What do you think?
Rate this book
精神分析引论
Meine Damen und Herren! Ich weiß nicht, wieviel die einzelnen von Ihnen aus ihrer Lektüre oder vom Hörensagen über die Psychoanalyse wissen. Ich bin aber durch den Wortlaut meiner Ankündigung – Elementare Einführung in die Psychoanalyse – verpflichtet, Sie so zu behandeln, als wüßten Sie nichts und bedürften einer ersten Unterweisung.
Siegmund Freud
Siegmund Freud
376 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1917
2967 people are currently reading
23238 people want to read
About the author
Sigmund Freud
4,367 books8,499 followersDr. 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 568 reviews
August 23, 2019
The medulla oblongata is a very serious and lovely object.
When I was in college, I used to get in long and rather aimless arguments with a friend about Freud. The funny thing is, both of us agreed that Freud was fundamentally wrong about most things. The argument was, rather, whether Freud was worth reading and thinking about—and was even potentially useful—in spite of his theories’ veracity. My friend said he wasn’t, and I said he was. I still think this way, which is why, every now and then, I find myself making my way through one of his books.
Probably I should have come to this book sooner. Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis is his attempt to give an accessible introduction to his system, and is thus probably one of the best places to start if you’re curious about his work. The lectures, given over one academic year, are divided into three sections: the parapraxes (the “Freudian slips”), the interpretation of dreams, and the neuroses. The material is arranged this way for pedagogical purposes, beginning with the simplest and most easily observable phenomena and ending with genuine mental disorders. By necessity, the last section is both the longest and densest.
One thing that fascinates me about Freud is how a system of ideas with paltry factual support could be so seductive and gripping. For my part, I find Freud’s system remarkably attractive; thinking along his lines has an undeniable emotional appeal, at least in my case. In my review of Civilization and its Discontents, I gave a partial explanation of this by likening Freud’s system in outline to that of Christianity. But I don’t think that’s the whole story, and thus I want to explore it further.
While reading this book, it struck me that Freud’s system is comparable with the Aristotelian physics and cosmology that held sway for so long in the Western world. Both of these systems, Freud's and Aristotle's, take such hold of one’s mind because they seem to explain everything while offering very little in the way of falsifiable propositions. Aristotelians could throw around terms like matter, form, ideal, potential, perfect, nature, and soul without providing any circumstances in which these concepts could be tested and disproved.
These categories were specific enough to be rationally compelling, and yet vague enough to be applied to nearly anything. Similarly, Freud created a system that could be applied to history, religion, mythology, and literature, while never specifying how its categories—repression, unconscious, transference, libido, censor etc.—could be disproven. It thus gives the illusion of an airtight and exhaustive system while remaining safe from testability.
The main reason that Freud’s theories are untestable is that they rely on interpretation; and interpretations, by definition, cannot be falsified. Now to be fair I think Freud’s system is most plausible, as a therapeutic technique, when he has his patients interpret their own dreams and symptoms. If a patient is free-associating, it makes sense that they might be able to hit upon an emotionally resonant interpretation.
Nevertheless, I think it would still be incorrect to call even the patient's interpretation the “true” one, since being emotionally affected by something now in no way proves that this same thing motivated a dream in the past. (And this is putting to the side the fact that Freud’s explanation of the formation of dreams relies on unobservable processes and entities that he posits in the mind. But let me stop here before I get sucked down the rabbit hole.)
To repeat, then, although I think it cannot be proved that any interpretation of a dream is a “true” one, I still think having patients interpret their dreams might help them to explore their own feelings. But when Freud begins enumerating a kind of “key” for dream interpretation, his system gets really unsupportable. According to Freud, certain things always symbolize other things in dreams, irrespective of the individual, their cultural background, or their experiences. And, of course, most of these symbols are representations of sexual matters:
We have earlier referred to landscapes as representing the female genitals. Hills and rocks are symbols of the male organ. Fruit stands, not for children, but for the breasts. Wild animals mean people in an excited sensual state, and further, evil instincts or passions. Blossoms or flowers indicate women’s genitals, or, in particular, virginity. Do not forget that blossoms are actually the genitals of a plant.
There is an entire lecture like this; and personally I find it so ludicrous that it makes me deeply suspicious of Freud’s judgment. It relies on so many unsubstantiated premises—that dreams have a deeper meaning, that this deeper meaning is always a desire, that this desire is always illicit and sexual, that somehow certain symbols are universal, and that Freud is somehow privy to this information—that it boggles the mind trying to unravel it.
When Freud does offer the explanation for why one thing symbolizes another, it bears a remarkable similarity to the logic used by conspiracy theorists:
And, speaking of wood, it is hard to understand how that material came to represent what is maternal and female. But here comparative philology may come to our help. Our German word ‘Holz’ seems to come from the same root as the Greek [hule], meaning ‘stuff’ ‘raw material’. … Now there is an island in the Atlantic named ‘Madeira’. This name was given to it by the Portuguese when they discovered it, because at that time it was covered all over with woods. For in the Portuguese language ‘madeira’ means ‘wood’. You will notice, however, that ‘madeira’ is only a slightly modified version of the Latin word ‘materia’, which once more means ‘material’ in general. But ‘material’ is derived from ‘mater’, ‘mother’: the material out of which anything is made is, as it were, mother to it. This ancient view of the thing survives, therefore, in the symbolic use of wood for ‘woman’ or ‘mother’.
Clearly this sort of thing wouldn’t pass muster in any scientific journal nowadays, and it’s hard to see how it could have been convincing in Freud’s day either.
The above is just one example of the un-falsifiability inherent in Freud’s thought; and this is a big part, I think, of why his system can be so seductive. But there is another reason for its appeal: It is fundamental to Freud’s system to question the motivations of its detractors. That it, the system has a built-in defense mechanism in that anyone who disagrees can be accused of being a repressed individual who can’t face the truth of his own illicit desires.
To take just one example, let’s look at Freud’s discussion of his famous Freudian slip. In these lectures, he claims that all slips of the tongue are caused by a repressed desire that is finding a distorted expression. Now to be fair, there are definitely many instances when this seems to be the case, that somebody accidentally said something they were trying to keep secret. Nevertheless, it is absurd to claim that all slips of the tongue have this origin. For one, you cannot legitimately make a universal generalization from any finite data set. You cannot, for example, claim that all apples are delicious after you’ve eaten 100 delicious apples. Moreover, and once again, finding the “deeper meaning” of a Freudian slip relies on interpretation, and interpretations can never be objectively determined.
But a more troubling problem for me is that Freud essentially asserts that it is impossible to make an innocent mistake. If you are tired and you misspeak, it cannot just be an error, but must be the expression of a deep and terrible desire of which you are not aware. And if you deny this, it only proves Freud’s point; obviously you can’t face the truth about yourself, you are too repressed. Thus there isn’t any way out. You can’t disprove Freud’s interpretation (since it’s an interpretation and can’t be disproven), and all your protestations only make you look more guilty. And this sort of double bind isn’t restricted to Freud’s theories on slips of the tongue, but apply to the interpretation of dreams and neurotic symptoms. I wouldn’t be surprised if Freud argued that any time somebody fell off a bike it was because of a latent death wish.
To be fair to Freud, none of these criticisms are unique to his system. To the contrary, they can be applied to many, if not all, religious and political ideologies. The questioning of other people’s motivation is especially destructive in the latter sphere, and can be found on both the Right and the Left. The only reason Democrats want to expand social security because they’re communists who want to make everyone dependent on the government; they want to expand background checks to take away everyone’s guns and make them unable to fight against government tyranny. Meanwhile, poor whites are too dumb to vote for their own interests, those who disagree with Obama are racists, those with Hillary are sexists, and if you disagree it’s your privilege talking.
Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying that these accusations are necessarily incorrect, and indeed I think they are sometimes quite compelling. Nevertheless I think you have got to be careful when you question the motivations of your opponent, because it makes it impossible to have a reasonable debate. Probably it’s best to assume good intentions unless proven otherwise. But this brings me pretty far from Freud.
Or does it? I began by saying how useful is Freud even if one disagrees with him, and I think one way he's useful is to illustrate how unsupported ideas can become widely accepted. But of course that’s not all.
Freud was, in my opinion, quite obviously brilliant. His ideas were so original and his thought process so novel that it is fascinating just to see him at work. What's more, even if they lack rigor in a scientific setting, Freud’s ideas, terminology, and system have undeniably enriched how we think about the human experience. That dreams can reveal a deeper meaning, that slips of the tongue can reveal hidden intentions, that desires can be repressed, that traumatic memories can be unconscious, that much of your motivation lies beyond your awareness—all this and more we owe to Freud.
Two weeks ago I was walking through the Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid, where there is a wonderful painting by Salvador Dalí: Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee Around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening. The painting, which makes no rational sense, was partly inspired by Freud’s ideas on the dream-logic, how ideas get associated in the unconscious. The elements in the painting are associated, not by reason, but by other chains of association—the sounds of their names, specific memories, visual properties, sexual desires. The entire logic of the painting can thus be said to be Freudian. Now, considering this, can you argue that he didn’t enrich our culture?
May 17, 2019
Freud was sometimes wrong and sometimes right but you can not ignore him at any time. He has changed the discourse of classical thinking about a certain phenomenon.
Introductory psychoanalysis lectures portrait the pretty pictures of his imagination and beliefs with the help of psychological theories. He discusses all the things that come in his way.
Introductory psychoanalysis lectures portrait the pretty pictures of his imagination and beliefs with the help of psychological theories. He discusses all the things that come in his way.
February 20, 2020
يقول فرويد أن الإنسان في تاريخه تعرض لثلاث صدمات، الصدمة الأولى عندما اكتشف أن الأرض ليست سيدة الكون، الصدمة الثانية عندما أكتشف بأنه ليس سيد للكائنات من أصل مقدس، والثالثة عندما اكتشف أنه ليس سيداً على نفسه وقراراته ونوازعه.
لا شك أننا بحاجة إلى فهم ذلك الشخص الغريب الذي نسميه (أنا)، خاصة عندما يبدأ اللاوعي بأداء حركات (نص كم) مع الوعي. عندما ينصحك ابن خالتك بأن تلتحق بتلك الوظيفة لأنها (بمستواك)، ثم يتنحنح ويصحح قائلًا بأنه يقصد أنها مناسبة لمواهبك ومقدراتك، ستعرف أن لاوعيه ألقى حجرًا صغيرًا على سطح وعيه. وتلك ما تُسمى بالزلّة الفرويدية.
عندما تنام فتحلم بأن ابن خالتك يلعب كرة القدم مع بيل جيتس أمام مسجد حارتكم القديمة، ثم يركل قريبك الكرة فتكسر زجاج نافذتك، فلا بد أن لا وعيك يحاول أن يخبرك شيئًا لكنه يخجل من أن يفعل ذلك بشكل مباشر فيرسل لك رموزًا ويقوم بتشويش بعض المشاهد كي لا تؤثر عليك. هكذا أخبرنا الرجل، الرجل هو فرويد وليس ابن خالتك.
لا بد أنك قد مررت يومًأ ما بتلك التجربة: أن تفعل شيئًا وتبذل من أجله جهدًأ مضنيًا ولكنك في قرارة نفسك تتمنى أن تفشل. أن تفعل شيئا وتتمنى تحقق العكس لا يعني أنك مجنون، هذا شيء طبيعي أفعله أنا وأنت و...تعرف من أيضًا. ذلك أن اللاوعي له سلطة عليك شئت أم أبيت. بل أنك عندما تجتهد في قمع اللاوعي، قد تتسبب لنفسك باعتلالات نفسية منها الانحراف والنكوص.
يقال أن فرويد يفسر كل شيء على ضوء الجنس، قد يكون ذلك صحيحًا، لكن من لم يقرأ لفرويد ستفوته نقطة مهمة: الجنس لدى فرويد مصطلح واسع وليس فقط العملية الجنسية كما يعرفها الرجل العادي. بل هي مبدأ يشمل ميول الإنسان نحو اللذة التي قد لا تكون لها علاقة مباشرة بالأعضاء الجنسية. إذا استوعبت تلك الفكرة فقد تفهم ما يحاول الرجل قوله.
يتألف الكتاب من حوالي 28 محاضرة، تنقسم إلى عدد من المواضيع الرئيسية: سيكولوجيا الخطأ، التطور الجنسي، الأحلام، والأمراض النفسية. اقتنيت الكتاب كمدخل مبسط للتحليل النفسي إذا أنني أخطط لقراءة كتاب مهم في علم النفس واعتقدت أنه من الحصافة أن اتحضر له بقراءة تمهيدية.
قرأت هذا الكتاب لأحصل على مقدمة مبسطة للتحليل النفسي، لكنني خرجت من الكتاب بعقدة نفسية. لا ألوم الموضوع ولا المؤلف بالرغم من أن هذا الأخير يتحدث بإطناب مع الكثير من الجمل الاعتراضية. أتفهم أنه كان يستبق اعتراضات الجمهور وشكوكهم لذا كان يرد عليهم مسبقًا. كان ذلك مفهومًأ وقتها إذ كان التحليل النفسي علم وليد يهاجمه الكثير. ما كرهته حقًأ هو النسخة التي حصلت عليها، صفحات ضخمة تقريبا بحجم ورق )أي فور)، بأسطر طويلة تتعب حتى أصل إلى آخرها وإذا وصلت إلى آخرها ألاقي صعوبة في الانتقال إلى السطر التالي، بل أنيي كثيرًا ما كنت أعيد قراءة السطر نفسه بسبب طوله وضياع الخط البصري الذي يساعدك في التنقل بين الأسطر بسلاسة. لأول مرة أكره كتابًا بسبب حجمه وطريقة طباعته. لا أنصح أحدًا بقراءة أو اهداء نسخة مثل هذه لأحد، إلا ابن خالتك ثقيل الظل الذي يضايقك في اليقظة والمنام على حد سواء.
لا شك أننا بحاجة إلى فهم ذلك الشخص الغريب الذي نسميه (أنا)، خاصة عندما يبدأ اللاوعي بأداء حركات (نص كم) مع الوعي. عندما ينصحك ابن خالتك بأن تلتحق بتلك الوظيفة لأنها (بمستواك)، ثم يتنحنح ويصحح قائلًا بأنه يقصد أنها مناسبة لمواهبك ومقدراتك، ستعرف أن لاوعيه ألقى حجرًا صغيرًا على سطح وعيه. وتلك ما تُسمى بالزلّة الفرويدية.
عندما تنام فتحلم بأن ابن خالتك يلعب كرة القدم مع بيل جيتس أمام مسجد حارتكم القديمة، ثم يركل قريبك الكرة فتكسر زجاج نافذتك، فلا بد أن لا وعيك يحاول أن يخبرك شيئًا لكنه يخجل من أن يفعل ذلك بشكل مباشر فيرسل لك رموزًا ويقوم بتشويش بعض المشاهد كي لا تؤثر عليك. هكذا أخبرنا الرجل، الرجل هو فرويد وليس ابن خالتك.
لا بد أنك قد مررت يومًأ ما بتلك التجربة: أن تفعل شيئًا وتبذل من أجله جهدًأ مضنيًا ولكنك في قرارة نفسك تتمنى أن تفشل. أن تفعل شيئا وتتمنى تحقق العكس لا يعني أنك مجنون، هذا شيء طبيعي أفعله أنا وأنت و...تعرف من أيضًا. ذلك أن اللاوعي له سلطة عليك شئت أم أبيت. بل أنك عندما تجتهد في قمع اللاوعي، قد تتسبب لنفسك باعتلالات نفسية منها الانحراف والنكوص.
