Freud, in his primarily instructional work, focuses on the treatment of mental illnesses. However, being a doctor and motivated by reaching greater clinical understanding, Freud acts with a “clinical brutality” (10) that “blinds him to the profound philosophical and ethical significance of his discoveries” (10). On the other hand, Lear, in his “philosophical introduction” (20) of Freud, follows a less pragmatic and more philosophical path. Lear thus chases the elusive, age-old question, of what it means to be a human being. Thus, he chases not what we would describe as moral inquiries but instead ethical ones. Questions that dissect questions and expose the foundations on which we live: “The question which ought to concern us, Socrates tells
…show more content…
In order to make irrational behaviors coherent, “we must partition [the] mind into quasi-independent structures -- a conscious and an unconscious mind--each having a certain rationality of its own” (32). Lear, in a way similar to his stance on the division of the psyche, disagrees. Infact, the understanding of the unconscious and the psyche are intimately related: “It would seem that if we are going to make the unconscious conscious, what needs to be made conscious is the overall structure and dynamic interactions of the psyche” (184). For the view of a second mind to hold, one must be able to find a reason for every behavior-- “however loopy” (31). Lear, though he believes in the existence of an unconscious, rejects that such a “mind” functions with any rationality. Activities that happen on the level of the unconscious occur “at a more primitive level than that of belief, desire, and intention” (42) and often serve as a “defense mechanism” …show more content…
The Eros drive, in Freud, is described as being a basic force for life, love, and growth in a way that conceives of humans as innately erotic. Freud defines the sexual object as the person or thing which someone desires and the sexual aim as the act to which the drive aims (76). Interests and objects may be charged with sexuality but “bear [no] resemblance to sexual activity biologically constructed” (80). Humans express imagination and variety in their sexuality, with many acts not reproductive in aim. Thus, since sexuality is fundamental and does not only contribute to the survival of the species it must contribute in other ways to society. For Freud, “sexuality is itself integrated into the larger project of human development” (87). However, what sexuality is for Freud and for us today still remains unclear. Lear even states that perhaps what Freud categorizes as sexuality shouldn’t be identified as such: “If his conception of sexuality differs that much from the popular conception, why should we think of it as sexuality?” (61). Lear states this open ended question for the reader in
In order to make irrational behaviors coherent, “we must partition [the] mind into quasi-independent structures -- a conscious and an unconscious mind--each having a certain rationality of its own” (32). Lear, in a way similar to his stance on the division of the psyche, disagrees. Infact, the understanding of the unconscious and the psyche are intimately related: “It would seem that if we are going to make the unconscious conscious, what needs to be made conscious is the overall structure and dynamic interactions of the psyche” (184). For the view of a second mind to hold, one must be able to find a reason for every behavior-- “however loopy” (31). Lear, though he believes in the existence of an unconscious, rejects that such a “mind” functions with any rationality. Activities that happen on the level of the unconscious occur “at a more primitive level than that of belief, desire, and intention” (42) and often serve as a “defense mechanism” …show more content…
The Eros drive, in Freud, is described as being a basic force for life, love, and growth in a way that conceives of humans as innately erotic. Freud defines the sexual object as the person or thing which someone desires and the sexual aim as the act to which the drive aims (76). Interests and objects may be charged with sexuality but “bear [no] resemblance to sexual activity biologically constructed” (80). Humans express imagination and variety in their sexuality, with many acts not reproductive in aim. Thus, since sexuality is fundamental and does not only contribute to the survival of the species it must contribute in other ways to society. For Freud, “sexuality is itself integrated into the larger project of human development” (87). However, what sexuality is for Freud and for us today still remains unclear. Lear even states that perhaps what Freud categorizes as sexuality shouldn’t be identified as such: “If his conception of sexuality differs that much from the popular conception, why should we think of it as sexuality?” (61). Lear states this open ended question for the reader in