Freud and Marxism.
- This topic has 87 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 4 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TM – Yes Freud had abandoned his old ‘libido’ theory (to which ALB always refers) in favour of a thoroughly psychological one containing the rival forces of ‘Eros’ (the life force) and ‘Thanatos’ (the death instinct). I find his mature work more interesting than his earlier more ‘mechanical’ theories.
I have no interest in these later ideas of his.
Surely libido is just a name for the sexual feelings (nervous stimulation) which are aroused by certain external phenomena and certain thoughts, leading to “take off” if fortunate, and repression if not.
Likewise, any “forces” would be material and able to be studied and scrutinised.
Btw, has anyone bothered to read Blewitt’s article on Freud in The Socialist Standard?
Wez- “of a thoroughly psychological one containing the rival forces of ‘Eros’ (the life force) and ‘Thanatos’ (the death instinct).” genuine question, were you being ironic?
ALB & BD – I’ve always thought of the concepts as metaphorical like ‘a force of nature’ or ‘desire’ being a manifestation of the sexual instinct. In the end all language (including that of science) are metaphors. They still seek a complete scientific explanation for the ‘force’ of gravity. The ‘quantum’, photon, singularity, dark matter etc. are all metaphors.
TM – Originally I think Freud thought of the libido as an actual chemical entity – which led Reich on his fruitless search for ‘orgone’. Sigmund thought that science was a matter of ‘matter’ and hoped his psychoanalysis would one day be described in a similar style as was physics. Since quantum mechanics nobody thinks of physics in that way.
ALB -Here’s a question for you – what is the force of gravity composed of? Similarly what is the force of electromagnetism composed of or the strong and weak nuclear forces? These are meaningless questions surely?
TM “Surely libido is just a name for the sexual feelings (nervous stimulation) which are aroused by certain external phenomena and certain thoughts, leading to “take off” if fortunate, and repression if not.
Surely there are three responses, take off, repression or, when you get to my age, nostalgia 🙂
I believe the advice is that, if you are in hole, you should stop digging. But now you are saying that “Eros” and “Thanatos” are like gravity or magnetism.
But these are measurable and can be explained in physical terms. So how are Freud’s “psychological forces” measured and how can they be explained in physical terms?
By the way, quantum mechanics is an explanation of phenomenon observed in the movement of sub-atomic particles and has no application outside that field.
ALB wrote: ‘By the way, quantum mechanics is an explanation of phenomenon observed in the movement of sub-atomic particles and has no application outside that field.’
You couldn’t be more mistaken. Quantum mechanics has caused a crisis of cultural understanding of the world. The synthesis of the observer and the observed is a profound concept applicable to every phenomena. I notice you’ve changed the question you ask from ‘what are forces composed of’ to how are they measured. Presumably because you can’t answer my question you concentrate on the other. Your need for things to be described in ‘physical terms’ betrays a very old fashioned kind of mechanical materialism. While in hospital I am continually asked ‘what number would you describe the pain as between 1 and 10’ when my answer would be it’s a creeping malaise that is always present but intensifies at certain times for no apparent reason. In other words I don’t believe measurement is always the royal road to reality. We’ve had this debate as long as I’ve known you and the hole doesn’t seem to be any deeper now than it was at the beginning. By the way how is the force of gravity described in ‘physical terms’? The physicists of the world would be very interested to know.
Of course physicists know what gravity is. It’s the attraction between things that have mass. Here’s a simple explanation (but note the error that Newton presented his theory in 1867 rather than 1687):
But nobody knows what “Eros” or “Thanatos” or “Qi” is.
If that’s too simple try this on quantum quackery:
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1997/01/22165024/p37.pdf
So you don’t accept Freud’s theory of “instincts that destroy and kill” you reject his psycho sexual stages theory, his theory of the Oedipus Complex, his theory of the Electra complex and you need to adapt his theory of the death instinct to include alientation to make it make sense.
Poor old Siggy is disappearing like the Cheshire cat. Well, apart from the fact that the old bugger never smiled!
ALB – ‘Of course physicists know what gravity is. It’s the attraction between things that have mass.’
Well that’s alright then, you’ve just solved one of the greatest mysteries in science. In Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity) there is no ‘force of attraction’ between masses and the effect is caused by the curvature of space.
BD – I’m only interested in Freud’s theories as they can be used to explain political ideology. As far as I know no other psychological theory has been used for such a purpose?. Of course his theories have to be complemented by a Marxian perspective to make any sense which is what, I believe, the Frankfurt guys did with some success. You plainly believe his theories have no application in terms of individual therapy but, presumably, there are therapists who would disagree with you on that?In terms of a therapeutic use, I don’t think that Freud’s work should not be used therapeutically. I am a great believer in “what works works” if some people gain some benefit from it, what’s not to like.
That said, in it’s classical format I think it has very limited usage. Although modern psychotherapeutic approaches derived from the psychodynamic school, such as Gestalt and TA can be very useful. If you look at practically all therepeutic approaches you will find that they have their roots in Freud, including CBT and Dialectical Behavioural Therapy.
However that’s just my opinion, others more practiced may disagree.
I do however think that a great deal of Freud’s work contains a great deal of supposition and unsupportable assertion.
In terms of the links to political change, if the foundations are rotten, it doesn’t matter how much Marx you add to it, it still is unsteady and liable to collapse.
I haven’t forgotten that I said I would add areply about your questions about his and also to the WS article, I am in the process of putting bits together in between work and will try to get that bit posted asap.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.