This is a highly stimulating talk, thank you Don for taking the time to create such content and for sharing your knowledge with us.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Thank you

Please post more

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Getting old, but I’ll try

A fresh carveth drop! 1st

thank you so much for posting those videos

thank you for your lectures

Thanks~ history + psychoanalytic interpretation = comprehensive conceptualisation + greater appreciation fro Uncle Sigmund's theories about guilt

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Thanks

Thanks for sharing your learning.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

You are most welcome

Excellent stuff thanks

thank you for your work! your videos help me a lot.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Good, thanks

What would be the difference of sublimation and projection, a person who channels his aggression into becoming a cop. He gains a position of power, and thus interacts with people from this position. Weakness is outside him, and he is powerful. Is this successful sublimation, or simple projection against the weakness he can't tolerate in himself?

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Depends whether or not he is a good cop

Homan's The Ability to Mourn is my favourite book on this subject

Yes, do instincts encompass more than drives. Lust can be considered as derivative of or exacerbated by unmet needs or perceived or actual deprivations or inadequacies and not instinctual.

Have you read Farad Dalal? He’s a training group analyst and writes on Norbert Elias incredibly well

Professor Carveth, i know you mentioned Heidegger and Sartre e few times in different Videos, and you seem to be quite educated on the Phenomenologists. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on Ludwig Binswanger/Daseinsanalysis? To me it looks like the concepts did become rather unpopular (if they ever were in the first place). I know that Freud was, at least for a few years, somewhat obsessed with Franz Brentano who was also a great influence on Edmund Husserl. I think Phenomenological thought could be seen as a fruitfull addition to psychoanalysis, but i could be wrong about that.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

You’re right about that. I have never attempted to put them together systematically, but they are all there operating in my mind. I kind of place psychoanalysis in an existential context. Of course they are not completely compatible because Freud clung to various materialist and positivist notions, denying the existence of free will, for example. One has to set such errors aside.

@VigiliusHaufniensis

Жыл бұрын

​@@doncarveth thank you Professor, i love your videos, it's hard to get insights into practical psychoanalysis as a layman, your work is much appreciated.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

@@VigiliusHaufniensis most welcome

Are contemporary freudian theories too different from the classical freudian school or what is the most important changes in the freudian school of psychoanalysis

@doncarveth

4 ай бұрын

I’m sorry to say that this question is far too complex to be answered here.

@hashemali4750

4 ай бұрын

@@doncarveth no problem , I was just enthusiastic in a deep way about the topic , thank you

add it to the list of carveth bangers.. does he miss??

Dear professor, that was an excellent talk! It stimulated me to think about the difference between a regulation (process) and a law (content). Isn't it curious that in Freud's theory, superego is both a law, and a regulatory agent? In other words, superego is both a content (law), and a faculty, or capacity, that governs how laws will be enforced? How can it be both? How can one and the same mental structure be both a content and a capacity?

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

I don’t really see the problem. The content is a range of internalized moralistic voices well tell me what to do and yell at me.

@dejanpil4847

Жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth Yes, but those "moralistic voices" that "tell me what to do" are actually my sense of obligation, and not the moral principles themselves. Right? Superego is not the same as moral principles that we possess; it is rather a sense of moral obligation, an "enforcer" of those principles. The same goes for conscience, right? Regulation is a process, not a content. A moral (or pseudo-moral) regulatory faculty is not the same as a moral principle or conviction. That can be well seen in the case, e.g. when a moral principle of mine is morally sound, as such, but my moralistic superego is screaming to me (in the "moralistic voice"), saying that I must obey that principle, or else I'm a bad person, etc... I hope you can see my point. (And by the way, I think that superego generates pseudo-moral laws and principles, and not the other way around. I think you would agree...?)

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

@@dejanpil4847 sorry, I can’t really relate to your points that sound like they come from legalistic philosophy more than psychology. I’m not sure how much ordinary people are concerned with moral principles unless they are studying moral philosophy.

@dejanpil4847

Жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth My point is simply this: how can superego be both the aggression turned back against the self and the values internalized from the society? How can it be both pseudo-moral values/principles, and a harsh moralizator that attracts us to pseudo-moral values/principles and obliges us to obey them? You say that Huck's conflict was between an internalized "moral imperative" (superego) and a "sense of obligation" derived from feelings of love (conscience). But wasn't it actually a conflict between the two senses of obligation - a (persecutory) sense of obligation to follow an internalized moral imperative vs. a sense of obligation to follow empathic concern for a friend? You see my point? How can superego be both a "moral imperative" and a sense of obligation to follow the moral imperative?

@dejanpil4847

Жыл бұрын

Oh, I think I understand now: the very fact that we internalize a moral imperative means that we feel a sense of obligation to follow that imperative. That solves the puzzle. Thanks for your patience.

Have you read any Cahrles Taylor?

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Sadly, not a lot, as my vision has deteriorated too much around that time.

I don’t think you can separate trauma from human nature. Perhaps this is the age old nurture/nature debate in a new form? But given we all carry inter generational trauma, and our narcissistic propensity seems to perpetuate trauma, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg scenario IMO

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Yes, for example, we all suffer the effects of the universal Oedipus complex