يقال أن فرويد يفسر كل شيء على ضوء الجنس، قد يكون ذلك صحيحًا، لكن من لم يقرأ لفرويد ستفوته نقطة مهمة: الجنس لدى فرويد مصطلح واسع وليس فقط العملية الجنسية كما يعرفها الرجل العادي. بل هي مبدأ يشمل ميول الإنسان نحو اللذة التي قد لا تكون لها علاقة مباشرة بالأعضاء الجنسية. إذا استوعبت تلك الفكرة فقد تفهم ما يحاول الرجل قوله.
يتألف الكتاب من حوالي 28 محاضرة، تنقسم إلى عدد من المواضيع الرئيسية: سيكولوجيا الخطأ، التطور الجنسي، الأحلام، والأمراض النفسية. اقتنيت الكتاب كمدخل مبسط للتحليل النفسي إذا أنني أخطط لقراءة كتاب مهم في علم النفس واعتقدت أنه من الحصافة أن اتحضر له بقراءة تمهيدية.
قرأت هذا الكتاب لأحصل على مقدمة مبسطة للتحليل النفسي، لكنني خرجت من الكتاب بعقدة نفسية. لا ألوم الموضوع ولا المؤلف بالرغم من أن هذا الأخير يتحدث بإطناب مع الكثير من الجمل الاعتراضية. أتفهم أنه كان يستبق اعتراضات الجمهور وشكوكهم لذا كان يرد عليهم مسبقًا. كان ذلك مفهومًأ وقتها إذ كان التحليل النفسي علم وليد يهاجمه الكثير. ما كرهته حقًأ هو النسخة التي حصلت عليها، صفحات ضخمة تقريبا بحجم ورق )أي فور)، بأسطر طويلة تتعب حتى أصل إلى آخرها وإذا وصلت إلى آخرها ألاقي صعوبة في الانتقال إلى السطر التالي، بل أنيي كثيرًا ما كنت أعيد قراءة السطر نفسه بسبب طوله وضياع الخط البصري الذي يساعدك في التنقل بين الأسطر بسلاسة. لأول مرة أكره كتابًا بسبب حجمه وطريقة طباعته. لا أنصح أحدًا بقراءة أو اهداء نسخة مثل هذه لأحد، إلا ابن خالتك ثقيل الظل الذي يضايقك في اليقظة والمنام على حد سواء.
August 20, 2017
After my long agonizing exodus of reading this book (3 volumes translated in my place), I wished one thing: strangling Freud’s dead body and killing him once again.
But then, I thought.
What if my throttling him, it’s subconsciously related to one simple sexual act, the fulfilling action of a hand job? My fingers wrapped around his neck causing satisfying pressure.
This means I wanna kill somebody’s dick.
And that is wrong, very wrong.
Thus, I thought again.
Maybe me suffocating him in reality, it’s my subconscious relieving its hate and killing intentions toward my mom since she wouldn’t let me sleep with my father and nonexistent brother.
Which is fucking insane (lapsus linguae, I really wanted to use the word “freaking” but I mistook it with fucking ‘cause I was actually thinking about having sex).
Therefore, I gave it another try.
Perhaps the act of choking him, it’s me wishing to die since this society represses my sexual incestuous urges. I’m suicidal.
If the conclusions above are true, I should be locked in a psychiatric hospital.
Thank you Freud!
But then, I thought.
What if my throttling him, it’s subconsciously related to one simple sexual act, the fulfilling action of a hand job? My fingers wrapped around his neck causing satisfying pressure.
This means I wanna kill somebody’s dick.
And that is wrong, very wrong.
Thus, I thought again.
Maybe me suffocating him in reality, it’s my subconscious relieving its hate and killing intentions toward my mom since she wouldn’t let me sleep with my father and nonexistent brother.
Which is fucking insane (lapsus linguae, I really wanted to use the word “freaking” but I mistook it with fucking ‘cause I was actually thinking about having sex).
Therefore, I gave it another try.
Perhaps the act of choking him, it’s me wishing to die since this society represses my sexual incestuous urges. I’m suicidal.
If the conclusions above are true, I should be locked in a psychiatric hospital.
Thank you Freud!
February 10, 2017
دوستانِ گرانقدر، در این کتاب زنده یاد <فروید> در موردِ مسائلِ گوناگونی در رابطه با روانکاوی سخن گفته است و برخی از سخنرانی هایِ او در این کتاب جمع آوری شده است، که در موردِ بسیاری از آنها در ریویوهایِ دیگر برایِ شما عزیزان نوشته ام... بنظرم یکی از بهترین بخشهای این سخنان مربوط میشود به "هنر" و "هنرمند"، که در زیر تلاش کرده ام تا چکیده ای از این سخنانِ خردمندانه را برایِ شما دوستداران دانش، بنویسم
--------------------------------------------------
هنرمند بیمارِ دردمندی است که برایِ کاستن از دردِ خویش، ناله و درد و دل میکند، ولی دردهایش به چشمِ دیگران بیگانه نمی آید و پیامش مردمان را به همدردی و دلسوزی وا می دارد. از این رو است که "هنر" زبانِ شیوایِ اعماقِ وجودِ انسانیست، کهنه شدنی نیست، در هر زمان و مکانی فهم میشود و کلیدِ بازکنندهٔ چم و خمِ روانِ انسانی میباشد
هنرمند، انسانِ محرومی است که در عالمِ خیال منزوی میشود، ولی پس از مدتی به عالمِ واقعیت بازمیگردد... به مانندِ بیماری است که به مرگ پناه میبرد، ولی به کمکِ "تولد دوباره" به زندگانی جدید بازمیگردد
از خیالبافی به واقعیت، راهی است که آن را "هنر" مینامیم... "هنرمند" طبعی درون نگر دارد و از مبتلایانِ به اختلالاتِ روانی چیزی کم ندارد.. مشتاقِ به دست آوردنِ افتخار و قدرت و شهرت و ثروت و عشق
است. امّا برایِ تأمینِ کامرواییِ خویش، وسیله ای ندارد... لذا به مانندِ تمامیِ ناکامان، به حقیقت و واقعیت پشت میکند.. امّا در عالمِ خیال دنیایِ زیبایی میسازد که هر روحِ گرسنه ای برایِ آسایش و آرامشِ خود، جویایِ آن است.. پس موردِ سپاسگزاری و ستایشِ مردمان قرار میگیرد و آنچه را که ممکن بود فقط در واقعیت بدست آورد، از طریقِ خیال بدست می آورد
هنگامی که هنرمند از دنیایِ واقعی به سویِ عالمِ خیال کوچ میکند، از نیروهایِ ناخودآگاه سود میجوید و کامهایِ وازده را چنان می آراید که حتی سانسور نیز مانعِ ابرازِ آنها نمیشود و در نظرِ دیگران خوش می آید و سببِ به شهرت رسیدن و افتخارِ وی میگردد و محرومیت ها و ناخوشی هایِ روانیِ او را از این طریق جبران میکند
------------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما خردگرایان، مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
--------------------------------------------------
هنرمند بیمارِ دردمندی است که برایِ کاستن از دردِ خویش، ناله و درد و دل میکند، ولی دردهایش به چشمِ دیگران بیگانه نمی آید و پیامش مردمان را به همدردی و دلسوزی وا می دارد. از این رو است که "هنر" زبانِ شیوایِ اعماقِ وجودِ انسانیست، کهنه شدنی نیست، در هر زمان و مکانی فهم میشود و کلیدِ بازکنندهٔ چم و خمِ روانِ انسانی میباشد
هنرمند، انسانِ محرومی است که در عالمِ خیال منزوی میشود، ولی پس از مدتی به عالمِ واقعیت بازمیگردد... به مانندِ بیماری است که به مرگ پناه میبرد، ولی به کمکِ "تولد دوباره" به زندگانی جدید بازمیگردد
از خیالبافی به واقعیت، راهی است که آن را "هنر" مینامیم... "هنرمند" طبعی درون نگر دارد و از مبتلایانِ به اختلالاتِ روانی چیزی کم ندارد.. مشتاقِ به دست آوردنِ افتخار و قدرت و شهرت و ثروت و عشق
است. امّا برایِ تأمینِ کامرواییِ خویش، وسیله ای ندارد... لذا به مانندِ تمامیِ ناکامان، به حقیقت و واقعیت پشت میکند.. امّا در عالمِ خیال دنیایِ زیبایی میسازد که هر روحِ گرسنه ای برایِ آسایش و آرامشِ خود، جویایِ آن است.. پس موردِ سپاسگزاری و ستایشِ مردمان قرار میگیرد و آنچه را که ممکن بود فقط در واقعیت بدست آورد، از طریقِ خیال بدست می آورد
هنگامی که هنرمند از دنیایِ واقعی به سویِ عالمِ خیال کوچ میکند، از نیروهایِ ناخودآگاه سود میجوید و کامهایِ وازده را چنان می آراید که حتی سانسور نیز مانعِ ابرازِ آنها نمیشود و در نظرِ دیگران خوش می آید و سببِ به شهرت رسیدن و افتخارِ وی میگردد و محرومیت ها و ناخوشی هایِ روانیِ او را از این طریق جبران میکند
------------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما خردگرایان، مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
November 11, 2020
Near his life's end he recorded [on audio] these words:"I started my professional activity trying to bring relief to my neurotic patients. I discovered some important new facts about the unconscious. People did not believe in my facts and thought my theories unsavory. In the end I succeeded, but the struggle is not yet over".
It had its 1st edition in 1920 and the book was aimed at laypeople.
In its preface, Stanley Hall noticed that Psychoanalysis was not much of a topic for the APA (American Psychological Association), though, in other fields (biography, education, literature, history...) it had gained widespread interest.
I would divide the topics approached, in these 28 lectures, in three main areas: (1) the psychology of Errors; (2) the Dream; (3) the Neurosis.
On the first topic, Freud (pretending the audience is like the ignorant, neurotic patient) approaches with very simple terms some phenomena common to any terrestrial human being: slips of tongue, forgetting (of names, included), loosing and mislaying objects. All these, have a hidden meaning.
Of special relevance are words themselves and these paradigmatic lines of Freud: "...words were originally magic...with words one can make others blessed" (or otherwise).
In the unveiling of meaning, Freud warns about projection, and cautions the un-familiarized mind: "first study oneself". Three lectures are dedicated to those above mentioned "errors".
Much is to be dedicated to the Dream topic, 12 lectures to be precise. It's a broad, exemplified part, which takes the reader into this ever-puzzling area: dreams, which are often "blurred, senseless, absurd" ....but some have meaning.
Psychoanalysis is a good framework for interpretation. Like symptoms in the (neurotic) disease, (so) dreams have meaning; there's the "manifest content" and "the LATENT dream thought". You'll always be after the latter.
Finally, some lectures have been addressed to psychopathology, namely, the General Theory of Neurosis. "Libido-driven" explanations of neurosis and technical issues make part of the remaining lectures.
A good introduction.
It had its 1st edition in 1920 and the book was aimed at laypeople.
In its preface, Stanley Hall noticed that Psychoanalysis was not much of a topic for the APA (American Psychological Association), though, in other fields (biography, education, literature, history...) it had gained widespread interest.
I would divide the topics approached, in these 28 lectures, in three main areas: (1) the psychology of Errors; (2) the Dream; (3) the Neurosis.
"A slip of the tongue which occurs in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Act III, Scene II, is exceedingly delicate in its poetic motivation and technically brilliant in its handling". (...)
Goethe said, "Where he jokes, there lurks a problem concealed."
On the first topic, Freud (pretending the audience is like the ignorant, neurotic patient) approaches with very simple terms some phenomena common to any terrestrial human being: slips of tongue, forgetting (of names, included), loosing and mislaying objects. All these, have a hidden meaning.
Of special relevance are words themselves and these paradigmatic lines of Freud: "...words were originally magic...with words one can make others blessed" (or otherwise).
In the unveiling of meaning, Freud warns about projection, and cautions the un-familiarized mind: "first study oneself". Three lectures are dedicated to those above mentioned "errors".
Much is to be dedicated to the Dream topic, 12 lectures to be precise. It's a broad, exemplified part, which takes the reader into this ever-puzzling area: dreams, which are often "blurred, senseless, absurd" ....but some have meaning.
Psychoanalysis is a good framework for interpretation. Like symptoms in the (neurotic) disease, (so) dreams have meaning; there's the "manifest content" and "the LATENT dream thought". You'll always be after the latter.
Finally, some lectures have been addressed to psychopathology, namely, the General Theory of Neurosis. "Libido-driven" explanations of neurosis and technical issues make part of the remaining lectures.
A good introduction.
Read
May 20, 2017“What it’s like to be a fucking human being” is a phrase we know to be DFW’s characterization of the kind of fiction he was intent on creating. The sentiment has a long tradition of compelling the creation of great books, back through Barth and Pynchon, Joyce and Proust, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Shakespeare and Rabelais, Homer and Socrates. Add to the series the name “Freud,” who along with Marx and Nietzsche, these three masters of suspicion, turned our attention to an element of being human from which it was always happier to turn away. These three masters of suspicion developed an analysis and criticism which showed that there was more to being human than can be had by the mere assumption of the self’s transparency to itself. With Marx, the human being is subject to an ideology which functions behind the scenes; with Nietzsche, the exercise of Power is discovered even within the attempts of our most altruistic practices; and with Freud the Copernican revolution is completed with the discovery of a psychic territory known as the unconscious, that territory which mythology had populated with devils and demons, which Paul found as “sin living within me” when he finds that that which he desired to do he could not do and that which he despised was that which he did do.
Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, a series of public lectures delivered over the course of two academic terms, 1915-16 and 1916-17, in Vienna, shows Freud at his most popularizing, developing the mode of investigation which is psycho-analysis, then still a young science, to an audience at once curious and skeptical. As such, these lectures are to be highly commended to the curious reader today in so far as we all know already what Freud’s up to and why he is long ago discredited, his theories disproven, his thinking mired in Victorian morality and misogyny, his system unscientific, himself excessively obsessed with sexuality, etc etc. All of which common places about Freud, all such know-betterisms are laid to rest in these lectures as Freud listens to and responds to all the common objections to this work, the same then as now. His mode of presentation is dialogic, engaged in a conversation with his audience. His thinking hesitates, he feels out the limits of what psycho-analysis has accomplished, what is still unknown, where he has had success and how he has failed, in which direction he has had to change his mind, together with the editor’s footnotes which connect various passages of the lectures with Freud’s other writings, indicating where and when and how Freud’s thinking changed and developed, we get the impression of a massive undertaking which cannot exist in any dogmatic framework.
These lectures are divided into three sections functioning to bring the audience step-wise into the methods of interpretation which is psycho-analysis, the discovery of meaning within apparently meaningless activities of the human being. First is the discussion of parapraxes, the infamous “Freudian slip” of the tongue. This is followed by a relatively compact discussion of the interpretation of dreams which is more fully developed in his famous The Interpretation of Dreams. If I may digress on this just a moment, the kernel of this interpretation of dreams is not so much about turning the manifest dream content into a “true” meaning found in its latent content, what it is “really about,” but rather to understand the dream work itself, the contortion and displacement of the latent into the manifest content, what it is that is functioning here that disallows the “true meaning” itself to show itself directly but only in a perverted form which we do experience as dream. But enough. The third section of the lectures takes us then into psycho-analysis proper, the understanding of the neuroses. As is the nature of such pedagogical steppings deeper into a given matter, here Freud’s thinking and presentation become more dense and subject to greater misunderstanding. A discussion of the neuroses is beyond the capacity of this review and indeed of this reviewer. Nevertheless, careful reading of this third portion of lectures provides a great deal of insight into Freud’s concerns and methodologies.
Common as Freud’s thought is, it is still baffling to me how little of this thinking is actually understood in proportion to the ubiquity of his name upon the western person’s tongue. He is the subject of too easy jokes, but has written a bit on jokes which should be of interest to anyone who enjoys a good joke at Sigmund’s expense, The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious. Also of interest, I’m sure, to the average person desirous of avenging themself upon Freud would be his The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. The volume of our present attention should also be paired with the later New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, published in 1933.
