not feel guilty, I'd imagine the superego or conscience can do so too.
As a whole, I can imagine how radical and important Freud was to posit the id, ego, and superego. I think this framework as a whole makes a lot of sense; we often have spontaneous impulses and desires, and we often have to check these by reminding ourselves of what is real and what we ought to do. I am highly doubtful that our mind consists of three distinct parts that map out this psychological dynamic, however; moreover, I doubt it is theoretically fruitful to think about it in terms of three distinct parts. That is oversimplifying. Given my background, I'm disposed to make sense of it rather in terms of there being spontaneous or automatic experiences, which are based upon past habit, experience, enculturation, etc; and then, there is our capacity to re-present an experience, imagine, and use language. These capacities can enable us to "present" to ourselves imagined situations or experiences, which have a sort of virtual presence in contrast to our immediate perceived situation, but which still have the functional role of changing our behavioral dispositions.
Is there anything gained with adopting Freud's picture of the id, ego, and superego? At least I can imagine that this more commonplace and detailed picture sketched above could be too detailed and based on assumptions that are false. If that were true, it could be useful to stick with Freud's terms insofar as they are more general and vague, and so clear way for creating new conceptual distinctions which differ from those presupposed in that commonplace picture. I'd like to keep an open mind about this all.
Freud does get at this topic in this book, but treats it only briefly. His focus, instead, is to explain what the id, ego, and superego are, to explain how they develop over an individual's psychological maturation, and to detail the relationships between them. Let me summarize some of his main claims, and my concerns about them. First, Freud claims that unconscious states, which belong primarily to the id, can have the same effects on our behavior, or generally occupy the same psychological functional role, as conscious states. For example, an unconscious desire can drive behavior in the same way a conscious desire can. He even implies that unconscious states are structured and have content in the exact same way as conscious states, but they are simply repressed (he does not explicitly claim this however, and so this might be a misreading on my part).
This seems suspicious to me. Of course there are many factors that are other than our conscious intentions that drive behavior. But I'd think the intuitive view would be that these factors are simply subpersonal or causal in nature (e.g., a purely physiological, affective state; a circumstance involving threat to the body that causes that state). Behavior can automatically follow from such causes due to our enculturation and conditioning. Why call these factors unconscious states, as if they were psychological in character in the sense of possessing intentional or semantic content, but which are simply not consciously accessible? I see no reason to construe these factors in this way, and Freud does not provide an argument for this.
It seems equally suspicious that unconscious states could share the same structure as conscious states but simply be unconscious. I've been sympathetic to R. G. Collingwood's expressionism and Bergson's metaphysics of mind, which share the claim that there is a realm of preconscious states of which we can become conscious but which in themselves are highly indeterminate. The process of becoming explicitly conscious of such states requires that we express them in conceptually determinate terms; this is because whenever we are explicitly conscious of something it needs to be determinate. There are many possible interpretations to give to any preconscious state. Freud does not theorize in this direction at all; he suggests unconscious states are as determinate as conscious ones, and psychoanalysis is just a matter of making the former conscious (rather than of our creating/enacting new states out from old materials). Freud provides no argument for this view, unlike Collingwood and Bergson for theirs.
Second, Freud claims that the superego (which is like the conscience) is formed due to this psychological process: as infants, we are sexually attracted to our mothers. But we realize we cannot have the mother in that way. We see that the father does get the mother in that way. So to cope we try to be more like the father. Freud claims we do this by internalizing the father's perspective; we have a sense of how the father sees the world and evaluates himself, and we try to see the world and evaluate ourselves in a similar way. He provides no argument for why this would be the case; if it is indeed true we try to create a surrogate situation to sexually attaining the mother (and I don't agree with this starting premise at all), it seems more likely we'd directly imagine what sort of person the mother would like, and so internalize her evaluative perspective, rather than the father's. Freud conflates our trying to become more like a certain person (and the evaluate perspective that would be discipline ourselves towards becoming that person) and our adapting the inner voice of a certain other person. These two are independent conditions; I could try to become more like my friend, for example, without adapting his evaluative perspective, especially if he is highly self-critical and tries to become someone other than himself. Freud wants to say that we adopt another person's evaluative perspective in order to become more like that person, when these are just separate conditions.
I do appreciate Freud's insight that we "internalize" other people's perspectives, however. We come to evaluate ourselves as other people with whom we've been close or whom we trust would evaluate us. Freud moreover admits that whatever perspective we've "internalized" can develop quite variably and fluidly in our own lives, so that it comes to not resemble the original person from whom we borrowed it in the first place. I'm curious about this process of "internalization". Maybe this word itself is misleading; I doubt that we can just take someone else's way of seeing us and see ourselves that way directly. There's probably a more non-linear, complex process here, and the outcome is also probably so as simple as borrowing or adopting someone else's perspective. For example, it seems that generally infants come to learn about the meanings and affordances of the world by example and testimony from their caretakers. Maybe coming to evaluate oneself in a certain way is just any ordinary instance of this general phenomenon of learning from others? If so, this learning process is not a matter of "internalizing" another's perspective, but it is a matter of taking another person as seeing an object in a certain way and attempting to treat the object similarly. Our own background and various cirucmstantial factors will influence how we take another person and the character of our attempt; this is no simple internalization.
Nonetheless I think Freud is onto something with his idea that when we "internalize" a parent's perspective, as aspect of the parent's relationship to us that is preserved in the resultant super-ego or conscience is that the voice of this perspective is authoritative. We related to our parents by trying to heed to them when we were children. Now, we have certain inner voices that also rile up our sense of urgency and necessity to obey. This sense can hold even if we "intellectually" know that whatever this inner voice says is irrational or ought not to be followed. I'd like to think more about this; it is not the particular content of another person's perspective that we internalize, but rather there are general qualities of types of relationship that might come to hold between our inner voices and our spontaneous experience to which those voices respond.
Freud also claims that the superego comes to occupy almost the same functional role of the id. Just as the id's impulses rile up the ego to heed it, the supergo does so as well. The main differences are the character of the content of whatever the id v. superego "says" (e.g., the id conveys wishful thinking and desires not grounded in reality; the superego is grounded in reality), and the ego endorses the superego while tries to reject the id. I wonder whether this commonality between the power for the id and the superego to dispose the ego towards certain actions is superficial, or whether the superego is developmentally continuous with the id in such a way that the power arises from the same underlying processes. It seems to me when I am tempted to do something reckless, it is a very different kind of propulsion towards action compared to when I remind myself of what I ought to do. But there is also a commonality; my emotions are evoked and alter which actions to which I am disposed in both cases.
A last, less theoretically substantial criticism of Freud; when he discusses the superego, he focuses solely on its role of chiding us and making us feel guilty. But I'd think the superego would have the more general role of reminding us what reality consists in, or of relaying to us our aspirations, related to long-term planning. Pursuing our aspirations and successfully acting in accordance with reality can be invigorating and delightful; it is not always a matter of chiding and guilt. Just as friends encourage us and we do not feel guilty, I'd imagine the superego or conscience can do so too.
As a whole, I can imagine how radical and important Freud was to posit the id, ego, and superego. I think this framework as a whole makes a lot of sense; we often have spontaneous impulses and desires, and we often have to check these by reminding ourselves of what is real and what we ought to do. I am highly doubtful that our mind consists of three distinct parts that map out this psychological dynamic, however; moreover, I doubt it is theoretically fruitful to think about it in terms of three distinct parts. That is oversimplifying. Given my background, I'm disposed to make sense of it rather in terms of there being spontaneous or automatic experiences, which are based upon past habit, experience, enculturation, etc; and then, there is our capacity to re-present an experience, imagine, and use language. These capacities can enable us to "present" to ourselves imagined situations or experiences, which have a sort of virtual presence in contrast to our immediate perceived situation, but which still have the functional role of changing our behavioral dispositions.
Is there anything gained with adopting Freud's picture of the id, ego, and superego? At least I can imagine that this more commonplace and detailed picture sketched above could be too detailed and based on assumptions that are false. If that were true, it could be useful to stick with Freud's terms insofar as they are more general and vague, and so clear way for creating new conceptual distinctions which differ from those presupposed in that commonplace picture. I'd like to keep an open mind about this all.
