What do you think?
Rate this book
الإنسان لنفسه: بحث في علم نفس الأخلاق
Routledge is now re-issuing this prestigious series of 204 volumes originally published between 1910 and 1965. The titles include works by key figures such as C.G. Jung, Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget, Otto Rank, James Hillman, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney and Susan Isaacs. Each volume is available on its own, as part of a themed mini-set, or as part of a specially-priced 204-volume set. A brochure listing each title in the International Library of Psychology series is available upon request.
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1947
472 people are currently reading
7634 people want to read
About the author
Erich Fromm
446 books5,294 followersErich Fromm, Ph.D. (Sociology, University of Heidelberg, 1922) was a German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was a German Jew who fled the Nazi regime and settled in the United States. He was one of the founders of The William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology in New York City and was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory.
Fromm explored the interaction between psychology and society, and held various professorships in psychology in the U.S. and Mexico in the mid-20th century.
Fromm's theory is a rather unique blend of Freud and Marx. Freud, of course, emphasized the unconscious, biological drives, repression, and so on. In other words, Freud postulated that our characters were determined by biology. Marx, on the other hand, saw people as determined by their society, and most especially by their economic systems.
Fromm explored the interaction between psychology and society, and held various professorships in psychology in the U.S. and Mexico in the mid-20th century.
Fromm's theory is a rather unique blend of Freud and Marx. Freud, of course, emphasized the unconscious, biological drives, repression, and so on. In other words, Freud postulated that our characters were determined by biology. Marx, on the other hand, saw people as determined by their society, and most especially by their economic systems.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews
June 17, 2025
I read this back in the sixties. You know, the age of travelling book markets... bookmobiles that SOLD books.
Back in those years of the Boomer’s (like me) intellectual awakening, our borrowed humanistic ideals created a dysfunctional world. You’d have thought they would have an opposite effect, but they didn’t.
Why was that? Because the Greatest Generation (those who lived during the War) repressed our cries for wholesale change. The Greatest Génération was beginning an entropic phase of affluent consumerism.
Well, we hippies didn’t agree! We meditated, resisted progress and generally sought answers to life’s riddles. And we resisted the Establishment, albeit mainly peaceably.
We were radical humanists and the oldtimers would have none of it! You see it even today, a time when reactionary forces can still elect a radical head of state. It’s like the sheep and the goats. And some days we get confused.
We humanists were bent on taking Heaven by storm, while the reactionaries only pay lip service to Christian zeal, for theirs is a zeal by rote. A zeal that believes in MAN FOR HIMSELF.
Man for Himself - this even Sartre admitted - is pure Facticity, a grimy, gritty Slough of Selfhood, “a hopeless passion.” The 18th century mystic William Blake, in his visionary poems, calls that realm Ulro.
Ulro, according to a redoubtable blog site (www.longswordepress.com), is “the spectral order ruled over by the mad Zoa and false god Urizen, who is called the ‘Ancient of Days’ “ or Nobodaddy.
Where is the God of Love in all that, I wonder!
Back in the sixties, though, Fromm’s book seemed a tad ho-hum: back then, humanist zealots were everywhere. My friends were all bullied humanists like me. We thought good will would win out in the end.
If you are interested in a very intelligent summary of it, READ my wonderful friend Morgan’s glorious review. He deals with the book in MUCH more detail. My memory of it is vague.
But if I were to reread this book today -
When a liberal wave is once again coming to shore -
I know I’d love it Much More than the first time, when Ulro was simply a mad dream.
Now he’s for real.
Back in those years of the Boomer’s (like me) intellectual awakening, our borrowed humanistic ideals created a dysfunctional world. You’d have thought they would have an opposite effect, but they didn’t.
Why was that? Because the Greatest Generation (those who lived during the War) repressed our cries for wholesale change. The Greatest Génération was beginning an entropic phase of affluent consumerism.
Well, we hippies didn’t agree! We meditated, resisted progress and generally sought answers to life’s riddles. And we resisted the Establishment, albeit mainly peaceably.
We were radical humanists and the oldtimers would have none of it! You see it even today, a time when reactionary forces can still elect a radical head of state. It’s like the sheep and the goats. And some days we get confused.
We humanists were bent on taking Heaven by storm, while the reactionaries only pay lip service to Christian zeal, for theirs is a zeal by rote. A zeal that believes in MAN FOR HIMSELF.
Man for Himself - this even Sartre admitted - is pure Facticity, a grimy, gritty Slough of Selfhood, “a hopeless passion.” The 18th century mystic William Blake, in his visionary poems, calls that realm Ulro.
Ulro, according to a redoubtable blog site (www.longswordepress.com), is “the spectral order ruled over by the mad Zoa and false god Urizen, who is called the ‘Ancient of Days’ “ or Nobodaddy.
Where is the God of Love in all that, I wonder!
Back in the sixties, though, Fromm’s book seemed a tad ho-hum: back then, humanist zealots were everywhere. My friends were all bullied humanists like me. We thought good will would win out in the end.
If you are interested in a very intelligent summary of it, READ my wonderful friend Morgan’s glorious review. He deals with the book in MUCH more detail. My memory of it is vague.
But if I were to reread this book today -
When a liberal wave is once again coming to shore -
I know I’d love it Much More than the first time, when Ulro was simply a mad dream.
Now he’s for real.
January 27, 2020
Excuse me for gushing but....
I feel like I just discovered a charming, brilliant, wise old talking tree in the forest, who’s every word is as clear and valuable to me as a polished precious stone.
His name is Eric Fromm, and he speaks to me via books, originally written on paper made from industrial scale deforestation, but now delivered electronically, powered by the bones and blood of long extinct beings i.e. coal and oil.
Fromm speaks from the grave (he died in 1980). But he speaks to certain aspects of here (America) and now (2020) as well or better than anyone that I am currently aware.
Man For Himself stands alone, but also functions as a compliment to his third eye poking Escape From Freedom (read first).
Fromm was a psychoanalyst, and was as such, a huge admirer of Freud, but was also one of Freud’s shrewdest critics.
One of Fromm’s major critiques was focused on Freud’s failure to address the issue of secular ethics.
Man For Himself represents Fromm’s formulation of ‘Humanistic Ethics’ grounded in psychology, science and secular humanism (as opposed to religion and culturally bound traditions).
Ethics, for Fromm, are normative cultural and psycho-philosophical standards, important to everyones process of individuation and self-actualization.
Fromm argues that the absence of a modern rational ethics drives people to religious dogma, nihilistic forms of consumerism and totalitarian ideologies that offer toxic respite from the anxiety of uncertainty.
Fromm developed his ethics by integrating Freud’s psychology (specifically Freud’s system of psychosexual development), Marxist humanistic sociology, and Nietzsche’s existential philosophy of personal discovery and meaning making.
I know all of that sounds so ‘last century’, and it is, but Fromm snatches the jewel from each of those ideological dung heaps, and synthesis them into a clear, beautiful and useful vision.
Freud’s Psychosexual Development:
Freud posited that humans progress through distinct stages of psychological, social and sexual development, typified by (adaptive) focus and (maladaptive) fixation, centered in different bodily loci.
Oral Stage (Birth to 1 year) refers to the time in life when babies explore the world by putting things in their mouth. Oral fixation later in adult life is typified by nail biting, smoking and use of other oral incorporations for soothing anxiety.
Anal Stage (1 to 3 years) refers to the libidinal focus on the anus, poop and pooping. It coincides with potty training and represents the child’s first experiences of autonomy. According to Freud, adult fixation in this stage is typified by over sharing and poor boundaries.
Phallic Stage (3 to 6 years) refers to libidinal focus in the genitals (in both sexes). Adult fixation in this stage is typified by “gender role confusion”.
Latency Stage (6 years to puberty) refers to the adoption of repression and concealment of sexual impulses, where by they are (ideally) channeled into psycho-social skill development.
Genital Stage (puberty to adult) refers to final stage of Freud's psychosexual theory and begins in puberty. It is typified by adolescent sexual experimentation, preparing the individual for loving one-to-one relationship with another person in adulthood.
Fromm argues that Freud’s psychosexual stages e.g. oral, anal, and genital were usefully descriptive of human development, but were far too focused on the immature, maladaptive “consuming” phases, and incomplete in their descriptions of the adaptive or “productive” stages.
From posits the following “character types” in an attempt to ‘flesh out’ and ‘fill in the gaps’ in Freud’s model.
Fromm’s Character Types:
Fromm uses the outmoded term character (as opposed to personality), to refer to the ways we enact our values, and use our personage in relationship to and with others.
Fromm distinguishes between passive, unproductive consumer stages (1-4), and the more mature and adaptive productive stage (5).
1. The Receptive “taker” Type: characterized by low self-efficacy, contingent self-esteem, and a pervasive hunger for external reassurance, approval and validation.
2. The “user” Exploiter Type: refers to those who establish relationships with others out of pure selfish interest, and who are typically focused on exploiting the afore mentioned receptive types.
3. The Hoarder Type: characterized by a pervasive sense of emptiness, refers to those whose sense of self worth is all but entirely derived by their ability to accumulate material goods.
4. The Marketing Type: characterized by a sense of self as commodity, these “symbol pushers” sell their ideas and personalities to other consumer types, and have a sense of self value based on their marketability.
This (in my opinion) is the real golden nugget of the book.
Fromm is referring to “sales” type people, who’s product is them selves, and who connect with others for a living.
This type includes artists, celebrities, politicians, intellectuals and dare I say it.....most therapists.
This observation is particularly shrewd the age of me-marketing and self-branding.
Who among us can’t relate to ‘The Marketing Type’ in 2020.
Who doesn’t feel like a commodity in the age of social media and surveillance capitalism.
The obvious problem is, what happens to your sense of self when you’re only valued for your most superficial qualities, and/or, what if no one‘s buying the personality that you’re selling?
Fromm posits the following as the pathway out of the afore mentioned consumerist, self commodification hall of mirrors hell described in stages (1-4).
5. The productive type: characterized by the ability to construct meaning, nurture loving relationships and by the commitment to being of genuine service to the greater good.
Fromm argues that consumer capitalism constrains our growth to stages (1-4) and argues for a society that fosters stage (5) via valuing free time, education, personal exploration and growth, meaning making, and the creation of enriching culture, relationships and community.
For Fromm, if we fail to transition from a society that only values work, consumption, and reproduction as an end, rather than as a means to genuine appreciation, discovery and connection (i.e. happiness), than the golden opportunity of American prosperity and freedom, that untold millions worked and died for, will all be destined for the landfill and nothing more.
I hope that on some level, there is at least something in all of this that at least some of us can agree upon.
Lastly, incase it isn’t clear, I really enjoyed this book.
Five Stars ⭐️
I feel like I just discovered a charming, brilliant, wise old talking tree in the forest, who’s every word is as clear and valuable to me as a polished precious stone.
His name is Eric Fromm, and he speaks to me via books, originally written on paper made from industrial scale deforestation, but now delivered electronically, powered by the bones and blood of long extinct beings i.e. coal and oil.
Fromm speaks from the grave (he died in 1980). But he speaks to certain aspects of here (America) and now (2020) as well or better than anyone that I am currently aware.
Man For Himself stands alone, but also functions as a compliment to his third eye poking Escape From Freedom (read first).
Fromm was a psychoanalyst, and was as such, a huge admirer of Freud, but was also one of Freud’s shrewdest critics.
One of Fromm’s major critiques was focused on Freud’s failure to address the issue of secular ethics.
Man For Himself represents Fromm’s formulation of ‘Humanistic Ethics’ grounded in psychology, science and secular humanism (as opposed to religion and culturally bound traditions).
Ethics, for Fromm, are normative cultural and psycho-philosophical standards, important to everyones process of individuation and self-actualization.
Fromm argues that the absence of a modern rational ethics drives people to religious dogma, nihilistic forms of consumerism and totalitarian ideologies that offer toxic respite from the anxiety of uncertainty.
Fromm developed his ethics by integrating Freud’s psychology (specifically Freud’s system of psychosexual development), Marxist humanistic sociology, and Nietzsche’s existential philosophy of personal discovery and meaning making.
I know all of that sounds so ‘last century’, and it is, but Fromm snatches the jewel from each of those ideological dung heaps, and synthesis them into a clear, beautiful and useful vision.
Freud’s Psychosexual Development:
Freud posited that humans progress through distinct stages of psychological, social and sexual development, typified by (adaptive) focus and (maladaptive) fixation, centered in different bodily loci.
Oral Stage (Birth to 1 year) refers to the time in life when babies explore the world by putting things in their mouth. Oral fixation later in adult life is typified by nail biting, smoking and use of other oral incorporations for soothing anxiety.
Anal Stage (1 to 3 years) refers to the libidinal focus on the anus, poop and pooping. It coincides with potty training and represents the child’s first experiences of autonomy. According to Freud, adult fixation in this stage is typified by over sharing and poor boundaries.
Phallic Stage (3 to 6 years) refers to libidinal focus in the genitals (in both sexes). Adult fixation in this stage is typified by “gender role confusion”.
Latency Stage (6 years to puberty) refers to the adoption of repression and concealment of sexual impulses, where by they are (ideally) channeled into psycho-social skill development.
Genital Stage (puberty to adult) refers to final stage of Freud's psychosexual theory and begins in puberty. It is typified by adolescent sexual experimentation, preparing the individual for loving one-to-one relationship with another person in adulthood.
Fromm argues that Freud’s psychosexual stages e.g. oral, anal, and genital were usefully descriptive of human development, but were far too focused on the immature, maladaptive “consuming” phases, and incomplete in their descriptions of the adaptive or “productive” stages.
From posits the following “character types” in an attempt to ‘flesh out’ and ‘fill in the gaps’ in Freud’s model.
Fromm’s Character Types:
Fromm uses the outmoded term character (as opposed to personality), to refer to the ways we enact our values, and use our personage in relationship to and with others.
Fromm distinguishes between passive, unproductive consumer stages (1-4), and the more mature and adaptive productive stage (5).
1. The Receptive “taker” Type: characterized by low self-efficacy, contingent self-esteem, and a pervasive hunger for external reassurance, approval and validation.
2. The “user” Exploiter Type: refers to those who establish relationships with others out of pure selfish interest, and who are typically focused on exploiting the afore mentioned receptive types.
3. The Hoarder Type: characterized by a pervasive sense of emptiness, refers to those whose sense of self worth is all but entirely derived by their ability to accumulate material goods.
4. The Marketing Type: characterized by a sense of self as commodity, these “symbol pushers” sell their ideas and personalities to other consumer types, and have a sense of self value based on their marketability.
This (in my opinion) is the real golden nugget of the book.
Fromm is referring to “sales” type people, who’s product is them selves, and who connect with others for a living.
This type includes artists, celebrities, politicians, intellectuals and dare I say it.....most therapists.
This observation is particularly shrewd the age of me-marketing and self-branding.