Discussing resistance to Freud is a slippery proposition. There are certainly objections to be made, clarifications to be asked for, some things to be rejected, items which must be more fully developed, etc, etc. But what is most dangerous perhaps, and even disingenuous, as Freud himself would acknowledge, is to treat this resistance as a symptom of a neurosis which can only be resolved by analysis. But analysis belongs on the couch, not in public conversation and discussion about a scientific methodology.
Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, a series of public lectures delivered over the course of two academic terms, 1915-16 and 1916-17, in Vienna, shows Freud at his most popularizing, developing the mode of investigation which is psycho-analysis, then still a young science, to an audience at once curious and skeptical. As such, these lectures are to be highly commended to the curious reader today in so far as we all know already what Freud’s up to and why he is long ago discredited, his theories disproven, his thinking mired in Victorian morality and misogyny, his system unscientific, himself excessively obsessed with sexuality, etc etc. All of which common places about Freud, all such know-betterisms are laid to rest in these lectures as Freud listens to and responds to all the common objections to this work, the same then as now. His mode of presentation is dialogic, engaged in a conversation with his audience. His thinking hesitates, he feels out the limits of what psycho-analysis has accomplished, what is still unknown, where he has had success and how he has failed, in which direction he has had to change his mind, together with the editor’s footnotes which connect various passages of the lectures with Freud’s other writings, indicating where and when and how Freud’s thinking changed and developed, we get the impression of a massive undertaking which cannot exist in any dogmatic framework.
These lectures are divided into three sections functioning to bring the audience step-wise into the methods of interpretation which is psycho-analysis, the discovery of meaning within apparently meaningless activities of the human being. First is the discussion of parapraxes, the infamous “Freudian slip” of the tongue. This is followed by a relatively compact discussion of the interpretation of dreams which is more fully developed in his famous The Interpretation of Dreams. If I may digress on this just a moment, the kernel of this interpretation of dreams is not so much about turning the manifest dream content into a “true” meaning found in its latent content, what it is “really about,” but rather to understand the dream work itself, the contortion and displacement of the latent into the manifest content, what it is that is functioning here that disallows the “true meaning” itself to show itself directly but only in a perverted form which we do experience as dream. But enough. The third section of the lectures takes us then into psycho-analysis proper, the understanding of the neuroses. As is the nature of such pedagogical steppings deeper into a given matter, here Freud’s thinking and presentation become more dense and subject to greater misunderstanding. A discussion of the neuroses is beyond the capacity of this review and indeed of this reviewer. Nevertheless, careful reading of this third portion of lectures provides a great deal of insight into Freud’s concerns and methodologies.
Common as Freud’s thought is, it is still baffling to me how little of this thinking is actually understood in proportion to the ubiquity of his name upon the western person’s tongue. He is the subject of too easy jokes, but has written a bit on jokes which should be of interest to anyone who enjoys a good joke at Sigmund’s expense, The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious. Also of interest, I’m sure, to the average person desirous of avenging themself upon Freud would be his The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. The volume of our present attention should also be paired with the later New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, published in 1933.
Discussing resistance to Freud is a slippery proposition. There are certainly objections to be made, clarifications to be asked for, some things to be rejected, items which must be more fully developed, etc, etc. But what is most dangerous perhaps, and even disingenuous, as Freud himself would acknowledge, is to treat this resistance as a symptom of a neurosis which can only be resolved by analysis. But analysis belongs on the couch, not in public conversation and discussion about a scientific methodology.
December 13, 2014
Freud was a genius. That in no way means he was always right. But you ignore him at your peril if you are interested in understanding the human condition.
May 3, 2016
One is not advised to just jump into Freud, as I did, taking little account of the order of his publications. He revised his theories too often.
I was fortunate to read this series of lectures early on, although I would have been even more fortunate to have read his earlier work on hysteria first. Here Freud's theory is presented simply in lectures intended for a lay audience and here Freud's theory itself is still relatively simple compared to developments post-Beyond the Pleasure Principle.
I read this during the height of the Watergate investigations while living at grandmother's Michigan cabin with my brother Fin and a close high school friend. Having no television, phonograph or tape player, there was a lot of good reading done that summer.
I was fortunate to read this series of lectures early on, although I would have been even more fortunate to have read his earlier work on hysteria first. Here Freud's theory is presented simply in lectures intended for a lay audience and here Freud's theory itself is still relatively simple compared to developments post-Beyond the Pleasure Principle.
I read this during the height of the Watergate investigations while living at grandmother's Michigan cabin with my brother Fin and a close high school friend. Having no television, phonograph or tape player, there was a lot of good reading done that summer.
February 20, 2017
Am citit o ediţie publicată în 1980, deci încă pe vremea lu' Ceaşcă. Partea cea mai frumoasă şi demnă de studiat a volumului este reprezentată de faptul că acesta este dedicat "profesorilor universitari şi studenţilor, viitori profesori", după cum se statuează pe prima pagină. Deloc de neglijat, dacă avem în vedere o eventuală cumpănire a comuniştilor între dispreţul faţă de ştiinţele umaniste şi teama că ceea ce a putut scrie Freud ar putea ajuta pe cineva.
Tre' să zic de la început că mi-am pierdut timpul cu volumul ăsta. Spun că mi-am pierdut timpul pentru că... i-am alocat mult timp. Două săptămâni. Nu pot să neg faptul că e ceva greu de digerat, chiar Freud începându-şi o "prelegere" cu următoarea construcţie: "Când veţi fi medici..." (deci nu "dacă"). Aşadar, noţiunea de "introducere" din titlu e doar o pură pedanterie (nu se poate să va explic mai simplu de-atât, fraierilor!)...
În privinţa limbajului, nu se poate contesta "legitimitatea" acestuia, în raport cu titlul, cel dintâi fiind chiar accesibil (şi nu-s ironic!), dat fiind că nu se întâmpină dificultăţi de înţelegere sub acest aspect, cu excepţia unor noţiuni aruncate pe la începuturile capitolelor, noţiuni pe care Freud reuşeşte însă să le definitiveze şi să le cristalzeze în conştiinţa cititorului pe parcurs.
Apoi, cartea e structurată în trei părţi. Le voi lua pe rând.
Prima parte este intitulată "actele ratate", prin această construcţie Freud înţelegând "erorile de limbaj" care intervin adesea fie în vorbirea curentă, fie în cadrul unor cuvântări solemne. În această privinţa, "întemeietorul psihanalizei" ne spune că respectivele acte ratate denotă exact ceea ce s-a afirmat prin respectiva eroare de limbaj. Dar, pentru a înţelege exact ce este un astfel de act, să luăm un exemplu din autorul de faţă: Freud relatează succint ceea ce s-a întâmplat într-o şedinţa a Parlamentului austriac, anume că preşedintele Parlamentului, la prima întrunire legală a acestuia, şi-a început cuvântarea cu afirmaţia "Declar şedinţa ÎNCHISĂ!". Eu unul nu pot contesta presupoziţia (şi doar presupoziţia!) lui Freud în această privinţă. Bineînţeles că respectivul parlamentar voia să declare şedinţa DESCHISĂ, dar simplul fapt că a comis respectivul act ratat (ce crimă!, după cum se va vedea), ne împinge să credem că era extrem de plictisit şi ştia că respectiva şedinţă nu are nicio valoare şi, mai mult, voia să ajungă acasă să se culce cu nevasta-sa. Astfel, în această formă primară a actului ratat, în care cuvântul rostit denotă exact simţămintele vorbitorului, psihanalistul, în situaţia faptică dată, va încerca să-i demonstreze (!) pacientului ceea ce am expus mai sus. Desigur, pe marginea acestei forme a actului ratat nu se poate face prea multă teorie (lucru de care Freud este parcă obsedat), aşa că, vezi, Dumnezeule, se găsesc şi alte forme... şi -tot desigur!- nu mai puţin demne de admirare. De pildă, ni se întâmplă adesea să avem în minte o frază mai lungă sau o strofă dintr-o poezie. Ei bine, să admitem sau să ne punem în situaţia în care am vrea să rostim sau, respectiv, să recităm fraza sau, după caz, poezia. Freud dezvoltă aici o altă teorie, căreia nu i se poate contesta decât parţial şi cu mult efort "legitimitatea". Ni se întâmplă adesea ca, atunci când încercăm să scoatem vorbele pe gură, să înşirăm câteva (de pildă primele versuri) şi, apoi, spontan, să încheiem cu ultimul vers, sărind alte câteva. În ceea ce vrea Freud să demonstreze nu importă faptul că ne aducem aminte sau nu de respectivele versuri omise. Ceea ce rezultă, "psihanalitic", e că vorbitorul e foooarte plictisit şi doreşte să termine cât mai repede respectiva frază sau poezie. :). Fără a sta să analizăm toate tipurile de acte ratate, care sunt din ce în ce mai complexe, trebuie să admitem că presupoziţiilor lui Freud i s-ar putea aduce o gama largă de contestaţii. *De pildă, fiind la prima şedinţa a Parlamentului, respectivul, pentru prima dată în acea funcţie, are nişte emoţii pe care Freud nici nu şi le-ar putea imagina. Acest lucru ar putea sta în faţa teoriei pe care Freud o admite fără să lase loc de critici.* Aşa, după cum am spus, sunt analizate şi alte tipuri de acte ratate, mult mai complexe, dar toturor li s-ar putea găsi neajunsuri.
A doua parte este intitulată "Visul". Acum habar nu am ce să spun despre asta. Poate sunt eu prea idiot astfel încât să nu admit aşa ceva, însă cred că raţionamentul meu e, dacă nu perfect sănătos, cel puţin, atunci când situaţia o cere, încadrat în limitele normalului (de parcă raţionamentul ar putea fi altfel decât perfect, dar meh...). Sincer... mi-a pierit tot cheful de viaţă când am ajuns la partea asta. Nu pentru că m-ar fi deprimat, că mi se întâmplă din ce în ce mai rar să mă deprime o carte, dar balanţă înclină spre alte lucruri (de parcă poţi să scapi!), dar pur şi simplu te seacă de nervi. Vine ăsta (Freud, adică) şi expune un fapt. Bun. Expune un fapt. Nicio problemă. Expune un fapt însă, iar apoi emite o afirmaţie. Bun, hai să zicem că nu e nicio problemă nici acum. Situaţia devine însă muuult mai critică atunci când, pe baza afirmaţiei respective, tu emiţi o teorie pe care o începi cu "Admiţând asta...". Păi -bre!- de ce?! Ori e literatură, ori e ceva de specialitate?! Poate nu admit şi basta cu teoria ta! Da' în fine, a fost foarte greu de digerat sub mai multe aspecte. De pildă, este esenţial de reţinut că la Freud majoritate viselor, chiar şi cele caracterizate de banalitate sau de inocenţa, au implicaţii sexuale. La un moment dat, chiar se oboseşte să enumere elementele care corespund fie actului sexual, fie organului genital. Pe scurt şi fără zăbavă, la Freud nu ar putea există vis fără implicaţii sexuale, deoarece în categoria grupurilor de elemente pe care le statuează se pot încadra aproape toate lucrurile.
Şi e muulta teorie pe tema visului, teorie care, am simţit-o eu (doar eu!), e de nimci. De pildă, în privinţa subiectului supus analizei, este important de reţinut teza freudiană a cenzurii onirice: este inerent visului, prin natură lui, că inconştientul să înfăţişeze elemente sexuale propriu-zise, astfel încât se recurge la aşa-numita simbolistică a visului. Aici intervine cenzura. Cică noi am fost educaţi, astfel încât să nu fim animalici, astfel că în vis nu suntem animale. Clar şi simplu. Visul este însă prin natura lui animalic, primar, rudimentar... şi aici intervine cenzura aia. Că, na, suntem educaţi şi dalta asta a educaţiei modelează. Nici nu mai vreau să scriu despre asta. Am selectat ceteva elemente demne de crezare, dar restul chiar mi se par aberaţii.
Dar încă ceva. Zic de mie pentru că "psihanaliza se studiază pe tine însuţi". Am trecut peste teza potrivit căreia fiecare vis are implicaţii sexuale. Bine. La Freud, mugurii, frunzuliţele şi plantele abia răsărite simbolizează dorinţa virginităţii. Şi, no, credeţi-mă că io-s obsedat de ideea de virginitate, de puritate... şi n-am visat niciodată elementele alea. Nici măcar flori, nici copaci, nimiiic. Am visat că am fost îngropat în zăpadă, am visat că am dormit pe malul marii şi m-a luat fluxul, am visat că îmi curge sângele din nas că la robinet şi, mai nou, că mă acuză cineva (care în realitate e un munte de om, dar în vis era un pitic) pe nedrept de incest pe baza articolului 108 din Constituţie. Articolul 108 nu are nicio treabă cu incestul, dar niciodată nu am visat muguri. Niciodată.
În fine, a treia parte e dedicată "teoriei generale a nevrozelor", teorie pe care numai Freud a putut să o numească generală. În fapt, ea e de o particularitate exemplară. Nu se poate stoarce chiar nimic de acolo. Nimic. Adică nicio teza. Citeşti totul că o poveste. Restul - concluzii pe marginea poveştii. Mi-a plăcut însă mult un capitol dedicat reveriilor, pe care Freud le asociază cu înclinaţiile artistice. E o teza complexă, prea drăguţă şi prea fină pentru a fi relevată succint aici. Da' sunt sigur că toţi ne-am putea analiza prin prisma lor, căci îmi e foarte greu să cred că nu există om care să nu fi visat cu ochii deschişi. Mie mi se întâmplă des. Mă trezesc câteodată la volan, cu turaţia la 4.000 şi mergând pe contrasens, aproape să întru în şanţ, gândindu-mă cum îi tăi degetele (mhm, să nu fiu vulgar!) lu' Dragnea, le prăjesc pe gratar şi i le dau să le mănânce. Dar atât despre teoria generală a nevrozelor, care rămâne şi teorie, şi generală doar cu numele.
Concluzionând, studiul are părţile lui bune (luate fragmentar şi desprinse de context), dar şi părţile lui rele. Se înţelege că e subiectiv. Eu, însă, nu recomand. E mult, e destul de prost şi e cu puţin rost. Găsim teze interesante: construcţia filogenetică, preistorică, îmbinată cu elemente din fragedă copilărie, alcătuiesc structura psihică a individului matur. Găsim, însă, şi teorie expusă de dragul de a scrie. Nu contest legitimitatea, cum am mai spus, dar că nu se poate vorbi de o teorie a psihanalizei. Se poate, cel mult, vorbi de o teorie a individului, luat singular. Am avea, numai în această materie, 7 miliarde de teorii de care nici dracului nu i-ar pasă. :)
Nu recomand decât celor pasionaţi de psihologie (deci nu fetiţelor care se aruncă în stânga şi-n dreapta cu psihologia, ci ălora care ştiu ce-i aia psihologie. Mă rog, psihanaliză e altceva. Dar se înţelege.)
Andrei Tamaş,
18 februarie 2017
Tre' să zic de la început că mi-am pierdut timpul cu volumul ăsta. Spun că mi-am pierdut timpul pentru că... i-am alocat mult timp. Două săptămâni. Nu pot să neg faptul că e ceva greu de digerat, chiar Freud începându-şi o "prelegere" cu următoarea construcţie: "Când veţi fi medici..." (deci nu "dacă"). Aşadar, noţiunea de "introducere" din titlu e doar o pură pedanterie (nu se poate să va explic mai simplu de-atât, fraierilor!)...