April 23, 2018
They say "Most of all people humiliated Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud. Darwin said that man originated from the monkey and the animal itself. Nietzsche said that person is only a step on the road to the superhuman. And Freud said that a person can only think about sex "- but since we are so humiliating, maybe we agree with this, we just do not want to admit ourselves? My lovely Freud, once someone asked me, "Do you love Freud? How can someone like a person whose whole theory is repeated on sex? "- people who say this, seem to read Freud between the lines. Someone likes light things, where everything is very clear, and someone tries to look deeper into himself, to come very close to the true essence of mankind. Every opinion has its place, I know that people accustomed to an easy narrative, faced with Freud , will understand that He sweep away all morality, holiness. Freud lowers a man to a primitive animal, reminding him that all he does is to satisfy his own self, his sexuality, and we can call it different names (I repeat, different kinds), and food, material well-being, social and other activities are many layers that hide sexuality. And the essence is that One, inside we all strive for the harmony of body and soul, just not all are ready to recognize that we are consumers on this planet, most of which having their primitive needs, step over their pride, losing their own i-to satisfy their desires, unable to control and go on self-sacrifice.
Говорят «Больше всего человека унизили Дарвин, Ницше и Фрейд. Дарвин сказал, что человек произошёл от обезьяны и сам животное. Ницше сказал, что человек - это только ступенька на пути к сверхчеловеку. А Фрейд сказал, что человек может думать только о сексе»- но раз нас так это все унижает , может мы с этим и согласны , просто сами не хотим себе признаться? Мой любимый Фрейд , когда-то давно меня спросили-«ты любишь Фрейда? Как кому-то может нравится человек у которого вся теория повторена на сексе»- люди говорящие это, кажется читают Фрейда между строк. Кому-то нравятся лёгкие вещи, где все предельно ясно, а кто-то пытается заглянуть поглубже в себя , чтобы приблизиться совсем чуть-чуть к истинной сути человечества. Каждому мнению имеет место быть , я знаю , что люди привыкшие к легкому повествованию , столкнувшись с Фредом поймёт , что , Он отметает всякую мораль, святость. Фрейд опускает человека до примитивного животного, напоминая ему, что все, что он делает - это удовлетворение своего собственного я , своей сексуальности и мы можем называть это разными именами, (повторяю, разного вида), а пища, материальное благополучие, общественная и другая деятельность являются многими пластами, скрывающими сексуальность. А суть то Одна, внутри все мы стремимся к гармонии тела и души, просто не все готовы признать то, что мы являемся потребителями на этой планете, большинство из которых имея свои примитивные потребности , переступают через свою гордость , теряя свое собственное я-дабы удовлетворить свои желания, не в силах из контролировать и идти на самопожертвования.
September 3, 2018
Underwhelmed, Freud's more abstract and speculative ideas here. Categories are not reduced or firmly bound as normal so it is hard to work with.
Main ideas:
-Three states: conscious, unconscious (actively repressed), preconscious (not actively repressed).
-All perceptions are either from without (sense-perceptions) or within (feelings or sensations) and are conscious.
-Only previously experienced sense-perceptions can become conscious, and sensations (but not feelings) become conscious by transforming themselves into analogous previously experienced sense-perceptions.
-Mental life consists of three components: the ego, the id, the superego (or ego-ideal).
-The ego is conscious, the id is instinct, the ego-ideal is the moral ideal which is the basis for a moral conscience.
-The ego is like a horseman who holds back the strength of the id (instinct). It cannot steer the id, the ego attributes its actions to itself though they are initiated by the id.
-Psychoanalysis is an instrument to enable the ego to push its conquest of the id further than without analysis.
-The Oedipus complex is replaced by identification with the mother or intensified identification with the can become overbearing, leading to conditions such as obsessive neurosis or melancholia.
-The ego is the representative of the external reality, the super-ego is the representative of internal reality, the id has no voice.
-The superego is a substitute for longing for a father and is the basis of religious penance.
-The id which is inherited, is a vestigial store of previous existences led by former egos; the ego forms the super-ego out of the id based on the template of these former egos.
That's the gist. It was just a bit too vague.
Main ideas:
-Three states: conscious, unconscious (actively repressed), preconscious (not actively repressed).
-All perceptions are either from without (sense-perceptions) or within (feelings or sensations) and are conscious.
-Only previously experienced sense-perceptions can become conscious, and sensations (but not feelings) become conscious by transforming themselves into analogous previously experienced sense-perceptions.
-Mental life consists of three components: the ego, the id, the superego (or ego-ideal).
-The ego is conscious, the id is instinct, the ego-ideal is the moral ideal which is the basis for a moral conscience.
-The ego is like a horseman who holds back the strength of the id (instinct). It cannot steer the id, the ego attributes its actions to itself though they are initiated by the id.
-Psychoanalysis is an instrument to enable the ego to push its conquest of the id further than without analysis.
-The Oedipus complex is replaced by identification with the mother or intensified identification with the can become overbearing, leading to conditions such as obsessive neurosis or melancholia.
-The ego is the representative of the external reality, the super-ego is the representative of internal reality, the id has no voice.
-The superego is a substitute for longing for a father and is the basis of religious penance.
-The id which is inherited, is a vestigial store of previous existences led by former egos; the ego forms the super-ego out of the id based on the template of these former egos.
That's the gist. It was just a bit too vague.
February 19, 2014
على الرغم من اهتمامي الشديد بموضوع الأنا والهو وقراءتي المتكررة لها الا أن فرويد استطاع أن يفسد متعة القراءة بلغته الأكاديمية الجافة. وان كنت أصبحت أكاد أعتقد جازماًأنني قرأت الكثير من المقالات والشروحات لنظريات فرويد معبر عنها بطريقة أسهل وأكثر قبولاً من كتابة فرويد نفسه وان كان هذا أول كتاب أستطيع أن أنهيه له لهذه الأسباب!!
هل استطاع الكتاب أن يشبع نهمي أو يقنعني بالأسباب وراء تكون الأنا والأنا الأعلى منها بالأخص وكل ما يتعلق باللاشعور؟ الجواب هو لا!! أحد الأسباب التي دفعتني لقراءة هذا الكتاب هو رغبتي بمعرفة علاقة الأنا الأعلى والأخلاق وهو ما لم أجده في هذا الكتاب. يبدو أن البحث ما زال مستمراً عمن يفسر هذه الأشياء بناءاً على نظرية فرويد بطريقة أكثر اقناعاً منه.
هل استطاع الكتاب أن يشبع نهمي أو يقنعني بالأسباب وراء تكون الأنا والأنا الأعلى منها بالأخص وكل ما يتعلق باللاشعور؟ الجواب هو لا!! أحد الأسباب التي دفعتني لقراءة هذا الكتاب هو رغبتي بمعرفة علاقة الأنا الأعلى والأخلاق وهو ما لم أجده في هذا الكتاب. يبدو أن البحث ما زال مستمراً عمن يفسر هذه الأشياء بناءاً على نظرية فرويد بطريقة أكثر اقناعاً منه.
July 2, 2019
Not sure I was able to fully absorb this one. Less than 100 pages and yet I felt a bit like I was walking through a fog that was only apparent when I was trying to see through it, but wasn't immediately visible when I was trying to look right at it. Thinking comprehension could be improved by reading other supporting material like his essay on Narcissism, etc. Will most likely come back and read this again after a bit.
Read
April 13, 2020ذكي جدا وافتراضاته مغامرة وخارجة عن المتوقع في زمنه، وربما أي زمن آخر.
خلال قراءتي للكتاب المتكررة كل ما خطر ببالي هو كيف استطاع أن يثق بعقله ويتلو هذه الحقائق الأقرب للغرابة ويستمر في تصحيح نفسه وتصويب نظرياته، دون أن يشكك في عقله أو يرى في نفسه خبلا وجنونا ظاهرا للعيان، خاصة أنه لا أرض صلبة أو أدلة تبدد ولو قليلا من الشك في علم النفس عموما وفي بداية ظهوره خصوصا؟
المترجم قدم ترجمة ممتازة أرفقها بتلخيص على هيئة مقدمة ملائمة جدا لتساعد على فهم أوضح للكتاب.
خلال قراءتي للكتاب المتكررة كل ما خطر ببالي هو كيف استطاع أن يثق بعقله ويتلو هذه الحقائق الأقرب للغرابة ويستمر في تصحيح نفسه وتصويب نظرياته، دون أن يشكك في عقله أو يرى في نفسه خبلا وجنونا ظاهرا للعيان، خاصة أنه لا أرض صلبة أو أدلة تبدد ولو قليلا من الشك في علم النفس عموما وفي بداية ظهوره خصوصا؟
المترجم قدم ترجمة ممتازة أرفقها بتلخيص على هيئة مقدمة ملائمة جدا لتساعد على فهم أوضح للكتاب.
