72 Psychoanalysis Quotes & Sayings with Wallpapers & Posters - Quotes.Pub

Here you will find all the famous Psychoanalysis quotes. There are more than 72 quotes in our Psychoanalysis quotes collection. We have collected all of them and made stunning Psychoanalysis wallpapers & posters out of those quotes. You can use this wallpapers & posters on mobile, desktop, print and frame them or share them on the various social media platforms. You can download the quotes images in various different sizes for free. In the below list you can find quotes by some of the famous authors like Erich Fromm, William Gibson and Sigmund Freud

Обывательский вариант подхода к соотношению между мыслями и чувствами с одной стороны и стремлением к достижению целей с другой — не только отсталый, но и неправильный. Мы склонны полагать, что наши решения начинаются с выработки суждений, в согласии с которыми и осуществляются наши поступки: «мы» решаем, кто приятен и поэтому оказываем ему дружескую поддержку, «мы» решаем, кто откровенен, и приветствуем его, «мы» вычисляем, кто неправ, и противимся ему, «мы» вычисляем, что есть истина, и следуем ей. К этой картине Фрейд добавил бы, что у нас часто есть цели, которых мы не осознаём, цели, которые могут преследоваться косвенным, даже контрпродуктивным способом, и что наше восприятие мира может деформироваться в ходе этого процесса.Но насколько эволюционной психологии можно верить, настолько эта картина должна быть вывернута наизнанку. Мы доверяем чему-либо — ценности персональной этики и даже объективной правде — лишь потому, что это возбуждает поведение, передающее наши гены в следующее поколение (или, по крайней мере, передававшее наши гены в древней обстановке). Эти поведенческие цели — статус, секс, эффективная коалиция, родительские инвестиции и так далее — остаются неизменными, в то время, как наше восприятие действительности настраивается, чтобы приспособиться к этому постоянству. Всё, что отвечает нашим генетическим интересам, кажется нам «правом», нравственным правом, объективным правом, какой бы напряжённости это ни потребовало. Короче говоря, если Фрейд подчеркивал трудности людей в наблюдении правды о себе, новые дарвинисты подчёркивают трудности и наблюдения, и понимания правды. Дарвинизм вплотную подходит к тому, чтобы подвергнуть сомнению само значение слова «правда». Над светскими беседами, которые возможно могут открыть правду, — беседами о морали, политическими беседами и даже иногда академическими беседами — дарвинизм включает свет элементарной борьбы за власть. Кто-то в этих дискуссиях победит, но часто нет оснований ожидать, что этим победителем будет правда. Возможно, что цинизм глубже фрейдовского трудно вообразить, но он существует.
In conscious life, we achieve some sense of ourselves as reasonably unified, coherent selves, and without this action would be impossible. But all this is merely at the ‘imaginary’ level of the ego, which is no more than the tip of the iceberg of the human subject known to psychoanalysis. The ego is function or effect of a subject which is always dispersed, never identical with itself, strung out along the chains of the discourses which constitute it. There is a radical split between these two levels of being — a gap most dramatically exemplified by the act of referring to myself in a sentence. When I say ‘Tomorrow I will mow the lawn,’ the ‘I’ which I pronounce is an immediately intelligible, fairly stable point of reference which belies the murky depths of the ‘I’ which does the pronouncing. The former ‘I’ is known to linguistic theory as the ‘subject of the enunciation’, the topic designated by my sentence; the latter ‘I’, the one who speaks the sentence, is the ‘subject of the enunciating’, the subject of the actual act of speaking. In the process of speaking and writing, these two ‘I’s’ seem to achieve a rough sort of unity; but this unity is of an imaginary kind. The ‘subject of the enunciating’, the actual speaking, writing human person, can never represent himself or herself fully in what is said: there is no sign which will, so to speak, sum up my entire being. I can only designate myself in language by a convenient pronoun. The pronoun ‘I’ stands in for the ever-elusive subject, which will always slip through the nets of any particular piece of language; and this is equivalent to saying that I cannot ‘mean’ and ‘be’ simultaneously. To make this point, Lacan boldly rewrites Descartes’s ‘I think, therefore I am’ as: ‘I am not where I think, and I think where I am not.
One thus gets an impression that civilization is something which was imposed on a resisting majority by a minority which understood how to obtain possession of the means to power and coercion. It is, of course, natural to assume that these difficulties are not inherent in the nature or civilization itself but are determined by the imperfections of the cultural forms which have so far been developed. And in fact it is not difficult to indicate those defects. While mankind has made continual advances in its control over nature and may expect to make still greater ones, it is not possible to establish with certainty that a similar advance has been made in the management of human affairs; and probably at all periods, just as now once again, many people have asked themselves whether what little civilization has thus acquired is indeed worth defending at all. One would think that a re-ordering of human relations should be possible, which would remove the sources of dissatisfaction with civilization by renouncing coercion and the suppression of the instincts, so that, undisturbed by internal discord, men might devote themselves to the acquisition of wealth and its enjoyment. That would be a golden age, but it is questionable if such a state of affairs can be realized. It seems rather that every civilization must be built upon coercion and renunciation of instinct; it does not even seem certain that if coercion were to cease the majority of human beings would be prepared to undertake to perform the work necessary for acquiring new wealth. One has, I think, to reckon with the fact that there are present in all men destructive, and therefore anti-social and anti-cultural, trends and that in a great number of people these are strong enough to determine their behavior in human society.