În privinţa limbajului, nu se poate contesta "legitimitatea" acestuia, în raport cu titlul, cel dintâi fiind chiar accesibil (şi nu-s ironic!), dat fiind că nu se întâmpină dificultăţi de înţelegere sub acest aspect, cu excepţia unor noţiuni aruncate pe la începuturile capitolelor, noţiuni pe care Freud reuşeşte însă să le definitiveze şi să le cristalzeze în conştiinţa cititorului pe parcurs.
Apoi, cartea e structurată în trei părţi. Le voi lua pe rând.
Prima parte este intitulată "actele ratate", prin această construcţie Freud înţelegând "erorile de limbaj" care intervin adesea fie în vorbirea curentă, fie în cadrul unor cuvântări solemne. În această privinţa, "întemeietorul psihanalizei" ne spune că respectivele acte ratate denotă exact ceea ce s-a afirmat prin respectiva eroare de limbaj. Dar, pentru a înţelege exact ce este un astfel de act, să luăm un exemplu din autorul de faţă: Freud relatează succint ceea ce s-a întâmplat într-o şedinţa a Parlamentului austriac, anume că preşedintele Parlamentului, la prima întrunire legală a acestuia, şi-a început cuvântarea cu afirmaţia "Declar şedinţa ÎNCHISĂ!". Eu unul nu pot contesta presupoziţia (şi doar presupoziţia!) lui Freud în această privinţă. Bineînţeles că respectivul parlamentar voia să declare şedinţa DESCHISĂ, dar simplul fapt că a comis respectivul act ratat (ce crimă!, după cum se va vedea), ne împinge să credem că era extrem de plictisit şi ştia că respectiva şedinţă nu are nicio valoare şi, mai mult, voia să ajungă acasă să se culce cu nevasta-sa. Astfel, în această formă primară a actului ratat, în care cuvântul rostit denotă exact simţămintele vorbitorului, psihanalistul, în situaţia faptică dată, va încerca să-i demonstreze (!) pacientului ceea ce am expus mai sus. Desigur, pe marginea acestei forme a actului ratat nu se poate face prea multă teorie (lucru de care Freud este parcă obsedat), aşa că, vezi, Dumnezeule, se găsesc şi alte forme... şi -tot desigur!- nu mai puţin demne de admirare. De pildă, ni se întâmplă adesea să avem în minte o frază mai lungă sau o strofă dintr-o poezie. Ei bine, să admitem sau să ne punem în situaţia în care am vrea să rostim sau, respectiv, să recităm fraza sau, după caz, poezia. Freud dezvoltă aici o altă teorie, căreia nu i se poate contesta decât parţial şi cu mult efort "legitimitatea". Ni se întâmplă adesea ca, atunci când încercăm să scoatem vorbele pe gură, să înşirăm câteva (de pildă primele versuri) şi, apoi, spontan, să încheiem cu ultimul vers, sărind alte câteva. În ceea ce vrea Freud să demonstreze nu importă faptul că ne aducem aminte sau nu de respectivele versuri omise. Ceea ce rezultă, "psihanalitic", e că vorbitorul e foooarte plictisit şi doreşte să termine cât mai repede respectiva frază sau poezie. :). Fără a sta să analizăm toate tipurile de acte ratate, care sunt din ce în ce mai complexe, trebuie să admitem că presupoziţiilor lui Freud i s-ar putea aduce o gama largă de contestaţii. *De pildă, fiind la prima şedinţa a Parlamentului, respectivul, pentru prima dată în acea funcţie, are nişte emoţii pe care Freud nici nu şi le-ar putea imagina. Acest lucru ar putea sta în faţa teoriei pe care Freud o admite fără să lase loc de critici.* Aşa, după cum am spus, sunt analizate şi alte tipuri de acte ratate, mult mai complexe, dar toturor li s-ar putea găsi neajunsuri.
A doua parte este intitulată "Visul". Acum habar nu am ce să spun despre asta. Poate sunt eu prea idiot astfel încât să nu admit aşa ceva, însă cred că raţionamentul meu e, dacă nu perfect sănătos, cel puţin, atunci când situaţia o cere, încadrat în limitele normalului (de parcă raţionamentul ar putea fi altfel decât perfect, dar meh...). Sincer... mi-a pierit tot cheful de viaţă când am ajuns la partea asta. Nu pentru că m-ar fi deprimat, că mi se întâmplă din ce în ce mai rar să mă deprime o carte, dar balanţă înclină spre alte lucruri (de parcă poţi să scapi!), dar pur şi simplu te seacă de nervi. Vine ăsta (Freud, adică) şi expune un fapt. Bun. Expune un fapt. Nicio problemă. Expune un fapt însă, iar apoi emite o afirmaţie. Bun, hai să zicem că nu e nicio problemă nici acum. Situaţia devine însă muuult mai critică atunci când, pe baza afirmaţiei respective, tu emiţi o teorie pe care o începi cu "Admiţând asta...". Păi -bre!- de ce?! Ori e literatură, ori e ceva de specialitate?! Poate nu admit şi basta cu teoria ta! Da' în fine, a fost foarte greu de digerat sub mai multe aspecte. De pildă, este esenţial de reţinut că la Freud majoritate viselor, chiar şi cele caracterizate de banalitate sau de inocenţa, au implicaţii sexuale. La un moment dat, chiar se oboseşte să enumere elementele care corespund fie actului sexual, fie organului genital. Pe scurt şi fără zăbavă, la Freud nu ar putea există vis fără implicaţii sexuale, deoarece în categoria grupurilor de elemente pe care le statuează se pot încadra aproape toate lucrurile.
Şi e muulta teorie pe tema visului, teorie care, am simţit-o eu (doar eu!), e de nimci. De pildă, în privinţa subiectului supus analizei, este important de reţinut teza freudiană a cenzurii onirice: este inerent visului, prin natură lui, că inconştientul să înfăţişeze elemente sexuale propriu-zise, astfel încât se recurge la aşa-numita simbolistică a visului. Aici intervine cenzura. Cică noi am fost educaţi, astfel încât să nu fim animalici, astfel că în vis nu suntem animale. Clar şi simplu. Visul este însă prin natura lui animalic, primar, rudimentar... şi aici intervine cenzura aia. Că, na, suntem educaţi şi dalta asta a educaţiei modelează. Nici nu mai vreau să scriu despre asta. Am selectat ceteva elemente demne de crezare, dar restul chiar mi se par aberaţii.
Dar încă ceva. Zic de mie pentru că "psihanaliza se studiază pe tine însuţi". Am trecut peste teza potrivit căreia fiecare vis are implicaţii sexuale. Bine. La Freud, mugurii, frunzuliţele şi plantele abia răsărite simbolizează dorinţa virginităţii. Şi, no, credeţi-mă că io-s obsedat de ideea de virginitate, de puritate... şi n-am visat niciodată elementele alea. Nici măcar flori, nici copaci, nimiiic. Am visat că am fost îngropat în zăpadă, am visat că am dormit pe malul marii şi m-a luat fluxul, am visat că îmi curge sângele din nas că la robinet şi, mai nou, că mă acuză cineva (care în realitate e un munte de om, dar în vis era un pitic) pe nedrept de incest pe baza articolului 108 din Constituţie. Articolul 108 nu are nicio treabă cu incestul, dar niciodată nu am visat muguri. Niciodată.
În fine, a treia parte e dedicată "teoriei generale a nevrozelor", teorie pe care numai Freud a putut să o numească generală. În fapt, ea e de o particularitate exemplară. Nu se poate stoarce chiar nimic de acolo. Nimic. Adică nicio teza. Citeşti totul că o poveste. Restul - concluzii pe marginea poveştii. Mi-a plăcut însă mult un capitol dedicat reveriilor, pe care Freud le asociază cu înclinaţiile artistice. E o teza complexă, prea drăguţă şi prea fină pentru a fi relevată succint aici. Da' sunt sigur că toţi ne-am putea analiza prin prisma lor, căci îmi e foarte greu să cred că nu există om care să nu fi visat cu ochii deschişi. Mie mi se întâmplă des. Mă trezesc câteodată la volan, cu turaţia la 4.000 şi mergând pe contrasens, aproape să întru în şanţ, gândindu-mă cum îi tăi degetele (mhm, să nu fiu vulgar!) lu' Dragnea, le prăjesc pe gratar şi i le dau să le mănânce. Dar atât despre teoria generală a nevrozelor, care rămâne şi teorie, şi generală doar cu numele.
Concluzionând, studiul are părţile lui bune (luate fragmentar şi desprinse de context), dar şi părţile lui rele. Se înţelege că e subiectiv. Eu, însă, nu recomand. E mult, e destul de prost şi e cu puţin rost. Găsim teze interesante: construcţia filogenetică, preistorică, îmbinată cu elemente din fragedă copilărie, alcătuiesc structura psihică a individului matur. Găsim, însă, şi teorie expusă de dragul de a scrie. Nu contest legitimitatea, cum am mai spus, dar că nu se poate vorbi de o teorie a psihanalizei. Se poate, cel mult, vorbi de o teorie a individului, luat singular. Am avea, numai în această materie, 7 miliarde de teorii de care nici dracului nu i-ar pasă. :)
Nu recomand decât celor pasionaţi de psihologie (deci nu fetiţelor care se aruncă în stânga şi-n dreapta cu psihologia, ci ălora care ştiu ce-i aia psihologie. Mă rog, psihanaliză e altceva. Dar se înţelege.)
Andrei Tamaş,
18 februarie 2017
July 7, 2019
I am extremely reluctant to embrace the psychodynamic orientation.
In fact, I have spent the majority of my training and career as therapist vehemently resistant to all things Freudian.
That being said.
I have recently become obsessed with Freud and the psychoanalytic traditions.
Not as a basis for objective truth claims. I probably won’t ever adopt the Freudian perspective in that way.
But as an orientation to relational psychotherapy.
Yass!
In this regard, the psychodynamic model is utterly on point.
I have literally noting of particular value to contribute to the scholarship and critique of this work.
But I will say.
Going to the original text is crucial.
All of my exposure to Freud until now has been via text books and other equally dubious sources.
I think that significantly contributed to my aversion and lack of clarity regarding Freuds work and legacy.
Reading the source material has been an amazing experience.
Full of cringeworthy moments, as one should expect from 19th century texts. But also full of surprisingly fresh and utterly relevant ideas as well.
The criticism is valid. Particularly the feminist and post modern critiques. But now I understand (at least a little better) what a towering genius Freud was, and what a profound impact this work had on the modern world.
I’m hooked 🎣.
In fact, I have spent the majority of my training and career as therapist vehemently resistant to all things Freudian.
That being said.
I have recently become obsessed with Freud and the psychoanalytic traditions.
Not as a basis for objective truth claims. I probably won’t ever adopt the Freudian perspective in that way.
But as an orientation to relational psychotherapy.
Yass!
In this regard, the psychodynamic model is utterly on point.
I have literally noting of particular value to contribute to the scholarship and critique of this work.
But I will say.
Going to the original text is crucial.
All of my exposure to Freud until now has been via text books and other equally dubious sources.
I think that significantly contributed to my aversion and lack of clarity regarding Freuds work and legacy.
Reading the source material has been an amazing experience.
Full of cringeworthy moments, as one should expect from 19th century texts. But also full of surprisingly fresh and utterly relevant ideas as well.
The criticism is valid. Particularly the feminist and post modern critiques. But now I understand (at least a little better) what a towering genius Freud was, and what a profound impact this work had on the modern world.
I’m hooked 🎣.
September 28, 2019
واااو 😍 ما أجمل القراءة للشخص بعد القراءة عنه كثيرا!
فرويد اسم ��قيل الوزن بلا شك، لذا كان الترقب كبيرا. بداية جيدة جدا، تحدث فيها فرويد في محاضرات خفيفة ارتجالية، لم تكتب بمنهجية علمية، ولم تدعم بأدلة مادية، وإنما اتبع فرويد فيها منهج القص والاستدلال بالواقع من هنا وهناك، كثير مما ذكره ستجده حدث معك أو أمامك، عن هفوات اللسان وما يقبع خلفها من إسقاطات ومعان، والرابط بينها وبين التطير، وهل لذلك أصل علمي يدعم أخبارها وأقاصيصها.
كذلك تطرق للنسيان، وهل خلف نسيانك للأشياء، وتضييعك لها دلالة نفسية؟ هل نحن حقا برآء من هفوات ألسنتنا وثقوب ذاكراتنا؟
أسرار مخيفة تنتظرك هنا بلا شك..
فرويد اسم ��قيل الوزن بلا شك، لذا كان الترقب كبيرا. بداية جيدة جدا، تحدث فيها فرويد في محاضرات خفيفة ارتجالية، لم تكتب بمنهجية علمية، ولم تدعم بأدلة مادية، وإنما اتبع فرويد فيها منهج القص والاستدلال بالواقع من هنا وهناك، كثير مما ذكره ستجده حدث معك أو أمامك، عن هفوات اللسان وما يقبع خلفها من إسقاطات ومعان، والرابط بينها وبين التطير، وهل لذلك أصل علمي يدعم أخبارها وأقاصيصها.
كذلك تطرق للنسيان، وهل خلف نسيانك للأشياء، وتضييعك لها دلالة نفسية؟ هل نحن حقا برآء من هفوات ألسنتنا وثقوب ذاكراتنا؟
أسرار مخيفة تنتظرك هنا بلا شك..
November 13, 2013
I had a goal when I started this book. Whenever I mentioned Freud to anyone, including those who had never read him, I seemed to get a pretty common response: "Oh, you mean the sex-obsessed psychologist?" My goal was to read this book, and then to explain that his "sex-obsession" did not exist, was blown out of proportion, etc. However, having finished this book, all I can say is that his critics were right. He was sex-obsessed. However, even though he traces way top many psychological problems and dream symbols back to sex, I think one of his main themes is correct. Sex plays a much larger role in human society than most people would like to admit. Having said that though, the extreme to which he takes this is ridiculous. In dreams, for example, he thinks that everything has a double meaning- and of course, that double meaning is sexual. According to Freud, everything from flying, to having your teeth pulled, to something as simple as an orange all have a sexual meaning behind them. Enough of this though. This is most of the book, so if what I have just described sounds really bizarre or silly, you probably should not bother reading this.
Even with his sex-obsession, I still found Freud quite interesting. Although many of his views have since been proven to be pseudo-scientific and just plain ridiculous, many of his ideas have also continued on to influence psychology. So, if you have any interest in the history of psychology, this book is probably quite important. Before I finish this review, I have one last note to make on this book. It is not really a book, and is actually a script for a series of lectures given by Freud as an introduction to his theories. So, in closing, even with how bizarre and crazy this book is much of the time, it is an important work of one of the giants of modern psychology, and should be read for its author's major influence on the future development of psychology.
Even with his sex-obsession, I still found Freud quite interesting. Although many of his views have since been proven to be pseudo-scientific and just plain ridiculous, many of his ideas have also continued on to influence psychology. So, if you have any interest in the history of psychology, this book is probably quite important. Before I finish this review, I have one last note to make on this book. It is not really a book, and is actually a script for a series of lectures given by Freud as an introduction to his theories. So, in closing, even with how bizarre and crazy this book is much of the time, it is an important work of one of the giants of modern psychology, and should be read for its author's major influence on the future development of psychology.
February 5, 2017
طغى التكرار وسرد الأمثلة على الكتاب،، لكن غياب الأدلة الداعمة لهذه الأمثلة اضعف المحتوى بشكل كبير وربما يرجع هذا الى كون المادة مأخوذة عن محاضرات ملقاة.
Read
December 27, 2018أراد فرويد بتجاربه الثرية، أن يعلم تلاميذه منهجًا جديدًا في استكشاف أمراض الناس النفسية وعلاجها وهو التحليل النفسي. لم يكن هذا المنهج تجريبيًا بديهيًا كما توهم الطلبة ذلك، وقد بين لهم فرويد الصعوبات التي ستواجههم في تعلم هذا المنهج.