June 1, 2021
کتاب کتاب سنگینی هست و به خصوص برای شروع خوندن فروید به نظرم مناسب نیست. توی این کتاب فروید به دومین نظریه� ساختاری خودش .اشاره میکن� و مفاهیم خود فراخود و آن دیگری (نهاد) رو شرح و بسط میده
من ترجمه� امیر پاشا صمدیان رو با متن آلمانی تطبیق دادم و به نسبت ترجمه� خوبی بود هر چند ثقیل بودن خود مطالب کتاب و زبان فروید باعث میشه کتاب نسبتا سخت فهم باشه
من ترجمه� امیر پاشا صمدیان رو با متن آلمانی تطبیق دادم و به نسبت ترجمه� خوبی بود هر چند ثقیل بودن خود مطالب کتاب و زبان فروید باعث میشه کتاب نسبتا سخت فهم باشه
December 24, 2020
Far from self-contained; prior knowledge of the subject is crucial to understanding this seemingly short, yet very lengthy book.
October 25, 2024
Not everyone wants to get with their mom! 🤦This short read killed so many brain cells and I worry for anyone who picks it up hoping to learn something! 💩
May 7, 2023
"The Ego and the Id" is a book written by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in 1923. In this book, Freud presents his theory of the human psyche, which is composed of three parts:
The id
The ego
The superego.
The id represents our primitive and instinctual desires, such as hunger, thirst, and sexual impulses. The ego is the rational and conscious part of the psyche that mediates between the id's demands and the external world. The superego is the moral and ethical component of the psyche that reflects the values and ideals of society.
Freud argues that conflicts between these three components of the psyche can lead to psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, and neuroses. He also discusses the concept of defense mechanisms, which are unconscious psychological strategies that we use to protect ourselves from unpleasant thoughts and feelings.
Overall, "The Ego and the Id" is a significant contribution to the field of psychology, and it remains a widely read and discussed book in both academic and popular circles. While some of Freud's ideas have been criticized and challenged over time, his work continues to be influential in shaping our understanding of the human psyche.
The id
The ego
The superego.
The id represents our primitive and instinctual desires, such as hunger, thirst, and sexual impulses. The ego is the rational and conscious part of the psyche that mediates between the id's demands and the external world. The superego is the moral and ethical component of the psyche that reflects the values and ideals of society.
Freud argues that conflicts between these three components of the psyche can lead to psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, and neuroses. He also discusses the concept of defense mechanisms, which are unconscious psychological strategies that we use to protect ourselves from unpleasant thoughts and feelings.
Overall, "The Ego and the Id" is a significant contribution to the field of psychology, and it remains a widely read and discussed book in both academic and popular circles. While some of Freud's ideas have been criticized and challenged over time, his work continues to be influential in shaping our understanding of the human psyche.
May 16, 2022
Extremely interesting ideas by an extremely talented Dr.
What I admire most is Freud’s relatively more “scientific� approach to psychoanalysis that is clear, concise, and applicable to real life situations.
Also, I strongly believe that a huge portion of who we become develops during early childhood.
I am skeptical of psychologists who believe that personality-building is a lifelong process (yes it is, but the neuroticism that is created unconsciously as a result of childhood experiences are much, much harder to change, aren’t they?). Can an adult homosexual (who -let’s assume- became homosexual as a result of poor gender association during childhood) be easily converted into a heterosexual? Well, you judge.
On a side note, I discovered I’m a daddy’s girl - Electra complex 🙃
What I admire most is Freud’s relatively more “scientific� approach to psychoanalysis that is clear, concise, and applicable to real life situations.
Also, I strongly believe that a huge portion of who we become develops during early childhood.
I am skeptical of psychologists who believe that personality-building is a lifelong process (yes it is, but the neuroticism that is created unconsciously as a result of childhood experiences are much, much harder to change, aren’t they?). Can an adult homosexual (who -let’s assume- became homosexual as a result of poor gender association during childhood) be easily converted into a heterosexual? Well, you judge.
On a side note, I discovered I’m a daddy’s girl - Electra complex 🙃
February 22, 2014
I didn't expect while reading this book to figure how genius Destovesky is ! One chapter was like reading Freud's commentary on Destovesky's novel Crime and Punishment, or in another way, I couldn't understand some Freud's theories without having in mind Destovesky's story. I also used to think Freud a strict man; this book showed me exactly the opposite. Only a small part of this book was very theoretical and utterly without a practical or historical proof
Displaying 1 - 30 of 416 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.