12 nov Theoretische overwegingen

Erich Fromm, Adolf Meyer, James S. Plant, H. S. Sullivan en Karen Horney verwierpen Freuds theorie dat onze levens instincten soms ook seksuele instincten genoemd (eros; overlevingsinstincten zoals dorst, honger en pijnvermijding, plezier en voortplanting) de aandrijfkracht waren voor bijna al ons gedrag.

Theoretical considerations.

Freud saw the hell of selfdestructiveness clearly enough; but, regarding it as the expression of an autonomous drive, he saw it out of context.

The neurotic process is a process of abandoning the real self for an idealized one; or trying to actualize this pseudoself instead of our given human potentials; of a destructive warfare between the two selves; of allaying this warfare the best, or at any rate the only, way we can; and finally, through having our constructive forces mobilised by life or by therapy, of finding our real selves. In this sense the problem could hardly have any meaning for Freud.

In his concept of the “ego” he depicts the “self” of a neurotic person who is alienated from his spontaeous energies, from his authentic wishes, who does not make any decisions of his own and assume responsibility for them, who merely sees to it that he does not collide too badly with his environment (“reality-testing”). If this neurotic self is mistaken for its healthy alive counterpart, the whole complex problem of the real self as seen by Kierkegaard or William James can not arise.

Finally we can look at the process from the perspective of moral or spiritual values. From this standpoint it has all the elements fro a true human tragidy. Howerver great man’s possibilities for becoming destructive, the history of mankind also shows an alive and untiring striving toward greater knowledge about himself and the world around him, toward deeper religious experiences, toward developing greater spiritual powers and greater moral courage, toward greater achievements in all fields, and toward better ways of living. And his very best energies go into these strivings. By dint of his intellect and the power of his imagination, man can visualize things not yet existing. He reaches beyond what he is or can at any given time. He has imitations but his limits are not fastand final. Unsually he lags behind what he wants to achieve within or outside himself. This in itself is not a tragic situation. But the inner psychic process which is the neurotic equivalent to healthy, human striving is tragic. Humans under the pressure of inner distress reach out for the ultimate and infinite which—through our limits are not fixed—it is not given to us to reach; and in this very process we destroy ourselves, shifting our very best drive for selfrealisation to the actualization of an idealised image and thereby wasting the potentialities we actually poses.

Freud had a pessimistic outlook on human nature and, on the grounds of his premisis, was bound to have it. As he saw it, man is doomed to dissatisfaction whichever way we turn. We cannot live out satisfactorily our primitive instinctual drives without wrecking ourselfves and civilisation. We can not be happy alone or with others. We have but the alternative of suffering ourselves or making others suffer. It is all to Freud’s credit that, seeing things this way, he did not compromise with a glib solution. Actually within the framework of his thinking there is no escape from one of these two alternative evils. At best there may be a less unfavorable distribution of forces, better control, and “sublimation.

Freud was pessimistic but he did not see the human tragedy in neurosis. We see tragic waist in human experience only if there are constructive, creative strivings and these are wrecked by obstructive or destructive forces. And not only did Freud not have any clear vision of constructive forces in humans; he had to deny their authentic character. For in his system of thought there were only destructive and libidinal forces, their derivatives and their combinations. Creativty and love (eros) for him were sublimated forms of libidinal drives. In most general terms, what we regard as healthy striving toward self-realization for Freud was —and could be— only an experssion of narcisstic libido.

Albert Schweitzer uses the terms “optimistic” and “pessimistic” in the sense of “world and life affirmation” and “world and life negation.” Freud’s philosophy, in this deep sense, is a pessimistic one. Ours, with all its cognizance of the tragic element in neurosis, is an optimistic one.