الغموض الذي يلف التحليل النفسي قد يكسبه شيئًا من الهالة التي تمنع من فهمه على حقيقته، فهو إجراء لا يمكن تعلمه مثل طب الأبدان، كما أن استخلاص المعلومات فيه يجري بحذق شديد وعلاقة خاصة بين المعالج والمريض.
خلص فرويد بعد مطالعة عدد من الأعمال الأدبية والأبحاث المنشورة في علم الصوتيات إلى النظر فيما وراء المشعور به من الأفعال والأقوال، أراد أن يلمس تلك المنطقة المعتمة اللاشعورية ويسلط عليها بعضًا من الضوء، ليفسر من خلالها ما يظن امتناع تفسيره بالوسائل العلمية المتاحة.
كان الحديث عن اللاشعور لب المقدمة الأولى للتحليل النفسي، وكان الحديث عن الميول الجنسية لب المقدمة الثانية.
لم يكتف فرويد بهاتين المقدمتين، بل ذهب أبعد منهما إلى الهفوات. ذلك الجانب الذي يختزله الناس -بحسب فرويد- في بعض الظواهر الفيزيولوجية. في حين أنه يمتد لمعنى لا شعوري يتناوله صاحبه بالقمع أو يعبر عنه بسخرية.
وأسلوب فرويد يتسم بإيراد عدد من الأمثلة ثم استخلاص النتائج منها، ومناقشة الاعتراضات الواردة عليها.
سأقرأ -بإذن الله- كتابه اللاحق لهذا وهو محاضرات في التحليل النفسي.
وإلى الاقتباسات:
-
[من المستهدف بالتحليل النفسي؟]
"التحليل النفسي طريقة في المعالجة الطبية للاشخاص المصابين بأمراض عصبية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص7).
-
[ينبغي إطلاع العصابي على التحديات التي سيواجهها أثناء التحليل النفسي]
"فنحن نطلعه في هذه الحال على صعوبات هذه الطريقة وما تقتضيه من زمن وجهود وتضحيات ؛ أما عن النتيجة ، فنقول انه لا يسعنا أن نقطع له بوعد ، وانها مرهونة بمسلك المريض نفسه وبذكائه وصبره وإذعانه لما يطلب منه . وغني عن البيان أن ثمة أسبابا وجيهة — قد تدركون أهميتها لاحقا — تملي علينا سلوك هذا المسلك غير المألوف"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص8).
-
[طريقة التحليل النفسي]
"فالمعالجة التحليلية النفسية لا تشتمل الا على تبادل كلام بين المحلل والطبيب . اذ يتكلم المريض ، ويروي أحداث حياته الماضية وانطباعاته الحاضرة ، ويتشكى ، ويعترف برغائبه وانفعالاته . ويسعى الطبيب الى توجيه مسار افكار المريض ، ويوقظ ذكرياته ، ويوجه انتباهه في وجهة معينة ، ويقدم له تفسيرات ، ويرصد ما يثيره على هذا النحو لدى المريض من ردود فعل تنم عن فهم او عدم فهم"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص10).
-
[انتقاد للتحليل النفسي بوصفه كلامًا في كلام]
"ثم ان اهل مرضانا وأقاربهم ، وهم من غير أهل الاختصاص، لا يصدقون الا ما هو منظور وملموس، ولا يقتنعون الا بمثل المشاهد التي تتوالى على شاشة آلة العرض السينمائي ، ولا يمسكون عن ابداء تشككهم في نجع طريقة العلاج التي لا تعدو ان تكون محض ((كلام بكلام))."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص10).
ثم يرد عليه فرويد ببيان تأثير الكلمة في حياة الناس
-
[لماذا لا يسع الطلاب التدرب على التحليل النفسي بحضور جلساته]
"أما المعلومات التي يحتاجها المحلل فلن يفضي بها المريض الا اذا ساوره ازاء الطبيب شعور بعاطفة خاصة ؛ لكنه سيلزم الصمت اذا ما آنس وجود شاهد واحد لا يأبه به . وآية ذلك أن هذه المعلومات تتصل بأخص حياة المريض النفسية ، بكل ما يتوجب عليه ، بصفته شخصا اجتماعيا مستقلا بذاته ، ان يخفيه عن الاخرين ، وأخيرا بكل ما لا يريد الاقرار به حتى بينه وبين نفسه ، بوصفه شخصا يعي وحدته"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص11).
-
[كيف يُتعلم التحليل النفسي؟]
"فالمرء يتعلم التحليل النفسي بتطبيقه أولا بتطبيقه على نفسه ، وبدارسته شخصيته الخاصة . وليس هذا على وجه الدقة ما يسمى بالتأمل الذاتي ولكننا نستطيع عند الاقتضاء أن نرد اليه الدراسة التي نحن بصدد الكلام عنها"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص13).
-
[ولكن]
"غير انه يجدر بنا التنويه بأنه ليس للانسان أن يتوقع ، اذا ما سلك هذا السبيل، احراز تقدم كبير . بل هو سيحرز تقدما أكبر بكثير فيما لو وضع نفسه تحت تصرف محلل كفؤ ليقوم بتحليله"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص13).
-
[الصعوبة الأولى]
"تتصل الصعوبة الاولى بطريقة تعلم التحليل النفسي بالذات ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص9).
[كيف ذلك؟]
"فقد اعتدتم ، في دراستكم الطب ، أن تروا وتعاينوا . فأنتم تنظرون النماذج التشريحية ، وترسبات التفاعلات الكيمياوية ، وتقلص العضلة بفعل تنبيه أعصابها..."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص9).
-
[الصعوبة الثانية]
"أما الصعوبة الثانية التي تعترض سبيلكم الى التحليل النفسي فلا تتصل به بقدر ما تتصل بكم ، انتم انفسكم ، بحكم دراساتكم الطبية السالفة . فالتعليم الذي تلقيتموه حتى الان وجه فكركم في اتجاه معين يباعد الشقة كثيرا بينكم وبين التحليل النفسي ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص14).
[كيف ذلك؟]
"فقد عودوكم على عزو علل تشريحية الى وظائف الجسم واضطراباتها ، وعلى تفسيرها على ضوء الكيمياء والفيزياء ، وعلى تصورها من المنظور البيولوجي ، ولم يوجهوا اهتمامكم قط الى الحياة النفسية التي فيها يبلغ أداء جسمنا — العجيب التعقيد — لوظائفه أوجه وذروته . ولهذا انقطعت الاسباب بينكم وبين الطريقة السيكولوجية في التفكير"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص14).
-
[الصعوبة الثالثة]
"ذلك ان من جملة مقدمات التحليل النفسي مقدمتين تثيران سخط الناس أجمعين وتجلب عليه الاستنكار العام : مقدمة تصطدم بحكم مسبق فكري ، وأخرى بحكم مسبق جمالي — أخلاقي"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص15-16).
-
[غاية التحليل النفسي]
"فهو يريد ان يوفر لطب الامراض العقلية الاساس السيكولوجي الذي يفتقر اليه ، ويأمل أن يكتشف المضمار المشترك الكفيل بتعليل الترابط بين الاضطراب البدني والاضطراب النفسي"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص15).
-
[المقدمة الأولى]
"ان السيرورات النفسية ، بموجب اولى مقدمتي التحليل النفسي المثيرتين للاستهجان ، هي في جوهرها لاشعورية ؛ وأما الشعورية منها فلا تعدو أن تكون أفعالا منعزلة ، شذرات من الحياة النفسية الشاملة ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص16).
[الفرق بين المعتاد في علم النفس والتحليل النفسي]
"وعليكم أن تتذكروا هنا أننا درجنا ، على العكس ، على المماهاة بين النفسي والشعوري، واننا نعتبر على وجه التعيين أن الشعور هو سمة النفسي المميزة وتعريف له ، وأن قوام علم النفس في نظرنا هو دراسة مضامين الشعور"
"ومع ذلك لا يمكن للتحليل النفسي الا أن يعترض على المماهاة بين النفسي والواعي والشعور. فهو يعرف النفسي بأنه يتألف من سيرورات تدخل ضمن نطاق الشعور والفكر والارادة؛ ولا مناص له من أن يؤكد أيضا وجود فكر لاشعوري وارادة لاشعورية."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص16).
-
"الاعتراف بالسيرورات النفسية اللاشعورية يدشن اتجاها جديدا وفاصلا في العلم"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص17).
-
[المقدمة الثانية]
"الحفزات التي يمكن وصفها بأنها محض جنسية ، بالمعنى الضيق او الواسع للكلمة ، تلعب ، بصفتها عللا محددة للامراض العصبية والنفسية، دورا فائق الاهمية ، لم يقدر حتى يومنا هذا حق قدره ."
"فالتحليل النفسي يؤكد ان هذه الميول الجنسية عينها تسهم بقسط لا يستهان به في ابداعات العقل البشري في ميادين الثقافة والفن والحياة الاجتماعية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص17).
-
"وتحتل الميول الجنسية، بين جملة القوى الغريزية المكبوح جماحها على هذا النحو ، مكانة بارزة ؛ فهي تعلى وتصعد ، أي انها تحول عن هدفها الجنسي وتوجه نحو أهداف اجتماعية أعلى لا تتصف بأية صفة جنسية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص17).
-
"ولا يرى المجتمع من خطر يهدد حضارته اعظم من خطر انعتاق الغرائز الجنسية ورجعتها الى أهدافها الاولية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص18).
ما هي الأهداف الأولية؟
-
[عن الهفوات]
"خليق بنا اذن ألا نزدري العلامات الصغيرة : فقد تهدينا الى أشياء أجل شأنا وأعظم أهمية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص23).
-
"وقد وقعت في مثل هذا الغلط المعاند صحيفة اشتراكية ديموقراطية. فقد جاء يوما في تعليق لها على تظاهرة ما : ((و كان بين الحضور سمو ولي العهر)) (بدلا من ولي العهد) . وفي اليوم التالي ، ارادت الصحيفة تصحيح خطئها والاعتذار عنه ، فكتبت تقول : ((كنا نقصد بطبيعة الحال ولي العهر)) (هذه المرة ايضا بدلا من ولي العهد) ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص27).
-
[نظرية الانتباه لتفسير حدوث الهفوات]
"اذن فهي في كل الاحوال ظاهرات متأتية عن اضطرابات في الانتباه ، سواء أنشأت هذه الاضطرابات عن أسباب عضوية أم عن أسباب نفسية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص25).
-
[رد على نظرية الانتباه]
"وسنلاحظ بوجه خاص ان هفوات ونسيانات تحدث ايضا لدى اشخاص ليسوا بمتعبين او ساهين او مهتاجين، بل في حالة سوية من جميغ الوجوه"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص25).
-
[رد إضافي على نظرية الانتباه]
"ولا يخلو الامر من نزعة الى التبسيط لو زعمنا ان زيادة الانتباه قمينة بتنفيذ محكم لوظيفة من الوظائف ، وان نقصان الانتباه تترتب عليه بالتالي نتيجة معاكسة . فكثيرة هي الاعمال التي ينفذها المرء بصورة آلية أو بانتباه غير كاف ، من دون ان يضر ذلك بإحكامها"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص26).
-
"وعلى هذا، وعندما تصدر عني في موقف معين فلتة بعينها دون سواها من الفلتات المحتملة ، فهل تقسرني على ذلك أسباب قاهرة ، ام ان الامر محض مصادفة اعتباطية ، ومسألة لا تستتبع أي جواب معقول ؟"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص28-29).
-
[عالمان يبحثان الأغلاط اللغوية أو زلات اللسان]
"حاول مؤلفان ، هما السيد مرنغر Meringer والسيد ماير Mayer (الأول فقيه في اللغة ، والثاني طبيب أمراض عقلية) ، في عام 1895 ان يطرقا من هذه الزاوية مسألة الأغلاط اللغوية . وقد جمعا أمثلة وعرضاها بادئ الامر من وجهة نظر وصفية خالصة . وهما لم يقدما بذلك ، بطبيعة الحال ، أي تفسير ، لكنهما دلانا الى الطريق الذي يمكن ان يفضي اليه . فقد صنفا التحريفات التي تصيب الخطاب القصدي ضمن الابواب التالية : أ — القلب ؛ ب — الاستباق ؛ جـ — الاستلحاق ، د — الادغام ، هـ — الابدال"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص29).
-
[تفسير المؤلفين]
"اصوات اللفظة ومقاطعها تتفاوت قيمة وأهمية ، وأن تعصيب Innervation العنصر الارفع في القيمة يمكن ان يترك أثرا تشويشيا في تعصيب العناصر الادنى في القيمة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص30).
-
[تعليق فرويد]
"وها في الحق لا يسري الا على البابين الثاني والثالث عند الاقتضاء ، وهو على كل حال قليل التواتر ؛ اما في ضروب الفلتات الاخرى ، فان غلبة بعض الاصوات على غيرها ، على افتراض وجودها ، لا تلعب أي دور على الاطلاق"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص30).
-
[توصيف السيرورة النفسية]
"والمطلوب فقط ان نعرف هل هذه الظاهرة النفسية او تلك نتيجة مباشرة لعوامل بدنية ، عضوية ، مادية ، وفي هذه الحال تخرج من نطاق البحث السيكولوجي ، ام انها ناشئة بصورة مباشرة عن سيرورات نفسية اخرى تكمن فيما وراءها ، وفي مكان ما ، سلسلة العوامل العضوية"
"هذا الاحتمال الثاني هو الذي يتجه اليه فكرنا حين نصف ظاهرة ما بأنها سيرورة نفسية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص63).
-
[ظاهرات تشبه الهفوات]
"ثمة ظاهرات اخرى كثيرة تشبه الهفوات"
"ونحن نسميها بالافعال العارضة او الاعراضية"
"وهي جميعها تتسم بصفات الفعل العديم الدلالة والحافز ، والمجرد من الاهمية ، وفي المقام الاول ، الفائض عن الحاجة"
"لكن ما يميزها عن الهفوات بحصر المعنى هو انعدام وجود قصد عدائي ومتعد يعاكس القصد الأول ويعارضه"
"ثم انها تتداخل وتلتبس ، من جهة اخرى ، مع الحركات والبوادر التي تفيد في التعبير عن الانفعالات"
[مثل ماذا؟]
"وتندرج في فئة الافعال العارضة هذه جميع الملامسات التي لا هدف لها في الظاهر والتي تصدر عنا عندما نعبث بملابسنا ، او بأجزاء من جسمنا ، او بأشياء في متناول يدنا"
"وتدخل في عداد هذه الافعال ايضا الالحان التي نترنم بها ، وبوجه العموم سائر الافعال التي نمسك عنها ، كما بدأناها ، بلا دوافع ظاهرة"
[فكان ماذا؟]
"والحال انني لا اتردد في الجزم بأن جميع هذه الظاهرات دالة ، وقابلة للتأويل بمثل النحو الذي نؤول به الهفوات ، وانها بمثابة نذر وعلائم طفيفة تكشف عن سيرورات اخرى اجل شأنا منها ، وانها أفعال نفسية بمعنى الكلمة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص63-64).
-
[كيف تنجم الهفوات؟]
"قلنا ان الهفوات تنجم عن تداخل قصدين مختلفين ، يمكن وصف اولهما بأنه متعدى عليه وثانيهما بأنه متعد"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص64).
-
ما تلك المقاصد التي تفصح عن نفسها على هذا النحو الغريب بتعديها على مقاصد غيرها ؟"
"...انها قابلة للتصنيف في ثلاث مجموعات"
"المجموعة الاولى تدخل في نطاقها الحالات التي يكون القصد المتعدي معروفا للمتكلم ، علاوة على ارهاصه به قبل ان يهفو لسانه"
"وتضم المجموعة الثانية الحالات التي لا يعرف فيها المتكلم ، مع اقراره بأن القصد المتعدي صادر عنه ، ان هذا القصد كان نشطا يفعل فعله في دخيلته قبل ان يزل لسانه بالهفوة"
"اما المجموعة الثالثة فتضم حالات يحتج فيها الشخص المعني بقوة على التأويل الذي نعرضه عليه : فهو لا يكتفي بنفي وجود القصد المتعدي قبل وقوع الفلتة ، بل يؤكد ايضا ان هذا القصد غريب عنه كل الغربة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص67-68).
-
"الفارق الوحيد القائم بين مجموعاتي الثلاث فارق في درجة قمع القصد المتعدي"
"ففي المجموعة الاولى يكون القصد موجودا ومدركا من قبل الشخص المتكلم قبل تظاهره ، وعندما يحدث القمع يقتص منه القصد لنفسه بفلتة اللسان"
"وفي المجموعة الثانية يكون القمع اشد وافعل ، فلا يتنبه الشخص المتكلم لوجوده قبل بدء التكلم"
"والمدهش في الامر ان هذا القمع ، على عمقه ، لا يمنع القصد من المشاركة في استحداث الفلتة"
"ولن أحجم حتى عن الادعاء بأن الهفوة قد تكون تعبيرا عن قصد قمع منذ زمن بعيد ، بل منذ زمن بعيد جدا ، بحيث لا يعود الشخص المتكلم يفطن الى وجوده اصلا ، وقد يكون صادقا الى حد كبير عندما ينكر هذا الوجود"
[النتيجة]
"قمع الميل الى قول شيء ما هو الشرط اللازم لحدوث الفلتة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص69).
-
"فالمرء لا يعترف بطيب خاطر بأنه تورط في فلتة لسان ، وكثيرا ما يتفق له ان يفوته سماع الفلتة التي هفا بها لسانه ، بينما لا يفوته البتة سماع الفلتة التي يهفو بها لسان غيره"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص71-72).
-
والحمد لله رب العالمين
الغموض الذي يلف التحليل النفسي قد يكسبه شيئًا من الهالة التي تمنع من فهمه على حقيقته، فهو إجراء لا يمكن تعلمه مثل طب الأبدان، كما أن استخلاص المعلومات فيه يجري بحذق شديد وعلاقة خاصة بين المعالج والمريض.
خلص فرويد بعد مطالعة عدد من الأعمال الأدبية والأبحاث المنشورة في علم الصوتيات إلى النظر فيما وراء المشعور به من الأفعال والأقوال، أراد أن يلمس تلك المنطقة المعتمة اللاشعورية ويسلط عليها بعضًا من الضوء، ليفسر من خلالها ما يظن امتناع تفسيره بالوسائل العلمية المتاحة.
كان الحديث عن اللاشعور لب المقدمة الأولى للتحليل النفسي، وكان الحديث عن الميول الجنسية لب المقدمة الثانية.
لم يكتف فرويد بهاتين المقدمتين، بل ذهب أبعد منهما إلى الهفوات. ذلك الجانب الذي يختزله الناس -بحسب فرويد- في بعض الظواهر الفيزيولوجية. في حين أنه يمتد لمعنى لا شعوري يتناوله صاحبه بالقمع أو يعبر عنه بسخرية.
وأسلوب فرويد يتسم بإيراد عدد من الأمثلة ثم استخلاص النتائج منها، ومناقشة الاعتراضات الواردة عليها.
سأقرأ -بإذن الله- كتابه اللاحق لهذا وهو محاضرات في التحليل النفسي.
وإلى الاقتباسات:
-
[من المستهدف بالتحليل النفسي؟]
"التحليل النفسي طريقة في المعالجة الطبية للاشخاص المصابين بأمراض عصبية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص7).
-
[ينبغي إطلاع العصابي على التحديات التي سيواجهها أثناء التحليل النفسي]
"فنحن نطلعه في هذه الحال على صعوبات هذه الطريقة وما تقتضيه من زمن وجهود وتضحيات ؛ أما عن النتيجة ، فنقول انه لا يسعنا أن نقطع له بوعد ، وانها مرهونة بمسلك المريض نفسه وبذكائه وصبره وإذعانه لما يطلب منه . وغني عن البيان أن ثمة أسبابا وجيهة — قد تدركون أهميتها لاحقا — تملي علينا سلوك هذا المسلك غير المألوف"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص8).
-
[طريقة التحليل النفسي]
"فالمعالجة التحليلية النفسية لا تشتمل الا على تبادل كلام بين المحلل والطبيب . اذ يتكلم المريض ، ويروي أحداث حياته الماضية وانطباعاته الحاضرة ، ويتشكى ، ويعترف برغائبه وانفعالاته . ويسعى الطبيب الى توجيه مسار افكار المريض ، ويوقظ ذكرياته ، ويوجه انتباهه في وجهة معينة ، ويقدم له تفسيرات ، ويرصد ما يثيره على هذا النحو لدى المريض من ردود فعل تنم عن فهم او عدم فهم"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص10).
-
[انتقاد للتحليل النفسي بوصفه كلامًا في كلام]
"ثم ان اهل مرضانا وأقاربهم ، وهم من غير أهل الاختصاص، لا يصدقون الا ما هو منظور وملموس، ولا يقتنعون الا بمثل المشاهد التي تتوالى على شاشة آلة العرض السينمائي ، ولا يمسكون عن ابداء تشككهم في نجع طريقة العلاج التي لا تعدو ان تكون محض ((كلام بكلام))."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص10).
ثم يرد عليه فرويد ببيان تأثير الكلمة في حياة الناس
-
[لماذا لا يسع الطلاب التدرب على التحليل النفسي بحضور جلساته]
"أما المعلومات التي يحتاجها المحلل فلن يفضي بها المريض الا اذا ساوره ازاء الطبيب شعور بعاطفة خاصة ؛ لكنه سيلزم الصمت اذا ما آنس وجود شاهد واحد لا يأبه به . وآية ذلك أن هذه المعلومات تتصل بأخص حياة المريض النفسية ، بكل ما يتوجب عليه ، بصفته شخصا اجتماعيا مستقلا بذاته ، ان يخفيه عن الاخرين ، وأخيرا بكل ما لا يريد الاقرار به حتى بينه وبين نفسه ، بوصفه شخصا يعي وحدته"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص11).
-
[كيف يُتعلم التحليل النفسي؟]
"فالمرء يتعلم التحليل النفسي بتطبيقه أولا بتطبيقه على نفسه ، وبدارسته شخصيته الخاصة . وليس هذا على وجه الدقة ما يسمى بالتأمل الذاتي ولكننا نستطيع عند الاقتضاء أن نرد اليه الدراسة التي نحن بصدد الكلام عنها"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص13).
-
[ولكن]
"غير انه يجدر بنا التنويه بأنه ليس للانسان أن يتوقع ، اذا ما سلك هذا السبيل، احراز تقدم كبير . بل هو سيحرز تقدما أكبر بكثير فيما لو وضع نفسه تحت تصرف محلل كفؤ ليقوم بتحليله"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص13).
-
[الصعوبة الأولى]
"تتصل الصعوبة الاولى بطريقة تعلم التحليل النفسي بالذات ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص9).
[كيف ذلك؟]
"فقد اعتدتم ، في دراستكم الطب ، أن تروا وتعاينوا . فأنتم تنظرون النماذج التشريحية ، وترسبات التفاعلات الكيمياوية ، وتقلص العضلة بفعل تنبيه أعصابها..."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص9).
-
[الصعوبة الثانية]
"أما الصعوبة الثانية التي تعترض سبيلكم الى التحليل النفسي فلا تتصل به بقدر ما تتصل بكم ، انتم انفسكم ، بحكم دراساتكم الطبية السالفة . فالتعليم الذي تلقيتموه حتى الان وجه فكركم في اتجاه معين يباعد الشقة كثيرا بينكم وبين التحليل النفسي ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص14).
[كيف ذلك؟]
"فقد عودوكم على عزو علل تشريحية الى وظائف الجسم واضطراباتها ، وعلى تفسيرها على ضوء الكيمياء والفيزياء ، وعلى تصورها من المنظور البيولوجي ، ولم يوجهوا اهتمامكم قط الى الحياة النفسية التي فيها يبلغ أداء جسمنا — العجيب التعقيد — لوظائفه أوجه وذروته . ولهذا انقطعت الاسباب بينكم وبين الطريقة السيكولوجية في التفكير"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص14).
-
[الصعوبة الثالثة]
"ذلك ان من جملة مقدمات التحليل النفسي مقدمتين تثيران سخط الناس أجمعين وتجلب عليه الاستنكار العام : مقدمة تصطدم بحكم مسبق فكري ، وأخرى بحكم مسبق جمالي — أخلاقي"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص15-16).
-
[غاية التحليل النفسي]
"فهو يريد ان يوفر لطب الامراض العقلية الاساس السيكولوجي الذي يفتقر اليه ، ويأمل أن يكتشف المضمار المشترك الكفيل بتعليل الترابط بين الاضطراب البدني والاضطراب النفسي"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص15).
-
[المقدمة الأولى]
"ان السيرورات النفسية ، بموجب اولى مقدمتي التحليل النفسي المثيرتين للاستهجان ، هي في جوهرها لاشعورية ؛ وأما الشعورية منها فلا تعدو أن تكون أفعالا منعزلة ، شذرات من الحياة النفسية الشاملة ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص16).
[الفرق بين المعتاد في علم النفس والتحليل النفسي]
"وعليكم أن تتذكروا هنا أننا درجنا ، على العكس ، على المماهاة بين النفسي والشعوري، واننا نعتبر على وجه التعيين أن الشعور هو سمة النفسي المميزة وتعريف له ، وأن قوام علم النفس في نظرنا هو دراسة مضامين الشعور"
"ومع ذلك لا يمكن للتحليل النفسي الا أن يعترض على المماهاة بين النفسي والواعي والشعور. فهو يعرف النفسي بأنه يتألف من سيرورات تدخل ضمن نطاق الشعور والفكر والارادة؛ ولا مناص له من أن يؤكد أيضا وجود فكر لاشعوري وارادة لاشعورية."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص16).
-
"الاعتراف بالسيرورات النفسية اللاشعورية يدشن اتجاها جديدا وفاصلا في العلم"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص17).
-
[المقدمة الثانية]
"الحفزات التي يمكن وصفها بأنها محض جنسية ، بالمعنى الضيق او الواسع للكلمة ، تلعب ، بصفتها عللا محددة للامراض العصبية والنفسية، دورا فائق الاهمية ، لم يقدر حتى يومنا هذا حق قدره ."
"فالتحليل النفسي يؤكد ان هذه الميول الجنسية عينها تسهم بقسط لا يستهان به في ابداعات العقل البشري في ميادين الثقافة والفن والحياة الاجتماعية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص17).
-
"وتحتل الميول الجنسية، بين جملة القوى الغريزية المكبوح جماحها على هذا النحو ، مكانة بارزة ؛ فهي تعلى وتصعد ، أي انها تحول عن هدفها الجنسي وتوجه نحو أهداف اجتماعية أعلى لا تتصف بأية صفة جنسية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص17).
-
"ولا يرى المجتمع من خطر يهدد حضارته اعظم من خطر انعتاق الغرائز الجنسية ورجعتها الى أهدافها الاولية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص18).
ما هي الأهداف الأولية؟
-
[عن الهفوات]
"خليق بنا اذن ألا نزدري العلامات الصغيرة : فقد تهدينا الى أشياء أجل شأنا وأعظم أهمية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص23).
-
"وقد وقعت في مثل هذا الغلط المعاند صحيفة اشتراكية ديموقراطية. فقد جاء يوما في تعليق لها على تظاهرة ما : ((و كان بين الحضور سمو ولي العهر)) (بدلا من ولي العهد) . وفي اليوم التالي ، ارادت الصحيفة تصحيح خطئها والاعتذار عنه ، فكتبت تقول : ((كنا نقصد بطبيعة الحال ولي العهر)) (هذه المرة ايضا بدلا من ولي العهد) ."
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص27).
-
[نظرية الانتباه لتفسير حدوث الهفوات]
"اذن فهي في كل الاحوال ظاهرات متأتية عن اضطرابات في الانتباه ، سواء أنشأت هذه الاضطرابات عن أسباب عضوية أم عن أسباب نفسية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص25).
-
[رد على نظرية الانتباه]
"وسنلاحظ بوجه خاص ان هفوات ونسيانات تحدث ايضا لدى اشخاص ليسوا بمتعبين او ساهين او مهتاجين، بل في حالة سوية من جميغ الوجوه"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص25).
-
[رد إضافي على نظرية الانتباه]
"ولا يخلو الامر من نزعة الى التبسيط لو زعمنا ان زيادة الانتباه قمينة بتنفيذ محكم لوظيفة من الوظائف ، وان نقصان الانتباه تترتب عليه بالتالي نتيجة معاكسة . فكثيرة هي الاعمال التي ينفذها المرء بصورة آلية أو بانتباه غير كاف ، من دون ان يضر ذلك بإحكامها"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص26).
-
"وعلى هذا، وعندما تصدر عني في موقف معين فلتة بعينها دون سواها من الفلتات المحتملة ، فهل تقسرني على ذلك أسباب قاهرة ، ام ان الامر محض مصادفة اعتباطية ، ومسألة لا تستتبع أي جواب معقول ؟"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص28-29).
-
[عالمان يبحثان الأغلاط اللغوية أو زلات اللسان]
"حاول مؤلفان ، هما السيد مرنغر Meringer والسيد ماير Mayer (الأول فقيه في اللغة ، والثاني طبيب أمراض عقلية) ، في عام 1895 ان يطرقا من هذه الزاوية مسألة الأغلاط اللغوية . وقد جمعا أمثلة وعرضاها بادئ الامر من وجهة نظر وصفية خالصة . وهما لم يقدما بذلك ، بطبيعة الحال ، أي تفسير ، لكنهما دلانا الى الطريق الذي يمكن ان يفضي اليه . فقد صنفا التحريفات التي تصيب الخطاب القصدي ضمن الابواب التالية : أ — القلب ؛ ب — الاستباق ؛ جـ — الاستلحاق ، د — الادغام ، هـ — الابدال"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص29).
-
[تفسير المؤلفين]
"اصوات اللفظة ومقاطعها تتفاوت قيمة وأهمية ، وأن تعصيب Innervation العنصر الارفع في القيمة يمكن ان يترك أثرا تشويشيا في تعصيب العناصر الادنى في القيمة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص30).
-
[تعليق فرويد]
"وها في الحق لا يسري الا على البابين الثاني والثالث عند الاقتضاء ، وهو على كل حال قليل التواتر ؛ اما في ضروب الفلتات الاخرى ، فان غلبة بعض الاصوات على غيرها ، على افتراض وجودها ، لا تلعب أي دور على الاطلاق"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص30).
-
[توصيف السيرورة النفسية]
"والمطلوب فقط ان نعرف هل هذه الظاهرة النفسية او تلك نتيجة مباشرة لعوامل بدنية ، عضوية ، مادية ، وفي هذه الحال تخرج من نطاق البحث السيكولوجي ، ام انها ناشئة بصورة مباشرة عن سيرورات نفسية اخرى تكمن فيما وراءها ، وفي مكان ما ، سلسلة العوامل العضوية"
"هذا الاحتمال الثاني هو الذي يتجه اليه فكرنا حين نصف ظاهرة ما بأنها سيرورة نفسية"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص63).
-
[ظاهرات تشبه الهفوات]
"ثمة ظاهرات اخرى كثيرة تشبه الهفوات"
"ونحن نسميها بالافعال العارضة او الاعراضية"
"وهي جميعها تتسم بصفات الفعل العديم الدلالة والحافز ، والمجرد من الاهمية ، وفي المقام الاول ، الفائض عن الحاجة"
"لكن ما يميزها عن الهفوات بحصر المعنى هو انعدام وجود قصد عدائي ومتعد يعاكس القصد الأول ويعارضه"
"ثم انها تتداخل وتلتبس ، من جهة اخرى ، مع الحركات والبوادر التي تفيد في التعبير عن الانفعالات"
[مثل ماذا؟]
"وتندرج في فئة الافعال العارضة هذه جميع الملامسات التي لا هدف لها في الظاهر والتي تصدر عنا عندما نعبث بملابسنا ، او بأجزاء من جسمنا ، او بأشياء في متناول يدنا"
"وتدخل في عداد هذه الافعال ايضا الالحان التي نترنم بها ، وبوجه العموم سائر الافعال التي نمسك عنها ، كما بدأناها ، بلا دوافع ظاهرة"
[فكان ماذا؟]
"والحال انني لا اتردد في الجزم بأن جميع هذه الظاهرات دالة ، وقابلة للتأويل بمثل النحو الذي نؤول به الهفوات ، وانها بمثابة نذر وعلائم طفيفة تكشف عن سيرورات اخرى اجل شأنا منها ، وانها أفعال نفسية بمعنى الكلمة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص63-64).
-
[كيف تنجم الهفوات؟]
"قلنا ان الهفوات تنجم عن تداخل قصدين مختلفين ، يمكن وصف اولهما بأنه متعدى عليه وثانيهما بأنه متعد"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص64).
-
ما تلك المقاصد التي تفصح عن نفسها على هذا النحو الغريب بتعديها على مقاصد غيرها ؟"
"...انها قابلة للتصنيف في ثلاث مجموعات"
"المجموعة الاولى تدخل في نطاقها الحالات التي يكون القصد المتعدي معروفا للمتكلم ، علاوة على ارهاصه به قبل ان يهفو لسانه"
"وتضم المجموعة الثانية الحالات التي لا يعرف فيها المتكلم ، مع اقراره بأن القصد المتعدي صادر عنه ، ان هذا القصد كان نشطا يفعل فعله في دخيلته قبل ان يزل لسانه بالهفوة"
"اما المجموعة الثالثة فتضم حالات يحتج فيها الشخص المعني بقوة على التأويل الذي نعرضه عليه : فهو لا يكتفي بنفي وجود القصد المتعدي قبل وقوع الفلتة ، بل يؤكد ايضا ان هذا القصد غريب عنه كل الغربة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص67-68).
-
"الفارق الوحيد القائم بين مجموعاتي الثلاث فارق في درجة قمع القصد المتعدي"
"ففي المجموعة الاولى يكون القصد موجودا ومدركا من قبل الشخص المتكلم قبل تظاهره ، وعندما يحدث القمع يقتص منه القصد لنفسه بفلتة اللسان"
"وفي المجموعة الثانية يكون القمع اشد وافعل ، فلا يتنبه الشخص المتكلم لوجوده قبل بدء التكلم"
"والمدهش في الامر ان هذا القمع ، على عمقه ، لا يمنع القصد من المشاركة في استحداث الفلتة"
"ولن أحجم حتى عن الادعاء بأن الهفوة قد تكون تعبيرا عن قصد قمع منذ زمن بعيد ، بل منذ زمن بعيد جدا ، بحيث لا يعود الشخص المتكلم يفطن الى وجوده اصلا ، وقد يكون صادقا الى حد كبير عندما ينكر هذا الوجود"
[النتيجة]
"قمع الميل الى قول شيء ما هو الشرط اللازم لحدوث الفلتة"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص69).
-
"فالمرء لا يعترف بطيب خاطر بأنه تورط في فلتة لسان ، وكثيرا ما يتفق له ان يفوته سماع الفلتة التي هفا بها لسانه ، بينما لا يفوته البتة سماع الفلتة التي يهفو بها لسان غيره"
(مدخل إلى التحليل النفسي، سيغموند فرويد، ترجمة: جورج طرابيشي، دار الطليعة، ط3 1995م، ص71-72).
-
والحمد لله رب العالمين
March 23, 2010
Let me preface my review of Freud's introductory lectures by appending an excerpt from my review of The Communist Manifesto:
Having recently read the introductory lectures of Sigmund Freud preceding my reading of The Communist Manifesto, I realize that Marx has most probably suffered the same fate as Freud in the modern age: they are both dismissed as radical idealists who expired in the infancy of their sociological/psychological breakthroughs. This faulty appraisal is reinforced by most people's ignorance of what these two thinkers really had to say, or by the extrapolation of their most abrasive phrasing of, much of which is, an otherwise palatable, and now rather commonplace and applied, revelation. I realize that along with most people, I know very little about thinkers like Freud and Marx; I have mostly known only what people say about them, or crumb-quotes from them that float past in the raging current of money-bearing, status-enhancing information that poisons much of academia.
That being said I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading Freud's lectures. Without agreeing with his every word, I must admit that I settled on the opinion that the man was a genius. He was also very brave, for he resisted the tide of conventional 'safe-think' and dared to offer revolutionary explanations for neuroses. For some, Freud underpinned the Darwinian 'dethronement' of humanity as the pinnacle of the created order, and some view his ideas as completely reductionist in a portrayal of man as a mere beast with completely vulgar tendencies. Freud would not deny that, like the Copernican revolution, his ideas would lower mankind's opinion of himself as the center of the universe, but what many do not realize is that Freud actually contended with the 'other' forerunners of psychology beginning in the 19th century (i.e. the structuralists and behaviorists) that sought to reduce mankind to a hardwired machine or a salivating dog. He also sought to keep in check the exaggerated claims of psychiatry in his day which went so far as to consider neurotics as ‘degenerates’ whose illnesses were viewed as incoherent malfunctions of the psyche with no experiential significance. In a sense, Freud resisted reductionist theories, and attempted to plant his theories an equally safe distance from the extremes of religious fundamentalism, and, on the other hand, scientific materialism.
Freud pioneered objective dream interpretation, and I was quite impressed with his deconstruction of dream-work. As a result of reading his ideas on dreams, I came away with a greater capacity for understanding the development of what Freud calls ‘latent dream thoughts’ into what becomes the ‘manifest dream’. Working backwards one can interpret the original thought or ‘wish’ of the dream by unraveling the effects of ‘second-revisions’, ‘imagery’, ‘displacement’, and ‘condensation’ that distorts the original intent of the dream. This is not a naïve exploration of dream mystique, but a serious, analytical dissection of the mental processes that produce dreams.
Some of the most misunderstood and underappreciated facets of Freudian theory are his ideas on sexuality. There are SO many people who don’t understand but rashly judge on this issue, so I’ll make a few cursory attempts to bring clarification, and debunk some of the objections that might be raised against taking Freud seriously.
1) The Oedipus/Electra complexes are, along with most of the neuroses, really parental attachment issues in general and not necessarily conscious wishes to always have sex with a parent.
2) Idea’s such as female ‘penis-envy’ and male fear of castration may have been a cultural symptom of the sway of patriarchal power within society, and thus Freud’s analysis of his therapeutic experiences with neurotics may have been heavily influenced by the desire/fear of masculinity within society that could open or preclude someone from being accepted or rejected. In other words, it might have been more desirable in his day, even in all past history, to become a dominant male. How could that not find its way into psychological theories?
3) Freud believed that children were ‘polymorphously perverse’ and mostly unconscious. He believed their sexual gratification, especially in the pre-phallic stage, would take many different kinds of unconscious, perverse (unnatural) forms before it discovered pathways that were safe and purposeful in terms of fulfillment. In other words, children’s desires were going to be all over the place, and only our super-ego’s censure of ‘immoral thoughts’ keep us from suspecting that children’s sexuality might actually be a bit ‘crooked’ even in normal development. We largely believe children to be asexual, and Freud delights in scoffing at the obvious censoring of unacceptable theories that society deems ‘dangerous’.
4) Freud speculated, rightly in my mind, that his theories were going to be unpopular with mainstream society because Law would always represent the repression and denial of natural instincts that may upset the peace it has worked so hard to establish. “Society believes that no greater threat to its civilization could arise than if the sexual instincts were to be liberated and returned to their original aims. For this reason society does not wish to be reminded of this precarious portion of its foundations.” But in the repression (not guidance) of those instincts, the forceful current remains hidden underground that may one day erupt and swallow all of civilization’s finest work in a moment of instinctual upheaval.
5) It is well-known that Freud opposed religion in almost any form, but what he mostly repelled was any attempt, in science or religion, to craft a Weltanschaunng, or an absolute ‘theory of everything’. He knew too well that we are mentally prone to try and find an easy answer to salve our loneliness and fear, but we are too easily duped into ‘fixating’ on a pleasing concept that blinds us to our true condition, and offers us a promise of reward with little work, and little pain. Religion, in his mind, is an easy, one-stroke solution for a current complexity, and invariably ‘bears the imprint of the times [and conditions:] in which they arose’. It is copout, an avoidance of real problems and real pain. He mentions that religion may be significant in some stages of maturation, but ultimately needs to be outgrown. And, for much of the religion that Freud was familiar with, his estimate of religion may not have been far off point.
There’s more, much more. Freud was brazen in his exploration of the psyche, and lifted up his voice to boldly assert his ideas that he knew would be suppressed by the majority of people that heard him. But if there was anything Freud understood, it was that people naturally repress forces and ideas that threaten them to which they have no ready defense. Freud had reached into the mind and purposes of mankind and, in the words of W.H. Auden, put his “finger on the flesh that has been skinned”. There’s nothing to be afraid of here, except the realization that one might be found. And Freud did a great job of finding where it is that people are lurking, and what it is they are secretly clutching behind their own consciousness.
Having recently read the introductory lectures of Sigmund Freud preceding my reading of The Communist Manifesto, I realize that Marx has most probably suffered the same fate as Freud in the modern age: they are both dismissed as radical idealists who expired in the infancy of their sociological/psychological breakthroughs. This faulty appraisal is reinforced by most people's ignorance of what these two thinkers really had to say, or by the extrapolation of their most abrasive phrasing of, much of which is, an otherwise palatable, and now rather commonplace and applied, revelation. I realize that along with most people, I know very little about thinkers like Freud and Marx; I have mostly known only what people say about them, or crumb-quotes from them that float past in the raging current of money-bearing, status-enhancing information that poisons much of academia.
That being said I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading Freud's lectures. Without agreeing with his every word, I must admit that I settled on the opinion that the man was a genius. He was also very brave, for he resisted the tide of conventional 'safe-think' and dared to offer revolutionary explanations for neuroses. For some, Freud underpinned the Darwinian 'dethronement' of humanity as the pinnacle of the created order, and some view his ideas as completely reductionist in a portrayal of man as a mere beast with completely vulgar tendencies. Freud would not deny that, like the Copernican revolution, his ideas would lower mankind's opinion of himself as the center of the universe, but what many do not realize is that Freud actually contended with the 'other' forerunners of psychology beginning in the 19th century (i.e. the structuralists and behaviorists) that sought to reduce mankind to a hardwired machine or a salivating dog. He also sought to keep in check the exaggerated claims of psychiatry in his day which went so far as to consider neurotics as ‘degenerates’ whose illnesses were viewed as incoherent malfunctions of the psyche with no experiential significance. In a sense, Freud resisted reductionist theories, and attempted to plant his theories an equally safe distance from the extremes of religious fundamentalism, and, on the other hand, scientific materialism.
Freud pioneered objective dream interpretation, and I was quite impressed with his deconstruction of dream-work. As a result of reading his ideas on dreams, I came away with a greater capacity for understanding the development of what Freud calls ‘latent dream thoughts’ into what becomes the ‘manifest dream’. Working backwards one can interpret the original thought or ‘wish’ of the dream by unraveling the effects of ‘second-revisions’, ‘imagery’, ‘displacement’, and ‘condensation’ that distorts the original intent of the dream. This is not a naïve exploration of dream mystique, but a serious, analytical dissection of the mental processes that produce dreams.
Some of the most misunderstood and underappreciated facets of Freudian theory are his ideas on sexuality. There are SO many people who don’t understand but rashly judge on this issue, so I’ll make a few cursory attempts to bring clarification, and debunk some of the objections that might be raised against taking Freud seriously.
1) The Oedipus/Electra complexes are, along with most of the neuroses, really parental attachment issues in general and not necessarily conscious wishes to always have sex with a parent.
2) Idea’s such as female ‘penis-envy’ and male fear of castration may have been a cultural symptom of the sway of patriarchal power within society, and thus Freud’s analysis of his therapeutic experiences with neurotics may have been heavily influenced by the desire/fear of masculinity within society that could open or preclude someone from being accepted or rejected. In other words, it might have been more desirable in his day, even in all past history, to become a dominant male. How could that not find its way into psychological theories?
3) Freud believed that children were ‘polymorphously perverse’ and mostly unconscious. He believed their sexual gratification, especially in the pre-phallic stage, would take many different kinds of unconscious, perverse (unnatural) forms before it discovered pathways that were safe and purposeful in terms of fulfillment. In other words, children’s desires were going to be all over the place, and only our super-ego’s censure of ‘immoral thoughts’ keep us from suspecting that children’s sexuality might actually be a bit ‘crooked’ even in normal development. We largely believe children to be asexual, and Freud delights in scoffing at the obvious censoring of unacceptable theories that society deems ‘dangerous’.
4) Freud speculated, rightly in my mind, that his theories were going to be unpopular with mainstream society because Law would always represent the repression and denial of natural instincts that may upset the peace it has worked so hard to establish. “Society believes that no greater threat to its civilization could arise than if the sexual instincts were to be liberated and returned to their original aims. For this reason society does not wish to be reminded of this precarious portion of its foundations.” But in the repression (not guidance) of those instincts, the forceful current remains hidden underground that may one day erupt and swallow all of civilization’s finest work in a moment of instinctual upheaval.
5) It is well-known that Freud opposed religion in almost any form, but what he mostly repelled was any attempt, in science or religion, to craft a Weltanschaunng, or an absolute ‘theory of everything’. He knew too well that we are mentally prone to try and find an easy answer to salve our loneliness and fear, but we are too easily duped into ‘fixating’ on a pleasing concept that blinds us to our true condition, and offers us a promise of reward with little work, and little pain. Religion, in his mind, is an easy, one-stroke solution for a current complexity, and invariably ‘bears the imprint of the times [and conditions:] in which they arose’. It is copout, an avoidance of real problems and real pain. He mentions that religion may be significant in some stages of maturation, but ultimately needs to be outgrown. And, for much of the religion that Freud was familiar with, his estimate of religion may not have been far off point.
There’s more, much more. Freud was brazen in his exploration of the psyche, and lifted up his voice to boldly assert his ideas that he knew would be suppressed by the majority of people that heard him. But if there was anything Freud understood, it was that people naturally repress forces and ideas that threaten them to which they have no ready defense. Freud had reached into the mind and purposes of mankind and, in the words of W.H. Auden, put his “finger on the flesh that has been skinned”. There’s nothing to be afraid of here, except the realization that one might be found. And Freud did a great job of finding where it is that people are lurking, and what it is they are secretly clutching behind their own consciousness.
March 12, 2019
2 étoiles et demi !
Tome 1+2
J'ai lu il y a longtemps les critiques de Mustafa Mahmoud concernant les idées de Freud, à cet époque-là je n'ai la moindre idée de ce que Freud traite dans ses théories et conférences.
D'accord Freud est le père de la psychanalyse comme disent certains gens.
Je respecte ses analyses et je les admet au premier tome sur l'interprétation des rêves. (Relativement)
Dans le deuxième tome Freud exagère TROP même ! Il lie tout les actes à la sexualité Même pour un enfants et un bébé! Je suis CONTRE. C'est vraiment illogique et inacceptable, j'ose dire que c'est de la perversion.
Je suis déçue car je m'attendais à lire des choses plus intéressante...
Tome 1+2
J'ai lu il y a longtemps les critiques de Mustafa Mahmoud concernant les idées de Freud, à cet époque-là je n'ai la moindre idée de ce que Freud traite dans ses théories et conférences.
D'accord Freud est le père de la psychanalyse comme disent certains gens.
Je respecte ses analyses et je les admet au premier tome sur l'interprétation des rêves. (Relativement)
Dans le deuxième tome Freud exagère TROP même ! Il lie tout les actes à la sexualité Même pour un enfants et un bébé! Je suis CONTRE. C'est vraiment illogique et inacceptable, j'ose dire que c'est de la perversion.
Je suis déçue car je m'attendais à lire des choses plus intéressante...
March 3, 2013
كتاب صغير عباره عن ثلاث محاضرات, كان المفروض يكون إسمه "الهفوات و التحليل النفسي" أو حاجه زي كده
معضمه مقدمات وكلام بديهي (في وقتها كانت محاولات فرويد لإقناع علماء النفس) بأهمية دارسة الهفوات وزلات اللسان ضمن التحليل النفسي...يمكن آخر محاضره هي اللي فيها المفيد
معضمه مقدمات وكلام بديهي (في وقتها كانت محاولات فرويد لإقناع علماء النفس) بأهمية دارسة الهفوات وزلات اللسان ضمن التحليل النفسي...يمكن آخر محاضره هي اللي فيها المفيد
April 17, 2017
This is the book https://eduardolbm.files.wordpress.co...
October 12, 2020
We are all neurotics but we just don’t realize it and we need a psychoanalyst to guide us in the discovery of that fact by making us become repulsed by our repulsion and dropping our resistance to the resisting of the denial of our own repression and if you don’t realize that you have that repression than you are most certainly neurotic and in need of a psychoanalyst to guide you on your journey of self-discovery and healing from the repressed fear and anxiety that lies within your unconscious as your ego is sublimated by your libido’s desires that are caused by ‘mommy, daddy, and me’ thinking, anal fixations, and breast fascinations that formed while you were just a tyke, or just as devastating other life experiences that violated the stifling norms of your time period and remain hidden in the dark recesses of your unconscious mind and are as 'an organ without a body'. Freud believes all of that and more with no real evidence except for his tautology and his pseudoscience.
The key to undoing the neurosis you most certainly have or worse yet your perversions such as homosexuality that you might have because you are maniacally paranoid or excessively narcissistic is to understand that your previous experiences made you that kind of an ‘invert’ and you need to be cured by understanding what experience you’ve had, by considering any of your slips in speech, writing or other errors in behavior, and what dreams you have had which are masked by the unconscious censor and must be interpreted by a trained and highly paid professional psychoanalyst to get at what your real self, your unconscious self is telling you through symbols and images from your dreams.
The ego denies itself and often gets sublimated by the libido and the key to understanding the formlessness of the form without content within the unconscious is hidden within the ever changing shape that manifest itself from time to time and only a highly paid psychoanalyst will be able to make you resentful enough in the resistance thus freeing you to acknowledge the repression that you most certainly have.
The psychoanalysis that Freud defines is a tautology. That is the conclusion lies within the premise. You deny that you are repressed and therefore I know you are in denial about your repression so you must be repressed. That is Freud’s starting premise and within it includes his concluding premise. Also, a definition of a pseudoscience is a ‘science’ whose starting hypothesis is impossible to refute. That is there is no way one can refute the starting premise of his ‘science’. For example, ‘there are MIA in Vietnam’, there is no data I can provide to someone who makes that statement to show that they are wrong. Freud does a similar thing within this book by the way he confounds the ego, with libido and the unconscious in the making of his ‘science’ of psychoanalysis while his error analysis, dream interpretation and previous life's experiences entails his methodology for resolving his convoluted resolution for neurosis repair. I can’t say egos, libidos and the unconscious don’t exist as the formless content free forms as he claims they do and I can’t give him any data to show that he is wrong, but the burden of proof lies with the one who makes the original assertion and he provides no proof except for a narrative without foundation or 'an organ without a body'.
Also, the homosexual examples I cite above which come from this book show how time has left Freud’s paradigm way behind. Freud is blaming the mother, or childhood, or the individual narcissism or paranoia that came from the wrong mixture of the ego with the libido and the repressed unconscious mind for what he called a perversion, homosexuality. By him, homosexuality is considered as a behavior problem brought about by a person’s previous experiences from extreme narcissism or malignant paranoia, while today we know people are just born that way. Similarly, for neuro-diverse people we no longer blame refrigerator moms we just say that person was born that way, and so on.
There is value for when someone suffers from fear, anxiety, depression, addiction or a host of other psychological problems sitting with a professional or a group of other people who feel their dreads, but the overwhelming majority of this book is non-sense and is only worthwhile for today to show how the 20th century went off the rails and could embrace and accept a tautology wrapped around non-falsifiable hypothesizes with mostly harmful prescriptions. I just wonder how many people read this book that pointed out how sick they were because they were homosexuals and therefore ended up feeling the real pangs of despair because they were led to believe they should be self loathing since Freud would make the person a victim worthy of pity, shame and self loathing rather than acknowledging that the person was just born that way as we would say for somebody who was born left handed.
Deleuze in his book Anti-Oedipus does use an immanent critique in his destruction of Freud’s psychoanalysis. In the first paragraph above, I use his expression ‘mommy, daddy, and me’ for Oedipal Complex, and refrained from saying as he did ‘anal shit’, and did use his breast fascination implying the root cause for some neurosis, or creating an 'organ without a body'. Freud is dangerous and at best is mocked and can be refuted through his own assumptions as Deleuze did, or it can be shown to be a pseudo-science as Karl Popper did in his The Open Society.
The key to undoing the neurosis you most certainly have or worse yet your perversions such as homosexuality that you might have because you are maniacally paranoid or excessively narcissistic is to understand that your previous experiences made you that kind of an ‘invert’ and you need to be cured by understanding what experience you’ve had, by considering any of your slips in speech, writing or other errors in behavior, and what dreams you have had which are masked by the unconscious censor and must be interpreted by a trained and highly paid professional psychoanalyst to get at what your real self, your unconscious self is telling you through symbols and images from your dreams.
The ego denies itself and often gets sublimated by the libido and the key to understanding the formlessness of the form without content within the unconscious is hidden within the ever changing shape that manifest itself from time to time and only a highly paid psychoanalyst will be able to make you resentful enough in the resistance thus freeing you to acknowledge the repression that you most certainly have.
The psychoanalysis that Freud defines is a tautology. That is the conclusion lies within the premise. You deny that you are repressed and therefore I know you are in denial about your repression so you must be repressed. That is Freud’s starting premise and within it includes his concluding premise. Also, a definition of a pseudoscience is a ‘science’ whose starting hypothesis is impossible to refute. That is there is no way one can refute the starting premise of his ‘science’. For example, ‘there are MIA in Vietnam’, there is no data I can provide to someone who makes that statement to show that they are wrong. Freud does a similar thing within this book by the way he confounds the ego, with libido and the unconscious in the making of his ‘science’ of psychoanalysis while his error analysis, dream interpretation and previous life's experiences entails his methodology for resolving his convoluted resolution for neurosis repair. I can’t say egos, libidos and the unconscious don’t exist as the formless content free forms as he claims they do and I can’t give him any data to show that he is wrong, but the burden of proof lies with the one who makes the original assertion and he provides no proof except for a narrative without foundation or 'an organ without a body'.
Also, the homosexual examples I cite above which come from this book show how time has left Freud’s paradigm way behind. Freud is blaming the mother, or childhood, or the individual narcissism or paranoia that came from the wrong mixture of the ego with the libido and the repressed unconscious mind for what he called a perversion, homosexuality. By him, homosexuality is considered as a behavior problem brought about by a person’s previous experiences from extreme narcissism or malignant paranoia, while today we know people are just born that way. Similarly, for neuro-diverse people we no longer blame refrigerator moms we just say that person was born that way, and so on.
There is value for when someone suffers from fear, anxiety, depression, addiction or a host of other psychological problems sitting with a professional or a group of other people who feel their dreads, but the overwhelming majority of this book is non-sense and is only worthwhile for today to show how the 20th century went off the rails and could embrace and accept a tautology wrapped around non-falsifiable hypothesizes with mostly harmful prescriptions. I just wonder how many people read this book that pointed out how sick they were because they were homosexuals and therefore ended up feeling the real pangs of despair because they were led to believe they should be self loathing since Freud would make the person a victim worthy of pity, shame and self loathing rather than acknowledging that the person was just born that way as we would say for somebody who was born left handed.
Deleuze in his book Anti-Oedipus does use an immanent critique in his destruction of Freud’s psychoanalysis. In the first paragraph above, I use his expression ‘mommy, daddy, and me’ for Oedipal Complex, and refrained from saying as he did ‘anal shit’, and did use his breast fascination implying the root cause for some neurosis, or creating an 'organ without a body'. Freud is dangerous and at best is mocked and can be refuted through his own assumptions as Deleuze did, or it can be shown to be a pseudo-science as Karl Popper did in his The Open Society.
July 24, 2024
I will write a proper review for this soon because i read it very closely and gave everything a lot of thought, but in good news i didn’t realise i already had the second book of lectures- not just another book of Freuds lectures, but actually the second book that follows this one, in the same series. So I’m really looking forward to reading that after I finish one of the non fiction books I’ve got going right now
November 22, 2012
Male chauvinist. Nothing closet about him at all. The wonder is that he is still given any credence. If ever there was advice to be applied to the "teacher", it would be this:
Physician, heal thyself.
Physician, heal thyself.
July 28, 2024
did freud ever consider…. it might not be about sex
February 11, 2018
Kažkada labai seniai skaičiau šitą knygą sėdėdama bare, praeidamas kažkas iš darbuotojų pasakė: "O, Freudas", o paskui atnešė sulčių baro sąskaita.
Taip ir nesupratau, kas tąsyk įvyko.
---
Bet knyga patiko - nėra moksliškai aktuali, bet įdomu stebėti patį mąstymo būdą, ypač apie riktus patiko skaityti, iki šiol pamenu.
Taip ir nesupratau, kas tąsyk įvyko.
---
Bet knyga patiko - nėra moksliškai aktuali, bet įdomu stebėti patį mąstymo būdą, ypač apie riktus patiko skaityti, iki šiol pamenu.
December 18, 2021
محاضرات للوغد الذكيّ فرويد
يحاول تطبيع مدرسة التحليل النفسيّ
مع تركيز رائع على فكرة مدهشة
وهي التحليل النفسي لزلّات اللسان
ولهفوات الإنسان ولسلوك النسيان
تحليل مقنع أخيرًا لفرويد
يحاول تطبيع مدرسة التحليل النفسيّ
مع تركيز رائع على فكرة مدهشة
وهي التحليل النفسي لزلّات اللسان
ولهفوات الإنسان ولسلوك النسيان
تحليل مقنع أخيرًا لفرويد
January 27, 2020
Trudno oceniać rzetelnie t a k klasyczne już dzieło. Nie mam jednak skrupułów, bo prawdziwe "klasyki" nie starzeją się, a Wstęp do psychoanalizy postarzał się niebywale. Jest to dzieło niesłychanie anachroniczne, dziwaczne, groteskowe i chwilami nawet niebezpieczne.
Jest to zapis wykładów, które Freud dawał wielokrotnie przed 1917 rokiem. Jest to streszczenie jego myśli, streszczenie podstaw teorii psychoanalitycznej.
Mam wobec treści tych wykładów wiele zastrzeżeń i tylko kilka przychylnych słów. Freud buduje swoje idee na nieuprawnionych wnioskach ze swojej obserwacji, wiele rzeczy zmyśla, nadinterpretuje, ekstrapoluje wnioski tam, gdzie robić tego nie należy. Co więcej dużo czasu poświęca na usprawiedliwianie swoich pomysłów i robi to z tak nieznośną pewnością siebie, że od razu przestaje być wiarygodny.
Pomijam tu czasy, w których Freud pracował, kiedy to dzieci były traktowane przedmiotowo, kobiety z gruntu były gorsze od mężczyzn, a homoseksualiści byli zboczeńcami. Trudno wtedy było myśleć i mówić inaczej. Chodzi mi tu raczej o logikę wywodu, techniczne umiejętności prowadzenia obserwacji i wyciągania wniosków, czyli o szeroko pojętą metodę naukową (tak docenianą przez Freuda), którą Freud posługiwał się zupełnie nieprawidłowo.
Nie odbierze się Freudowi tych kilku (doniosłych) zasług (uwzględnienie życia psychicznego dziecka, istnienia nieświadomego itd), ale nie wystarcza to by wkład Freuda w rozumienie psychologii człowieka uznać za jednoznacznie pozytywny. Na szczęście jego uczniowe szybko naprawiali błędy ojca psychoanalizy.
Nie polecam.
Jest to zapis wykładów, które Freud dawał wielokrotnie przed 1917 rokiem. Jest to streszczenie jego myśli, streszczenie podstaw teorii psychoanalitycznej.
Mam wobec treści tych wykładów wiele zastrzeżeń i tylko kilka przychylnych słów. Freud buduje swoje idee na nieuprawnionych wnioskach ze swojej obserwacji, wiele rzeczy zmyśla, nadinterpretuje, ekstrapoluje wnioski tam, gdzie robić tego nie należy. Co więcej dużo czasu poświęca na usprawiedliwianie swoich pomysłów i robi to z tak nieznośną pewnością siebie, że od razu przestaje być wiarygodny.
Pomijam tu czasy, w których Freud pracował, kiedy to dzieci były traktowane przedmiotowo, kobiety z gruntu były gorsze od mężczyzn, a homoseksualiści byli zboczeńcami. Trudno wtedy było myśleć i mówić inaczej. Chodzi mi tu raczej o logikę wywodu, techniczne umiejętności prowadzenia obserwacji i wyciągania wniosków, czyli o szeroko pojętą metodę naukową (tak docenianą przez Freuda), którą Freud posługiwał się zupełnie nieprawidłowo.
Nie odbierze się Freudowi tych kilku (doniosłych) zasług (uwzględnienie życia psychicznego dziecka, istnienia nieświadomego itd), ale nie wystarcza to by wkład Freuda w rozumienie psychologii człowieka uznać za jednoznacznie pozytywny. Na szczęście jego uczniowe szybko naprawiali błędy ojca psychoanalizy.
Nie polecam.
July 30, 2022
Tak jak jestem fanką Freuda jako "ojca psychologii", tak jego książki, czy w tym przypadku zbiór wykładów zaliczyłabym raczej do historii. Wynudziłam się niemiłosiernie. Jednak gdyby ktoś kazałby mi przeczytać tę książkę jeszcze raz to zrobiłabym to, jako studentka psychologii zainteresowana początkami tej nauki. Jeśli nie jesteście zainteresowani psychoanalizą i historią psychologii, to uważam, że czas lepiej poświęcić bardziej współczesnym książkom.
June 22, 2022
freud is almost always misunderstood in popular culture, hence its sometimes triggering for a modern reader, close reading helps to understand the larger framework he was working at & the genius of his groundbreaking ideas
December 30, 2007
He put a lot of work into this. The copious amounts of effort that I put into bullshitting a term paper, perhaps.
February 1, 2023
Reading Freud was the most challenging and bizzare experience I’ve had in this whole year.
Definitely worth the time spent.
Definitely worth the time spent.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 568 reviews