Who among us can’t relate to ‘The Marketing Type’ in 2020.
Who doesn’t feel like a commodity in the age of social media and surveillance capitalism.
The obvious problem is, what happens to your sense of self when you’re only valued for your most superficial qualities, and/or, what if no one‘s buying the personality that you’re selling?
Fromm posits the following as the pathway out of the afore mentioned consumerist, self commodification hall of mirrors hell described in stages (1-4).
5. The productive type: characterized by the ability to construct meaning, nurture loving relationships and by the commitment to being of genuine service to the greater good.
Fromm argues that consumer capitalism constrains our growth to stages (1-4) and argues for a society that fosters stage (5) via valuing free time, education, personal exploration and growth, meaning making, and the creation of enriching culture, relationships and community.
For Fromm, if we fail to transition from a society that only values work, consumption, and reproduction as an end, rather than as a means to genuine appreciation, discovery and connection (i.e. happiness), than the golden opportunity of American prosperity and freedom, that untold millions worked and died for, will all be destined for the landfill and nothing more.
I hope that on some level, there is at least something in all of this that at least some of us can agree upon.
Lastly, incase it isn’t clear, I really enjoyed this book.
Five Stars ⭐️
July 25, 2008
Interesting but defective. Fromm tries to sketch an ethical system that is both objective and humanistic. That is, he believes that morality should derive from mankind's true nature and objective needs, but that we should get it from ourselves rather than from some transcendent authority. This project is self-defeating.
In the first place, Fromm's quest for objectivity devolves into a new kind of authoritarianism. Fromm believes that social scientists, especially psychologists (such as Fromm himself, to no one's surprise) are the ones who can identify what human nature is and how human needs are to be properly fulfilled. In other words, psychologists are supposed to assume precisely the same ethical authority that priests and kings wield. Priests and kings pronounce for the good of humanity too. When they claim divine authority, they're just claiming to represent the most objective and rational being in the universe, the one Person who can say what human nature and needs really are. They often go wrong, if you ask me, but so do psychologists. Why should I trust the latter more than the former?
Throughout the book, Fromm tries to disguise his authoritarianism by cloaking it with such magic question-begging words as "productive," "potential," "human," and especially "rational." For example: "Rational authority has its source in competence. ... its acceptance depend[s] on its performance." (9) This tells me nothing. For in Fromm's system, the only way to figure out whether the psychologists are "performing rationally" is to ask psychologists. No one else would necessarily know. Being frequently trapped in irrational ways of thinking, we often don't recognize our own needs, and we're not allowed to appeal to any (other) authority for ethical guidance. If I am trapped in "masochistic" thinking, as Fromm says I probably am, then how am I even supposed to tell whether a psychologist is competent? Perhaps she's just gratifying my self-loathing in especially clever ways.
Second, Fromm relies heavily on equivocation. In particular, he deliberately conflates the concepts of a man and mankind. (We see this ambiguity even in the title.) This allows him to dismiss the possibility that two individuals can have conflicting genuine interests. In other words, Fromm writes as if the existence of a common human nature -- an essential similarity between a man and mankind -- means that individuals' true interests are in harmony. In fact, it suggests the opposite. The more similar two people are, the more likely they are to clash over a finite resource, and the harder it will be for anyone to settle their claims in a way that will satisfy both. To be valid, ethics must deal with the fact that individuals are separate entities with equal competing claims. Fromm never faces this fact.
Third, this same equivocation forces Fromm to slip (without admitting it) into ethical egoism. His prime moral principle boils down to enlightened self-interest. Claiming that the good of mankind and the good of the individual are one and the same, Fromm denies both the possibility and the rightness of any sort of altruism. In fact, he condemns it. He condemns the idea of sacrificing one's own needs to those of others, and he insists that the true needs of the individual and the true needs of mankind are identical. That is solipsism, not objectivity. It not only remakes man in Fromm's image, but denies that there is any purpose in human life independent of Fromm's.
Let me boil this down to a single hypothetical scenario. Suppose I give up my life to save the life of someone else. In doing this, I am not defending my enlightened self-interest; I am instead giving up my self entirely. I am obeying a perceived higher moral principle, one that permits and even encourages me to terminate my own "human potential." (For there is nothing in my personality or in human psychology to suggest that my internal purpose is to die young. On the contrary, self-preservation is about as basic a natural impulse as I can think of. The justification for dying young, thwarting my internal purposes, must come from outside of me.) In such a case, either my self-sacrifice is evil, or Fromm's ethical system is false.
Given my own objective, rational study of centuries' worth of recorded human self-examination on the subject of self-sacrifice, I am inclined toward the latter conclusion.
In the first place, Fromm's quest for objectivity devolves into a new kind of authoritarianism. Fromm believes that social scientists, especially psychologists (such as Fromm himself, to no one's surprise) are the ones who can identify what human nature is and how human needs are to be properly fulfilled. In other words, psychologists are supposed to assume precisely the same ethical authority that priests and kings wield. Priests and kings pronounce for the good of humanity too. When they claim divine authority, they're just claiming to represent the most objective and rational being in the universe, the one Person who can say what human nature and needs really are. They often go wrong, if you ask me, but so do psychologists. Why should I trust the latter more than the former?
Throughout the book, Fromm tries to disguise his authoritarianism by cloaking it with such magic question-begging words as "productive," "potential," "human," and especially "rational." For example: "Rational authority has its source in competence. ... its acceptance depend[s] on its performance." (9) This tells me nothing. For in Fromm's system, the only way to figure out whether the psychologists are "performing rationally" is to ask psychologists. No one else would necessarily know. Being frequently trapped in irrational ways of thinking, we often don't recognize our own needs, and we're not allowed to appeal to any (other) authority for ethical guidance. If I am trapped in "masochistic" thinking, as Fromm says I probably am, then how am I even supposed to tell whether a psychologist is competent? Perhaps she's just gratifying my self-loathing in especially clever ways.
Second, Fromm relies heavily on equivocation. In particular, he deliberately conflates the concepts of a man and mankind. (We see this ambiguity even in the title.) This allows him to dismiss the possibility that two individuals can have conflicting genuine interests. In other words, Fromm writes as if the existence of a common human nature -- an essential similarity between a man and mankind -- means that individuals' true interests are in harmony. In fact, it suggests the opposite. The more similar two people are, the more likely they are to clash over a finite resource, and the harder it will be for anyone to settle their claims in a way that will satisfy both. To be valid, ethics must deal with the fact that individuals are separate entities with equal competing claims. Fromm never faces this fact.
Third, this same equivocation forces Fromm to slip (without admitting it) into ethical egoism. His prime moral principle boils down to enlightened self-interest. Claiming that the good of mankind and the good of the individual are one and the same, Fromm denies both the possibility and the rightness of any sort of altruism. In fact, he condemns it. He condemns the idea of sacrificing one's own needs to those of others, and he insists that the true needs of the individual and the true needs of mankind are identical. That is solipsism, not objectivity. It not only remakes man in Fromm's image, but denies that there is any purpose in human life independent of Fromm's.
Let me boil this down to a single hypothetical scenario. Suppose I give up my life to save the life of someone else. In doing this, I am not defending my enlightened self-interest; I am instead giving up my self entirely. I am obeying a perceived higher moral principle, one that permits and even encourages me to terminate my own "human potential." (For there is nothing in my personality or in human psychology to suggest that my internal purpose is to die young. On the contrary, self-preservation is about as basic a natural impulse as I can think of. The justification for dying young, thwarting my internal purposes, must come from outside of me.) In such a case, either my self-sacrifice is evil, or Fromm's ethical system is false.
Given my own objective, rational study of centuries' worth of recorded human self-examination on the subject of self-sacrifice, I am inclined toward the latter conclusion.
January 19, 2016
يبدأ المؤلف بحثه بفصل أوَّل يحدد فيه المشكلة التي هو بصدد معالجتها، فتظهر للقارئ منذ الوهلة الأولى الثقة العلمية لإيرك فورم؛ إذ أنَّ تحديد مشكلة البحث أمر يكشف عن ملامح الكتاب ويرسم خطوطًا متقطعة لهيكله العام.
ثُمَّ ينتقل في الفصل الثاني ليقرر المشكلة تقريرًا علميًا بنفي الشبهات عنها، فيمارس قسمة ثنائية منطقية مضمرة في بحث متناسق، فينفي مقولة ال��سبوية في الأخلاق بطرد مصدري التسلط والوضعانية.
وفي فصله الثالث يسلك مسلكًا تحليليًا إرجاعيًا بالتدقيق في الإنسان طبيعة وطبعًا.
وأمَّا في الفصل الرابع فيسلط القلم البحثي على معالجة ما قد يوقع في النسبوية، مثل: الأنانية، الضمير، اللذة والسعادة، الوسائل والغايات، الخير والشر.. فيبدع في معالجات موضوعية ماكِنة.
ثُمَّ يختم كتابه بتقرير طبيعة المشكلة الأخلاقية، فينتهي إلى أنّ واحدة على طول الخط التاريخي، وأمَّا التحولات الثقافية فهي مُظهِرات لنفس المشكلة، وتغيرها لا يعني تغير المشكلة..
كتاب علمي مهم، أتمنى لكم معه قراءة رائقة .
ثُمَّ ينتقل في الفصل الثاني ليقرر المشكلة تقريرًا علميًا بنفي الشبهات عنها، فيمارس قسمة ثنائية منطقية مضمرة في بحث متناسق، فينفي مقولة ال��سبوية في الأخلاق بطرد مصدري التسلط والوضعانية.
وفي فصله الثالث يسلك مسلكًا تحليليًا إرجاعيًا بالتدقيق في الإنسان طبيعة وطبعًا.
وأمَّا في الفصل الرابع فيسلط القلم البحثي على معالجة ما قد يوقع في النسبوية، مثل: الأنانية، الضمير، اللذة والسعادة، الوسائل والغايات، الخير والشر.. فيبدع في معالجات موضوعية ماكِنة.
ثُمَّ يختم كتابه بتقرير طبيعة المشكلة الأخلاقية، فينتهي إلى أنّ واحدة على طول الخط التاريخي، وأمَّا التحولات الثقافية فهي مُظهِرات لنفس المشكلة، وتغيرها لا يعني تغير المشكلة..
كتاب علمي مهم، أتمنى لكم معه قراءة رائقة .
July 3, 2013
ظل يمارس الكتابة والتحليل النفسي كما ظل يمارس التنقل إلى مكان جديد كل مرة , إريش فروم المحلل المولع بفرويد , الملحد المولود لعائلة متدينة بالأرثوذكسية واليهودية
إحتك إريش فروم بالديانات وبالفلسفة و بالأساس بالتحليل النفسي ومن هنا كانت كتابته خليطا مميزا بينها غالب عليه التحليل النفسي , ولكونه من الظواهر المميزة في عصره إهتم به الكثيرون والآن هناك جمعية بإسمه قائمة على دراسة تراثه الفكري لها إصدارات و جوائز سنوية , نال آخرها نعوم تشومسكي اللغوي المعروف في 2010
وهذا موقع الجمعية :
http://www.frommsociety.com/index.php...
الكتاب :
الإنسان في عصرنا هذا تخبط كثيرا في الأخلاق ونظمها تخبط أيضا في فكرة العيش والغاية والوسيلة والحب والسعادة في هذا الكتاب يصدر فروم لإنسان جديد هو الإنسان الذي يفهم أنه يعيش من أجل ذاته بذاته في مبدأ لا تخلو منه صفحة وأخرى فيما يسمى بالإنتاجية , في عصر أستهلك الإنسان معناه ليدخل في الكآبة و اليأس حتى وإن حقق متطلبات حياته فهو لا يدرك فن العيش , ويظهر أن هذا الإنعكاس من ممارسة فروم للتحليل النفسي
يتنقل الكتاب بين مدارس الأخلاق الإنسانية المختلفة بين فلسفة اليونان و المسيحيين والحداثيين وبلغة المثال يقرب المفهوم أكثر فأكثر ورغم عدم كثرة الصفحات إلا أنها تحمل بداخلها ما يمكن أن يصبح مجلدا كبيرا بعد الشرح والتفصيل بين الأخلاق الذاتانية والموضوعانية وعبر الطبع والرؤية النظرية المختلفة لفلسفات الأخلاق ويمر عبر مبادئ كاللذة ومفاهيم فلسفتها كما يمر في فكرة الشخصية المثنوية و تقييدها في التعامل مع الواقع
من هنا وكنظرة عامة للكتاب نجد محتواه بين فن العيش بالإنتاجية ونقض المسيحية أو التسلطية بصورة عامة و خلق الأيمان بفكرة إنسان يتعامل مع الواقع تحت ظرفه لكن بفردانية خاصة تميزه كإنسان تقوده لحياة سعيدة
من خلال الكتاب يتبين تأثر فروم بفرويد بصورة كبيرة فلا تكاد تخلو إحدى الصفحات والأخرى من نظراته والتعقيبات عليها ,, وقد كون مع آخرين جمعية الفرويديون الجدد , كما أنه عارض بعض نظريات فرويد الأمر الذي أثر عليه مهنيا
الكتاب أثر في نظرتي لكثير من الأمور والتي شغلتني في فترة ما , وفي نفس الوقت خلقت نظرته للدين عندي موقفا سلبيا تجاه , ألا أنني أيقنت أنه صادق في كثير مما هو ماثل بيننا من معطيات الفكر الديني
يظل فروم من الشخصيات المهمة حتى في عصرنا الحالي على الرغم من الفترة البعيدة بيننا وبين كتابه هذا , فنظرياته حتى الآن لها وجودها الماثل والحوجة لها أكبر ما تكون في عصر دعاة النجاح والسعادة
الوهمية
قراءة جميلة في علم التحليل النفسي وقراءات أخرى لفروم
إقتباسات :
الحب تفكير مسؤولية معرفة واحترام
إن الإنسان ليموت دائما قبل أن يولد تماما
إنه لصحيح أن الأشخاص الأنانيين عاجزون عن محبة الآخرين , ولكنهم غير قادرين على محبة ذواتهم أيضا
إن عبادة النجاح نفسها قد أخفقت في إرضاء مجاهدة الإنسان التي لا يمكن إستئصالها من أجل أن يكون ذاته
السعادة والفرح ليسا إشباع الحالة الناجمة عن العوز الفيزيولوجي أو السايكولوجي , وهما ليس التفريج عن التوتر بل هما ما يصاحب كل النشاط الإنتاجي , في الفكر والشعور والعمل
بالفعل إن الإنسان من دون إيمان يغدو عقيما ويائسا وخائفا في صميم وجوده
الإنسان ما دام على قيد الحياة لا يستطيع أن يمنع نفسه من أن من أن يرغب في الحياة والطريق الوحيدة التي يمكن بها أن ينجح في فعل العيش هي إستخدام قدراته وبذل ما لديه
April 6, 2019
اریک فروم روانشناس و حکیم بزرگ عضو مکتب فرانکفورت بود. این چهارمین کتابی است که از این نویسنده مطالعه کردم و بسیار مشتاقم که کتابهای دیگری از او بخوانم. کتاب «هنر عشق ورزیدن» مشهورترین کتاب فروم در ایران است. گاهی فصول ابتدایی کتابهایش برایم کسل کننده بوده، اما اغلب نوشته هایش در بخشهای انتهایی اوج میگیرند و لذت بخش و تکان دهنده می شوند.
فروم در کتاب «انسان برای خویشتن» بیان میکند که انسان امروز باوجود پیشرفتهای علمی فراوان، احساس اضطراب، سرگردانی و بیهودگی دارد. او دلیل این احساس را عدم توجه به طبع آدمی و نیازهای روانی او میداند. در واقع منبع غالب اصول اخلاقی و اعتقادی نه درون انسان که مراجع قدرت (نظیر فرهنگ، مد، حکومت، نهادهای دینی، والدین و...) هستند. او به بررسی مضرات این نوع سیستم اخلاقی و وجدان قدرتگرا میپردازد و ضمن معرفی اخلاق اومانیستیک بیان میکند که پرورش استعدادها و قابلیتهای خویش تنها راه زندگی بارور است.
به نظر فروم نتوانسته چارچوب مناسبی برای اخلاق اومانیستیک ترسیم کند، اما کتاب حاوی نکاتی است که گاه تلنگرهای محکمی به من زد و توجهم را به مسائل مهمی که در زندگی عملی خود به آنها دقت کمی داشتم، جلب کرد (به قول سهراب ضربه اگر بیدار کند، همیشه رواست). در ادامه چند تکه پراکنده از کتاب را نقل میکنم باشد که مفید افتد:
*کسی که زندگی باروری نداشته، نمیتواند خود را تایید نماید. چنین شخصی دچار ترس غیرمنطقی از عدم تایید توسط دیگران میشود و مجبور است برای کسب احساس ایمنی، تایید دیگران را جانشین تایید خود کند.
*عشق غیرمنطقی نوعی همزیستی مازوخیستی یا سادیستی است که در آن رابطه طرفین بر مبنای احترام و منزلت نیست بلکه دو شخص چون توانایی اتکا به خود را ندارند، به دیگری وابسته می شوند.
* ترس از پیری اغلب بیانگر زندگی غیربارور آدمی است
*انسان امروز به جای شک فعال و منطقی، یا دچار جمود و تعصب غیرمنطقی است یا سرگردان، بی نظر و منفعل شده است.
فروم در کتاب «انسان برای خویشتن» بیان میکند که انسان امروز باوجود پیشرفتهای علمی فراوان، احساس اضطراب، سرگردانی و بیهودگی دارد. او دلیل این احساس را عدم توجه به طبع آدمی و نیازهای روانی او میداند. در واقع منبع غالب اصول اخلاقی و اعتقادی نه درون انسان که مراجع قدرت (نظیر فرهنگ، مد، حکومت، نهادهای دینی، والدین و...) هستند. او به بررسی مضرات این نوع سیستم اخلاقی و وجدان قدرتگرا میپردازد و ضمن معرفی اخلاق اومانیستیک بیان میکند که پرورش استعدادها و قابلیتهای خویش تنها راه زندگی بارور است.
به نظر فروم نتوانسته چارچوب مناسبی برای اخلاق اومانیستیک ترسیم کند، اما کتاب حاوی نکاتی است که گاه تلنگرهای محکمی به من زد و توجهم را به مسائل مهمی که در زندگی عملی خود به آنها دقت کمی داشتم، جلب کرد (به قول سهراب ضربه اگر بیدار کند، همیشه رواست). در ادامه چند تکه پراکنده از کتاب را نقل میکنم باشد که مفید افتد:
*کسی که زندگی باروری نداشته، نمیتواند خود را تایید نماید. چنین شخصی دچار ترس غیرمنطقی از عدم تایید توسط دیگران میشود و مجبور است برای کسب احساس ایمنی، تایید دیگران را جانشین تایید خود کند.
*عشق غیرمنطقی نوعی همزیستی مازوخیستی یا سادیستی است که در آن رابطه طرفین بر مبنای احترام و منزلت نیست بلکه دو شخص چون توانایی اتکا به خود را ندارند، به دیگری وابسته می شوند.
* ترس از پیری اغلب بیانگر زندگی غیربارور آدمی است
*انسان امروز به جای شک فعال و منطقی، یا دچار جمود و تعصب غیرمنطقی است یا سرگردان، بی نظر و منفعل شده است.
March 21, 2024
İnsanın düşüşüne hüngür hüngür ağlatan aynı zamanda çözümün nerede bulunacağına bu denli yüreklendiren böylesi bir kitap ne duydum ne de okudum.
Mükemmel, ışıl ışıl bir anlatım.
Mükemmel, ışıl ışıl bir anlatım.
March 10, 2016
هذا الكتاب من طراز الكتب التي تجعلك تشعر كم انت مقصر تجاه القراءة في مجال الفلسفة .. اكتشفت أنني إلى الآن لم أقرأ لسبينوزا وكانت وسارتر !
أما عن الموضوع بحد ذاته فهو عن الإنسان الخام .. أخلاقياته وذاتيته دون تأثيرات خارجية .. كان هناك الكثير من المواضيع و-الأجمل -المصطلحات التي وجدتها جاهزة هنا لتعبر عن الكثير من الأفكار والتأملات الداخلية التي لدي شخصيا حول هذه المواضيع .. في هذا الكتاب وجدت الحيادية .. المنطق .. البراعة .. الفلسفة والكثير من الفلسفة المتداخلة مع علم النفس .. أحيي الكاتب الذكي والفيلسوف بحد ذاته والمترجم محمود منقذ الهاشمي الذي وحدته لايقل براعة هو الآخر في نقل هذا الكتاب العميق بلغة وأسلوب تجد صعوبة لتصدق أنه ترجمة عن نص بالإنكليزية ! لقد كان المترجم كاتبا وفيلسوفا هو الآخر .
هذا الكتاب ليس مخصص للقراءة السريعة أو قراءة "تقطيع الوقت" .. هناك الكثير من الأفكار العميقة والدسمة هاهنا .. خمسة نجوم !
أما عن الموضوع بحد ذاته فهو عن الإنسان الخام .. أخلاقياته وذاتيته دون تأثيرات خارجية .. كان هناك الكثير من المواضيع و-الأجمل -المصطلحات التي وجدتها جاهزة هنا لتعبر عن الكثير من الأفكار والتأملات الداخلية التي لدي شخصيا حول هذه المواضيع .. في هذا الكتاب وجدت الحيادية .. المنطق .. البراعة .. الفلسفة والكثير من الفلسفة المتداخلة مع علم النفس .. أحيي الكاتب الذكي والفيلسوف بحد ذاته والمترجم محمود منقذ الهاشمي الذي وحدته لايقل براعة هو الآخر في نقل هذا الكتاب العميق بلغة وأسلوب تجد صعوبة لتصدق أنه ترجمة عن نص بالإنكليزية ! لقد كان المترجم كاتبا وفيلسوفا هو الآخر .
هذا الكتاب ليس مخصص للقراءة السريعة أو قراءة "تقطيع الوقت" .. هناك الكثير من الأفكار العميقة والدسمة هاهنا .. خمسة نجوم !
August 31, 2013
Бывает такое когда один и тот же автор пишет много книг в каждой следующей его работе сложно встретить что ни будь новое. Багаж знаний автора очень сильно переплетается во всех его книгах, частые повторения уже знакомого материала, исследований, мыслей, предположений и прочее попросту отнимают охоту к чтению.
Но на данную работу Эриха Фромма эта столь частая закономерность не распространяется и к тому же "Человек для самого себя" одна из очень качественных и глубоких исследований автора, а возможно даже, что это лучшая книга автора.
Эрих Фромм очень тщательно и скрупулёзно подошел к вопросу внутреннего мира человека и думаю, что это одна из немногих книг по психологии которая поможет многим людям ещё более чётче себя найти в столь запутанном личностном "Я", и глубже понять свой и окружающий его мир.
Но на данную работу Эриха Фромма эта столь частая закономерность не распространяется и к тому же "Человек для самого себя" одна из очень качественных и глубоких исследований автора, а возможно даже, что это лучшая книга автора.
Эрих Фромм очень тщательно и скрупулёзно подошел к вопросу внутреннего мира человека и думаю, что это одна из немногих книг по психологии которая поможет многим людям ещё более чётче себя найти в столь запутанном личностном "Я", и глубже понять свой и окружающий его мир.
February 24, 2018
“If faith cannot be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible and can be validated.”.
YOU ARE NOT FROM HERE! YOU DON’T BELONG TO PLANET EARTH!
Fromm! WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU FROM?!
This book is a continuation of Fromm’s other book Escape from Freedom, and here he moves from discussing freedom, to discussing ethics. What is the nature of the Humanistic Ethics? What is the moral problem of today? And, most importantly, what is the source of ethics?
This is a book of great benefit to those who seek to have an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the moral issue.
Fromm will take you in a journey through Humanistic Ethics, human nature and character, selfishness, self-love, conscience, types of pleasure and whether man is good or evil. In every step, you will fall in love more and more with him, and you will feel your brain gets bigger and bigger.
Have a nice ride!
“If faith cannot be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible and can be validated.”.
YOU ARE NOT FROM HERE! YOU DON’T BELONG TO PLANET EARTH!
Fromm! WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU FROM?!
This book is a continuation of Fromm’s other book Escape from Freedom, and here he moves from discussing freedom, to discussing ethics. What is the nature of the Humanistic Ethics? What is the moral problem of today? And, most importantly, what is the source of ethics?
This is a book of great benefit to those who seek to have an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the moral issue.
Fromm will take you in a journey through Humanistic Ethics, human nature and character, selfishness, self-love, conscience, types of pleasure and whether man is good or evil. In every step, you will fall in love more and more with him, and you will feel your brain gets bigger and bigger.
Have a nice ride!
October 12, 2018
yazilacak cok sey var bu yuzden kendi blogumda yazacam, henuz tamamlamadim ama burdaki felsefeye gönul veren okuyucu kitlesine kesinlikle tavsiye edecegim bir eser.Sadece kendi dusuncelerini degil diger bir cok degerli dusunurlerinde bilgilerindn faydalanilmis. Son sözunu oldugu gibi ekliyorum buraya;
Iyilik de, kötülük de kendi basina ya da bir alinyazisina bagli olarak gerçeklesen seyler degildir. Karar, insana birakilmistir. Bu karar, insanin kendisini, kendi hayatini ve mutlulugunu ciddî bir sekilde ele alma yetenegine baglidir; kendisinin ve içerisinde yasadigi toplumun ahlâkî problemi ile yüz yüze gelme istegine baglidir. "Kendisi" olma ve "kendisi için" olma cesaretini göstermesine baglidir.
Iyilik de, kötülük de kendi basina ya da bir alinyazisina bagli olarak gerçeklesen seyler degildir. Karar, insana birakilmistir. Bu karar, insanin kendisini, kendi hayatini ve mutlulugunu ciddî bir sekilde ele alma yetenegine baglidir; kendisinin ve içerisinde yasadigi toplumun ahlâkî problemi ile yüz yüze gelme istegine baglidir. "Kendisi" olma ve "kendisi için" olma cesaretini göstermesine baglidir.
February 7, 2017
فروم عقیده دارد که زندگی جز آن چیزی که انسان از طریق آن نیروهای خود را آشکار می کند و زندگی باروری را تحقق می بخشد،نیست.برجسته ترین وجهه رفتار انسانی همان فعل و انفعالات و کوشش هایی است که آدمی از خود بروز می دهد.عدم مطابقت در هستی انسان نیازهایی را به وجود می آورد که فراتر از منشأ حیوانیِ اوست به این معنا که انسان صرفاً دارای طبیعتِ فیزیولوژیک و تنها درصدد رفع نیازهای بیولوژیکیِ خود نیست بلکه فراتر از آن ها،دارای ابعاد روحی و ذهنی و نیازهای غیر فیزیولوژیک است که این وجه آدمی را از حیاون متمایز می کند.پاسخ هایی که آدمی در برابر این نیازها دریافت می کند از لحاظ محتوا و شکل با هم متمایزند:در نظام های ابتدایی مانند آنی میسم و توتمیسم اشیا و نیاکان نماینده ی پاسخ های مدنظر آدمی هستند... در ادامه فروم،از منش سخن می گوید:"منش عبارت است از خصوصیت رفتاری یک فرد معین." پیشرفت نظریه روانکاوی همراه با پیشرفت علوم طبیعی و اجتماعی مفهومی را به وجود آورد که بر رابطه انسان با دیگران و طبیعت و خودش مبتنی بود.
تفاوت بنیادی نظریه ی منش با نظریه ی فروید در انواع وابستگی،قابل تشخیص است:
با به دست آوردن و جذب اشیا
با ارتباط و تعامل با مردم
در این دو فرآیند است که شخص به جهان پیرامونش مرتبط شده و تعامل پیدا می کند و یا حتی وابسته می شود
در کل،فروم مدعی است که آدمی برای رسیدن به شادی و برای این که برای خودش باشد و نه دیگران،باید بتواند نیروهای خفته و بالقوه ی درون خویش را بالفعل کند باید بتواند خلاق و فارغ از نیروهای بیرونی باشد باید بتواند عشق بورزد و آن هم عشقی بارور، تنها در این حالت است که از بندهای بیرونی و درونی خویش رها می شود و می تواند منِ خویش را با آرامش و آسایش درک کند و به دیگران نیز بشناساند،آدمی تا زمانی که زنده باشد(فعال و بارور بودن)مجاز به انجام هر کاری است و می تواند زندگی خود را تغیر داده و در راه رسیدن به خوشبختی و عشق به خود و دیگران گام بردارد.
December 22, 2017
notes:
“There is no meaning to life except the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers.”
“...Today the lack of faith is an expression of profound confusion and despair. Once skepticism and rationalism were progressive forces for the development of thought; now they have become rationalizations for relativism and uncertainty.”
“The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the meaning of self-interest; not in the fact that people are too much concerned with their self-interest, but that they are not concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves.”
psychology cannot divorce itself from the problems of philosophy and ethics, and that human nature cannot be understood without understanding the values and moral conflicts that confront us all.
an ethical system can be based on human nature rather than on revelations or traditions. "If man is to have confidence in values, he must know himself and the capacity of his nature for goodness and productiveness."
Simply having faith in our potential to develop our talents and combining our skills cooperatively with others will improve our society and our own mental health.
“There is no meaning to life except the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers.”
“...Today the lack of faith is an expression of profound confusion and despair. Once skepticism and rationalism were progressive forces for the development of thought; now they have become rationalizations for relativism and uncertainty.”
“The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the meaning of self-interest; not in the fact that people are too much concerned with their self-interest, but that they are not concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves.”
psychology cannot divorce itself from the problems of philosophy and ethics, and that human nature cannot be understood without understanding the values and moral conflicts that confront us all.
an ethical system can be based on human nature rather than on revelations or traditions. "If man is to have confidence in values, he must know himself and the capacity of his nature for goodness and productiveness."
Simply having faith in our potential to develop our talents and combining our skills cooperatively with others will improve our society and our own mental health.
August 24, 2025
Hayatımı değiştiren çok önemli bir kitap. Türkçedeki çevirileri çok kötü olmasına rağmen iki ayrı çevirisini de okumuş kişi olarak diyorum ki mutlaka okunması gereken bir kitap.
Bu kitapla ilgili yazdığım çok ayrıntılı ve uzun yazı dizisi:
https://www.okundugugibi.com/post/eri...
https://www.okundugugibi.com/post/ken...
https://www.okundugugibi.com/post/ken...
***
2021 yılında 1000kitap.com sitesinde yazdığım yazıyı buldum. Hiç değiştirmeden buraya alıyorum.
Bu kitapla ilgili yazdığım çok ayrıntılı ve uzun yazı dizisi:
https://www.okundugugibi.com/post/eri...
https://www.okundugugibi.com/post/ken...
https://www.okundugugibi.com/post/ken...
***
2021 yılında 1000kitap.com sitesinde yazdığım yazıyı buldum. Hiç değiştirmeden buraya alıyorum.
Kitap içerik olarak çok değerli ama önce kitabın çevirisi ile ilgili görüşümü yazmak istiyorum. Kitabın çevirisi ile ilgili kısmı atlayıp sondaki kitap hakkındaki değerlendirmeme gidebilirsiniz. Biraz uzun bir çeviri eleştirisi oldu ama bence az bile yazıyorum.
Öztürkçe takıntısı, yanlış kelime tercihleri, bazı durumlarda cümlelerin çevrilmemiş olması, çevrilen kelimenin doğru anlamı veren anlamının tercih edilmemesi gibi bir çok sorun bulunmakta.
Öztürkçe takıntısı: kitabın akıcılığını son derece bozuyor. Bir kaç örnek vermek gerekirse, fikir yerine düşün, sistem yerine dizge, slogan yerine savsöz, madde yerine özdek, otoriter yerine yetkeci, şiddetli yerine yeğin, mükemmellik yerine yetkinlik, mutlak yerine saltık, dinamik yerine devimsel, terapi yerine sağaltı, vicdan yerine törelbilinç, mizaç yerine yaradılış, karakter yerine özyapı, eylem yerine edim, ideal-tipler yerine ülkü-tipler, paradoks yerine aykırıkanı, zeka yerine anlak, irade yerine istenç, dürtü yerine itilim….
Bir de orjinal metinde olmayan kelime eklemeler var örneğin,
43. sayfada “(burada yetkinlik, aracılığıyla insana özgü olanakların...) cümlesinde orjinal metinde aracılığyla kelimesine denk gelen bir kelime yok. Zaten o kelime cümlenin anlamını da bozuyor.
87. sayfada “Bireyin aracılıklarıyla dünyaya…” şeklinde başlayan paragrafta orjinal metinde olmayan aracılığıyla eklenerek anlam bozulmuş.
87 sayfada “Güç bir kez belli bir biçimde...” cümlesindeki güç kelimesi orjinal metinde enerji olarak geçiyor. Güç kelimesi kullanıldığında anlam bozuluyor.
Sayfa 111 “... edilgin bilgi olarak betimlenir.” Orjinal metinde bilgi kelimesi yok.
Sayfa 113 “Güçlerinden üretici bir şekilde yararlanma yeteneği insanın gücü, bu konudaki yeteneksizliği ise güçsüzlüğüdür.” Orjinal metin “The ability of man to make productive use of his powers is his potency; the inability is his impotence.” Çevirisi “İnsanın güçlerini verimli bir şekilde kullanma yeteneği, onun gücüdür; yeteneksizliği onun acizliğidir (zayıflığı).” Bu cümleden hem potency hem de impotence kelimelerini güç bağlamında çevirmenin yanlış olduğunu düşünüyorum. Potency için potansiyel impotence için ise acizlik daha uygun olurdu.
Sayfa 116 “Doğum gebelikle başlayıp doğumla sona eren….” Doğru çeviri “Doğum, gebe kalma ile başlayıp ölümle sona eren…”
Sayfa 122 “Bunlar ilgi, sorumluluk, saygı ve bilgidir.” İlgi kelimesini “care” kelimesinin karşılığı olarak çevirmiş ama özen burada daha doğru olurdu.
Sayfa 122 “İlgi ve sorumluluk, sevginin insanın kendisine yenildiği bir tutku ya da ‘tarafından etkilendiği’ bir duygulanım değil, bir etkinlik olduğunu gösterir.”
Orjinal metin: “Care and responsibility denote that love is an activity and not a passion by which one is overcome, nor an affect which one is "affected by."”
Çevirisi: “Özen ve sorumluluk, sevginin kişinin üstesinden gelindiği bir tutku veya "etkilendiği" bir duygu değil, bir faaliyet olduğunu gösterir.” overcome kelimesini yenilmek olarak çevirdiği için anlam bozulmuş.
Sayfa 130 “Tersine, özgürlük, ekonomik güvenlik ve içinde emeğin insanın yetilerinin anlamlı bir dışlaşması olabildiği bir toplum düzeni, insanın güçlerinden üretici olarak….”
Orjinali “On the contrary, freedom, economic security, and an organization of society in which work can be the meaningful expression of man's faculties are the factors conducive to the expression of man's natural tendency to make productive use of his powers.”
Çevirisi “Aksine, özgürlük, ekonomik güvenlik ve çalışmanın insanın yetilerinin anlamlı ifadesi olabileceği bir toplum örgütlenmesi, insanın güçlerini verimli bir şekilde kullanma yönündeki doğal eğiliminin ifadesine yardımcı olan faktörlerdir.”
Expression kelimesini ifadesi yerine dışlaşması olarak çevirdiği için anlam bozulmuş.
Sayfa 130 “İnsanın kendisini dinlemeye gücünün yetmesi, başkalarını dinlemeye gücünün yetmesinin de ön koşuludur. İnsanın kendisini iyi tanıması ise başkalarıyla ilişki kurmasının ön koşuludur.”
Orjinali “To be able to listen to oneself is a prerequisite for the ability to listen to others; to be at home with oneself is the necessary condition for relating oneself to others.”
Çeviri “Kendini dinleyebilme, başkalarını dinleme becerisinin ön koşuludur; kendinle baş başa olmak, kendini başkalarıyla ilişkilendirmek için gerekli koşuldur.”
“To be able to” kalıbını “gücünün yetmesi” şeklinde çevirmiş halbuki bu kadar karmaşık değil. be at home with oneself ise daha çok kendisiyle uyumlu olmak gibi bir anlamı olması sebebiyle tam karşılığı olmamış.
Bu cümle özelinde tüm kitap boyunca yazarın tek cümlede söylediği bir çok yeri çevirmen 2 bazen 3 bazen 4 ayrı cümle şeklinde çevirmekten sakınmamış. Kitabın tamamı bu şekilde parçalanmış cümlelerle dolu.
Sayfa 127 responsive kelimesinin karşılığı olarak duygululuk demiş doğrusu duyarlı, uyumlu olmalıydı. spineless kelimesini karşılığı olarak omurgasız denilebilirdi (dilimizde yaygın şekilde kullanılır)
Sayfa 139 social karşılığı olarak insanları sevmesi denmiş sosyal olarak kalabilirdi. Aynı tabloda orjinalinde “undogmatic” ve “ efficient” kelimeleri varken çeviri de hiç yok. ayrıca tablo baştan aşağı kaydığı için neyin karşısına ne geliyor belli değil.
Sayfa 155 “Kendisinden başka hiçbir şeyi göremez. Herkesi ve herşeyi kendisine olan yararı yönünden yargılar. O temelde, sevmekte güçsüzdür.
Orjinal: “He can see nothing but himself; he judges everyone and everything from its usefulness to him; he is basically unable to love.”
Çeviri: “Kendinden başka hiçbir şeyi göremez; herkesi ve her şeyi kendi yararına değerlendirir; temelde sevemez.”
Tek cümleyi 3’e bölmüş ve sevemez kelimesini sevmekte güçsüzdür diye yorum yaparak çevirmiş. Sevme yeteneği yoktur dese belki bir nebze kabul edilir ama sevme gücü karşılığı yok.
Bir başka güçsüz sapması daha. Tüm kitap boyunca “güç” ile sürekli sorun yaşamış.
Sayfa 156 “Bencil kimselerin başkalarını sevmekte güçsüz oldukları doğrudur. Ama onlar, kendilerini sevme gücüne de sahip değildir.”
Orjinal: “It is true that selfish persons are incapable of loving others, but they are not capable of loving themselves either.”
Çeviri: “Bencil insanların başkalarını sevmeyi beceremediği doğrudur, ama kendilerini de sevmeyi beceremezler.”
Incapable of love cümleciğini sevmekte güçsüz diye çevirmek ne kadar doğru?
Sayfa 169: “Yetkeci etiğin içerikleri yetkenin buyruklarından ve yasaklarından çıkarılır. Bu etiğin gücü, yetkeden duyulan korku ve beğeni duygularından kaynaklanmaktadır.”
Orjinal: “The contents of the authoritarian conscience are derived from the commands and tabus of the authority; its strength is rooted in the emotions of fear of, and admiration for, the authority.”
Çeviri: “Otoriter vicdanın içeriği, otoritenin emir ve tabularından türetilir; gücü, otoriteye duyulan korku ve hayranlık duygularından kaynaklanır.”
İlk olarak vicdan yerine etik kelimesi yanlış çevrilmiş. Ayrıca tabu kelimesi çevrilmemeliydi çünkü tabu kelimesinin yasağın ötesinde kültürel bir anlamı var. Ayrıca her zaman olduğu gibi yine cümle ikiye bölünerek çevrilmiş.
Sayfa 173: “Burada önemli olan, yetkeci törelbilincin kişinin kendi özüne karşı duyduğu yıkıcılıkla beslenmesi olgusudur. Çünkü yıkıcı itilimlerin erdem maskesi altında iş görmelerine böylece izin verilmiş olur.”
Orjinali: “What matters is the fact that the authoritarian conscience is fed by destructiveness against the person's own self so that destructive strivings are thus permitted to operate under the disguise of virtue.”
Çeviri: “Önemli olan, otoriter vicdanın, kişinin kendi benliğine karşı yıkıcılıkla beslenmesidir, böylece yıkıcı çabaların erdem kisvesi altında işlemesine izin verilir.”
Strive kelimesini itilim olarak çevirmiş halbuki çabalamak, uğraşmak, didinmek gibi anlamları olan bir kelime. İtilim ise impulse kelimesinin karşılığı.Ayrıca cümlede “çünkü”yü kullanmayı gerektirecek bir durum olmadığından anlam bozukluğu meydana gelmiş.
Sayfa 186: “Suçluluk duyguları devimsel olarak insancı törelbilinçten kaynaklandıkları halde, çok kez yetkeci törelbilinç aracılığyla bilinçli olarak yaşanırlar.”
Orjinal: “Often guilt feelings are consciously experienced in terms of the authoritarian conscience while, dynamically, they are rooted in the humanistic conscience; in this case the authoritarian conscience is a rationalization, as it were, of the humanistic conscience.”
Çeviri: “Çoğu zaman suçluluk duyguları bilinçli olarak otoriter vicdan açısından deneyimlenirken, dinamik olarak hümanist vicdanda kök salmaktadır; bu durumda otoriter vicdan, adeta hümanist vicdanın rasyonalizasyonudur.”
Neredeyse cümle tamamen başka bir şeyin çevirisiymiş gibi duruyor. Rasyonalizasyon içermeyen bir çeviri yapmak nasıl mümkün olabilir bilmiyorum.
187 sayfada da benzer bir çeviri problemi var. Fazla uzatmemek için onu geçiyorum.
Sayfa 214 de “uncertainty” kelimesini “belirsizlik” yerine “kesintisizlik” olarak yanlış çevirmiş.
Sayfa 215 de “perplexity” kelimesini “şaşkınlık” yerine “duraksama” diye çevirmiş.
Sayfa 216 da “compulsive” kelimesini “zorlayıcı” yerine “baskı yapıcı” olarak çevirmiş.
Sayfa 216 da “compulsive” kelimesini “zorlayıcı” yerine “zorunlu” olarak çevirmiş.
Sayfa 228 de Zerdüşt mitolojisinde geçen ve iyi ve kötünün karşılığı olan “Hürmüz ve Ehrimen”i çevirmemiş.
Sayfa 229 da “strivin” kelimesini “çaba” yerine “itilim” olarak çevirmiş.
Sayfa 249 “Göreceli etiğe karşı saltık etik…” Doğrusu “Mutlak etiğin göreceli etiğe karşı olduğu…”
Benim dikkatime takılanlar bunlar çok uzatmamak için bir kaç tespitim daha vardı onları yazmadım. Bu kadar çok çeviri hatası bence kabul edilebilir sınırın ötesinde. Öztürkçe takıntısı ve çeviri hataları kitabın akışını çok etkiliyor. Aynı kitabın Erdem ve Mutluluk adıyla basılan versiyonunu da okumuş birisi olarak (o çeviri de hiç iyi değildi) bu basım onu arattı diyebilirim.
Gelelim kitabın kendisine….
Erich Fromm okumak bir zevk. Daha önce bildiğini düşündüğün ama dile getirmekte zorlandığın konuları çok açıklayıcı bir şekilde anlatıyor. Mutluluğun ahlaki bir durum olduğu konusunu ilk olarak Yasin Ceylan’dan duymuştum. Çok da anlayamamıştım ama mutluluk ve ahlakın aynı cümlede geçmesi dikkatimi çekmişti. Bu kitap tam bu konu üzerine yazılmış bir kitap.
Çok çok önemli tespitler var. İnsanın kendi potansiyelini keşfetmesi gerektiği tespiti en önemlisi. İşin iki yönü önemli. Ben bu kitabı okurken hem potansiyelinin ne olduğunu bulamamış bir kişi olarak okudum hem de bir baba olarak çocuğuma yaşadığıma benzer bir hayat yaşatmamak için ne yapmam gerektiğini öğrenmek açısından okudum.
Kendi yeteneklerine uygun bir hayat yaşamak için ne gerekir? Özgür bir birey olmak için ne gerekir? Gerçek ben nasıl birisi? Ben neleri yapabilecek bir insanım, benim potansiyelim ne? Kitap bu konuları işliyor.
Özgür olmak belki de her şeyin başlangıcı, Başkasının, anne babamızın, devletin istediği bize dayattığı hayatı değil kendi hayatımı yaşamalıyım. Anne babalarımızın hatalarının yükünü biz omuzladık. Bizim aynı hataları yapmamamız en önemli konu. Ne istediğini bilen insan olmak aslında hiç de zor değilken maalesef yaşadığımız hayat bizi en basit şeyi yapamaz hale getirdi. Ben ne yapmaktan zevk alıyorum, ben neye yetenekliyim, benim kendimi gerçekleştirmem için ne yapmam gerekiyor?
Bu kitap çok doğru sorular soruyor. Belki bazen fazla hayalci ve çok iyimser ama genel olarak çok öğretici bir kitap. ...
Read
January 22, 2019自我的追尋
一.問題
人是什麼?人應該過什麼樣的生活?
我們得從人的整體性來探討人，包括了為存在找尋意義和答案的需求，以及探索何為生活規範的需求；如果不了解價值和道德衝突的本質，就不可能明白人類及其情感和心理上的困擾。
因此要了解人只能回到人本主義倫理學的傳統，也就是從身心整體面向去探討人，而人的目標是做自己，要達成做自己的目標則得從追尋自我起始。
二.人性和人格
1.人的處境
人既是個有其特質的獨一無二的個體，但同時也代表了人類的所有特性，一個人的個體人格是由所有人共有的人類存在特質所決定，所以在探討人性之前，就必須先討論人的處境，方能理解人格如何形成，而在理解人的處境以前，必須先了解人的動機，了解了動機才知道人因應不同處境會如何應對，而關鍵的動機就是人如何滿足在世界裡平衡與和諧的需求?
由於人有自覺、理性和想像力，因此無法以如其他動物般的和諧方式生活，而因對死亡的認知而出現了「存在的兩難」，存在的兩難包含了「生活知識在面對死亡時的無用」、「人的生命短暫而僅能在漫長歷史的演化歷程上作為一個偶然」。在這樣的兩難下，人得面對或許可以實現的以及真正可以實現的東西間存在了矛盾，人雖會想解決這樣的矛盾，但若不想陷入「否定既存矛盾」的鴕鳥心態或是「相信權威」的盲從，就只得先承認自己是處於一個和自身命運漠不相關的宇宙中最根本的孤單和孤獨中，因而只能為自己負責。且因人有存在的兩難，因此在為生命賦予意義時必然存在不確定性，而認知到這樣處境後，即使感到迷惘懷疑，也會不斷提出問題，而做自己、追尋自我便是最重要的目的與問題。
而意識到存在的兩難的前提便是人類異於動物具有自覺、理性和想像力的存在，這樣的存在導致了與自然的失調，也因而產生了超越動物性的種種需求，這些需求包含了理性和知性需求，且這些需求有種天生的趨力來使人與本性的部分恢復平衡。人以建立思想體系來回應理性需求，以此回答人在世界的定位及應何所為的問題；除了心理上的回應，身體的知性也驅使人必須在存有的所有層次上追求一致性和合而為一的經驗，藉此尋求一個新的平衡，人即是以宗教回應此知性需求。宗教泛指所有有神論和無神論，也就是說宗教指的是一種「定位和信仰的架構」，這是試圖為追尋意義以及理解自己存在的人提供一個答案的思想體系。而這樣的宗教性質是了解精神官能症與不理性渴望之關鍵。
2.人格
人格是個人的特徵，也是使個人獨一無二的地方，人格包含了氣質與性格，氣質是反應的模式，這是先天無法改變的；而性格則是由人的經驗所形成，尤其是童年經驗，並會因後天的見識和新的經驗而有若干的改變。
人格如何形成?根據佛洛依德的理論，性格特徵是行為的基礎，故得從觀察行為來推斷人的性格特徵，而性格中的基本存有物並非單一的性格特徵而是一整個性格架構，許多單獨的性格特徵則是依據性格架構而形成，而性格結構為在生命中疏導能量的一種特殊形式，也就是所謂的「性格決定命運」。Fromm稱這樣的性格架構為性格取向。
在人的生命歷程中，人透過習得和同化事物的同化過程建立和世界的關係，以及透過社會化過程建立與人群的關係，這些人和世界的特定關係形成了人性格的基本基礎。而個人藉以和世界建立關係的取向則構成了他的性格核心。性格可以定義為人在同化和社會化歷程中，能量的一種疏導形式，也就是佛洛依德的動力概念。
個人藉以和世界建立關係的取向構成了性格核心，而取向包含非創造性的取向與創造性的取向。
「非創造型取向」的類型包含了接受型、剝削型、囤積型、市場型取向，其中市場性取向有別於其他三個取向，因市場型取向的本質在於不會發展出任何固定不變的關係，這個取向唯一不變的性質就是它的可變性。所有取向都是人類稟賦的一部分，任何特定取向的主導性大抵取決於個人所屬文化的特異性，而個人的人格不僅被文化模式和社會制度影響，也是由人們的互動關係所形塑而成。
「創造性的取向」則是人能突破生存在世上既孤獨又不願孤獨、獨特又想與他人保持關係的解決答案。必須先定義創造性：創造性的概念不是指必然得到實際結果的行動，而是指一種態度，一個反應模式，以及在生活裡對世界和自我的取向。而人的創造性最重要的創造對象就是人自己。人的心智層次不會隨著年齡自動成長，要孕育出人的情感和知性潛能，孕育出它的自我就必須有創造性的行動。
人類存在的特色在於人是孤單的而且和世界隔離的，因為無法忍受與世隔絕，他無法不追尋關係和結合。人既渴望親密關係而又追求獨立，既想和他人結合又想要保存自身的獨特性和特殊性。這個弔詭及人的道德問題的答案正是創造性。
人要和世界建立創造性的關係的方式是透過行動和理解。人透過愛和理性，在心智和情感上理解世界。他的理性力量讓他得以深入表層，藉著和對象建立主動的關係而把握它。愛的力量讓他得以打破和他人之間高牆而得以理解他人。雖然愛和理性只是理解世界的兩種不同方式並缺一不可，但它們卻是不同力量的表現，也就是情感和思考的力量。
創造性的愛的特徵包含了關心、責任、尊重和認識。關心和責任意味著愛是個行動，而不是讓人不能自己的激情，也不是襲上心頭的情緒反應。而創造性的愛和被動性是不相容的，這意味著不能對被愛者的生活作壁上觀，而應該為被愛者的成長付出努力、關心和責任。
雖然關心和責任是愛的構成元素，但是如果沒有對於被愛者的尊重和認識，愛會墮落為支配和占有欲，尊重不是畏懼或敬畏，它是如實觀看一個人的能力，意識到它的個體性和獨特性。除非認識那個人，否則說不上任何尊重；如果沒有認識到一個人的個體性，愛和責任就會是盲目的。
三.作為生活藝術的應用科學的人本主義倫理學
要如何為行為規範找到判准?關鍵在於倫理規範體系是屬於人本主義倫理學或是威權主義倫理學。
人本主義倫理學和威權主義倫理學可分成形式上和實質上兩種判斷的差別。在形式上，威權主義倫理學不認為人有分辨善惡的能力，規範的立法者是超越個人的權威；人本主義倫理學則是認為只有人自己可以決定德性和罪咎的判準。在實質上，威權主義倫理學回答善惡問題時是以權威者的利益為考量，而非臣服者的利益；人本主義倫理學則是認為「善」是對人有好處的，「惡」是對人有害的，
人的福祉是倫理價值的唯一判準。
兩者會有這樣差別來自於對德性所賦予的不同意義，現代主義下的德性則是威權主義倫理學的概念，有德意味著克己和服從，壓抑個體性、而不是盡情地實現個體性。人的德性是人類特有的性質組合，每個人的德性就是其獨一無二的個體性。而人本主義的立場是以人為中心，人的價值判斷及認知都植基於自己賴以存在的種種特性，因此唯有和存在有關才能讓這些判斷有意義，沒有任何東西本人的存在更為崇高莊嚴。如果說倫理構成了實現生活藝術極致成就的整體規範，那麼它最概括性的原則也應該是依循著整個生命的本性，特別是人類存在的本質而成立。就最概括性的觀點而言，所有生命在本性上都是要保存並肯定自身的存在，所有生物都傾向於保存自身的存在。
在人本主義倫理學中，「善」是肯定生命，發揮人的力量，「德性」是對自己的存在負責。「惡」是人的力量的損害，「不道德」則是對自己不負責。
四.人本主義倫理學及其面臨的難題
1. 『自私自利和愛己』：我們把利己主義或自私當成人類行為的規範，而倫理的目標卻在打敗私欲?
對他人的愛和對自己的愛不是互不相容的，在所有有能力愛別人的人們身上，我們會看到對自己的愛。就對象和一個人的自我之間的關係而言，愛是不可分割的。真正的愛是一種創造性的表現，蘊含著關懷、尊重、責任和認識。愛不是簡單的感動，而是主動地為被愛者的成長和幸福而努力，這植基於愛自己的能力。
原則上，我的自我和別人都應該是我愛的對象。對於自己的生命、幸福、成長、自由的肯定，都植基於每個人愛的能力，也就是關懷、尊重、責任和認識。如果人有能力以創造性方式去愛別人，那麼他也會愛自己；如果他只能愛別人，那麼他根本沒有愛的能力。
在利己上，人真正的利益只有一個，就是充分發展他的潛能，發展身為人類的自我。正如我們必須先認識另一個人以及他的需求，才能知道怎麼去愛他，我們也必須認識自我，才能知道自我的利益，以及它們對自我有什麼好處。現代社會的崩壞即在於利己的意義的敗壞；不在於人民太在意利己，而在於他們不夠關心真正的自我利益；不在於它們太自私，而是在於他們不愛自己。
對自己的人格完整和獨特性的尊重，對自己的愛和瞭解，不能和對另一個個體的尊重、愛和瞭解分割開來。對自我的愛和對另一個自我的愛，是密不可分。
2. 『良知，人的回歸自我』：有了良知就必然會行善嗎?有了良知是否會得常與他人對抗而感到痛苦?
良知在人本主義和威權主義下的定義截然不同；威權主義的良知在意的是人的服從、自我犧牲、責任或社會適應，而人本主義的良知是人的自身利益和人格完整性的體現，因此人本主義良知的目標便是發揮創造性，也因為幸福和創造性的生活是如影隨形的，因此人本主義的良知將伴隨著幸福。威權主義的良知是衍生自權威的命令和禁忌；它的力量根植於對於權威的恐懼和愛慕的情緒，良之中的心安理得就是意識到取悅於權威，而內咎則是意識到讓權威不開心，因此威權主義的良知將使人成為權威的工具並因此斲喪自己，不管看起來多麼高貴，如無私、不快樂、逆來順受、灰心喪志，其實都必然隱含著對自我力量的壓抑而難以感到幸福。
由於良知的功能是守護人們真正的自身利益，所以唯有人們不至於迷失自己、成為自己的冷漠和毀滅性的犧牲者，如此良知才能活潑充臆，良知和創造性之間具備了交互作用的關係，人的生活越有創造性，他的良知就越健旺。
然而學習理解良知必須能夠傾聽自已，不但得有自我獨處的能力，而良知的聲音也不會直接對我們訴說，我們���常不知道讓我們心神不寧的，其實正是我們的良知，因若忽略了良知亦即意味忽略了創造性，也就代表浪費了自己的潛能也放大了存在的難題，此將使我們出現兩種焦慮。
忽略良知的焦慮之一就是對死亡和年老的恐懼，對死亡和年老的非理性的恐懼肇因於沒有好好過活，是我們因浪擲生命、錯失發光發熱的機會而於心有愧的表現。第二種焦慮則是害怕別人的反對，因人在本性上都想被同伴接受，因此很害怕在思想、感覺、行動上偏離文化模式。如果人因為生活沒有創造性而無法認可自己，就必須以他人的認可取而代之。
3.『快樂和幸福』：為何人得不斷的追求快樂?
非理性的慾望是永不饜足的，有羨慕、佔有、虐待狂傾向的人，他們的慾望並不會隨著滿足而消失，最多的也只是暫時消失而已，這些非理性慾望的本性就在於他們不可能滿足，因為他們源自人內心的不滿足。缺乏創造性以及因此而導致的無力感和恐懼，都是這些激情的渴望和非理性慾望的根源。
我們看到了因實現了生理需求和精神官能症的慾望而得到的快樂，都是消除惱人的緊張狀態的結果。不過前者可以說是真正的滿足，是正常也是快樂的條件，而後者只是暫時緩解需求，是病態的作用和根本不幸福的徵兆。
愛就像所有人類活動一樣，必須區分創造性的和非創造性的形式，非創造性的或非理性的愛可以是受虐狂或虐待狂的共生關係，這樣的關係是他們無法依賴自己，這樣的愛如同非理性慾望是基於匱乏，基於欠缺創造性和內心的安全感。創造性的愛則是兩人之間最親密的關係形式，同時也能在其中保存個人的人格完整，那是一種富足的現象。
幸福和愉悅不是滿足源自生理或心理匱乏的需求、不是解除緊張的狀態，而是伴隨著創造性活動而來的成果，無論是一種思想、感覺或行動。幸福意味著我們已經為了人類存在的問題找到答案：創造性的實現潛能，從而與世界合而為一，並保存自我的完整性。人在創造性的使用精力時，自身力量也會增長，「它燃燒自己，卻不會燒盡」。因此愉悅和幸福與創造性的愛是相伴而生的。
非理性的快樂意味著貪婪，以及無法解決人的存在問題。相反的，幸福則證明了生活的藝術局部或整體的成就，幸福是人生最大的成就，是人以整體人格回應對自身及外在世界的一種創造性取向。
4.『信仰做為性格特徵』：若上帝已死，現在還需要信仰嗎?
信仰最初的意思是堅定，是用以指稱人類經驗的一種特質；一個性格特徵，而不是相信什麼東西的內容。根據信仰的現象，可分成理性與非理性。非理性的信仰是對於某人或某事物的狂熱信念，出於對個人或非個人的非理性權威的服從。相對的，理性的信仰則是一種以有創造性的知性和情感活動為基礎的堅定信念。在原本沒有信仰容身之處的理性思考裡，對理性本身的信仰卻是個重要元素。
理性的信仰不僅顯現在思考和判斷的經驗領域而已。在人際關係的層次上，信仰也是任何重要的友情或愛的必要性質。對另一個人有信心，意思是確定它的基本態度、它的人格核心是可靠不會變的。在同樣的意義下，我們也對自己抱持信心。我們意識到自我或人格核心的存在是不會變動的，在我們人生中一直持續存在，即便周遭環境已然滄海桑田，使得某些意見和感覺不復以往。這個核心正是我這個字背後的實在界，我們對自我認同的信心就奠基於這個核心。除非我們對自我的持存具有信心，否則自我認同就會岌岌可危，而我們也會漸漸依賴他人，將他人的讚賞當作自我認同的基礎。唯有相信自己的人才能對別人有信心，因為只有他自己才知道未來的他會和現在的他一樣。他的行為和感覺也會和他所期待的一致。唯有相信自己，我們才有能力給予承諾，如尼采說的，人可以透過他的承諾能力去定義自己，那是人類存在的條件之一。
對於一個人的信仰還有另一層意思，指的是相信他人、我們自己，以及整個人類的種種潛能。
非理性信仰是基於服從一股讓人覺得無比強大、全知全能的力量，基於願意放棄自己的力量和優勢，而理性的信仰則是正好相反，我們之所以相信一個想法是因為他是觀察和思考的結果。我們相信別人、自己以及整個人類的潛能，因為體驗過我們自己潛能的發展、我們本身成長的事實，以及我們的理性和愛的力量的優勢。 理性信仰的基礎在於創造性，憑藉著信仰而生活，意味著活得有創造性，而且只有一個確定性真正存在：他來自創造性的活動，而我們每個人也都感覺到自己是這些創造性活動的主體。
4.『人的道德力量』：
人既想在世界裡隨波逐流，又想做自己，既和別人建立關係、又保持自己獨一無二的個體完整性，除了創造性地使用力量之外，別無他途。如果做不到就無法獲致內心的和諧，他會舉棋不定感到被撕裂，最後會逃避自己的無力感、厭煩和無能。人活著就不得不希望繼續活下去，他要活得好唯一的方法，就是發揮他的力量，運用他所擁有的東西。而人有愛的力量，如果他不能使用這股力量，如果他沒有能力去愛，他會為這個不幸感到痛苦或以文化模式去逃避這個由於挫敗而造成的痛苦。
人本主義倫理學的目標不是要壓抑人的惡，而是創造性地發揮人類天生的主要潛能。創造性的取向是自由、德性和幸福的基礎，而戒慎恐懼是德性的代價，但不是猶如植入邪惡囚徒心裡的獄吏那般的警醒，而是理性存有者的警醒，他必須認識並促成有利於忒他的創造性條件，並排除那些因阻礙他的創造性而孳生的邪惡因素，一旦他們長出來了，那就只有外在或內在的力量才能阻止他外顯。
人天生擁有創造性地發揮其力量的願望，而他要做的事則主要是排除自己心裡以及外在使他無法率性而為的障礙。正如變得貧乏而有毀滅傾向的人會漸漸癱瘓而陷於惡性循環，意識到自己的能力而能創造性地發揮出來的人，則不但在力量、信仰和幸福方面會大有斬獲，也會漸漸擺脫與自己疏離的危險，這便是處於良性循環。
從人本主義倫理學的觀點來看，倫理的抉擇並不是惡的壓抑或耽溺，無論是壓抑或耽溺都是人性枷鎖的兩種面向。真正的倫理抉擇不是在他們兩者之間，而是在「壓抑或耽溺」及創造性之間。
五.今日的道德難題
沒有任何好或壞的結果會自動產生，決定權在人身上，在於他是否認真對待自己，認真對待他的生活和幸福，在於他是否願意面對他自己和社會的道德難題，也在於它是否有勇氣做他自己，追尋他的自我。
人本主義倫理學的主要德性就是幸福和愉悅，但這不是要求最輕鬆的生活，而是完成人類最艱鉅的使命，也就是完全發揮創造性。
一.問題
人是什麼?人應該過什麼樣的生活?
我們得從人的整體性來探討人，包括了為存在找尋意義和答案的需求，以及探索何為生活規範的需求；如果不了解價值和道德衝突的本質，就不可能明白人類及其情感和心理上的困擾。
因此要了解人只能回到人本主義倫理學的傳統，也就是從身心整體面向去探討人，而人的目標是做自己，要達成做自己的目標則得從追尋自我起始。
二.人性和人格
1.人的處境
人既是個有其特質的獨一無二的個體，但同時也代表了人類的所有特性，一個人的個體人格是由所有人共有的人類存在特質所決定，所以在探討人性之前，就必須先討論人的處境，方能理解人格如何形成，而在理解人的處境以前，必須先了解人的動機，了解了動機才知道人因應不同處境會如何應對，而關鍵的動機就是人如何滿足在世界裡平衡與和諧的需求?
由於人有自覺、理性和想像力，因此無法以如其他動物般的和諧方式生活，而因對死亡的認知而出現了「存在的兩難」，存在的兩難包含了「生活知識在面對死亡時的無用」、「人的生命短暫而僅能在漫長歷史的演化歷程上作為一個偶然」。在這樣的兩難下，人得面對或許可以實現的以及真正可以實現的東西間存在了矛盾，人雖會想解決這樣的矛盾，但若不想陷入「否定既存矛盾」的鴕鳥心態或是「相信權威」的盲從，就只得先承認自己是處於一個和自身命運漠不相關的宇宙中最根本的孤單和孤獨中，因而只能為自己負責。且因人有存在的兩難，因此在為生命賦予意義時必然存在不確定性，而認知到這樣處境後，即使感到迷惘懷疑，也會不斷提出問題，而做自己、追尋自我便是最重要的目的與問題。
而意識到存在的兩難的前提便是人類異於動物具有自覺、理性和想像力的存在，這樣的存在導致了與自然的失調，也因而產生了超越動物性的種種需求，這些需求包含了理性和知性需求，且這些需求有種天生的趨力來使人與本性的部分恢復平衡。人以建立思想體系來回應理性需求，以此回答人在世界的定位及應何所為的問題；除了心理上的回應，身體的知性也驅使人必須在存有的所有層次上追求一致性和合而為一的經驗，藉此尋求一個新的平衡，人即是以宗教回應此知性需求。宗教泛指所有有神論和無神論，也就是說宗教指的是一種「定位和信仰的架構」，這是試圖為追尋意義以及理解自己存在的人提供一個答案的思想體系。而這樣的宗教性質是了解精神官能症與不理性渴望之關鍵。
2.人格
人格是個人的特徵，也是使個人獨一無二的地方，人格包含了氣質與性格，氣質是反應的模式，這是先天無法改變的；而性格則是由人的經驗所形成，尤其是童年經驗，並會因後天的見識和新的經驗而有若干的改變。
人格如何形成?根據佛洛依德的理論，性格特徵是行為的基礎，故得從觀察行為來推斷人的性格特徵，而性格中的基本存有物並非單一的性格特徵而是一整個性格架構，許多單獨的性格特徵則是依據性格架構而形成，而性格結構為在生命中疏導能量的一種特殊形式，也就是所謂的「性格決定命運」。Fromm稱這樣的性格架構為性格取向。
在人的生命歷程中，人透過習得和同化事物的同化過程建立和世界的關係，以及透過社會化過程建立與人群的關係，這些人和世界的特定關係形成了人性格的基本基礎。而個人藉以和世界建立關係的取向則構成了他的性格核心。性格可以定義為人在同化和社會化歷程中，能量的一種疏導形式，也就是佛洛依德的動力概念。
個人藉以和世界建立關係的取向構成了性格核心，而取向包含非創造性的取向與創造性的取向。
「非創造型取向」的類型包含了接受型、剝削型、囤積型、市場型取向，其中市場性取向有別於其他三個取向，因市場型取向的本質在於不會發展出任何固定不變的關係，這個取向唯一不變的性質就是它的可變性。所有取向都是人類稟賦的一部分，任何特定取向的主導性大抵取決於個人所屬文化的特異性，而個人的人格不僅被文化模式和社會制度影響，也是由人們的互動關係所形塑而成。
「創造性的取向」則是人能突破生存在世上既孤獨又不願孤獨、獨特又想與他人保持關係的解決答案。必須先定義創造性：創造性的概念不是指必然得到實際結果的行動，而是指一種態度，一個反應模式，以及在生活裡對世界和自我的取向。而人的創造性最重要的創造對象就是人自己。人的心智層次不會隨著年齡自動成長，要孕育出人的情感和知性潛能，孕育出它的自我就必須有創造性的行動。
人類存在的特色在於人是孤單的而且和世界隔離的，因為無法忍受與世隔絕，他無法不追尋關係和結合。人既渴望親密關係而又追求獨立，既想和他人結合又想要保存自身的獨特性和特殊性。這個弔詭及人的道德問題的答案正是創造性。
人要和世界建立創造性的關係的方式是透過行動和理解。人透過愛和理性，在心智和情感上理解世界。他的理性力量讓他得以深入表層，藉著和對象建立主動的關係而把握它。愛的力量讓他得以打破和他人之間高牆而得以理解他人。雖然愛和理性只是理解世界的兩種不同方式並缺一不可，但它們卻是不同力量的表現，也就是情感和思考的力量。
創造性的愛的特徵包含了關心、責任、尊重和認識。關心和責任意味著愛是個行動，而不是讓人不能自己的激情，也不是襲上心頭的情緒反應。而創造性的愛和被動性是不相容的，這意味著不能對被愛者的生活作壁上觀，而應該為被愛者的成長付出努力、關心和責任。
雖然關心和責任是愛的構成元素，但是如果沒有對於被愛者的尊重和認識，愛會墮落為支配和占有欲，尊重不是畏懼或敬畏，它是如實觀看一個人的能力，意識到它的個體性和獨特性。除非認識那個人，否則說不上任何尊重；如果沒有認識到一個人的個體性，愛和責任就會是盲目的。
三.作為生活藝術的應用科學的人本主義倫理學
要如何為行為規範找到判准?關鍵在於倫理規範體系是屬於人本主義倫理學或是威權主義倫理學。
人本主義倫理學和威權主義倫理學可分成形式上和實質上兩種判斷的差別。在形式上，威權主義倫理學不認為人有分辨善惡的能力，規範的立法者是超越個人的權威；人本主義倫理學則是認為只有人自己可以決定德性和罪咎的判準。在實質上，威權主義倫理學回答善惡問題時是以權威者的利益為考量，而非臣服者的利益；人本主義倫理學則是認為「善」是對人有好處的，「惡」是對人有害的，
人的福祉是倫理價值的唯一判準。
兩者會有這樣差別來自於對德性所賦予的不同意義，現代主義下的德性則是威權主義倫理學的概念，有德意味著克己和服從，壓抑個體性、而不是盡情地實現個體性。人的德性是人類特有的性質組合，每個人的德性就是其獨一無二的個體性。而人本主義的立場是以人為中心，人的價值判斷及認知都植基於自己賴以存在的種種特性，因此唯有和存在有關才能讓這些判斷有意義，沒有任何東西本人的存在更為崇高莊嚴。如果說倫理構成了實現生活藝術極致成就的整體規範，那麼它最概括性的原則也應該是依循著整個生命的本性，特別是人類存在的本質而成立。就最概括性的觀點而言，所有生命在本性上都是要保存並肯定自身的存在，所有生物都傾向於保存自身的存在。
在人本主義倫理學中，「善」是肯定生命，發揮人的力量，「德性」是對自己的存在負責。「惡」是人的力量的損害，「不道德」則是對自己不負責。
四.人本主義倫理學及其面臨的難題
1. 『自私自利和愛己』：我們把利己主義或自私當成人類行為的規範，而倫理的目標卻在打敗私欲?
對他人的愛和對自己的愛不是互不相容的，在所有有能力愛別人的人們身上，我們會看到對自己的愛。就對象和一個人的自我之間的關係而言，愛是不可分割的。真正的愛是一種創造性的表現，蘊含著關懷、尊重、責任和認識。愛不是簡單的感動，而是主動地為被愛者的成長和幸福而努力，這植基於愛自己的能力。
原則上，我的自我和別人都應該是我愛的對象。對於自己的生命、幸福、成長、自由的肯定，都植基於每個人愛的能力，也就是關懷、尊重、責任和認識。如果人有能力以創造性方式去愛別人，那麼他也會愛自己；如果他只能愛別人，那麼他根本沒有愛的能力。
在利己上，人真正的利益只有一個，就是充分發展他的潛能，發展身為人類的自我。正如我們必須先認識另一個人以及他的需求，才能知道怎麼去愛他，我們也必須認識自我，才能知道自我的利益，以及它們對自我有什麼好處。現代社會的崩壞即在於利己的意義的敗壞；不在於人民太在意利己，而在於他們不夠關心真正的自我利益；不在於它們太自私，而是在於他們不愛自己。
對自己的人格完整和獨特性的尊重，對自己的愛和瞭解，不能和對另一個個體的尊重、愛和瞭解分割開來。對自我的愛和對另一個自我的愛，是密不可分。
2. 『良知，人的回歸自我』：有了良知就必然會行善嗎?有了良知是否會得常與他人對抗而感到痛苦?
良知在人本主義和威權主義下的定義截然不同；威權主義的良知在意的是人的服從、自我犧牲、責任或社會適應，而人本主義的良知是人的自身利益和人格完整性的體現，因此人本主義良知的目標便是發揮創造性，也因為幸福和創造性的生活是如影隨形的，因此人本主義的良知將伴隨著幸福。威權主義的良知是衍生自權威的命令和禁忌；它的力量根植於對於權威的恐懼和愛慕的情緒，良之中的心安理得就是意識到取悅於權威，而內咎則是意識到讓權威不開心，因此威權主義的良知將使人成為權威的工具並因此斲喪自己，不管看起來多麼高貴，如無私、不快樂、逆來順受、灰心喪志，其實都必然隱含著對自我力量的壓抑而難以感到幸福。
由於良知的功能是守護人們真正的自身利益，所以唯有人們不至於迷失自己、成為自己的冷漠和毀滅性的犧牲者，如此良知才能活潑充臆，良知和創造性之間具備了交互作用的關係，人的生活越有創造性，他的良知就越健旺。
然而學習理解良知必須能夠傾聽自已，不但得有自我獨處的能力，而良知的聲音也不會直接對我們訴說，我們���常不知道讓我們心神不寧的，其實正是我們的良知，因若忽略了良知亦即意味忽略了創造性，也就代表浪費了自己的潛能也放大了存在的難題，此將使我們出現兩種焦慮。
忽略良知的焦慮之一就是對死亡和年老的恐懼，對死亡和年老的非理性的恐懼肇因於沒有好好過活，是我們因浪擲生命、錯失發光發熱的機會而於心有愧的表現。第二種焦慮則是害怕別人的反對，因人在本性上都想被同伴接受，因此很害怕在思想、感覺、行動上偏離文化模式。如果人因為生活沒有創造性而無法認可自己，就必須以他人的認可取而代之。
3.『快樂和幸福』：為何人得不斷的追求快樂?
非理性的慾望是永不饜足的，有羨慕、佔有、虐待狂傾向的人，他們的慾望並不會隨著滿足而消失，最多的也只是暫時消失而已，這些非理性慾望的本性就在於他們不可能滿足，因為他們源自人內心的不滿足。缺乏創造性以及因此而導致的無力感和恐懼，都是這些激情的渴望和非理性慾望的根源。
我們看到了因實現了生理需求和精神官能症的慾望而得到的快樂，都是消除惱人的緊張狀態的結果。不過前者可以說是真正的滿足，是正常也是快樂的條件，而後者只是暫時緩解需求，是病態的作用和根本不幸福的徵兆。
愛就像所有人類活動一樣，必須區分創造性的和非創造性的形式，非創造性的或非理性的愛可以是受虐狂或虐待狂的共生關係，這樣的關係是他們無法依賴自己，這樣的愛如同非理性慾望是基於匱乏，基於欠缺創造性和內心的安全感。創造性的愛則是兩人之間最親密的關係形式，同時也能在其中保存個人的人格完整，那是一種富足的現象。
幸福和愉悅不是滿足源自生理或心理匱乏的需求、不是解除緊張的狀態，而是伴隨著創造性活動而來的成果，無論是一種思想、感覺或行動。幸福意味著我們已經為了人類存在的問題找到答案：創造性的實現潛能，從而與世界合而為一，並保存自我的完整性。人在創造性的使用精力時，自身力量也會增長，「它燃燒自己，卻不會燒盡」。因此愉悅和幸福與創造性的愛是相伴而生的。
非理性的快樂意味著貪婪，以及無法解決人的存在問題。相反的，幸福則證明了生活的藝術局部或整體的成就，幸福是人生最大的成就，是人以整體人格回應對自身及外在世界的一種創造性取向。
4.『信仰做為性格特徵』：若上帝已死，現在還需要信仰嗎?
信仰最初的意思是堅定，是用以指稱人類經驗的一種特質；一個性格特徵，而不是相信什麼東西的內容。根據信仰的現象，可分成理性與非理性。非理性的信仰是對於某人或某事物的狂熱信念，出於對個人或非個人的非理性權威的服從。相對的，理性的信仰則是一種以有創造性的知性和情感活動為基礎的堅定信念。在原本沒有信仰容身之處的理性思考裡，對理性本身的信仰卻是個重要元素。
理性的信仰不僅顯現在思考和判斷的經驗領域而已。在人際關係的層次上，信仰也是任何重要的友情或愛的必要性質。對另一個人有信心，意思是確定它的基本態度、它的人格核心是可靠不會變的。在同樣的意義下，我們也對自己抱持信心。我們意識到自我或人格核心的存在是不會變動的，在我們人生中一直持續存在，即便周遭環境已然滄海桑田，使得某些意見和感覺不復以往。這個核心正是我這個字背後的實在界，我們對自我認同的信心就奠基於這個核心。除非我們對自我的持存具有信心，否則自我認同就會岌岌可危，而我們也會漸漸依賴他人，將他人的讚賞當作自我認同的基礎。唯有相信自己的人才能對別人有信心，因為只有他自己才知道未來的他會和現在的他一樣。他的行為和感覺也會和他所期待的一致。唯有相信自己，我們才有能力給予承諾，如尼采說的，人可以透過他的承諾能力去定義自己，那是人類存在的條件之一。
對於一個人的信仰還有另一層意思，指的是相信他人、我們自己，以及整個人類的種種潛能。
非理性信仰是基於服從一股讓人覺得無比強大、全知全能的力量，基於願意放棄自己的力量和優勢，而理性的信仰則是正好相反，我們之所以相信一個想法是因為他是觀察和思考的結果。我們相信別人、自己以及整個人類的潛能，因為體驗過我們自己潛能的發展、我們本身成長的事實，以及我們的理性和愛的力量的優勢。 理性信仰的基礎在於創造性，憑藉著信仰而生活，意味著活得有創造性，而且只有一個確定性真正存在：他來自創造性的活動，而我們每個人也都感覺到自己是這些創造性活動的主體。
4.『人的道德力量』：
人既想在世界裡隨波逐流，又想做自己，既和別人建立關係、又保持自己獨一無二的個體完整性，除了創造性地使用力量之外，別無他途。如果做不到就無法獲致內心的和諧，他會舉棋不定感到被撕裂，最後會逃避自己的無力感、厭煩和無能。人活著就不得不希望繼續活下去，他要活得好唯一的方法，就是發揮他的力量，運用他所擁有的東西。而人有愛的力量，如果他不能使用這股力量，如果他沒有能力去愛，他會為這個不幸感到痛苦或以文化模式去逃避這個由於挫敗而造成的痛苦。
人本主義倫理學的目標不是要壓抑人的惡，而是創造性地發揮人類天生的主要潛能。創造性的取向是自由、德性和幸福的基礎，而戒慎恐懼是德性的代價，但不是猶如植入邪惡囚徒心裡的獄吏那般的警醒，而是理性存有者的警醒，他必須認識並促成有利於忒他的創造性條件，並排除那些因阻礙他的創造性而孳生的邪惡因素，一旦他們長出來了，那就只有外在或內在的力量才能阻止他外顯。
人天生擁有創造性地發揮其力量的願望，而他要做的事則主要是排除自己心裡以及外在使他無法率性而為的障礙。正如變得貧乏而有毀滅傾向的人會漸漸癱瘓而陷於惡性循環，意識到自己的能力而能創造性地發揮出來的人，則不但在力量、信仰和幸福方面會大有斬獲，也會漸漸擺脫與自己疏離的危險，這便是處於良性循環。
從人本主義倫理學的觀點來看，倫理的抉擇並不是惡的壓抑或耽溺，無論是壓抑或耽溺都是人性枷鎖的兩種面向。真正的倫理抉擇不是在他們兩者之間，而是在「壓抑或耽溺」及創造性之間。
五.今日的道德難題
沒有任何好或壞的結果會自動產生，決定權在人身上，在於他是否認真對待自己，認真對待他的生活和幸福，在於他是否願意面對他自己和社會的道德難題，也在於它是否有勇氣做他自己，追尋他的自我。
人本主義倫理學的主要德性就是幸福和愉悅，但這不是要求最輕鬆的生活，而是完成人類最艱鉅的使命，也就是完全發揮創造性。
June 25, 2017
Kitap beş bölümden oluşuyor: Ahlak sorununa kısa bir giriş, otoriter ahlak felsefesine karşın hümanist ahlak felsefesinin sunumu, insan doğasının incelenmesi(üretici ve üretici olmayan yönlenmeler), hümanist ahlak felsefesinin sorunları(bencillik/özgecilik, vicdan, inanç, iyilik/kötülük, araç/erek, görece/mutlak etik vb. kavramlar üzerine) ve son olarak ahlak sorununun günümüzdeki durumu hakkındaki düşünceler. Fromm'a göre insanın üretici olma sorumluluğu bulunmakta, mutluluğa ve iyiliğe ulaşabilmesi için kendi güçlerinin farkında olması ve kendisi için kullanması gerekli. Kitabında (hümanist açıdan) buna bir yol göstermeye çalışmış.
Hümanist bakış açısını anlamak için güzel bir kitap. Kitabın bana göre temel sorunu Türkçesi oldu. Dirimbilim, törelbilinç, önbili gibi birçok zorlama kelime kitabı anlamayı güçleştiriyor. Türkçe'nin doğru kullanımına ve gelişmesine özen göstermeliyiz (doğal olarak hepimizin hataları oluyor/olacak). Lakin bunun yolu biyoloji yerine dirimbilim kelimesini kullanmak değil.
Kitabı okuduktan sonra, özyapı(karakter) bir kaderdir, mutluluk iyi ile bağlantılıdır gibi güzel düsturları aklıma yer etti. Etik sorununun insana dair asli sorunlardan biri olduğunu düşündürüyor. Sanırım bunun üzerine daha çok düşünmemiz gerekli.
Hümanist bakış açısını anlamak için güzel bir kitap. Kitabın bana göre temel sorunu Türkçesi oldu. Dirimbilim, törelbilinç, önbili gibi birçok zorlama kelime kitabı anlamayı güçleştiriyor. Türkçe'nin doğru kullanımına ve gelişmesine özen göstermeliyiz (doğal olarak hepimizin hataları oluyor/olacak). Lakin bunun yolu biyoloji yerine dirimbilim kelimesini kullanmak değil.
Kitabı okuduktan sonra, özyapı(karakter) bir kaderdir, mutluluk iyi ile bağlantılıdır gibi güzel düsturları aklıma yer etti. Etik sorununun insana dair asli sorunlardan biri olduğunu düşündürüyor. Sanırım bunun üzerine daha çok düşünmemiz gerekli.
November 24, 2007
Man for himself, an inquiry into the psychology of ethics.
متاسفانه اریش فروم که در روان شناسی و جامعه شناسی صاحب نظر است، از آن گروه نویسندگانی ست که در زبان فارسی سخت مورد بی مهری قرار گرفته و اغلب آثارش توسط مترجمین تازه کار، به فارسی برگردانده شده که اغلب نه تنها زبان نویسنده را نمی شناخته اند، که در زبان فارسی و ترمینولوژی روان شناسی هم چندان خبره نبوده اند. از همین رو با وجودی که آثار اصلی او اغلب به فارسی برگردانده شده، کمتر کسی رغبت کرده تا اریش فروم را بخواند و به نظریه های شگفتش در زمینه ی روانشناسی و جامعه شناسی توجه کند. "گریز از آزادی" که هسته ی اصلی نظریات فروم را در بر می گیرد، به دلیل غفلت در ترجمه یا چاپ یا هرچه، پر از اغلاط املائی و انشائی ست که گاه متن را بکلی نامفهوم می کند. این کتاب اریش فروم، با عنوان "انسان برای خویشتن" توسط اکبر تبریزی به فارسی برگردانده شده و چاپ دوم آن توسط انتشارات کتابخانه ی بهجت در 1361 منتشر شده است. در مورد فروم، می توانید این مطلب کوتاه را هم بخوانید
در مورد اریش فروم، این مطلب کوتاه را هم بخوانید؛
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...
متاسفانه اریش فروم که در روان شناسی و جامعه شناسی صاحب نظر است، از آن گروه نویسندگانی ست که در زبان فارسی سخت مورد بی مهری قرار گرفته و اغلب آثارش توسط مترجمین تازه کار، به فارسی برگردانده شده که اغلب نه تنها زبان نویسنده را نمی شناخته اند، که در زبان فارسی و ترمینولوژی روان شناسی هم چندان خبره نبوده اند. از همین رو با وجودی که آثار اصلی او اغلب به فارسی برگردانده شده، کمتر کسی رغبت کرده تا اریش فروم را بخواند و به نظریه های شگفتش در زمینه ی روانشناسی و جامعه شناسی توجه کند. "گریز از آزادی" که هسته ی اصلی نظریات فروم را در بر می گیرد، به دلیل غفلت در ترجمه یا چاپ یا هرچه، پر از اغلاط املائی و انشائی ست که گاه متن را بکلی نامفهوم می کند. این کتاب اریش فروم، با عنوان "انسان برای خویشتن" توسط اکبر تبریزی به فارسی برگردانده شده و چاپ دوم آن توسط انتشارات کتابخانه ی بهجت در 1361 منتشر شده است. در مورد فروم، می توانید این مطلب کوتاه را هم بخوانید
در مورد اریش فروم، این مطلب کوتاه را هم بخوانید؛
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...
July 31, 2007
Worth reading, and realitivly easy to grasp (compared to, say, Lacan). He calls himself a 'humanist' meaning (to him, it seems)that he is very individual centered, positive on the potentials of the individual against a potentially corrupting society (as you could glean from the title). One of the greatest annoyances was that you get no clear definition of such abstrations as "living up to one's potentials" or "productiveness." Also, he gets kind of obsessed with breaking down different types of characters...which I didn't find all that enlightening. Nevertheless, I made a lot of stars in the margins, underlines and comments, which is usually a good thing. A few quotes: "Our moral problem is man's indifference to himself." "Man is the only animal for whom his own existance is a problem which he has to solve and which he cannot escape."
August 2, 2016
فلسفة الأخلاق الإنسانية التي يقترحها إريك فروم هنا ، هي حل وسط بين النظامين الأخلاقيين التسلطي والنسبوي ، قائم على معرفة الطبيعة الإنسانية والتجربة والتحليل النفسي .
فالمعايير الأخلاقية برأيه مصدرها عقل الإنسان وعقله وحده ، وهي موجودة في صميم الإنسان ذاته وموضوعها وغايتها الإنسان .
فلسفة منطلقها وغايتها أن يعيش الإنسان بشكل إنتاجي من أجل ذاته وتحقيق إمكانياته الكامنة .
فالمعايير الأخلاقية برأيه مصدرها عقل الإنسان وعقله وحده ، وهي موجودة في صميم الإنسان ذاته وموضوعها وغايتها الإنسان .
فلسفة منطلقها وغايتها أن يعيش الإنسان بشكل إنتاجي من أجل ذاته وتحقيق إمكانياته الكامنة .
February 1, 2023
The fact that it is a work that has been treated as an advice book must be a great shame both on behalf of Fromm and on behalf of Fromm's readers. That's why I felt that I should start the sentence by stating that this book is not an "advice book" first of all.
To make a classification in the content of the work, Fromm, humanistic ethics, human character and nature, moral philosophy and today's moral problems because of the titles he wrote, many people approached this work to solve the methods of finding peace of the soul that they are looking for in the books of psychology and evaluated this work at that point. This is a radically wrong approach. Because Fromm puts forward a theory / theory, not advice, in his work, and while explaining personality types, he evaluates the historical process of understanding love and makes claims about the formation of the phenomenon we call conscience. This leads a person to question himself more than to give advice.
The dominating motive of production increases the urge to lost progress and technological development in every aspect of the harmful results that brings people for the people "what is the need for lost value, role and identity of the "point person intended to be the" appreciation of the principle of equality through subjects such as kayitsizlastirilm system (capitalist system), the "people" at the point of narrowing down her dilemmas, while conceiving unhappiness, it deals with making life a mess and directs people to themselves at the point of ways to eliminate this problem rather than giving advice against problem B. In this sense, it is possible to say that it is a reflection of the thesis that a person should make the revolution himself first.
Fromm, who likens human life to art with this book, puts the image of freedom in the center of the work of art and allows us to read the work of art at the point of our own lives. Therefore, I would say more of a work of art than a book for this. Be sure to read.
To make a classification in the content of the work, Fromm, humanistic ethics, human character and nature, moral philosophy and today's moral problems because of the titles he wrote, many people approached this work to solve the methods of finding peace of the soul that they are looking for in the books of psychology and evaluated this work at that point. This is a radically wrong approach. Because Fromm puts forward a theory / theory, not advice, in his work, and while explaining personality types, he evaluates the historical process of understanding love and makes claims about the formation of the phenomenon we call conscience. This leads a person to question himself more than to give advice.
The dominating motive of production increases the urge to lost progress and technological development in every aspect of the harmful results that brings people for the people "what is the need for lost value, role and identity of the "point person intended to be the" appreciation of the principle of equality through subjects such as kayitsizlastirilm system (capitalist system), the "people" at the point of narrowing down her dilemmas, while conceiving unhappiness, it deals with making life a mess and directs people to themselves at the point of ways to eliminate this problem rather than giving advice against problem B. In this sense, it is possible to say that it is a reflection of the thesis that a person should make the revolution himself first.
Fromm, who likens human life to art with this book, puts the image of freedom in the center of the work of art and allows us to read the work of art at the point of our own lives. Therefore, I would say more of a work of art than a book for this. Be sure to read.
August 22, 2022
'Birth is only one particular step in a continuum which begins with conception and ends with death. All that is between these two poles is a process of giving birth to one’s potentialities, of bringing to life all that is potentially given in the two cells. But while physical growth proceeds by itself, if only the proper conditions are given, the process of birth on the mental plane, in contrast, does not occur automatically. It requires productive activity to give life to the emotional and intellectual potentialities of man, to give birth to his self. It is part of the tragedy of the human situation that the development of the self is never completed; even under the best conditions only part of man’s potentialities is realized. Man always dies before he is fully born.'
August 5, 2025
This books takes you on a psychological and a philosophical journey to what it means to be a human ..
Loving it.
Loving it.
May 25, 2013
Toward the end of this book Fromm poses a central question: "Man, Good or Evil?" Here he takes on the "dogma" (you know which side he's on) of "man's innate natural evilness" and argues against those opponents of "humanistic ethics" which sees "man" as "inherently good."
There are three problems with Fromm's argument. First, the good versus evil dichotomy is simplistically stated. "Is man good or man bad?" assumes that there's one universal and common human nature. If we vary by physical structure and physiological makeup, on what basis does one argue that we have no innate differences regarding our behavioral or psychological dispositions or, if we do have something innate (e.g., "our innate goodness"), that it is one and the same for all "men"? Could it be that the old distinction between self-interest and other-regardedness has a biological basis because both prongs of behavior, and the vast continuum that lies between them, have led to evolutionary success (survival, reproduction)?
Second, our history, and our pre-history as primates, strongly suggest that self-interest is a strong motivation for behavior and that other-regarding behavior is often limited to those within our group as individual self-interest is tied so integrally to the group. This perspective makes Fromm's argument about innate goodness seem overly optimistic at least, if not just outright wrong.
Third, working from his premise about our innate goodness, and seeing socially destructive behavior everywhere, Fromm explains this negativity away by attributing it to evil social forces such as authoritarians who control us. In doing so, Fromm's argument becomes one big do loop that blames destructiveness on social factors without explaining how this could be if they were not somehow in some of the human make up to begin with.
Fromm is well-intended in wanting a peaceful, loving world and in his insistance that we can create such a world if we use reason. But Fromm's use of reason is misguided: He constructs an ideal version of the world because he can. Reason allows him to create the world he wants. But that world has never existed and cannot exist, and it's contrary to reason - dangerous in fact - to assume that the demon is out there and not inside a good many of us. After all, for those who are not by disposition other-regarding, it is highly rational for them to manipulate, use, deceive, and dominate others for their own ends if they can get away with it.
Even recognizing that Fromm wrote in a different era, the deluge in this book about "Man this" and "Man that" is jarring. For Fromm especially, how is it that "Man" is the human species?
There are three problems with Fromm's argument. First, the good versus evil dichotomy is simplistically stated. "Is man good or man bad?" assumes that there's one universal and common human nature. If we vary by physical structure and physiological makeup, on what basis does one argue that we have no innate differences regarding our behavioral or psychological dispositions or, if we do have something innate (e.g., "our innate goodness"), that it is one and the same for all "men"? Could it be that the old distinction between self-interest and other-regardedness has a biological basis because both prongs of behavior, and the vast continuum that lies between them, have led to evolutionary success (survival, reproduction)?
Second, our history, and our pre-history as primates, strongly suggest that self-interest is a strong motivation for behavior and that other-regarding behavior is often limited to those within our group as individual self-interest is tied so integrally to the group. This perspective makes Fromm's argument about innate goodness seem overly optimistic at least, if not just outright wrong.
Third, working from his premise about our innate goodness, and seeing socially destructive behavior everywhere, Fromm explains this negativity away by attributing it to evil social forces such as authoritarians who control us. In doing so, Fromm's argument becomes one big do loop that blames destructiveness on social factors without explaining how this could be if they were not somehow in some of the human make up to begin with.
Fromm is well-intended in wanting a peaceful, loving world and in his insistance that we can create such a world if we use reason. But Fromm's use of reason is misguided: He constructs an ideal version of the world because he can. Reason allows him to create the world he wants. But that world has never existed and cannot exist, and it's contrary to reason - dangerous in fact - to assume that the demon is out there and not inside a good many of us. After all, for those who are not by disposition other-regarding, it is highly rational for them to manipulate, use, deceive, and dominate others for their own ends if they can get away with it.
Even recognizing that Fromm wrote in a different era, the deluge in this book about "Man this" and "Man that" is jarring. For Fromm especially, how is it that "Man" is the human species?
June 9, 2018
О чем книга в целом. Книга вышла в 1947 году, но такое ощущение, что Фромм написал её вчера. Проблемы людей что в индустриальном, что в информационном обществе одни и те же. Когда мы в начале 20 века отказались от религии, то так и не смогли найти себе адекватную замену и создать новую систему ценностей, которая помогала бы нормально жить. Вместо этого мы живем на основе догм и ценностей, навязанных нам государством и обществом. Эти ценности, как правило, направлены не на развитие счастья и самореализации человека, а на сохранение власти государства и корпораций. Но наша природа, которая всё равно направлена на реализацию всего нашего личного потенциала восстает против этого. В результате возникают неврозы с которыми каждый борется по разному. Кто то ищет забытье в работе, кто то в детях или чувстве долга. Но в итоге большинству так и не удается реализовать себя в этой жизни. Фромм объясняет причины нашей неудовлетворенностью жизнью и предлагает этические принципы на основе которых возможно построить счастливую жизнь.
Главный вывод из книги. Самое главное предназначение человека - это реализовать весь потенциал, который в нем заложен. Для этого надо хорошо знать самого себя и возможности, которые нам дает окружающий мир.
Главный вывод из книги. Самое главное предназначение человека - это реализовать весь потенциал, который в нем заложен. Для этого надо хорошо знать самого себя и возможности, которые нам дает окружающий мир.
February 15, 2020
This is my first book from Fromm, but surely not the last one.
It's probably in my top 10 non-fiction books and I think it is a definite read for anyone that wants to understand more about humanism and how ethics can be incorporated into humanism.
Fromm considers that people moral life and productivity in a person are interlinked therefore any person who is productive in work (related to the environment) and in love (related to social relations) should also be moral. The lack of productive work (which is different from working hard) and productive love (which is different from lust, infatuation or falling in love) lead to immoral decisions and ultimately to emotional difficulties and psychological instability.
Returning to productive work and productive love should be our ultimate goal as human beings.
It's probably in my top 10 non-fiction books and I think it is a definite read for anyone that wants to understand more about humanism and how ethics can be incorporated into humanism.
Fromm considers that people moral life and productivity in a person are interlinked therefore any person who is productive in work (related to the environment) and in love (related to social relations) should also be moral. The lack of productive work (which is different from working hard) and productive love (which is different from lust, infatuation or falling in love) lead to immoral decisions and ultimately to emotional difficulties and psychological instability.
Returning to productive work and productive love should be our ultimate goal as human beings.
January 8, 2020
با خوندن کتابای اریک فروم ، گاهی مثل این میمونم که اونقدر محو ابهت استاد میشم که نمیشنوم چی میگه و دوباره باید اون پاراگراف را بخونم
فارغ از محتوا و بحث جالب در مورد اخلاق و صفحه اخر کتاب که انگار یه باری را از دوشم برداشت و انگار اونچیزی که دلم میخواست را گفت، ترجمه اش را دوست نداشتم ویراستاری و علامت گذاری را هم اصلا نپسندیدم
ولی مبحث فروم مطلب جالبی در مورد اخلاق بود
فارغ از محتوا و بحث جالب در مورد اخلاق و صفحه اخر کتاب که انگار یه باری را از دوشم برداشت و انگار اونچیزی که دلم میخواست را گفت، ترجمه اش را دوست نداشتم ویراستاری و علامت گذاری را هم اصلا نپسندیدم
ولی مبحث فروم مطلب جالبی در مورد اخلاق بود
March 8, 2020
Fromm propune un sistem etic umanist și obiectiv, opunându-se relativismul. Astfel, el respinge atât imposibilitatea stabilirii unor valori universale, cât și necesității ca acestea să fie impuse oamenilor. Această etică, spune el, se poate fundamenta doar pe felul de a fi al omului, pe ce are el nevoie.
Opunându-se atât ideii de rău înnăscut, cât și dualității, el afirmă că scopul omului este afirmarea potențialităților sale, iar „dacă omul trăiește, el va ști ce e permis”. Astfel, moral devine ceea ce omul realizează pentru împlinirea sa și imoral ceea ce împiedică dezvoltarea (lenea, lipsa introspecției). Iubirea de sine devine din cea imoral ceva necesar pentru realizarea acestui deziderat, ea fiind așadar ceva moral și fără de care nu e posibilă iubirea celorlalți.
Conștiința îi va dicta omului calea, distingând între conștiința morală și cea autoritară care presupune doar internalizarea și supunerea normelor exterioare. Un alt ajutor va fi credința, nu în ceva deasupra omului, ci în propriile forțe și potențialități, dezvoltată doar prin experiența directă. Un indicator al moralității va fi fericirea reală pe care o poate trăi doar cel care duce o viață în acord cu sine.
Experiențele timpurii și societatea pot împiedica afirmarea omului, constrângându-l sau condamnându-l la înstrăirea de sine, dar asta nu va împiedica judecata morală a acțiunilor sale. Un obstacol major este autoritatea căreia omul i se supune, ea putându-se referi atât la lederi autoritari, biserică, cât și la opinia generală sau bani.
„Problema noastră morală e indiferența omului față de sine”.
Un punct slab al lucrării ar fi argumentarea precară a modului în care omul poate ști care îi sunt potențialitățile și cum pot ele fi afirmate. De asemenea, recomand ignorarea tuturor părților ce conțin o analiză profund psihologică, precum capitolele de caracterologie, ele bazându-se pe psihologia vremii, cu mult depășită în concepție de psihologia științifică actuală.
Opunându-se atât ideii de rău înnăscut, cât și dualității, el afirmă că scopul omului este afirmarea potențialităților sale, iar „dacă omul trăiește, el va ști ce e permis”. Astfel, moral devine ceea ce omul realizează pentru împlinirea sa și imoral ceea ce împiedică dezvoltarea (lenea, lipsa introspecției). Iubirea de sine devine din cea imoral ceva necesar pentru realizarea acestui deziderat, ea fiind așadar ceva moral și fără de care nu e posibilă iubirea celorlalți.
Conștiința îi va dicta omului calea, distingând între conștiința morală și cea autoritară care presupune doar internalizarea și supunerea normelor exterioare. Un alt ajutor va fi credința, nu în ceva deasupra omului, ci în propriile forțe și potențialități, dezvoltată doar prin experiența directă. Un indicator al moralității va fi fericirea reală pe care o poate trăi doar cel care duce o viață în acord cu sine.
Experiențele timpurii și societatea pot împiedica afirmarea omului, constrângându-l sau condamnându-l la înstrăirea de sine, dar asta nu va împiedica judecata morală a acțiunilor sale. Un obstacol major este autoritatea căreia omul i se supune, ea putându-se referi atât la lederi autoritari, biserică, cât și la opinia generală sau bani.
„Problema noastră morală e indiferența omului față de sine”.
Un punct slab al lucrării ar fi argumentarea precară a modului în care omul poate ști care îi sunt potențialitățile și cum pot ele fi afirmate. De asemenea, recomand ignorarea tuturor părților ce conțin o analiză profund psihologică, precum capitolele de caracterologie, ele bazându-se pe psihologia vremii, cu mult depășită în concepție de psihologia științifică actuală.
December 19, 2013
Eric Fromm's works are some of the best books I have ever read on the human condition. I remember reading "the Art of Loving" back in catholic high school and how strongly it impressed upon me the importance of loving over being in love. This book is just as strong in every regard. There's nothing I can tell to do it justice--it's a short book, so just get it and read it. His discussions of such subjects as instincts, drives, fulfillment and ethics are models of conciseness and clarity. Perhaps some will say his work is dated but I don't see how--the reasoning is sound and the examples in living are irrefutable. I've always believed that many philosophers and psychologists who differ are nonetheless both right, though they frame the discussion differently or invent another vocabulary for presenting a dilemma or solution. I can hardly recommend anything more highly as eye-openers on humans and their relations than this and perhaps "Language in Thought and Action" by Hayakawa.
January 1, 2024
Mi è piaciuto moltissimo e lo consiglio a tutti. Fromm ha un'ottima capacità di comunicare alla vita, scrive bene e ha ottime capacità d'osservazione e ragionamento. È in grado di mostrare come alcune delle domande comuni riguardanti certi dibattiti non sono le domande appropriate e che quindi qualsiasi risposta si trae da queste domande per forza di cose non sarà adeguata.
È incredibile come certi pensieri/ragionamenti/ prese di posizione che sono frutto della propria esperienza possano essere trovate in un libro in modo più sistematico, esplicito e chiaro e per questo essere comprese meglio, rese più solide, abbellite, ecc. Moltissimi punti di riflessione
Poi questo libro parla alla mia parte più ideale (non per questa illusa), quindi, anche se a fatica riconosco che certe considerazioni non le ho condivise, per la stragrande parte l'ho adorato
È incredibile come certi pensieri/ragionamenti/ prese di posizione che sono frutto della propria esperienza possano essere trovate in un libro in modo più sistematico, esplicito e chiaro e per questo essere comprese meglio, rese più solide, abbellite, ecc. Moltissimi punti di riflessione
Poi questo libro parla alla mia parte più ideale (non per questa illusa), quindi, anche se a fatica riconosco che certe considerazioni non le ho condivise, per la stragrande parte l'ho adorato
December 15, 2020
I’m probably not well versed enough in ethics to make the most in depth of review, or to have read with a deeply critical eye. However, I really enjoyed Escape From Freedom and as such I really enjoyed this too. Fromm was a psychoanalyst working in the earlier half of the twentieth century so yeah, some of the language seems incredibly dated. However, the humanistic ideal of the ‘productive self,’ as opposed to the more toxic dispositions we find under capitalism, I found to be very useful and inspiring. If you’re after an odd yet refreshing blend of self help/psychology/Marxism and humanist ethics then this might be worth the read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews