How I enforce my opinion 1/2
I thought maybe It'd be a good idea to philosophize before I'll write my exam tomorrow.
I decided to start with something basic.
In school, if the topic happens to be psychology you can be positive that sooner or later someone will come up with Freuds Ego, Super-ego and Id-theory.
But what most people forget who take it as granted is, that there is a reason why it is called a theory. A theory is something, that is not proved yet, that's why.
And as you can imagine, I do not support this theory.
Freud's thesis, divides the human consciousness into three seperate parts: Id, Super-Ego and Ego.
Id resembles all human desires, just like the sexual desire, or the desire to eat. Everything what is so to say inherent to human nature.
Super-Ego is in place of morals which were taught you by your parents, teachers or everyone else.
Ego is the composition of those two parts.
Every human behavior is supposed to derive from that model.
For example if you happen to stumble over some money on the street, deduced from that model, your consciousness will tell you two things:
The Id would say: "Money! Money! This is money! You can buy tasty food or can impress women! So that maybe they'll pay you back. Keep it!"
And the Super-Ego would be the spoil-sport: "No, that would be mean. Someone worked hard for that money. It would be inacceptable. You have to give it back to his original owner!"
Yeah, that's all there is to say.
But my assertion is, that this model is obsolete.
It presupposes that complying with the Super-Ego is always due to a lack of the Id and vice versa. Spoken in intelligible words: if you give in to your desires or your nature, you'll behave contrary to your moral concept.
Let's cite some more examples:
About last year I jumped through a window into the schoolyard.
I didn't even think about forbearing, since I could not even imagine, that someone would be actually bothered by it. But my english-teacher did. He was morally snubbed and gave me an penalty exercise.
From that on, I did not jump through any windows on the school area.
Now what's interesting to the our topic is: Why?
What does keep me from it?
My Id? My Super-Ego?
It was not because I was convinced that jumping through windows wasa bad thing to do. And I did not expect anything to eat or any satisfaction by restraining.
The plain and simple fact: I was afraid, that I'll get another additional homework.
That is one thing that is not included in this model.
To be concluded in the next chapter. ;-)
Sorry it is just to late. Maybe tomorrow.
I decided to start with something basic.
In school, if the topic happens to be psychology you can be positive that sooner or later someone will come up with Freuds Ego, Super-ego and Id-theory.
But what most people forget who take it as granted is, that there is a reason why it is called a theory. A theory is something, that is not proved yet, that's why.
And as you can imagine, I do not support this theory.
Freud's thesis, divides the human consciousness into three seperate parts: Id, Super-Ego and Ego.
Id resembles all human desires, just like the sexual desire, or the desire to eat. Everything what is so to say inherent to human nature.
Super-Ego is in place of morals which were taught you by your parents, teachers or everyone else.
Ego is the composition of those two parts.
Every human behavior is supposed to derive from that model.
For example if you happen to stumble over some money on the street, deduced from that model, your consciousness will tell you two things:
The Id would say: "Money! Money! This is money! You can buy tasty food or can impress women! So that maybe they'll pay you back. Keep it!"
And the Super-Ego would be the spoil-sport: "No, that would be mean. Someone worked hard for that money. It would be inacceptable. You have to give it back to his original owner!"
Yeah, that's all there is to say.
But my assertion is, that this model is obsolete.
It presupposes that complying with the Super-Ego is always due to a lack of the Id and vice versa. Spoken in intelligible words: if you give in to your desires or your nature, you'll behave contrary to your moral concept.
Let's cite some more examples:
About last year I jumped through a window into the schoolyard.
I didn't even think about forbearing, since I could not even imagine, that someone would be actually bothered by it. But my english-teacher did. He was morally snubbed and gave me an penalty exercise.
From that on, I did not jump through any windows on the school area.
Now what's interesting to the our topic is: Why?
What does keep me from it?
My Id? My Super-Ego?
It was not because I was convinced that jumping through windows wasa bad thing to do. And I did not expect anything to eat or any satisfaction by restraining.
The plain and simple fact: I was afraid, that I'll get another additional homework.
That is one thing that is not included in this model.
To be concluded in the next chapter. ;-)
Sorry it is just to late. Maybe tomorrow.
- 14
- 0
- 0
Journals Statistics
| Total | 10 entries |
|---|---|
| This Month | 0 entries |
| This week | 0 enrties |
Latest entry
| ビジネスマンといんこ (上) (4) |
| How I enforce my opinion 1/2 (0) |
| Philosphy (5) |
| 久しぶりです (1) |
| 親知らずの手術 (4) |
Latest comments
| Nov 23rd baumkuchen |
| Nov 23rd Din |
| Nov 22nd Roomy |
| Nov 09th baumkuchen |
| Nov 08th Din |
Entries by Month
| 2009 |
|---|
| - November (3) |
| - October (4) |
| - September (3) |
