What do you think?
Rate this book
Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought
Fromm's penetrating critique of Freud's contributions to modern thought enumerates his greatest discoveries while analyzing the ways in which these discoveries were narrowed and distorted by Freud's philosophical and personal premises
147 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1979
39 people are currently reading
395 people want to read
About the author
Erich Fromm
449 books5,322 followersErich Fromm, Ph.D. (Sociology, University of Heidelberg, 1922) was a German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was a German Jew who fled the Nazi regime and settled in the United States. He was one of the founders of The William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology in New York City and was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory.
Fromm explored the interaction between psychology and society, and held various professorships in psychology in the U.S. and Mexico in the mid-20th century.
Fromm's theory is a rather unique blend of Freud and Marx. Freud, of course, emphasized the unconscious, biological drives, repression, and so on. In other words, Freud postulated that our characters were determined by biology. Marx, on the other hand, saw people as determined by their society, and most especially by their economic systems.
Fromm explored the interaction between psychology and society, and held various professorships in psychology in the U.S. and Mexico in the mid-20th century.
Fromm's theory is a rather unique blend of Freud and Marx. Freud, of course, emphasized the unconscious, biological drives, repression, and so on. In other words, Freud postulated that our characters were determined by biology. Marx, on the other hand, saw people as determined by their society, and most especially by their economic systems.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
June 19, 2021
My wife and I share an Amazon account.
Not sure how that happened, but it did.
The practice has its ups and downs.
It exposes both of us to information about the other that may be better left private.
It confuses the hell out of the Amazon AI book recommendation algorithm.
And it occasionally leads to some interesting conversations.
For instance:
Yesterday, when my wife was reviewing our stupidly high Amazon bill.
She asked: “who the fuck is Erich Fromm and why do we have so many of his books?”
A fair question.
To which I replied:
Fromm was a fanboy/hater of Freud and Marx.
He used one to critique the other.
And synthesized that dialectic into a model he referred to as “social psychoanalysis”.
Essentially:
Fromm thought Marx nailed it when he observed that socio-economic conditions impact human well-being. But Fromm thought Marx dropped the ball in his epic failure to understand that certain natural, individual (rather than collective) factors matter (a lot) in terms of human motivation. And that failure ultimately lead to oppressive Soviet and Maoist style dogma and shadow totalitarian oligarchy masquerading as progressive government.
Fromm’s score card on Marx:
Marx’s critique of capitalism (+1).
Marx’s failure to understand human nature from the inside out (-1).
Conversely, Fromm thought Freud nailed it when he observed that deeply unconscious motivations dominate human life and impact human well-being. And repression of those natural (if unseemly instincts) lead to all sorts of psychopathology and consequent misery. But Fromm thought Freud dropped the ball BIG TIME by failing to recognize the intensely negative psychological impact of bourgeois capitalism on its captive inhabitants.
Fromm’s score card on Freud:
Freud’s discovery of implicit motivations, and the implications of repression and sublimation (+1).
Freud’s failure to deconstruct sexist, patriarchal, authoritarian, bourgeois, capitalist materialism (-1).
Fromms solution:
Slam the good shit about Marx and Freud together.
Drop the nonsense.
Done and done.
Although my wife deeply regretted asking the question.
I felt a new sense of clarity after my intentionally aversive mansplaining exposition.
And I resolved right then and there to write about it in this review.
Of NOTE:
This is Fromm’s last book, and it may be the last book of his that I read.
He was a towering genius.
I LOVE Erich Fromm.
And I think I’m done.
My wife is correct.
We have enough books by Erich Fromm.
I may re-read some of his other ASTOUNDING titles.
But I don’t think I will keep going in his catalog.
I think I get what he’s saying.
And I agree.
What becomes of us when we repress our deep animal needs in order to become better commodities in late capitalism’s panopticon megastore?
What happens to our psyche when no one is jumping into our “me-marketing sales funnel?”
I think we’re all feeling it.
And for a lot of us.
Maybe all of us.
With the possible exceptions of Bezos, Zuckerberg and Musk.
It BLOWS!!!!
Down with sexist, patriarchal, authoritarian, bourgeois, capitalist materialism!!!!
Up with love and work!!!!
Heres to a life of honest and true freedom, connection and meaningful accomplishment!!!
Thank you Erich Fromm and Amazon.
Not sure how that happened, but it did.
The practice has its ups and downs.
It exposes both of us to information about the other that may be better left private.
It confuses the hell out of the Amazon AI book recommendation algorithm.
And it occasionally leads to some interesting conversations.
For instance:
Yesterday, when my wife was reviewing our stupidly high Amazon bill.
She asked: “who the fuck is Erich Fromm and why do we have so many of his books?”
A fair question.
To which I replied:
Fromm was a fanboy/hater of Freud and Marx.
He used one to critique the other.
And synthesized that dialectic into a model he referred to as “social psychoanalysis”.
Essentially:
Fromm thought Marx nailed it when he observed that socio-economic conditions impact human well-being. But Fromm thought Marx dropped the ball in his epic failure to understand that certain natural, individual (rather than collective) factors matter (a lot) in terms of human motivation. And that failure ultimately lead to oppressive Soviet and Maoist style dogma and shadow totalitarian oligarchy masquerading as progressive government.
Fromm’s score card on Marx:
Marx’s critique of capitalism (+1).
Marx’s failure to understand human nature from the inside out (-1).
Conversely, Fromm thought Freud nailed it when he observed that deeply unconscious motivations dominate human life and impact human well-being. And repression of those natural (if unseemly instincts) lead to all sorts of psychopathology and consequent misery. But Fromm thought Freud dropped the ball BIG TIME by failing to recognize the intensely negative psychological impact of bourgeois capitalism on its captive inhabitants.
Fromm’s score card on Freud:
Freud’s discovery of implicit motivations, and the implications of repression and sublimation (+1).
Freud’s failure to deconstruct sexist, patriarchal, authoritarian, bourgeois, capitalist materialism (-1).
Fromms solution:
Slam the good shit about Marx and Freud together.
Drop the nonsense.
Done and done.
Although my wife deeply regretted asking the question.
I felt a new sense of clarity after my intentionally aversive mansplaining exposition.
And I resolved right then and there to write about it in this review.
Of NOTE:
This is Fromm’s last book, and it may be the last book of his that I read.
He was a towering genius.
I LOVE Erich Fromm.
And I think I’m done.
My wife is correct.
We have enough books by Erich Fromm.
I may re-read some of his other ASTOUNDING titles.
But I don’t think I will keep going in his catalog.
I think I get what he’s saying.
And I agree.
What becomes of us when we repress our deep animal needs in order to become better commodities in late capitalism’s panopticon megastore?
What happens to our psyche when no one is jumping into our “me-marketing sales funnel?”
I think we’re all feeling it.
And for a lot of us.
Maybe all of us.
With the possible exceptions of Bezos, Zuckerberg and Musk.
It BLOWS!!!!
Down with sexist, patriarchal, authoritarian, bourgeois, capitalist materialism!!!!
Up with love and work!!!!
Heres to a life of honest and true freedom, connection and meaningful accomplishment!!!
Thank you Erich Fromm and Amazon.
April 12, 2022
Fromm is een onorthodox Freudiaan, enerzijds koestert hij voor Freud de "liefhebbende sympathie die een waarlijk groot mens toekomt", anderzijds verdient het oeuvre van Freud onze kritische aandacht.
In deze nederlandse uitgave zijn twee teksten bijeengebracht
Allereerst het boek "Sigmund Freud, de man en zijn missie", aan de hand van Ernest Jones' toen recent uitgekomen biografie geeft Fromm een analyse van Freuds leefwereld en hoe zich dit vertaald heeft in zijn theorie. Interessant is het centraal plaatsen van de politieke verhouding van Freud, enerzijds tegenover de psychoanalytische beweging waarbij een zekere missionarishouding getoond wordt, anderzijds hoe Freud zich inschrijft als liberaal (sympathie met Mill) met conservatieve neigingen. Fromm die zelf vanuit Marx redeneert mist een activistisch en revolutionair denken bij Freud, een element dat hij zelf zal introduceren in zijn eigen filosofie.
Ten tweede is er het boek "Sigmund Freud, zijn grootheid en zijn grenzen". Een beschrijvende uiteenzetting van enkele kernconcepten van Freud met vervolgens kritische analyse, voornamelijk deze over de droomduiding en driftenleer blijft bij.
In deze nederlandse uitgave zijn twee teksten bijeengebracht
Allereerst het boek "Sigmund Freud, de man en zijn missie", aan de hand van Ernest Jones' toen recent uitgekomen biografie geeft Fromm een analyse van Freuds leefwereld en hoe zich dit vertaald heeft in zijn theorie. Interessant is het centraal plaatsen van de politieke verhouding van Freud, enerzijds tegenover de psychoanalytische beweging waarbij een zekere missionarishouding getoond wordt, anderzijds hoe Freud zich inschrijft als liberaal (sympathie met Mill) met conservatieve neigingen. Fromm die zelf vanuit Marx redeneert mist een activistisch en revolutionair denken bij Freud, een element dat hij zelf zal introduceren in zijn eigen filosofie.
Ten tweede is er het boek "Sigmund Freud, zijn grootheid en zijn grenzen". Een beschrijvende uiteenzetting van enkele kernconcepten van Freud met vervolgens kritische analyse, voornamelijk deze over de droomduiding en driftenleer blijft bij.
July 16, 2020
Fromm's last work: He finished it right before he died, and it was published posthumously, in 1980. Fromm considered himself a sort of heir to Freud. He hoped to make Freud's discoveries, and his thought in general, more fruitful by liberating it from its bourgeois and patriarchal-authoritarian orientation.
Helps with grasping of reality . . . but it's not postmodern
Helps with grasping of reality . . . but it's not postmodern
October 10, 2023
Doğrusu Fromm'da en takdir ettiğim yön, oldukça karmaşık psikanaliz terminolojisini en yalın görünümüyle okuyucuya sunmasıdır. Kitaplarındaki sadelik bir bilim insanının kolay kolay altından kalkamayabileceği bir olgu. Bu kitabında Freud'un dikkate değer çalışma ve kuramlarını inceleyen Fromm, aynı zamanda onlara eleştirel bir gözle bakmayı da ihmal etmiyor. Freud'a ilgi duyan herkese öneriyorum.👊🤟
June 23, 2020
While making my way through the big names in clinical psychology I'll sometimes use the works of humanists as a break from drier writings. That was how this book was read (listened to) - in the midst of Fritz Perls (gestalt therapy), Freud and Winnicott. Fromm, together with Yalom, Rogers and May have so far never failed me in the rescue.
I'll start by saying Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought has confirmed some of my biases, and that always makes up for a good read. Erich and I both agree that the father of psychoanalysis had a talent for making up theories out of thin air (a process whose description never ceases to amaze me) and has created an entire system that, while certainly sound in many regards, does come across as a schematization/justification of his worldview and personal issues (greed, insecurities, repressed sexuality, etc.). On that account, the analysis of how Freud managed to repress and rationalize the most obviously degrading conclusions from his own dream analysis (in a way he would never in a million years allow any of his patients, mind you) felt particularly spot on. On the other hand, Fromm doesn't let the reader forget about Freud's genius - the guy after all single-handedly created an entire professional field which fascinates both of us so much we've chosen as a career.
Regarding Erich himself I like the breadth of his writing and the special brews he comes up with. What rubs me the wrong way are his blunt assertions about things that can't possibly be as clear-cut as he makes them out to be. One example is his saying that fathers are basically irrelevant to a child until they reach 4 years of age or so, only to then be promoted to a somewhat-important-but-totally-replaceable function. I don't doubt this could be true, but there's just no way one can be so sure about it. It's as if he makes it his shtick to every so often insert a slightly controversial statement without caring to explain how he (or anyone really) came to that conclusion. Unless there are references and I'm just missing them as a consequence of listening to the audio book instead of reading - I'll have to check that out in future readings. He also is naively idealistic in regards to what could be achieved were we just able to diminish the power of the patriarchy and of the capitalism/consumerist society - and this coming from the guy who started the book by saying how inevitable it is that any major theory of reality be ultimately flawed due to its being a fruit of specific social realities. I mean, you'd expect more self-consciousness from someone who can think those thoughts in regards to other people's proposals.
The final chapter focuses on the last main development in Freud’s theory and its critique which (according to Fromm it is not as well-rounded as his earlier conjectures). The main change here was the integration of ego to id as part of a single narcissistic whole, with the consequence of Freud having to find a substitute to counterbalance it (he tended to think in polarities, says Fromm). Also failing to do so would among other things amount to agreeing with Jung on the nature of the libido as a total and complete entity in its own right. A new dichotomy was thus proposed, this time between the life instinct (ego and id) and the death instinct, making it so that the former is responsible for all movement towards the formation of new complexities and its maintenance, while the latter took the role of the primal desire of all life to return to its more simple and ultimately inanimate form.
A good little book (5:30 hours), a good little break.
I'll start by saying Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought has confirmed some of my biases, and that always makes up for a good read. Erich and I both agree that the father of psychoanalysis had a talent for making up theories out of thin air (a process whose description never ceases to amaze me) and has created an entire system that, while certainly sound in many regards, does come across as a schematization/justification of his worldview and personal issues (greed, insecurities, repressed sexuality, etc.). On that account, the analysis of how Freud managed to repress and rationalize the most obviously degrading conclusions from his own dream analysis (in a way he would never in a million years allow any of his patients, mind you) felt particularly spot on. On the other hand, Fromm doesn't let the reader forget about Freud's genius - the guy after all single-handedly created an entire professional field which fascinates both of us so much we've chosen as a career.
Regarding Erich himself I like the breadth of his writing and the special brews he comes up with. What rubs me the wrong way are his blunt assertions about things that can't possibly be as clear-cut as he makes them out to be. One example is his saying that fathers are basically irrelevant to a child until they reach 4 years of age or so, only to then be promoted to a somewhat-important-but-totally-replaceable function. I don't doubt this could be true, but there's just no way one can be so sure about it. It's as if he makes it his shtick to every so often insert a slightly controversial statement without caring to explain how he (or anyone really) came to that conclusion. Unless there are references and I'm just missing them as a consequence of listening to the audio book instead of reading - I'll have to check that out in future readings. He also is naively idealistic in regards to what could be achieved were we just able to diminish the power of the patriarchy and of the capitalism/consumerist society - and this coming from the guy who started the book by saying how inevitable it is that any major theory of reality be ultimately flawed due to its being a fruit of specific social realities. I mean, you'd expect more self-consciousness from someone who can think those thoughts in regards to other people's proposals.
The final chapter focuses on the last main development in Freud’s theory and its critique which (according to Fromm it is not as well-rounded as his earlier conjectures). The main change here was the integration of ego to id as part of a single narcissistic whole, with the consequence of Freud having to find a substitute to counterbalance it (he tended to think in polarities, says Fromm). Also failing to do so would among other things amount to agreeing with Jung on the nature of the libido as a total and complete entity in its own right. A new dichotomy was thus proposed, this time between the life instinct (ego and id) and the death instinct, making it so that the former is responsible for all movement towards the formation of new complexities and its maintenance, while the latter took the role of the primal desire of all life to return to its more simple and ultimately inanimate form.
A good little book (5:30 hours), a good little break.
March 30, 2021
Не чересчур полезная работа уважаемого и почитаемого многими и множественностями германского социопсихофилософа, для меня первая из его трудов в принципе (возможно, мимолётно, во время учёбы, посредством критических работ и общеобразовательных перечней, проскальзывала цитата-другая).
Должен признать, пишет уверенней, например, Эрика Берна (если можно сравнивать стиль написания "Введения в психоанализ" первого с не слишком подробным рассмотрением Фроммом заблуждений и прозрений Фрейда). То есть можно будет коснуться в дальнейшем работ, в названии коих отсутствуют производные слов "любовь", "здоровье", "женщина/мужчина", "искусство", "бытие", "надежда", "душа", etc.
Из некоторых цитат (при обнаружении первоисточника заменимых):
"Человек может постигать истину только тогда, когда может регламентировать свою общественную жизнь гуманным, достойным и разумным образом, не испытывая при этом страха, а тем самым и алчности"
(после чего следует какое-то даже "транспарентное" заявление о том, "только во времена Мессии и возможно постижение истины в той мере, в какой она вообще постижима" - и если не считать эти слова претензией на ироничностью, то можно смело провозглашать агностицизм из вшивейших, имитирующих ориентализм в рамках макроновского дискурса, разновидностей)
"..ключ к концепции Эдипова комплекса... мужчина продолжает оставаться существом зависимым, но, отрицая это, похваляется своей силой, а в доказательство женщину превращает в свою собственность"
(очень высокая вероятность правоты германца здесь, однако какая-то наличествует недосказанность: во-первых, в какой мере сам Фромм может быть подотчётен или свободен от необходимости ношения "ключа" на шее либо в заднем кармане брюк; во-вторых, даже превращение женщины в собственность: а-не делает из женщины "собственность"; б-не ведёт к мужской независимости)
"До Фрейда искренность можно было бы определить как высказывание того, в чём убеждён. С появлением теории Фрейда это определение не может считаться достаточным"
(С появлением теории Фрейда, необходимо продолжить, теория Фрейда и\или психоанализ в целом не могут считаться достаточными для того, чтобы определять степень искренность отдельного человека, одного ли он социального класса со специалистом или является он представителем общества "безклассового")
"Манипулятивный интеллект - это способность использовать мышление для манипуляции окружающим миром в целях человека. Разум - это способность признавать вещи такими, какие они есть, независимо от их ценности или опасности для нас"
(При подобном разграничении возникает искушение утвердить существование некой разумной группы, фантастической элиты, "расы Древних", не склонной к контролю над интеллектуалами-современниками, но сугубо направлению потенциала - предположение чрезвычайно манипулятивное, в самом деле!)
"..фрейдовский метод бесконечных ассоциаций - это выражение нежелания объяснить значение его сновидений"
(чрезвычайно меткое и ёмко - если представить, что стрела смазана не ядом, а неким целебным веществом, то бишь ёмкостью будет считаться глубина проникновения в плоть (сновидения); для проверки можно попытаться самому "разоблачить" на тетрадном листе первое возникшее в воображении четырёхзначное число)
"Утверждение, что все невротические склонности возникают в детстве, он (Фрейд) на самом деле использует, чтобы защитить взрослого от подозрения в невротических качествах"
(нередко обнаруживаемое, но и поныне непостижимое стремление профессионала в какой-либо сфере рассматривать себя в качестве шаблона - не примера для подражания, но формы, непременно принимаемой специалистом по мере приобретения квалификации)
"Бессознательный мир - это опыт, связанный с особым образом жизни - с миром пассивности"
(как и в случае с "Эдиповым ключиком" - пассивность бессознательного мира и пассивность мира бессознательного ведь мог быть, соответственно, этапами на пути к реализации или просто эффектом; почему бессознательное не может (по умолчанию?) оказывать гипнотического воздействия своей пассивностью на исследователя - с целью, к примеру, сохранить действенность патологии?)
"Фрейд всегда мыслил дуалистически"
(воздержавшись от пояснения, за каким желающий обратиться к Фромму - мышление противоположностями есть ли дуалистическое мышление? Если да, то в какой мере любое преумножающее мышление остаётся не объединяющим, если, следуя развитию мироощущения, противоположности оказываются взаимоперетекающими? Иначе говоря (внимание, эквилибристика!), до какой степени Пантеон просматривается в Нотр-Даме?)
...
Сохраняются два вопроса, оставленные Фроммом без ответа:
"..если природа инстинкта в том, чтобы восстановить самое раннее состояния бытия, неорганическое вещество, как он может одновременно заботиться о восстановлении поздней формы бытия, т. е. жизни?"
и "..ослабились ли в ходе цивилизации деструктивные порывы человека, или развились подавляющие импульсы, и они теперь наследственно закреплены?"
Оба вопроса требуют значительного пространства для одного только обнаружения потенциала и ресурсов рассуждения, затем - исследования, хотя результат, можно предположить, может оказаться невыносимо лаконичным - таким, что не потребует популяризаторов науки для объяснения, таким, что достигнет к моменту обнаружения всей необходимой популярности в "непросвещённых массах", так что последним придётся прибегать к помощи массовой литературы, бульварных романов и сборников анекдотов для того, чтобы втолковать очевидные вещи академикам и экспертам.
Так или иначе, Эрих Фромм действительно рассматривает и Фрейд и его взгляды, от рассмотрения этого не веет предвзятостью (какой могут похвастаться 7\8, вероятно, всего преподавательского состава на университетских Кафедрах Психологического Здоровья), выводы и положения Фромма аргументированы и преподносятся в цивилизованной манере - значит, причин не обратиться к "Величию и ограничениям", оказавшись по ту сторону принципа удовольствия, нет, так?
Должен признать, пишет уверенней, например, Эрика Берна (если можно сравнивать стиль написания "Введения в психоанализ" первого с не слишком подробным рассмотрением Фроммом заблуждений и прозрений Фрейда). То есть можно будет коснуться в дальнейшем работ, в названии коих отсутствуют производные слов "любовь", "здоровье", "женщина/мужчина", "искусство", "бытие", "надежда", "душа", etc.
Из некоторых цитат (при обнаружении первоисточника заменимых):
"Человек может постигать истину только тогда, когда может регламентировать свою общественную жизнь гуманным, достойным и разумным образом, не испытывая при этом страха, а тем самым и алчности"
(после чего следует какое-то даже "транспарентное" заявление о том, "только во времена Мессии и возможно постижение истины в той мере, в какой она вообще постижима" - и если не считать эти слова претензией на ироничностью, то можно смело провозглашать агностицизм из вшивейших, имитирующих ориентализм в рамках макроновского дискурса, разновидностей)
"..ключ к концепции Эдипова комплекса... мужчина продолжает оставаться существом зависимым, но, отрицая это, похваляется своей силой, а в доказательство женщину превращает в свою собственность"
(очень высокая вероятность правоты германца здесь, однако какая-то наличествует недосказанность: во-первых, в какой мере сам Фромм может быть подотчётен или свободен от необходимости ношения "ключа" на шее либо в заднем кармане брюк; во-вторых, даже превращение женщины в собственность: а-не делает из женщины "собственность"; б-не ведёт к мужской независимости)
"До Фрейда искренность можно было бы определить как высказывание того, в чём убеждён. С появлением теории Фрейда это определение не может считаться достаточным"
(С появлением теории Фрейда, необходимо продолжить, теория Фрейда и\или психоанализ в целом не могут считаться достаточными для того, чтобы определять степень искренность отдельного человека, одного ли он социального класса со специалистом или является он представителем общества "безклассового")
"Манипулятивный интеллект - это способность использовать мышление для манипуляции окружающим миром в целях человека. Разум - это способность признавать вещи такими, какие они есть, независимо от их ценности или опасности для нас"
(При подобном разграничении возникает искушение утвердить существование некой разумной группы, фантастической элиты, "расы Древних", не склонной к контролю над интеллектуалами-современниками, но сугубо направлению потенциала - предположение чрезвычайно манипулятивное, в самом деле!)
"..фрейдовский метод бесконечных ассоциаций - это выражение нежелания объяснить значение его сновидений"
(чрезвычайно меткое и ёмко - если представить, что стрела смазана не ядом, а неким целебным веществом, то бишь ёмкостью будет считаться глубина проникновения в плоть (сновидения); для проверки можно попытаться самому "разоблачить" на тетрадном листе первое возникшее в воображении четырёхзначное число)
"Утверждение, что все невротические склонности возникают в детстве, он (Фрейд) на самом деле использует, чтобы защитить взрослого от подозрения в невротических качествах"
(нередко обнаруживаемое, но и поныне непостижимое стремление профессионала в какой-либо сфере рассматривать себя в качестве шаблона - не примера для подражания, но формы, непременно принимаемой специалистом по мере приобретения квалификации)
"Бессознательный мир - это опыт, связанный с особым образом жизни - с миром пассивности"
(как и в случае с "Эдиповым ключиком" - пассивность бессознательного мира и пассивность мира бессознательного ведь мог быть, соответственно, этапами на пути к реализации или просто эффектом; почему бессознательное не может (по умолчанию?) оказывать гипнотического воздействия своей пассивностью на исследователя - с целью, к примеру, сохранить действенность патологии?)
"Фрейд всегда мыслил дуалистически"
(воздержавшись от пояснения, за каким желающий обратиться к Фромму - мышление противоположностями есть ли дуалистическое мышление? Если да, то в какой мере любое преумножающее мышление остаётся не объединяющим, если, следуя развитию мироощущения, противоположности оказываются взаимоперетекающими? Иначе говоря (внимание, эквилибристика!), до какой степени Пантеон просматривается в Нотр-Даме?)
...
Сохраняются два вопроса, оставленные Фроммом без ответа:
"..если природа инстинкта в том, чтобы восстановить самое раннее состояния бытия, неорганическое вещество, как он может одновременно заботиться о восстановлении поздней формы бытия, т. е. жизни?"
и "..ослабились ли в ходе цивилизации деструктивные порывы человека, или развились подавляющие импульсы, и они теперь наследственно закреплены?"
Оба вопроса требуют значительного пространства для одного только обнаружения потенциала и ресурсов рассуждения, затем - исследования, хотя результат, можно предположить, может оказаться невыносимо лаконичным - таким, что не потребует популяризаторов науки для объяснения, таким, что достигнет к моменту обнаружения всей необходимой популярности в "непросвещённых массах", так что последним придётся прибегать к помощи массовой литературы, бульварных романов и сборников анекдотов для того, чтобы втолковать очевидные вещи академикам и экспертам.
Так или иначе, Эрих Фромм действительно рассматривает и Фрейд и его взгляды, от рассмотрения этого не веет предвзятостью (какой могут похвастаться 7\8, вероятно, всего преподавательского состава на университетских Кафедрах Психологического Здоровья), выводы и положения Фромма аргументированы и преподносятся в цивилизованной манере - значит, причин не обратиться к "Величию и ограничениям", оказавшись по ту сторону принципа удовольствия, нет, так?
May 12, 2018
The most accurate and fair review and critique of Freud’s theories that I have read to date. In his own brilliant way, Erich Fromm outlines how one can decouple Freud’s key ideas from the dogma imposed on them by the bourgeoisie society that he was deeply rooted in, and construct a modern psychoanalytic theory. I think one would make the most out of reading this book if she is already familiar with Freud’s theories through reading some of his books such as “introductory lectures to psychoanalysis” (both the original and the new), and “civilization and its discontents”.
November 20, 2019
I continue to make my way through Erich Fromm body of work. In this one he critiques Freud’s work, from which I critique his. I found a clearer expression of Fromm’s politics as being a utopian romantic Marxist. He bemoans that psychoanalysis focused too much on the childhoods of the conservative bourgeoisie, and not enough on moving society in a revolutionary manner away from the consumerist capitalist.
It was hard to understand if it was Fromm reporting Freud’s work, or Fromm himself. He wrote ideas that completely dismisses the importance of Fathers to children using the Oedipal complex as the basis for this, suggesting that a sperm donor can do just as good a job in a child's formative years. Fathers are not required until the child is older, and then the Father and child compete for Mother (fear of castration and all that). I found this completely absurd, maybe because I am attached to being a Father and the importance of this role. It made me want to give up and thinking Fromm was a complete idiot.
Then Fromm communicates something profound and brilliant about the therapeutic relationship about transference and the massive egos of therapists. Fromm discusses the transference of clients seeing Therapists as a paternal figure in the Oedipal sense that they project an attractiveness onto the Therapist that would not be there in real life had they meet at the pub. I thought "Oh yes" about this. There is a certain conversation that I love having that I only have professionally. If I said the same things in the pub people would look at me like I was a bit weird and dismiss what I was saying. When I am engaged professionally my words are treated like gold. I find this the weirdest thing. He went onto say that the Therapist projected onto the client that they were resisting when they did not project paternalism onto the Therapist. Another long bow, but as a clinician I could see where he was aiming at. As a clinician and a therapist, I try hard to be humble, that is why the people in my life (who I often meet at the pub) are important to me. I am just a person.
He then discussed narcissism expressed as group identity, again I found this profound because I see a lot of this in the world around me. People who behave in a reprehensible manner that belies their stated beliefs (hypocrites). As long as they virtue signal, and show how ‘woke’ they are they do not have to confront how they are screwing up their lives. They are a good person, because they identify with a good group and good beliefs, not because of what they do and how they behave towards the people they are most intimate with. Chardonnay Socialist…. Identity Politics…. This concept explained a lot of what I am seeing in the world today. I could also see that I am a bit (or maybe a lot) of a narcissist, and that maybe that is normal and OK (as long as you are aware of it).
These ideas made listening to the book worth it. I did find myself burring up and disagreeing with his beliefs about the need for the socialist utopia. It was not that long ago I would have shared those views (I’m a reformed socialist). Now I align most closely to the conservative bourgeoises. It is about sorting the wheat from the chaff. Borrowing from Churchill, Capitalism is the least worst form of economic management we have. Fromm suggested it would have been different under Trotsky, and Stalin was really a bourgeoises. Whatever blow your hair back… Like Freud, some of his ideas survive history. Others don’t. I get why he is popular with the ‘woke’ bourgeoises. What was revolutionary is now bourgeoisie in polite society. Keep my head down and ignore the madness as best I can and give my children and family as much bourgeoisie privilege as I possibly can.
It was hard to understand if it was Fromm reporting Freud’s work, or Fromm himself. He wrote ideas that completely dismisses the importance of Fathers to children using the Oedipal complex as the basis for this, suggesting that a sperm donor can do just as good a job in a child's formative years. Fathers are not required until the child is older, and then the Father and child compete for Mother (fear of castration and all that). I found this completely absurd, maybe because I am attached to being a Father and the importance of this role. It made me want to give up and thinking Fromm was a complete idiot.
Then Fromm communicates something profound and brilliant about the therapeutic relationship about transference and the massive egos of therapists. Fromm discusses the transference of clients seeing Therapists as a paternal figure in the Oedipal sense that they project an attractiveness onto the Therapist that would not be there in real life had they meet at the pub. I thought "Oh yes" about this. There is a certain conversation that I love having that I only have professionally. If I said the same things in the pub people would look at me like I was a bit weird and dismiss what I was saying. When I am engaged professionally my words are treated like gold. I find this the weirdest thing. He went onto say that the Therapist projected onto the client that they were resisting when they did not project paternalism onto the Therapist. Another long bow, but as a clinician I could see where he was aiming at. As a clinician and a therapist, I try hard to be humble, that is why the people in my life (who I often meet at the pub) are important to me. I am just a person.
He then discussed narcissism expressed as group identity, again I found this profound because I see a lot of this in the world around me. People who behave in a reprehensible manner that belies their stated beliefs (hypocrites). As long as they virtue signal, and show how ‘woke’ they are they do not have to confront how they are screwing up their lives. They are a good person, because they identify with a good group and good beliefs, not because of what they do and how they behave towards the people they are most intimate with. Chardonnay Socialist…. Identity Politics…. This concept explained a lot of what I am seeing in the world today. I could also see that I am a bit (or maybe a lot) of a narcissist, and that maybe that is normal and OK (as long as you are aware of it).
These ideas made listening to the book worth it. I did find myself burring up and disagreeing with his beliefs about the need for the socialist utopia. It was not that long ago I would have shared those views (I’m a reformed socialist). Now I align most closely to the conservative bourgeoises. It is about sorting the wheat from the chaff. Borrowing from Churchill, Capitalism is the least worst form of economic management we have. Fromm suggested it would have been different under Trotsky, and Stalin was really a bourgeoises. Whatever blow your hair back… Like Freud, some of his ideas survive history. Others don’t. I get why he is popular with the ‘woke’ bourgeoises. What was revolutionary is now bourgeoisie in polite society. Keep my head down and ignore the madness as best I can and give my children and family as much bourgeoisie privilege as I possibly can.
August 22, 2024
THE FAMED PSYCHOLOGIST SUMMARIZES THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FREUD
Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as'Escape from Freedom,' 'Psychoanalysis and Religion,' 'The Art of Loving,' 'Beyond the Chains of Illusion,' 'The Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religion,' 'The Revolution of Hope,' 'You Shall Be as Gods,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1979 book, "The greatness of Freud's discovery consists in the fact that he conceived a method of arriving at the truth beyond that which an individual believes to be the truth... due to having discovered the effects of repression, and correspondingly, rationalizations...
"This application of the principle that truth liberates and cures is perhaps the greatest achievement of Freud, even though his application of this principle underwent many distortions and often produced new illusions. In this book I want to present the most important discoveries of Freud, in detailed form. At the same time I shall try to show where and in what way bourgeois thought, so characteristic of Freud, narrowed down and sometimes even obscured his discoveries." (Pg. viii-ix)
He states, "Since Freud... The difference between what I say and what I believe assumes a new dimension, namely that of my unconscious belief or my unconscious striving... Since Freud, the sentence 'I meant well' has lost its function as an excuse. Meaning well is one of the best rationalizations for acting badly, and nothing is easier than to persuade oneself of the validity of this rationalization." (Pg. 22-23)
He notes that in Freudian psychoanalysis, "The analysand lay on the couch, the analyst sat, invisible, behind him, listening most of the time and from time to time giving an interpretation. Freud once expressed his real motive for that arrangement, namely that he could not bear to be stared at by another person for many hours a day." (Pg. 38)
He suggests, "We find here one of the premises of Freud's thinking. Those features that are considered incompatible with a respectable professional man like Freud are relegated to childhood... The assumption that all neurotic tendencies arise in childhood is in fact the protection of the adult from the suspicion of being neurotic.
"Freud was indeed a very neurotic man but it was impossible for him to conceive of himself as (s)uch and at the same time to feel his was a normal respectable profession. Hence everything that did not fit into the pattern of the normal man was considered to be childhood material and ... [not] fully alive and present in the adult." (Pg. 87)
He observes, "[Freud] tries here almost frantically to evade the logical consequences of his own premises. If the death instinct is as powerful and fundamental as Freud claims throughout, how can it be considerably reduced by bringing Eros into play, considering that they are both contained in every cell and that they constitute an irreducible quality of living matter?" (Pg. 130)
He summarizes, "Freud deprived man of his pride in his rationality. He went to the roots... and discovered that a great deal of our conscious thinking only veils our real thoughts and feelings and hides the truth; most of our conscious thought is a sham, a mere rationalization of thoughts and desires which we prefer not to be aware of." (Pg. 134)
This is an excellent, sympathetic yet critical, study of Freud's thought; it also provides valuable insights into Fromm's own thought, as well.
Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as'Escape from Freedom,' 'Psychoanalysis and Religion,' 'The Art of Loving,' 'Beyond the Chains of Illusion,' 'The Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religion,' 'The Revolution of Hope,' 'You Shall Be as Gods,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1979 book, "The greatness of Freud's discovery consists in the fact that he conceived a method of arriving at the truth beyond that which an individual believes to be the truth... due to having discovered the effects of repression, and correspondingly, rationalizations...
"This application of the principle that truth liberates and cures is perhaps the greatest achievement of Freud, even though his application of this principle underwent many distortions and often produced new illusions. In this book I want to present the most important discoveries of Freud, in detailed form. At the same time I shall try to show where and in what way bourgeois thought, so characteristic of Freud, narrowed down and sometimes even obscured his discoveries." (Pg. viii-ix)
He states, "Since Freud... The difference between what I say and what I believe assumes a new dimension, namely that of my unconscious belief or my unconscious striving... Since Freud, the sentence 'I meant well' has lost its function as an excuse. Meaning well is one of the best rationalizations for acting badly, and nothing is easier than to persuade oneself of the validity of this rationalization." (Pg. 22-23)
He notes that in Freudian psychoanalysis, "The analysand lay on the couch, the analyst sat, invisible, behind him, listening most of the time and from time to time giving an interpretation. Freud once expressed his real motive for that arrangement, namely that he could not bear to be stared at by another person for many hours a day." (Pg. 38)
He suggests, "We find here one of the premises of Freud's thinking. Those features that are considered incompatible with a respectable professional man like Freud are relegated to childhood... The assumption that all neurotic tendencies arise in childhood is in fact the protection of the adult from the suspicion of being neurotic.
"Freud was indeed a very neurotic man but it was impossible for him to conceive of himself as (s)uch and at the same time to feel his was a normal respectable profession. Hence everything that did not fit into the pattern of the normal man was considered to be childhood material and ... [not] fully alive and present in the adult." (Pg. 87)
He observes, "[Freud] tries here almost frantically to evade the logical consequences of his own premises. If the death instinct is as powerful and fundamental as Freud claims throughout, how can it be considerably reduced by bringing Eros into play, considering that they are both contained in every cell and that they constitute an irreducible quality of living matter?" (Pg. 130)
He summarizes, "Freud deprived man of his pride in his rationality. He went to the roots... and discovered that a great deal of our conscious thinking only veils our real thoughts and feelings and hides the truth; most of our conscious thought is a sham, a mere rationalization of thoughts and desires which we prefer not to be aware of." (Pg. 134)
This is an excellent, sympathetic yet critical, study of Freud's thought; it also provides valuable insights into Fromm's own thought, as well.
March 25, 2025
A great critique of Freud's thinking and theories. Fromm's marxist lens shows in his knowledge and awareness of both Freud's own stances as well as how his background and assumptions reflect into his theories and concepts. The book is also very easy to read and understand, even for people who are relatively new to Freudian thinking. For in depth explanations of Freud's theories you have to go somewhere else, because that is not the point of this work.
The work is fantastic, but some of the factual claims have been proven wrong by the advances in sciences. But generally all of his critiques are still very relevant, even if some of sub-claims are incorrect.
The work is fantastic, but some of the factual claims have been proven wrong by the advances in sciences. But generally all of his critiques are still very relevant, even if some of sub-claims are incorrect.
July 4, 2025
Abbastanza complicato ma critica, anche se molto descrittiva e impegnativa da leggere, perché si è molto impegnativo da leggere, è stato molto interessante a modo suo. Alla fine vengono paragonate ideologie e scoperte di periodi diversi ed è interessante.
October 12, 2021
Kitabı tamamen anlayabilmek için konu ile ilgili bir alt yapıya sahip olmak gerekir, Freud'u tanımak için bir başlangıç kitabı değil.
Read
December 14, 2021grazie freud ma anche fromm.
November 29, 2025
An objective criticism of Freud by Erich Fromm
August 30, 2025
Bu eser Freud’u iki uç arasında sunuyor: Bir yandan bireyin iç dünyasına dair en büyük devrimlerden birini başlatan bir düşünür; diğer yandan kendi çağının önyargılarından kurtulamamış, sınırlı kalmış bir kuramcı. Fromm, Freud’a hayranlıkla yaklaşırken aynı zamanda ona meydan okuyor. Onun büyüklüğünü bilinçdışı, rüyalar, çocukluk yaşantısının önemini vurgulamasında görüyor; ama sınırlarını da özellikle biyolojiye fazla yaslanması, kültürel ve toplumsal boyutu ihmal etmesi, kadın cinselliğini dar bir çerçevede ele alması gibi noktalarda gösteriyor.
Bence bu kitabın en güçlü yanı, Freud’u tarihin üstünde, dokunulmaz bir “deha” gibi sunmaması. Aksine, düşüncesini hem bir dönemin ürünü hem de yeni bir kapının anahtarı olarak okuyor. Fromm burada kendi hümanist psikanaliz çizgisini de ortaya koyuyor: insanı yalnızca içgüdülerle değil, aynı zamanda toplumsal ilişkiler, özgürlük ve sevgi ihtiyacıyla açıklamaya çalışıyor. Yani kitabı okurken sadece Freud’un sınırlarını değil, Fromm’un alternatif vizyonunu da görüyorsunuz.
Benim için Freud: Düşüncesinin Büyüklüğü ve Sınırları, Freud’u yüceltmeden ya da küçümsemeden anlamak için değerli bir metin oldu. Özellikle psikanalizin bireysel olduğu kadar toplumsal bir proje olabileceğini hatırlatması önemli. Freud’un mirası burada hem saygıyla hem de eleştiriyle ele alınıyor; işte kitabın gücü de bu dengeden geliyor.
Bence bu kitabın en güçlü yanı, Freud’u tarihin üstünde, dokunulmaz bir “deha” gibi sunmaması. Aksine, düşüncesini hem bir dönemin ürünü hem de yeni bir kapının anahtarı olarak okuyor. Fromm burada kendi hümanist psikanaliz çizgisini de ortaya koyuyor: insanı yalnızca içgüdülerle değil, aynı zamanda toplumsal ilişkiler, özgürlük ve sevgi ihtiyacıyla açıklamaya çalışıyor. Yani kitabı okurken sadece Freud’un sınırlarını değil, Fromm’un alternatif vizyonunu da görüyorsunuz.
Benim için Freud: Düşüncesinin Büyüklüğü ve Sınırları, Freud’u yüceltmeden ya da küçümsemeden anlamak için değerli bir metin oldu. Özellikle psikanalizin bireysel olduğu kadar toplumsal bir proje olabileceğini hatırlatması önemli. Freud’un mirası burada hem saygıyla hem de eleştiriyle ele alınıyor; işte kitabın gücü de bu dengeden geliyor.
December 6, 2021
I just chose this Erich Fromm book at random. I did read this book, I just didn't read the whole thing very throughly. I have read Erich Fromm’s books before, and I feel like all his books are pretty much the same, and that if you read one, you've got a good idea of what the rest of his books say.
For example, he wrote a book comparing Zen and the Buddhist tradition to Western psychoanalytic theory, and there were (if I remember correctly, which I may not be) 5 pages dedicated to Buddhism, mostly lifted wholesale from Suzuki, and the rest of the book was typical Erich Fromm speaking on what he knows, i.e the humanistic psychoanalysis of the 1950’s.
Freud-lite, a gentler, less pessimistic Austrian, and more palatable to a general readership.
That being said, he can be insightful so I'm glad I read one of his books carefully from beginning to end. It was not this one though -it was the Art of Loving I think?
For example, he wrote a book comparing Zen and the Buddhist tradition to Western psychoanalytic theory, and there were (if I remember correctly, which I may not be) 5 pages dedicated to Buddhism, mostly lifted wholesale from Suzuki, and the rest of the book was typical Erich Fromm speaking on what he knows, i.e the humanistic psychoanalysis of the 1950’s.
Freud-lite, a gentler, less pessimistic Austrian, and more palatable to a general readership.
That being said, he can be insightful so I'm glad I read one of his books carefully from beginning to end. It was not this one though -it was the Art of Loving I think?
August 8, 2014
Nice overview of Freud's work, by the brilliant Fromm. What's especially enjoyable and useful is how bold Fromm can be in both celebrating certain aspects of Freud's work while also wielding a sharp blade when it comes time to criticize that same work. The offhanded observation, late in the book, that Freud's position as part of a powerful, rich elite that kept its status by manipulating and (thought) controlling the "unruly" masses was undoubtedly a factor in his creation of ego (rational elite) and id (unwashed masses) as universal features of humanity hit me right in the forehead. It's so obviously true, once he points it out. Fromm provides quite a few excellent points along these lines.
Read
December 10, 2016Freud'un dehası yadsınamaz ama elbette onun da hataya düştüğü ,kısırdöngülere girdiği noktalar var.Fromm'un gözünden bir daha bakılabilir.
''Çoğu kez ,çocukların ailelerin arzularını ön plana almaya kendilerini zorladıklarını,bu yüzden de kendi yatkınlıklarını bastırıp zayıflattıklarını görüyoruz.İşte burada nevrozların kaynağını bulmak mümkündür.İnsan kendi bütünlüğüne ters bir karakter yapısı geliştirmek zorundadır.Amaç topluma hoş görünmek ve onunla uyum içinde olmaktır.''
''Çoğu kez ,çocukların ailelerin arzularını ön plana almaya kendilerini zorladıklarını,bu yüzden de kendi yatkınlıklarını bastırıp zayıflattıklarını görüyoruz.İşte burada nevrozların kaynağını bulmak mümkündür.İnsan kendi bütünlüğüne ters bir karakter yapısı geliştirmek zorundadır.Amaç topluma hoş görünmek ve onunla uyum içinde olmaktır.''
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews