ILovePhilosophy.com

Arminius wrote:- "Es" <=> "id"
- "Ich" <=> "ego"
- "Über-Ich" <=> "superego".

I was only using the English for all you here. I read Freud in German. I read others in English, but I do think to remember they used 'it'. However, the wikipedia shows 'ID', as you say. Maybe my memory is faulty, but then again, the wikipedia is not always right. Anyway, use a translator from German to ENglish and find out that the German word 'Es' is translated with 'it'.

Arminius wrote:Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

Children learn things bit by bit. It took my son a while to figure out that eating seashells is not a good idea. He is still working on not balancing on the window sill to try to reach the door handle. He has only fallen once or twice. It worries me, so I stop him. Because I stop him, he has not learned yet.

Anyway, do you agree with the general ideas in what I wrote? Is it helpfull to you?



p.s.

Arminius wrote:Thanks.

I think "young" fits a bit better than "small" and "little". So:

I wrote:Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits of their culture.

I want to point out that the Super-Ego is what contains the cultural lessons and is often spoken of simply as culture. I don't think you know that; judging from your replies.

objet petit a wrote:Well, I hope this benefits someone.

No. All what you said was no news to me.

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:- "Es" <=> "id"
- "Ich" <=> "ego"
- "Über-Ich" <=> "superego".

I was only using the English for all you here.

The English translation of Freud's "Es" is "id". Why do you not know this? A German native speaker must explain the English translation of Freud's "Es" to an Englsih native speaker who claims to know some of Freud's books. That's odd.

objet petit a wrote:I read Freud in German.

Where do you come from? What is your first language? And what are your other languages, if you have any?

objet petit a wrote:I read others in English, but I do think to remember they used 'it'.

That's odd. However, I am glad to see that my information has benefited you.

objet petit a wrote:However, the wikipedia shows 'ID', as you say. Maybe my memory is faulty, but then again, the wikipedia is not always right. Anyway, use a translator from German to ENglish and find out that the German word 'Es' is translated with 'it'.

I know almost all books of Freud, and my translations are correct. You can believe me. Freud's "Es" is translated by "id".

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

Children learn things bit by bit. It took my son a while to figure out that eating seashells is not a good idea. He is still working on not balancing on the window sill to try to reach the door handle. He has only fallen once or twice. It worries me, so I stop him. Because I stop him, he has not learned yet.

You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.

objet petit a wrote:Anyway, do you agree with the general ideas in what I wrote? Is it helpfull to you?

As I said: All what you said was no news to me.

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:

I wrote:Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits of their culture.

I want to point out that the Super-Ego is what contains the cultural lessons and is often spoken of simply as culture. I don't think you know that; judging from your replies.

Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his "Über-Ich ("superego") as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.

Arminius wrote:No. All what you said was no news to me.

Warum hattest du denn dies Subjekt angefangen?

Arminius wrote:The English translation of Freud's "Es" is "id". Why do you not know this. A German native speaker must tell an Englsih native speaker who claims to know some Freud's books how to translate Freud's "Es". That's odd.

Im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch ist 'es' doch 'it'. Und, ich sage dass ich es auch oft in Psychoanalyse so gelesen habe. Wie gesagt: es ist möglich dass ich es nicht ganz richtig mehr erinnere. Es ist schon einige Jahre her.

I know almost all books of Freud

Kennst du seine Werke?

You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.

Ja Natürlich, aber als er da fällt, ist es möglich dass er seinen Hals bricht. Solle ich nicht passieren lassen natürlich!

As I said: All what you said was no news to me.

Das war mir nicht deutlich wie viel du weisst davon.

Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his "Über-Ich ("superego") as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.

Aber immer noch mit kleinen Schritten.


Mein Deutsch ist vielleicht nicht sehr gut. Ich brauche es nicht oft. Es ist auch nicht meine erste Sprache. Englisch is auch nicht meine erste Sprache. So spriche ich noch enige Sprache. Jedemfalls: entschuldige vor den Fehler.

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:No. All what you said was no news to me.

Warum hattest du denn dies Subjekt angefangen?

Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:The English translation of Freud's "Es" is "id". Why do you not know this. A German native speaker must tell an Englsih native speaker who claims to know some Freud's books how to translate Freud's "Es". That's odd.

Im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch ist 'es' doch 'it'.

Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache Freuds.

objet petit a wrote:Und, ich sage dass ich es auch oft in Psychoanalyse so gelesen habe. Wie gesagt: es ist möglich dass ich es nicht ganz richtig mehr erinnere. Es ist schon einige Jahre her.

Bei mir ist es noch länger her.

objet petit a wrote:

I know almost all books of Freud

Kennst du seine Werke?

Ja.

objet petit a wrote:

You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.

Ja Natürlich, aber als er da fällt, ist es möglich dass er seinen Hals bricht. Solle ich nicht passieren lassen natürlich!

Das ist auch richtig.

objet petit a wrote:

As I said: All what you said was no news to me.

Das war mir nicht deutlich wie viel du weisst davon.

Ja, wahrscheinlich, denn ich bin nicht mehr sehr an Freud interessiert.

objet petit a wrote:

Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his "Über-Ich ("superego") as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.

Aber immer noch mit kleinen Schritten.

Ganz genau, ja.

objet petit a wrote:Mein Deutsch ist vielleicht nicht sehr gut.

Es ist gut.

objet petit a wrote:Ich brauche es nicht oft. Es ist auch nicht meine erste Sprache. Englisch is auch nicht meine erste Sprache. So spriche ich noch enige Sprache. Jedemfalls: entschuldige vor den Fehler.

Eine Entschuldigung ist nicht nötig. Danke für die Antwort. Ich habe mich sehr gefreut.

Arminius wrote:Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.

Vielleicht ist es nu Zeit deine Gedanke zu erzählen?

Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache Freuds.

Vielleicht ist es auch abhängig von wen wir lesen? Oder ist man nicht so strict mehr?

Bei mir ist es noch länger her.

Ich bin kaum 40. Wie alt bust du denn?

Arminius wrote:

objet petit a wrote:Kennst du seine Werke?

Ja.

Vielleicht sollen wir einander noch mal treffen , weil seine Werke doch immer noch inspirieren können.

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.

Vielleicht ist es nu Zeit deine Gedanke zu erzählen?

Vielleicht. Manche Gedanken habe ich ja schon erzählt. Die anderen Gedanken werden folgen.

objet petit a wrote:

Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache Freuds.

Vielleicht ist es auch abhängig von wen wir lesen?

Deshalb schrieb ich "Fachsprache Freuds". Der Unterschied zwischen "Es" und "es" ist im Deutschen gegeben, aber im Englischen nicht mehr: "it" und "it". Um den Unterschied auch im Englischen deutlich machen zu können, hat man einen Unterschied erfunden: "id" und "it".

objet petit a wrote:Oder ist man nicht so strict mehr?

Wohl nicht mehr so sehr wie früher - "dank" Internet u.ä..

objet petit a wrote:Vielleicht sollen wir einander noch mal treffen , weil seine Werke doch immer noch inspirieren können.

Vielleicht, ja.

Nobody wants to address my point then?

LaughingMan wrote:It's possible but only with the complete destruction of the giant prison structure known as civilization first.

We had an authentic lifestyle of freedom and independence in animalistic form at one point in human history where civilization destroyed that completely.

Civilization is where humanity has conquered itself creating a virtual prison of enslavement, servitude, dependency, and social bondage.

The problem arises that this dangerous human enterprise has become so self destructive that once it destroys itself it will probably make all of life impossible in an extinction style event...

Not what people wanted to hear but my two cents on the subject nonetheless.

Too cruelly realistic to be of any use.

Id = The person's actual impulses (instincts and passions).
Ego = What the person believes he can do, given the constraints of reality (self-confidence, self-image, harmonizing w/ perceived reality).
Superego = What the person believes he should do, given the constraints of society (repression, social-image, harmonizing w/ society).

All societies require a degree of repression via social rules. SAM brings the id, ego, and the superego together so that each can easily comply with the others to the maximum degree possible. What a person desires to do becomes what he can actually accomplish as well as what he socially should do. That is how the IJOT gets maximized because Joy is the inner perception of unimpeded accomplishment.

I also think that the laughing man is more talking about a natural life; instead of an open mindset. Or did I misunderstand?

James S Saint wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:It's possible but only with the complete destruction of the giant prison structure known as civilization first.

We had an authentic lifestyle of freedom and independence in animalistic form at one point in human history where civilization destroyed that completely.

Civilization is where humanity has conquered itself creating a virtual prison of enslavement, servitude, dependency, and social bondage.

The problem arises that this dangerous human enterprise has become so self destructive that once it destroys itself it will probably make all of life impossible in an extinction style event...

Not what people wanted to hear but my two cents on the subject nonetheless.

Too cruelly realistic to be of any use.

Id = The person's actual impulses (instincts and passions).
Ego = What the person believes he can do, given the constraints of reality (self-confidence, self-image, harmonizing w/ perceived reality).
Superego = What the person believes he should do, given the constraints of society (repression, social-image, harmonizing w/ society).

All societies require a degree of repression via social rules. SAM brings the id, ego, and the superego together so that each can easily comply with the others to the maximum degree possible. What a person desires to do becomes what he can actually accomplish as well as what he socially should do. That is how the IJOT gets maximized because Joy is the inner perception of unimpeded accomplishment.

Of course it is realistic. That's how I roll.

The fact that nobody likes hearing what I have to say never comes across my mind. Don't care really.

I am of the modest opinion that if Laughing Moron was thrown into the wild he would have been eaten by a terrifying monster of some terrible sort thus proving his point that living in the wild, at least as far as turds such as himself are concerned, is superior to living in the civilization. One thing however is left unanswered and that is why does he not go down the line of Christopher McCandless? Dude, just pick a gun, and into the fucking wild!

Magnus Anderson wrote:I am of the modest opinion that if Laughing Moron was thrown into the wild he would have been eaten by a terrifying monster of some terrible sort thus proving his point that living in the wild, at least as far as turds such as himself are concerned, is superior to living in the civilization. One thing however is left unanswered and that is why does he not go down the line of Christopher McCandless? Dude, just pick a gun, and into the fucking wild!

Just stop! You're hurting my feelings already! You've got be me confused with one of my past cyber incarnations buddy when I was flirting philosophically with Anarcho Primitivism. Since then my stances have changed on a variety of philosophical issues.

At any rate, there is no need to go to the wilderness considering the wilderness is going to come to civilization or modern society soon enough when the great disintegration, entropy, and collapse arrives.

As for me, don't worry about me. I'm sure my odds of survival are going to be ten times more better than yours little fella. Take care now.

LaughingMan wrote:It's possible but only with the complete destruction of the giant prison structure known as civilization first.

We had an authentic lifestyle of freedom and independence in animalistic form at one point in human history where civilization destroyed that completely.

So do you want the humans to completely go back to nature then?

LaughingMan wrote:Civilization is where humanity has conquered itself creating a virtual prison of enslavement, servitude, dependency, and social bondage.

The problem arises that this dangerous human enterprise has become so self destructive that once it destroys itself it will probably make all of life impossible in an extinction style event....

Do you not foresee a few survivors of that catastrophe? *Grabs the scratchpad and a ballpen*

objet petit a wrote:I also think that the laughing man is more talking about a natural life; instead of an open mindset. Or did I misunderstand?

No, not really.
Nein, nicht wirklich.

Arminius wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:It's possible but only with the complete destruction of the giant prison structure known as civilization first.

We had an authentic lifestyle of freedom and independence in animalistic form at one point in human history where civilization destroyed that completely.

So do you want the humans to completely go back to nature then?

LaughingMan wrote:Civilization is where humanity has conquered itself creating a virtual prison of enslavement, servitude, dependency, and social bondage.

The problem arises that this dangerous human enterprise has become so self destructive that once it destroys itself it will probably make all of life impossible in an extinction style event....

Do you not foresee a few survivors of that catastrophe?

I sometimes think to myself we were better off in our animalistic form, yes.

I also rather fatalistically think to myself there is simply no going back where a collapse scenario will more than likely wipe us out in a global extinction style event.

A few survivors? Not anymore. A quick glance at thermonuclear reactors around the world along with nuclear weapon stockpiles in the case of global war would pretty much guarantee there wouldn't be anybody left.

LaughingMan wrote:

Arminius wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:It's possible but only with the complete destruction of the giant prison structure known as civilization first.

We had an authentic lifestyle of freedom and independence in animalistic form at one point in human history where civilization destroyed that completely.

So do you want the humans to completely go back to nature then?

LaughingMan wrote:Civilization is where humanity has conquered itself creating a virtual prison of enslavement, servitude, dependency, and social bondage.

The problem arises that this dangerous human enterprise has become so self destructive that once it destroys itself it will probably make all of life impossible in an extinction style event....

Do you not foresee a few survivors of that catastrophe? *Grabs the scratchpad and a ballpen*

I sometimes think to myself we were better off in our animalistic form, yes.

I also rather fatalistically think to myself there is simply no going back where a collapse scenario will more than likely wipe us out in a global extinction style event.

A few survivors? Not anymore. A quick glance at thermonuclear reactors around the world along with nuclear weapon stockpiles in the case of global war would pretty much guarantee there wouldn't be anybody left.

The survive of such a catastrophe is not unlikely for some humans.

Arminius:
The survive of such a catastrophe is not unlikely for some humans.

Basically total annihilation for everyone.

LaughingMan wrote:

Arminius:
The survive of such a catastrophe is not unlikely for some humans.

Basically total annihilation for everyone.

Why are you so sure (no wishful thinking, please!)?

Arminius wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

Arminius:
The survive of such a catastrophe is not unlikely for some humans.

Basically total annihilation for everyone.

Why are you so sure (no wishful thinking, please!)?

I am a firm believer in what I like to describe as the inherent doom and self destruction of human beings. Haven't seen anything contrary to it and now we finally have the means to do it globally.

LM sees the real problem.
He just doesn't see the only solution.

James S Saint wrote:LM sees the real problem.
He just doesn't see the only solution.

Yes, I can agree with that statement.

Well, all except that whole solution bit.

I don't really see any solutions in sight.

LaughingMan wrote:I sometimes think to myself we were better off in our animalistic form, yes.

I also rather fatalistically think to myself there is simply no going back where a collapse scenario will more than likely wipe us out in a global extinction style event.

A few survivors? Not anymore. A quick glance at thermonuclear reactors around the world along with nuclear weapon stockpiles in the case of global war would pretty much guarantee there wouldn't be anybody left.

China will invent radiation proof giant glow in the dark war condoms.

People fully understand how to treat radioactive materials.
It's as if it is natural, now.
We're the only animal with nukes. That means we are better than them.
We, the powerful humans, and power is the only thing that matters, even though it can cause a shit ton of death and unhappinesss.

In order to be more thorough I would say that I see endless problems and no solutions in sight.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say earlier.

Dan~ wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:I sometimes think to myself we were better off in our animalistic form, yes.

I also rather fatalistically think to myself there is simply no going back where a collapse scenario will more than likely wipe us out in a global extinction style event.

A few survivors? Not anymore. A quick glance at thermonuclear reactors around the world along with nuclear weapon stockpiles in the case of global war would pretty much guarantee there wouldn't be anybody left.

China will invent radiation proof giant glow in the dark war condoms.

People fully understand how to treat radioactive materials.
It's as if it is natural, now.
We're the only animal with nukes. That means we are better than them.
We, the powerful humans, and power is the only thing that matters, even though it can cause a shit ton of death and unhappinesss.

I'm not talking about low level radiation. I'm talking about total exposure of the lethal kind.

LaughingMan wrote:

Dan~ wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:I sometimes think to myself we were better off in our animalistic form, yes.

I also rather fatalistically think to myself there is simply no going back where a collapse scenario will more than likely wipe us out in a global extinction style event.

A few survivors? Not anymore. A quick glance at thermonuclear reactors around the world along with nuclear weapon stockpiles in the case of global war would pretty much guarantee there wouldn't be anybody left.

China will invent radiation proof giant glow in the dark war condoms.

People fully understand how to treat radioactive materials.
It's as if it is natural, now.
We're the only animal with nukes. That means we are better than them.
We, the powerful humans, and power is the only thing that matters, even though it can cause a shit ton of death and unhappinesss.

I'm not talking about low level radiation. I'm talking about total exposure of the lethal kind.

Really small nuclear molecules that can go airborn, and spread through the water system too.
Just a guess. I know nothing of nukes. Canada has no nukes.