What do you think?
Rate this book
ثلاث رسائل في نظرية الجنس
بمناسبة الذكرى ال150 على مولد مؤسس علم النفس الحديث سيجمند فرويد (1856-1939) تصدر دار الشروق طبعة جديدة من كتابه "ثلاث رسائل في نظرية الجنس" وهو الكتاب الذي يعتبر أهم وأشمل مرجع يتضمن نظرية فرويد في الجنس والذي أحدث ضجة كبيرة بين الأوساط العلمية وما زال الحديث يتجدد عنه كل حين ويعاد تقييمه. حاول فرويد في خلال هذه الرسائل الثلاث أن يبين اتجاه النمو الجنسي السوي، والعوامل المختلفة التي تؤثر على هذا النمو وتؤدي إلى الانحرافات الجنسية. فتعالج الرسالة الأولى موضوع الانحرافات الجنسية، وتحاول تفسيرها وشرح العوامل المختلفة التي تساعد على حدوثها وأهمية مرحلة الطفولة في تكوين الانحرافات. ولذلك قام فرويد في رسالته الثانية بدراسة السلوك الجنسي عند الأطفال والعوامل المختلفة التي تؤثر فيه. ثم يتتبع في الرسالة الثالثة السلوك الجنسي إلى مرحلة المراهقة والتغيرات التي تحدث في هذا السلوك بحلول هذه المرحلة. والمترجم المرحوم الدكتور محمد عثمان نجاتي كان أستاذ علم النفس بجامعة القاهرة وجامعة الكويت وجامعة الإمام محمد بن سعود الإسلامية ومن رواد علم النفس العرب وله العديد من الكتب الهامة في علم النفس مثل "القرآن وعلم النفس" و" علم النفس في حياتنا اليومية" و" الدراسات النفسانية عند العلماء المسلمين".
لتحميل الكتاب من هذا الرابط :
http://mmaqara2tt.com/index.php/books...
لتحميل الكتاب من هذا الرابط :
http://mmaqara2tt.com/index.php/books...
214 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1905
827 people are currently reading
13316 people want to read
About the author
Sigmund Freud
4,430 books8,322 followersDr. Sigismund Freud (later changed to Sigmund) was a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, who created an entirely new approach to the understanding of the human personality. He is regarded as one of the most influential—and controversial—minds of the 20th century.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 541 reviews
April 7, 2012
I showed an excerpt of Freud's writing to my friend over lunch earlier this afternoon. The excerpt read like this:
Contact between the child and its carer is, for the child, an endlessly flowing source of sexual stimulation and satisfaction of erogenous zones, particularly since the carer—more generally the mother—bestows upon the child feelings derived from her sexual life, stroking, kissing and rocking the child, and quite clearly taking it as substitute for fully valid sexual object.
My friend gasped and immediately shook her head in denial, 'No, no, no, no...' Well, read more and you will soon realise that everything that you've believed in, since you were a wee kid, is not what you think it is anymore. Every time you look at mothers breastfeeding her baby you will think of everything but motherly or pure love. Suddenly you're not that naive and innocent person you know anymore. That's why I believe reading Freud when you are younger than 21 will cause distress and great hazard for your mental and physical health (yes, worse than cigarettes). Therefore if I were the president of the country, I'd place Freud works in a special, locked cabinet and label it something like READING FREUD SERIOUSLY HARMS YOU AND OTHERS AROUND YOU. To buy one one would need to show his I.D. at his own peril.
Ask my friends, whom I called at 2 in the morning on daily basis, how neurotic I was in the month of March. I couldn't stop thinking about stuff like, Where do children come from? What differentiate a male and a female? Is there such thing called pure love? Is all love sexual? Well, fuck you Freud, you think too much; give it a rest. But then he would say something like this, Above all, the small child is without shame, and at certain periods in its early years shows an unambiguous pleasure in revealing its body, particularly emphasizing the sexual parts. The complement to this tendency, the curiosity to see other people's genitals, probably only becomes apparent rather later in childhood, when the obstacle of the feeling of shame has already become fairly well developed. That's it, I'm not sleeping.
People think Freud only thinks about sex. In my opinion, yes, he does. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. To think of it, many of his writings are true in nature. Even I feel it. But it's so upsetting that he has to mix things up, like parental love and sexual love. I mean, there are reasons not to mix them up for God's sake! One of them would be moral issues. But this guy just comes in full-steam, blasts the separator wall, and there you go: everything is sexual in nature. We are just sex slaves, sex animals. Once you learn it, it would be very hard to unlearn it (this is a word of warning), and I imagine many people would upset themselves to read things that would keep them awake at night, and think less of society. WHY? What for? WHAT FOR? THAT MAKES THE BOOK! OK I'll stop complaining now.
Save yourself, don't read this. But if I say that, you'd want to read it. So, yeah, go ahead and read it. It's knowledge anyway; very tempting, just like the Apple of Eden, that once you've had it, usually you'd be in the point of no return—you'd fall. But look at the bright side—at least you know the truth. It's unsettling and disturbing, but that's what usually the truth is.
Contact between the child and its carer is, for the child, an endlessly flowing source of sexual stimulation and satisfaction of erogenous zones, particularly since the carer—more generally the mother—bestows upon the child feelings derived from her sexual life, stroking, kissing and rocking the child, and quite clearly taking it as substitute for fully valid sexual object.
My friend gasped and immediately shook her head in denial, 'No, no, no, no...' Well, read more and you will soon realise that everything that you've believed in, since you were a wee kid, is not what you think it is anymore. Every time you look at mothers breastfeeding her baby you will think of everything but motherly or pure love. Suddenly you're not that naive and innocent person you know anymore. That's why I believe reading Freud when you are younger than 21 will cause distress and great hazard for your mental and physical health (yes, worse than cigarettes). Therefore if I were the president of the country, I'd place Freud works in a special, locked cabinet and label it something like READING FREUD SERIOUSLY HARMS YOU AND OTHERS AROUND YOU. To buy one one would need to show his I.D. at his own peril.
Ask my friends, whom I called at 2 in the morning on daily basis, how neurotic I was in the month of March. I couldn't stop thinking about stuff like, Where do children come from? What differentiate a male and a female? Is there such thing called pure love? Is all love sexual? Well, fuck you Freud, you think too much; give it a rest. But then he would say something like this, Above all, the small child is without shame, and at certain periods in its early years shows an unambiguous pleasure in revealing its body, particularly emphasizing the sexual parts. The complement to this tendency, the curiosity to see other people's genitals, probably only becomes apparent rather later in childhood, when the obstacle of the feeling of shame has already become fairly well developed. That's it, I'm not sleeping.
People think Freud only thinks about sex. In my opinion, yes, he does. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. To think of it, many of his writings are true in nature. Even I feel it. But it's so upsetting that he has to mix things up, like parental love and sexual love. I mean, there are reasons not to mix them up for God's sake! One of them would be moral issues. But this guy just comes in full-steam, blasts the separator wall, and there you go: everything is sexual in nature. We are just sex slaves, sex animals. Once you learn it, it would be very hard to unlearn it (this is a word of warning), and I imagine many people would upset themselves to read things that would keep them awake at night, and think less of society. WHY? What for? WHAT FOR? THAT MAKES THE BOOK! OK I'll stop complaining now.
Save yourself, don't read this. But if I say that, you'd want to read it. So, yeah, go ahead and read it. It's knowledge anyway; very tempting, just like the Apple of Eden, that once you've had it, usually you'd be in the point of no return—you'd fall. But look at the bright side—at least you know the truth. It's unsettling and disturbing, but that's what usually the truth is.
October 13, 2019
If you can talk to a person about this book without being judged as a psychopath or reported to police, I think that's where the most profound and farthest form of trust a homo sapien can witness.
Read
June 21, 2024If one can accept that the main drive in human life is sexual, then everything is fine. Freud's theories reflect, undoubtedly, à male-centric viewpoint. Considering females to be weak, and inferior basically because of his concept of the development of penis envy, which implies that women inherently desire male genitalia, overlooking other aspects of women sexuality - then we have some things to clarify. Although Michel Foucault maintained that Western sexuality's history involved an " incitement to discourse" , rather than repression, Freud's psychoanalysis emphasize precisely this role of repression, and he believe that unconscious desires were hidden due to moral prohibitions. Foucault argues that silence itself can be part of à larger discourse about sexuality. How does this perspective challenge Freud's notion of repression as the primary mechanism for hiding desires ?
Is silence truly repressive ? Might be a form of power ? When people confess their desires, they become subjects of scrutiny and control. But what if confession isn't always coerced ? Experts wield power through this process. Why does everything boil down to power ? Freud's model acknowledges inner conflicts and desires. Maybe both power and the unconscious play equal roles.
I would say that Freud's theory is rooted in his own subjective experience and cultural worldview, and he was heavily influenced by the Victorian era's moral codes, which viewed sexuality as a source of shame and repression. His emphasis on psychosexual development and the Oedipus complex, for ex, may very well reflected his own unresolved conflicts with his father and his desire for his mother. At the same time, I'd be ridiculous not to admit his significant role in shaping contemporary understanding of sexuality and power. My humble opinion is that we must always make a viable distinction between particularity and generalism, and we don't have to put a label where there are still signs of doubt.
Is silence truly repressive ? Might be a form of power ? When people confess their desires, they become subjects of scrutiny and control. But what if confession isn't always coerced ? Experts wield power through this process. Why does everything boil down to power ? Freud's model acknowledges inner conflicts and desires. Maybe both power and the unconscious play equal roles.
I would say that Freud's theory is rooted in his own subjective experience and cultural worldview, and he was heavily influenced by the Victorian era's moral codes, which viewed sexuality as a source of shame and repression. His emphasis on psychosexual development and the Oedipus complex, for ex, may very well reflected his own unresolved conflicts with his father and his desire for his mother. At the same time, I'd be ridiculous not to admit his significant role in shaping contemporary understanding of sexuality and power. My humble opinion is that we must always make a viable distinction between particularity and generalism, and we don't have to put a label where there are still signs of doubt.
October 2, 2013
عندما يُسمع اسم "فرويد" فإن أول ما يتبادر إلى الأذهان هو نظريته الأشهر في الجنسية والطفولة، ويكون رد الفعل مصحوبًا بامتعاض، وربما تقزز، من الفكرة برمتها، واستنكار لكيف يُمكن أن يعتقد فرويد أن الطفل الرضيع (الغلبان) لديه مظاهر جنسية! وبعد أن قرأتُ الكتاب لم أستطع أن أكوّن رأيًا محددًا حول هذا الموضوع لعدة أسباب؛ أولها أن الحُكم يحتاج لأدوات لا أمتلكها، فقد بنى فرويد نظريته على مشاهدات وخبرات عملية خارج تخصصي ولم تتوافر لي لأحكم مثله. ثانيها، أن ما يعوق اتخاذنا حكمًا موضوعيًا هو نظرتنا للأطفال باعتبارهم كائنات ملائكية "بريئة وطاهرة" مما يحمل معنى ضمني أن الجنس دَنَس وقذارة. الحقيقة أن نظريته كانت من التعقيد أنني لم أفهمها بشكل كامل، ففرويد يتحدث عن تداخل الغريزة الجنسية للطفل مع غرائز الحفاظ على الحياة كالأكل، وليست بمعناها الذي نعرفه بعد البلوغ وتطور الآليات الجنسية تطورًا نهائيًا. كما أنني أستغرب أن نقبل كون التحليل النفسي ينسب كل ما يصدر عن الأشخاص من سلوكيات وطباع إلى حادث مرّوا به في طفولتهم وتم كبته أو التسامي به وفي نفس الوقت نستبعد الجنس من المعادلة! هل نتصور أن الجنس يباغت الطفل فجأة مثلًا عندما يكبر؟! الأحرى أن نظن أنه موجود منذ الولادة لكن بطريقة مختلفة قليلًا أو كثيرًا عما نعرفه. ألم نسمع من قبل عن بعض جليسات الأطفال اللاتي يداعبن الأعضاء الجنسية للأطفال كي يتوقفوا عن البكاء ويناموا! وخطورة هذا الأمر أن كل تنشيط مبكر للغريزة الجنسية عند الأطفال، بالتغرير أو غيره، يؤدي إلى اضطرابات لديهم عند الكبر، كما أن إفراط الوالدين في تدليل الطفلة -للمفاجأة- يخلق رابطًا في ذهنها أن الحب الذي يُمكن تلقّيه هو فقط هذا الحب المُفرط من الوالدين، مما يجعلها لا تقنع بدرجة أقل منه أو حتى بغيابه، ويلازمها القلق الطفلي مهما كبرت، وقد يتسبب كل هذا لاحقًا في برودها الجنسي!
نأتي للكتاب، الذي يقع فعليًا في حوالي 80 صفحة من أصل 196! فبالكتاب عدة مقدمات وتصديرات للطبعات المختلفة، وملحق كامل للهوامش التي تعمر بها المقالات، ثم ملحق آخر للمراجع، وملحق أخير للمصطلحات الواردة في المقالات. وقد قام المترجم بمجهود عظيم محاولًا تعريب المصطلحات النفسية لكن الأمر أدى إلى تعقيد لغة الكتاب بشكل العام، خصوصًا مع إصراره على استخدام ألفاظ عفا عليها الزمن!
نأتي للكتاب، الذي يقع فعليًا في حوالي 80 صفحة من أصل 196! فبالكتاب عدة مقدمات وتصديرات للطبعات المختلفة، وملحق كامل للهوامش التي تعمر بها المقالات، ثم ملحق آخر للمراجع، وملحق أخير للمصطلحات الواردة في المقالات. وقد قام المترجم بمجهود عظيم محاولًا تعريب المصطلحات النفسية لكن الأمر أدى إلى تعقيد لغة الكتاب بشكل العام، خصوصًا مع إصراره على استخدام ألفاظ عفا عليها الزمن!
July 5, 2015
We are not in a position to give so much as a hint as to the causes of these temporal disturbances of the process of development. A prospect opens before us at this point upon a whole phalanx of biological and perhaps, too, of historical problems of which we have not even come within striking distance.
I admire Freud in a similar way to that which I encounter Augustine. Despite glaring mistakes, there is a pellucid grace to the prose. The reasoning in a local sense is wonderful, despite the conclusions being wrong. It always is an instance of application. The layered nature of conclusions is compelling in these Three Essays, the footnotes allude to the editing, insertion and omission which Freud adjusted his thoughts, all the while admitting that he was lost in the weeds and that we were all damaged goods The taxonomy of inversion and perversion is a ticklish curiosity. Such must have been dangerously transgressive at the time. Kinsey eventually told everyone that there isn't a normal and that we should all relax and self-medicate.
I read this as to bolster myself for further exploration and spelunking into Irigaray and Derrida
I admire Freud in a similar way to that which I encounter Augustine. Despite glaring mistakes, there is a pellucid grace to the prose. The reasoning in a local sense is wonderful, despite the conclusions being wrong. It always is an instance of application. The layered nature of conclusions is compelling in these Three Essays, the footnotes allude to the editing, insertion and omission which Freud adjusted his thoughts, all the while admitting that he was lost in the weeds and that we were all damaged goods The taxonomy of inversion and perversion is a ticklish curiosity. Such must have been dangerously transgressive at the time. Kinsey eventually told everyone that there isn't a normal and that we should all relax and self-medicate.
I read this as to bolster myself for further exploration and spelunking into Irigaray and Derrida
January 28, 2021
در خصوص استمنا به این موضوع اشاره می شود که: از نتایج زیان بار استمنا و خود ارضایی دید کوتاه مدت فرد و تشویق راحت طلبی و تنبلی و یک شبه ره صد ساله رفتن است.
شخص تلاشی برای به دست آوردن معشوق نمیکند و در کوتاهترین زمان ممکن به اوج لذت جنسی میرسد این فساد ذهنی حس تنبلی را در شخص ایجاد میکند و او برای رسیدن به همه ی هدفهایش میخواهد کمترین زمان ممکن را صرف کند غافل از اینکه رسیدن به معشوق و همخوابگی با او خود راه دراز و صبر و پشتکار و حوصله ی بسیاری می طلبد و هدفهای زندگی مثل استمنا و تنها با لمس چند دقیقه ای آلت تناسلی به نتیجه نخواهد رسید.
...........
سومین کتابی بود که از فروید میخواندم. اگر چه دیر فهم و مشکل است ولی بازهم ارزش خواندن دارد.
----------------
توضیح
متن بالا نتیجه برادشت خودم از یک بخش از کتاب است و کلمات دقیقا کلمات کتاب نیستند بلکه خلاصه ای است از آنچه گفته شده بود
شخص تلاشی برای به دست آوردن معشوق نمیکند و در کوتاهترین زمان ممکن به اوج لذت جنسی میرسد این فساد ذهنی حس تنبلی را در شخص ایجاد میکند و او برای رسیدن به همه ی هدفهایش میخواهد کمترین زمان ممکن را صرف کند غافل از اینکه رسیدن به معشوق و همخوابگی با او خود راه دراز و صبر و پشتکار و حوصله ی بسیاری می طلبد و هدفهای زندگی مثل استمنا و تنها با لمس چند دقیقه ای آلت تناسلی به نتیجه نخواهد رسید.
...........
سومین کتابی بود که از فروید میخواندم. اگر چه دیر فهم و مشکل است ولی بازهم ارزش خواندن دارد.
----------------
توضیح
متن بالا نتیجه برادشت خودم از یک بخش از کتاب است و کلمات دقیقا کلمات کتاب نیستند بلکه خلاصه ای است از آنچه گفته شده بود
July 7, 2019
Wow.
Now that’s an evocative read.
They sure don’t make them like that anymore.
If you have read any of my other reviews, you may already know that I’m a reluctant and late convert to the psychoanalytic model.
And that is putting it politely.
I’m actually a recovering ultra-hater.
In retrospect, my resistance to the analytic orientations was a real live case of reaction formation.
For those of y’all that are unfamiliar, reaction formation is a quintessential Freudian idea (posited by Anna Freud) that people occasionally conceal shameful aspects of themselves by adopting an opposite (frequently exaggerated) counter-stance.
For example, someone who is latently homophobic or racist, who adopts an overt, reactionary, obnoxiously “woke” attitude.
Life is full of examples.
I need not go on.
I avoided (even hated) Freud and psychoanalytic theory, in part due to feeling insecure about my choice of professions.
I became a therapist rather late in life and had a strong impulse to distinguish myself from aspects of the field that were insubstantial or otherwise unsound, maybe just to gain a sense of certainty and validity.
I also have a lot of shame regarding
psychotherapy’s past foibles and transgressions.
I grew up in the 70s and 80s, during the time of peak therapy weirdness i.e. psychodrama, primal therapy, and all other forms of cringeworthy catharsis oriented human potential movement, new age hippy shit.
As may be evident, I’m still recovering from all that. But now is not the time or place to further elaborate (in any greater detail than what I have already over shared).
So any way.
In my training and early career, I rejected Freudian ideas, and I gravitated to evidence based therapeutic modalities, grounded in experimental science and sound theoretical fundaments.
I’m glad I did.
It’s still my way of orienting as a therapist.
But recently, quite to my surprise, I have become increasingly open, amenable and even enamored with Freud and the psychoanalytical model.
And it has vitalized my practice, world view, sense of self, way of being. I could go on, but I won’t.
Suffice it to say.
That’s a (less than economical) way prefacing the fact that I’m a neophyte when it comes to Freud.
So take everything I have to say on the subject with a serious grain of salt.
In Three Essays on Sexuality, Freud attempts to clarify his theory of sexuality, most notably infantile sexuality, and integrate it within his meta theory of personality and the dynamic unconscious.
In earlier works, Freud had made (highly impolitic) assertions that his female clients were experiencing traumatic symptoms due to exposure to sexual trauma.
This assertion may have tacitly implicated some of the rich and powerful men in Freuds community as perpetrators of rape and incest.
In later editions of Three Essays, Freud included the (rather repugnant) concept of penis envy, to explain the symptoms of his female clients.
Ostensibly as a way to back pedal on the afore mentioned #MeToo 19th century edition stuff.
Other late addition addendums included the concepts of castration anxiety, and the Oedipus complex.
All of that stuff is what makes me gag on Freud (in the bad way).
But the essential observation that people are implicitly motivated by survival and sexual needs are obviously prescient to our current understanding.
The largely unfiltered, fearless way Freud explores the topic of human sexuality is literally astounding, particularly his ideas on infant and pre-adolescent sexuality.
Considering the fact that all of this took place in the early 1900s, these ideas were bold and advanced beyond belief.
Lastly.
Freuds work on homosexuality is ignorant by today’s standards, but Freud is remarkably normalizing and non-punitive in his exploration of the topic by 19th century standards.
And his work in these two domains (child sexual development and homosexuality) are clearly evident in some of the most enlightened thinking on the subject to date.
If Lady Gaga can drop ‘Born This Way’ without getting run out of town by Ted Cruz and the Tiki Nazi’s, than you have to prop Siggy Stardust for at least some of that rainbow goodness.
Just sayin’
Anyway.
I’m venturing way outside of my depth here. So again. Take it all with a grain of salt.
I guess my real motive for all of this is to share my newfound interest and enthusiasm with all of y’all.
Thanks for being along for the ride.
Comments are welcomed and encouraged.
😬
Now that’s an evocative read.
They sure don’t make them like that anymore.
If you have read any of my other reviews, you may already know that I’m a reluctant and late convert to the psychoanalytic model.
And that is putting it politely.
I’m actually a recovering ultra-hater.
In retrospect, my resistance to the analytic orientations was a real live case of reaction formation.
For those of y’all that are unfamiliar, reaction formation is a quintessential Freudian idea (posited by Anna Freud) that people occasionally conceal shameful aspects of themselves by adopting an opposite (frequently exaggerated) counter-stance.
For example, someone who is latently homophobic or racist, who adopts an overt, reactionary, obnoxiously “woke” attitude.
Life is full of examples.
I need not go on.
I avoided (even hated) Freud and psychoanalytic theory, in part due to feeling insecure about my choice of professions.
I became a therapist rather late in life and had a strong impulse to distinguish myself from aspects of the field that were insubstantial or otherwise unsound, maybe just to gain a sense of certainty and validity.
I also have a lot of shame regarding
psychotherapy’s past foibles and transgressions.
I grew up in the 70s and 80s, during the time of peak therapy weirdness i.e. psychodrama, primal therapy, and all other forms of cringeworthy catharsis oriented human potential movement, new age hippy shit.
As may be evident, I’m still recovering from all that. But now is not the time or place to further elaborate (in any greater detail than what I have already over shared).
So any way.
In my training and early career, I rejected Freudian ideas, and I gravitated to evidence based therapeutic modalities, grounded in experimental science and sound theoretical fundaments.
I’m glad I did.
It’s still my way of orienting as a therapist.
But recently, quite to my surprise, I have become increasingly open, amenable and even enamored with Freud and the psychoanalytical model.
And it has vitalized my practice, world view, sense of self, way of being. I could go on, but I won’t.
Suffice it to say.
That’s a (less than economical) way prefacing the fact that I’m a neophyte when it comes to Freud.
So take everything I have to say on the subject with a serious grain of salt.
In Three Essays on Sexuality, Freud attempts to clarify his theory of sexuality, most notably infantile sexuality, and integrate it within his meta theory of personality and the dynamic unconscious.
In earlier works, Freud had made (highly impolitic) assertions that his female clients were experiencing traumatic symptoms due to exposure to sexual trauma.
This assertion may have tacitly implicated some of the rich and powerful men in Freuds community as perpetrators of rape and incest.
In later editions of Three Essays, Freud included the (rather repugnant) concept of penis envy, to explain the symptoms of his female clients.
Ostensibly as a way to back pedal on the afore mentioned #MeToo 19th century edition stuff.
Other late addition addendums included the concepts of castration anxiety, and the Oedipus complex.
All of that stuff is what makes me gag on Freud (in the bad way).
But the essential observation that people are implicitly motivated by survival and sexual needs are obviously prescient to our current understanding.
The largely unfiltered, fearless way Freud explores the topic of human sexuality is literally astounding, particularly his ideas on infant and pre-adolescent sexuality.
Considering the fact that all of this took place in the early 1900s, these ideas were bold and advanced beyond belief.
Lastly.
Freuds work on homosexuality is ignorant by today’s standards, but Freud is remarkably normalizing and non-punitive in his exploration of the topic by 19th century standards.
And his work in these two domains (child sexual development and homosexuality) are clearly evident in some of the most enlightened thinking on the subject to date.
If Lady Gaga can drop ‘Born This Way’ without getting run out of town by Ted Cruz and the Tiki Nazi’s, than you have to prop Siggy Stardust for at least some of that rainbow goodness.
Just sayin’
Anyway.
I’m venturing way outside of my depth here. So again. Take it all with a grain of salt.
I guess my real motive for all of this is to share my newfound interest and enthusiasm with all of y’all.
Thanks for being along for the ride.
Comments are welcomed and encouraged.
😬
January 12, 2022
Whatever you think of psychoanalysis, you have to give it to Freud to both terrify and to fascinate. It was good to get back to reading him after all these years. The three essays gave much to think about, especially as it was my first time reading them rather than relying on secondary source material. Worth reading!
Read
September 17, 2017this was really freaking weird - i have nothing else to say about it
December 4, 2021
YouTube kitap kanalımda Freud'un hayatı, mutlaka okunması gereken kitapları ve kronolojik okuma sırası hakkında bilgi edinebilirsiniz: youtu.be/63ikZqbdnAA
Bu kitabı okumaya başladığımdan beri 100den fazla kişi beni takipten çıktı. Demek ki bir şeyleri görmekten ve duymaktan hala korkuyoruz. Ama neden korkuyoruz? Kendi cinsel kökenlerimizi öğrenmekten mi? Artık Berlin Duvarı gibi olmuş tabularımızı bir bir devirmekten mi? Neden korkuyoruz?!
Çocukluğumuzdan beri cinsellik konusu ne zaman geçerse geçsin bize hep "Şş, çok ayıp sus bakiyim" denilerek ayıplanıp susmak öğretildi. Cinsel eğitim verilip özel bölgelerimiz öğretileceği yerde bastırılıp içimize kapanmak öğretildi. Bu konuyla ilgili bir şey merak edip ailemize sorduğumuzda bize hiç cevap vermeyen duvarlara bakmak öğretildi... Bütün bunlar arasında kendi kendimizi nasıl eğitebilirdik?
"Hadi göster amcalara bamyanı" dendi, cinsellik bir güç gösterisi olarak kodlandı. Lisedeki biyoloji derslerinde üreme sistemi anlatılırken herkes dersi kaynattı, cinsellik bir şaka malzemesi sanıldı. Üniversitede milli olup olmadığın üzerinden arkadaş ortamlarında yoklama alındı, cinsellik bir istatistiğe dönüştü. Bu muydu lan sizin anladığınız cinsellik?
Bakın Freud bu kitabında hepinize ne diyor:
"Çocuk, cinsel araştırmalarında her zaman yalnızdır; bu onun için dünyaya yönelmek amacıyla attığı bir ilk adımdır ve o zamana kadar tam bir güven beslemiş olduğu çevresindeki insanlara karşı kendisini yabancı hissedecektir." [s.96]
Hangimiz yalnız ve yabancı hissetmedik ki kendimizi? Hangimiz ezilip büzülmedik ki bu konuda cahil bırakılışlarımızla? Hangimiz elimizdeki farkındalık balyozuyla o tabu tuğlalarından oluşan duvarları kırmak istemedik? Yaradılışımızı ve Adem ile Havva'yı hatırlasak yeterdi aslında. Maslow'un ihtiyaçlar hiyerarşisinde ilk basamaktaki fizyolojik ihtiyaçlarda cinselliğin de olduğunu hatırlasak yeterdi. Sigmund Freud'un Cinsellik Üzerine kitabını okusak biraz olsun düzelebilmek için yeterdi bütün bunlar...
Okudum ben de bu kitabı ve öğrendim aslında yetişkin cinselliğinin de kökeninin çocuklukta olduğunu. Öğrendim bir çocuğun yemek yemeyi öğrenmeye başladıktan sonra cinsel dürtüsünün yemek yemekten ayrıştığını. Öğrendim eski çağlardaki vurgunun cinsel dürtü, şimdiki vurgunun ise cinsel nesne üzerinde olduğunu. Öğrendim cinsel nesneyi tanımlamak için bilinçdışımız ile bilincin nasıl fazla mesaiyle çalıştığını. Sanırım bu kitabı okuyarak dünyadaki en büyük günahı işledim: Öğrenmeyi!
Kendimizi bastırmakla hiçbir şey kazanamayız, insan bastırıldığı yerden patlar elbet. Kendimizi ne kadar bastırırsak bastıralım aslında farkında olmasak da narsistlik, cinsi sapıklık, nevrozlar ve klinik vakaların olma ihtimalini artırıyoruz kendi kendimize. Neden kendimize böyle bir kötülük yapmak yerine Freud'un bu kitabını okumayalım ki?
Cinselliğimiz yıllarca toprağın altında saklı kalmış olan altın dolu bir define gibi bizim tarafımızdan keşfedilmeyi bekliyor. O toprağı bilinç ve cesaret adlı kazma küreklerimizle kazmak, defineyi bulmak ise sadece bizim elimizde. Defineyi bulma yolunda bu kazma küreklere yardımcı olarak yanımızda bazı ekstra teçhizatlar getirmemiz gerekebilir.
Big Mouth gibi bir diziyi izleyerek ya da Cinsellik Üzerine, Yaşasın Orgazm, Cinselliğin Tarihi gibi bu konudaki kitapları okuyarak dünyadaki her insanın sadece kendisine özgü olan bu define haritasını bulmanın vakti gelmedi mi artık?
Bu kitabı okumaya başladığımdan beri 100den fazla kişi beni takipten çıktı. Demek ki bir şeyleri görmekten ve duymaktan hala korkuyoruz. Ama neden korkuyoruz? Kendi cinsel kökenlerimizi öğrenmekten mi? Artık Berlin Duvarı gibi olmuş tabularımızı bir bir devirmekten mi? Neden korkuyoruz?!
Çocukluğumuzdan beri cinsellik konusu ne zaman geçerse geçsin bize hep "Şş, çok ayıp sus bakiyim" denilerek ayıplanıp susmak öğretildi. Cinsel eğitim verilip özel bölgelerimiz öğretileceği yerde bastırılıp içimize kapanmak öğretildi. Bu konuyla ilgili bir şey merak edip ailemize sorduğumuzda bize hiç cevap vermeyen duvarlara bakmak öğretildi... Bütün bunlar arasında kendi kendimizi nasıl eğitebilirdik?
"Hadi göster amcalara bamyanı" dendi, cinsellik bir güç gösterisi olarak kodlandı. Lisedeki biyoloji derslerinde üreme sistemi anlatılırken herkes dersi kaynattı, cinsellik bir şaka malzemesi sanıldı. Üniversitede milli olup olmadığın üzerinden arkadaş ortamlarında yoklama alındı, cinsellik bir istatistiğe dönüştü. Bu muydu lan sizin anladığınız cinsellik?
Bakın Freud bu kitabında hepinize ne diyor:
"Çocuk, cinsel araştırmalarında her zaman yalnızdır; bu onun için dünyaya yönelmek amacıyla attığı bir ilk adımdır ve o zamana kadar tam bir güven beslemiş olduğu çevresindeki insanlara karşı kendisini yabancı hissedecektir." [s.96]
Hangimiz yalnız ve yabancı hissetmedik ki kendimizi? Hangimiz ezilip büzülmedik ki bu konuda cahil bırakılışlarımızla? Hangimiz elimizdeki farkındalık balyozuyla o tabu tuğlalarından oluşan duvarları kırmak istemedik? Yaradılışımızı ve Adem ile Havva'yı hatırlasak yeterdi aslında. Maslow'un ihtiyaçlar hiyerarşisinde ilk basamaktaki fizyolojik ihtiyaçlarda cinselliğin de olduğunu hatırlasak yeterdi. Sigmund Freud'un Cinsellik Üzerine kitabını okusak biraz olsun düzelebilmek için yeterdi bütün bunlar...
Okudum ben de bu kitabı ve öğrendim aslında yetişkin cinselliğinin de kökeninin çocuklukta olduğunu. Öğrendim bir çocuğun yemek yemeyi öğrenmeye başladıktan sonra cinsel dürtüsünün yemek yemekten ayrıştığını. Öğrendim eski çağlardaki vurgunun cinsel dürtü, şimdiki vurgunun ise cinsel nesne üzerinde olduğunu. Öğrendim cinsel nesneyi tanımlamak için bilinçdışımız ile bilincin nasıl fazla mesaiyle çalıştığını. Sanırım bu kitabı okuyarak dünyadaki en büyük günahı işledim: Öğrenmeyi!
Kendimizi bastırmakla hiçbir şey kazanamayız, insan bastırıldığı yerden patlar elbet. Kendimizi ne kadar bastırırsak bastıralım aslında farkında olmasak da narsistlik, cinsi sapıklık, nevrozlar ve klinik vakaların olma ihtimalini artırıyoruz kendi kendimize. Neden kendimize böyle bir kötülük yapmak yerine Freud'un bu kitabını okumayalım ki?
Cinselliğimiz yıllarca toprağın altında saklı kalmış olan altın dolu bir define gibi bizim tarafımızdan keşfedilmeyi bekliyor. O toprağı bilinç ve cesaret adlı kazma küreklerimizle kazmak, defineyi bulmak ise sadece bizim elimizde. Defineyi bulma yolunda bu kazma küreklere yardımcı olarak yanımızda bazı ekstra teçhizatlar getirmemiz gerekebilir.
Big Mouth gibi bir diziyi izleyerek ya da Cinsellik Üzerine, Yaşasın Orgazm, Cinselliğin Tarihi gibi bu konudaki kitapları okuyarak dünyadaki her insanın sadece kendisine özgü olan bu define haritasını bulmanın vakti gelmedi mi artık?
February 5, 2016
چه کتابی، ریویوم تنها همین یک کلمهست:
SHOCKING
و برای تردید و باز کردن ذهنها خیلی لازمه.
SHOCKING
و برای تردید و باز کردن ذهنها خیلی لازمه.
February 15, 2009
I suppose having an idea of how to think about Freud's work is necessary to begin to answer what one can/does/should think about it. And truth be told, I'm not sure how to think about Freud. I will say, though, that reading Freud is a lot more interesting than reading about Freud. Best to go right to the source, no? Regardless, there is A LOT in here that is as important as the moment Freud's pen touched the page. For one, and you won't read this in any reviews or general talk about this book, it's surprising that the public at large has only recently begun to accept (male) homosexuality as a genuine manifestation of sexuality rather than a perversion when Freud condoned that very notion when this was published in 1905. (Freud notes that we are all born sexually "polymorphous") Freud, however, did not invoke the reductionist biological theory often heard today, but instead poses an interesting little theory about identification with a strong female early in one's life (If anything, Freud might concede that one is biologically predisposed to identify with such a strong female, but the presence of said person is obviously completely up to circumstance).
I haven't read the feminist literature on Freud, though I'd be interested in doing so. As I understand it, there's quite a lot. And that's entirely believable. Freud theorizes about female sexuality, but the fact that he bases it on male sexuality makes it dubious from the start. At any rate, this book is worth reading and maybe even reading again (it's only like 160 pages).
The fact that Freud basically theorizes that the first few years of a person's life will dictate how that person forms relationships with others (esp. amorous relationships) should be enough to put every potential and actual parent on full alert. That being said, overweening parents are annoying, and to back it up, Freud attributes some of the trauma that can occur in infancy and early childhood, which can affect a child in either beneficial or adverse ways, to accidents that may or may not be preventable. In fact, Freud notes that the doting parent is to blame for the neurotic-obsessive male and hysteric female (Freud's terms, not mine) in that if a child is showered with affection as soon as he/she demands it, that child will come to expect the same from a lover or even friends as one grows older.
Why does the male of such parents grow up to be "neurotic obsessive" and the female "hysteric"? As I understand it, it is ostensibly because the male is to an extent comfortable with his sexuality and thus becomes obsessive with regards to his desire and its object. Whereas the female is not comfortable with her desire, and the desire thus manifests itself as a strong aversion and the physical affects of hysteria. Clearly a feminist critique can (and has been) applied here. So, do Freud's theories hold up under the nearly 100 years of criticism and revision (some friendly, some not)? I have no idea. But, reading the original is the best way to even begin to form an opinion of how and what one should think about Freud.
I haven't read the feminist literature on Freud, though I'd be interested in doing so. As I understand it, there's quite a lot. And that's entirely believable. Freud theorizes about female sexuality, but the fact that he bases it on male sexuality makes it dubious from the start. At any rate, this book is worth reading and maybe even reading again (it's only like 160 pages).
The fact that Freud basically theorizes that the first few years of a person's life will dictate how that person forms relationships with others (esp. amorous relationships) should be enough to put every potential and actual parent on full alert. That being said, overweening parents are annoying, and to back it up, Freud attributes some of the trauma that can occur in infancy and early childhood, which can affect a child in either beneficial or adverse ways, to accidents that may or may not be preventable. In fact, Freud notes that the doting parent is to blame for the neurotic-obsessive male and hysteric female (Freud's terms, not mine) in that if a child is showered with affection as soon as he/she demands it, that child will come to expect the same from a lover or even friends as one grows older.
Why does the male of such parents grow up to be "neurotic obsessive" and the female "hysteric"? As I understand it, it is ostensibly because the male is to an extent comfortable with his sexuality and thus becomes obsessive with regards to his desire and its object. Whereas the female is not comfortable with her desire, and the desire thus manifests itself as a strong aversion and the physical affects of hysteria. Clearly a feminist critique can (and has been) applied here. So, do Freud's theories hold up under the nearly 100 years of criticism and revision (some friendly, some not)? I have no idea. But, reading the original is the best way to even begin to form an opinion of how and what one should think about Freud.
September 20, 2012
"Moreover, the kiss, one particular contact of this kind, between the mucous membrane of the lips of the two people concerned, is held in high sexual esteem among many nations (including the most highly civilized ones), in spite of the fact that the parts of the body involved do not form part of the sexual apparatus but constitute the entrance to the digestive tract."
Freakin' Freud, man.
Freakin' Freud, man.
April 14, 2020
كتيب ملغم بالتفسيرات الملفتة للنظر..
وعلى الرغم من صغره، فإنه يحوي حقائق هامة وخطرة دون مقدمات وترتيب منطقي تستحقه هكذا نظريات.
كان فرويد ذكيا ولماحا في طرحه لكثير من النظريات السابقة لأوانها، وربطه لكثير من المظاهر بأصل ودوافع جنسية -بغض النظر اتفقنا معه في بعضها أو اختلفنا فإنها ملفتة للنظر حقا-، وانتباهه لعلاقة كثير من الأفعال الطفولية (مص الاصبع، مدافعة التغوط، التلذذ بقطار الموت .. إلخ) بل والطبائع البشرية (حب النظام، العناد، العطاء، التقتير، الاسترجال، السادية، الميل الغريب لبعض أجزاء الجسم كالقدم .. إلخ) وربطه لها بالغريزة الجنسية، وتتبعه لذلك عبر الطفولة، بل وانتباهه لمبتدأ ذلك من الصغر هو بحد ذاته قنبلة علمية فجرها في عصره ولا زالت آثارها حتى وقتنا الحديث..
نظريات فرويد وتفسيراته عبارة عن بذور بحثية ألقاها، وعلى من بعده الاهتمام بها، ورعايتها، ومتابعة التحقق من صحتها، وتطويرها، وتصحيحها، ودراستها كما يجب، وكما تستحق.. فما هو موجود هنا ألقي جزافا، وحقه الإطالة والشرح والتوثيق العلمي.
*كتاب يستحق قراءة ثانية متفحصة.
وعلى الرغم من صغره، فإنه يحوي حقائق هامة وخطرة دون مقدمات وترتيب منطقي تستحقه هكذا نظريات.
كان فرويد ذكيا ولماحا في طرحه لكثير من النظريات السابقة لأوانها، وربطه لكثير من المظاهر بأصل ودوافع جنسية -بغض النظر اتفقنا معه في بعضها أو اختلفنا فإنها ملفتة للنظر حقا-، وانتباهه لعلاقة كثير من الأفعال الطفولية (مص الاصبع، مدافعة التغوط، التلذذ بقطار الموت .. إلخ) بل والطبائع البشرية (حب النظام، العناد، العطاء، التقتير، الاسترجال، السادية، الميل الغريب لبعض أجزاء الجسم كالقدم .. إلخ) وربطه لها بالغريزة الجنسية، وتتبعه لذلك عبر الطفولة، بل وانتباهه لمبتدأ ذلك من الصغر هو بحد ذاته قنبلة علمية فجرها في عصره ولا زالت آثارها حتى وقتنا الحديث..
نظريات فرويد وتفسيراته عبارة عن بذور بحثية ألقاها، وعلى من بعده الاهتمام بها، ورعايتها، ومتابعة التحقق من صحتها، وتطويرها، وتصحيحها، ودراستها كما يجب، وكما تستحق.. فما هو موجود هنا ألقي جزافا، وحقه الإطالة والشرح والتوثيق العلمي.
*كتاب يستحق قراءة ثانية متفحصة.
November 7, 2018
Is this the book that takes your innocence away, corrupts every fiber of your being and makes you think of anything but pure love when you see a mother breastfeeding her child?
Well, I need it for an article.
Oct 24, 18
Well, I need it for an article.
Oct 24, 18
September 7, 2016
لم أكتب مراجعة لهذا الكتاب حين أنيهته مباشرة حيث كانت هنالك عدة نقاط التبست عليّ و فهمتها الآن و أنقل في هذه المراجعة جزءا مقتبس من مقال يلخص أفكار ذكورية و عنصرية في هذا الكتاب .
" يقول فرويد أن الفتاة تشعر بكارثة رهيبة تتسلط على حياتها بمجرد ان تكتشف جنسها (وفرضيته هذه نابعة من عدد من ملاحظاته السريرية وتصريحا مريضاته). ونفترض في هذه الحالة، إما أن تكون الذكورة بذاتها ظاهرة راقية ويجب تقديم دليل على ذلك واثباته مخبريآ، وإما ان الفتاة تحكم على نفسها خطا، أنها دون الرجل، وهنا لا بد ايضآ البحث عن السبب. يسقط فرويد من حسابه تجربة المرأة ومجتمعها والتسلط الإجتماعي الذي خضعت له والقوى التي قادتها إلى اعتبار نفسها كائنآ أدنى، ويتبنى واقع الفوارق التشريحية بين الجنسين، تفوق الجهاز الجنسي للرجل (بروزه، بالنسبة لفرويد يعني ايجابيته، تفوقه.!!)كما يسبب عقدة الخصاء لديها.
تظل الفتاة تبحث عن ذلك العضو النفيس بأشكال متعددة، وبأطوار كثيرة (يشرحها)، ويصبح الطور بذلك رغبة في انجاب طفل، وسيكون جميلآ بالنسبة لها الحصول على طفل ذكر يحمل ذلك العضو، الذي فقدته طيلة حياتها. عند فرويد هذا هو السير (الطبيعي) لتطور شخصية الفتاة، وأية خروج عن رغبة الفتاة في التناسل، مثلآ رغبتها في تحصيل العلم، عيش حياة مستقلة، أي أن المتوخيات اهدافآ ذكورية كهذه للتعويض اللاشعوري عن نقصهن، خارجات بهذه الطرق عن الإطار الطبيعي لتطور شخصيتهن، أي رغبتهن في التناسل، هو اضطراب وانحراف وتوقف لتطور شخصيتهن.
تمتلك المرأة ثلاثة سمات رئيسية عند فرويد هي (السلبية، المازوخية، النرجسية). وسمة المازوخية سوية لدى المرأة وغير سوية لدى الرجل. لا يبحث فرويد عن وضع النساء في النظام الأبوي الذي يجعلهن سلبيات وعن بحثهن لدورهن في كونهن مواضيع جنسية، بل يجعل فرويد هذه السمات ذات طبيعة عضوية. ومن الممكن من خلال أفكار فرويد عمليآ تبرير أي عمل فظيع بحق امرأة، بحق النساء جميعآ بإستخدام نظرية المازوخية الفطرية.
المرأة مسؤولة عن إعادة إنتاج البشر، هي مسؤولية بيولوجية نابعة من بيولوجيتها. هذا-عند فرويد- ما اعاق تطور عقل المرأة، وهي ليست اهلآ لأن تسهم في تقدم المعارف، وهي جاهلة بالفطرة. وأنا اسأل، هل ساهم فرويد نفسه اصلآ في تقدم (المعرفة)، التي يبكي فرويد على عدم تقديم النساء شيئآ لها؟
أن فلسفة فرويد تدخل في أذهان المظلومين أن ظلمهم عضوي، وبالتالي غير قابل للتغيير، إن فلسفة كهذه قادرة على مساندة، وتسند نظام الظلم ذاته . "
" يقول فرويد أن الفتاة تشعر بكارثة رهيبة تتسلط على حياتها بمجرد ان تكتشف جنسها (وفرضيته هذه نابعة من عدد من ملاحظاته السريرية وتصريحا مريضاته). ونفترض في هذه الحالة، إما أن تكون الذكورة بذاتها ظاهرة راقية ويجب تقديم دليل على ذلك واثباته مخبريآ، وإما ان الفتاة تحكم على نفسها خطا، أنها دون الرجل، وهنا لا بد ايضآ البحث عن السبب. يسقط فرويد من حسابه تجربة المرأة ومجتمعها والتسلط الإجتماعي الذي خضعت له والقوى التي قادتها إلى اعتبار نفسها كائنآ أدنى، ويتبنى واقع الفوارق التشريحية بين الجنسين، تفوق الجهاز الجنسي للرجل (بروزه، بالنسبة لفرويد يعني ايجابيته، تفوقه.!!)كما يسبب عقدة الخصاء لديها.
تظل الفتاة تبحث عن ذلك العضو النفيس بأشكال متعددة، وبأطوار كثيرة (يشرحها)، ويصبح الطور بذلك رغبة في انجاب طفل، وسيكون جميلآ بالنسبة لها الحصول على طفل ذكر يحمل ذلك العضو، الذي فقدته طيلة حياتها. عند فرويد هذا هو السير (الطبيعي) لتطور شخصية الفتاة، وأية خروج عن رغبة الفتاة في التناسل، مثلآ رغبتها في تحصيل العلم، عيش حياة مستقلة، أي أن المتوخيات اهدافآ ذكورية كهذه للتعويض اللاشعوري عن نقصهن، خارجات بهذه الطرق عن الإطار الطبيعي لتطور شخصيتهن، أي رغبتهن في التناسل، هو اضطراب وانحراف وتوقف لتطور شخصيتهن.
تمتلك المرأة ثلاثة سمات رئيسية عند فرويد هي (السلبية، المازوخية، النرجسية). وسمة المازوخية سوية لدى المرأة وغير سوية لدى الرجل. لا يبحث فرويد عن وضع النساء في النظام الأبوي الذي يجعلهن سلبيات وعن بحثهن لدورهن في كونهن مواضيع جنسية، بل يجعل فرويد هذه السمات ذات طبيعة عضوية. ومن الممكن من خلال أفكار فرويد عمليآ تبرير أي عمل فظيع بحق امرأة، بحق النساء جميعآ بإستخدام نظرية المازوخية الفطرية.
المرأة مسؤولة عن إعادة إنتاج البشر، هي مسؤولية بيولوجية نابعة من بيولوجيتها. هذا-عند فرويد- ما اعاق تطور عقل المرأة، وهي ليست اهلآ لأن تسهم في تقدم المعارف، وهي جاهلة بالفطرة. وأنا اسأل، هل ساهم فرويد نفسه اصلآ في تقدم (المعرفة)، التي يبكي فرويد على عدم تقديم النساء شيئآ لها؟
أن فلسفة فرويد تدخل في أذهان المظلومين أن ظلمهم عضوي، وبالتالي غير قابل للتغيير، إن فلسفة كهذه قادرة على مساندة، وتسند نظام الظلم ذاته . "
January 31, 2022
عند صدوره، كان للكتاب وقع الفضيحة
وبالتأكيد كان تغييرا جذريا في مفهومنا عن انفسنا ، وفي نظرتنا البريئة للاطفال ، وفي الطريقة
التي نفسر فيها سلوكنا .
اكاد اجزم ان مامن قارئ لهذا الكتاب الا وفي نقطة معينة يفتح فاه عجبا من اراء غير مألوفة ربما ، على الرغم من اننا ربما سمعنا بها سابقا!
ثلاث مقالات: الاولى في الانحرافات الجنسية ، والثانية في الجنسية الطفلية ، والاخيرة في البلوغ.
الكتاب مبهر ومميز ،تصميم الكتاب دون المستوى المطلوب ، ما اثر بشكل غير قليل على القارئ ، واستخدام المترجم بعض الكلمات الغير مألوفة للتعبير عن معاني مألوفة له اثر مماثل في عدم الراحة .ولذلك انهيت الكتاب وانا لم اخرج بفائدة كثيرة منه
لكنه محاولة لفهم انفسنا، وفرويد لا يكتب من فراغ، بل مايكتبه هو حصيلة سنوات من البحث
لم اتوقع هذا الكم من عدم التحرج ، في الحديث عن اكثر مانعده محرجا وممنوعا التحدث به!
وبالمناسبة لم نعده محرجا، بالاساس ؟
وبالتأكيد كان تغييرا جذريا في مفهومنا عن انفسنا ، وفي نظرتنا البريئة للاطفال ، وفي الطريقة
التي نفسر فيها سلوكنا .
اكاد اجزم ان مامن قارئ لهذا الكتاب الا وفي نقطة معينة يفتح فاه عجبا من اراء غير مألوفة ربما ، على الرغم من اننا ربما سمعنا بها سابقا!
ثلاث مقالات: الاولى في الانحرافات الجنسية ، والثانية في الجنسية الطفلية ، والاخيرة في البلوغ.
الكتاب مبهر ومميز ،تصميم الكتاب دون المستوى المطلوب ، ما اثر بشكل غير قليل على القارئ ، واستخدام المترجم بعض الكلمات الغير مألوفة للتعبير عن معاني مألوفة له اثر مماثل في عدم الراحة .ولذلك انهيت الكتاب وانا لم اخرج بفائدة كثيرة منه
لكنه محاولة لفهم انفسنا، وفرويد لا يكتب من فراغ، بل مايكتبه هو حصيلة سنوات من البحث
لم اتوقع هذا الكم من عدم التحرج ، في الحديث عن اكثر مانعده محرجا وممنوعا التحدث به!
وبالمناسبة لم نعده محرجا، بالاساس ؟
March 9, 2022
sigmund freud said milfs ALLOWED
September 16, 2010
How do you rate something like the "Three Essays," which, though by no means enjoyable, signals one of the most significant paradigmatic shifts in thought in the past several centuries--? I gave the book an arbitrary 4 stars. Frankly, I'm no Freud expert; my experience with his work largely comes from feminist readings OF Freud, rather than readings of his text.
Of course these essays are important. From arguing towards a notion of universal perversion to elaborating on the natural sexual precocity of children, Freud in fact makes a number of truly radical motions in the text. Particularly intriguing for a feminist reader, I think, are Freud's strange footnotes on the "learning" of heterosexuality (which he argues requires as much explanation as "inversion") and his rejection of innate masculinity and femininity (though at other moments, he certainly is no proto-feminist).
Foucault argues that Freud more or less makes material a shift that had been developing since the end of the eighteenth century--that is, a shift to thinking of sex as the foundational explanatory tool for communicating identity--but whether you love Freud or hate him, or simply find yourself bored to tears & frustrated with all the internal contradictions of his text, you cannot really fathom a world of thought that escapes his grasp. He pervades discussions of sex, gender, identity, sexuality in the most insidious and fundamental ways. It's not a fun read, but it's certainly an important one if, like me, you want to stop pretending that you're familiar with his work & actually become capable of holding your own in a debate on Freudian thought. Godspeed.
Of course these essays are important. From arguing towards a notion of universal perversion to elaborating on the natural sexual precocity of children, Freud in fact makes a number of truly radical motions in the text. Particularly intriguing for a feminist reader, I think, are Freud's strange footnotes on the "learning" of heterosexuality (which he argues requires as much explanation as "inversion") and his rejection of innate masculinity and femininity (though at other moments, he certainly is no proto-feminist).
Foucault argues that Freud more or less makes material a shift that had been developing since the end of the eighteenth century--that is, a shift to thinking of sex as the foundational explanatory tool for communicating identity--but whether you love Freud or hate him, or simply find yourself bored to tears & frustrated with all the internal contradictions of his text, you cannot really fathom a world of thought that escapes his grasp. He pervades discussions of sex, gender, identity, sexuality in the most insidious and fundamental ways. It's not a fun read, but it's certainly an important one if, like me, you want to stop pretending that you're familiar with his work & actually become capable of holding your own in a debate on Freudian thought. Godspeed.
September 30, 2019
رساله ی اول در مورد همجنس دوستی و انحرافات جنسی است و عوامل و انگیزه های میل به همجنس.(چیزی که بسیاری از مردم اشتباها فکر میکنن که همه ی همجنسگرایان به صورت مادرزادی همجنسگرا به دنیا میان)
رساله ی دوم در مورد میل جنسی در کودکی و رساله سوم در مورد دوران بلوغ هستش.
بعضی از بخش های کتاب برای کسانی که اطلاعات علمی چندانی در مورد میل جنسی نداشته باشند میتونه شوکه کننده باشه!
رساله ی دوم در مورد میل جنسی در کودکی و رساله سوم در مورد دوران بلوغ هستش.
بعضی از بخش های کتاب برای کسانی که اطلاعات علمی چندانی در مورد میل جنسی نداشته باشند میتونه شوکه کننده باشه!
March 10, 2017
Outdated and repetitive.
Above all,, all he talks about concerns males.. Feminine behavior is just a reflection of masculinity,,, what none sense!!
I am sure that all misogynists are thrilled to find a scientific proof justifies what they think and feel -_-
Above all,, all he talks about concerns males.. Feminine behavior is just a reflection of masculinity,,, what none sense!!
I am sure that all misogynists are thrilled to find a scientific proof justifies what they think and feel -_-
January 8, 2015
A primordial text with, alas, a bad reputation.
What is remarkable about Freud in these essays is that what people typically saw as "abnormal" or "perverse" sexual expression, is not seen as so "abnormal" by him.
He states that sexual experiences from infantile age creates the underpinnings of personality, yet are also sequestered from narrative memory.
His evidence that sexual forces occur throughout life is based on the child's way of self-soothing using thumb-sucking as an example of a rhythmic repetition of a sucking contact by the mouth, thus transforming the location for nourishment into the location for sensual pleasure, displaying a "polymorphously perverse disposition".
Three Essays is a description of the development of the sexual instinct through the various stages from earliest infancy to puberty. And in this description the concept of sexuality is modified, extended and redefined.
The natural sexual precocity of children will never let me look at an infant the same way again. Well fuck you Freud!
What is remarkable about Freud in these essays is that what people typically saw as "abnormal" or "perverse" sexual expression, is not seen as so "abnormal" by him.
He states that sexual experiences from infantile age creates the underpinnings of personality, yet are also sequestered from narrative memory.
His evidence that sexual forces occur throughout life is based on the child's way of self-soothing using thumb-sucking as an example of a rhythmic repetition of a sucking contact by the mouth, thus transforming the location for nourishment into the location for sensual pleasure, displaying a "polymorphously perverse disposition".
Three Essays is a description of the development of the sexual instinct through the various stages from earliest infancy to puberty. And in this description the concept of sexuality is modified, extended and redefined.
The natural sexual precocity of children will never let me look at an infant the same way again. Well fuck you Freud!
October 3, 2020
I've been trying out a few Freud samples on Kindle, and this was the one that held my attention long enough for a purchase. A lot of Freud is "this behavior implies this" with tedious details, as well as most of it being debunked, but the topics in these essays were interesting, taboo, and funny enough for me to tolerate that. To me it was a lot like reading some of the edgy modern-day genre fiction that I like, probably more entertaining than enlightening, and since so much of it is wrong, it really is like fiction. But it gives a history lesson on the developing stages of psychoanalysis. Interesting to think that that modern institution came from this.
August 11, 2014
كتاب أساسي لمحاولة فهم النشاط الجنسي عند الانسان بصفة عامة، وعند الشواذ والأطفال والمراهقين. ومع ذلك لن يشبع بصورة كاملة الحاجة الملحة لفهم الغريزة الجنسية، فهو يعتبر كمرجع ليس إلا. دفعني لقراءته تجارب سابقة: حيث تعرفت مصادفة علي مثليين، وكان يثيرني أمر هام: هل المثلية أمر فطري أم مكتسب؟ ومما أعجبني هنا في الكتاب أو في طريقة بحث فرويد أنه يبني فكرته علي طرائق بحثية دقيقة، فتجده دائما يشير للملاحظة والتحليل. علي كل فالكتاب يستحق القراءة نظرا لأهمية الموضوع، الذي أصبح مثارا وبقوة من خلال الأعمال الدرامية والتجارب اليومية (المثلية الجنسية)
December 1, 2018
با اینکه در تلاش بودم دیدگاه و نظر خودم رو خارج از توضیحات و عقیده ی فروید نگه دارم اما فکر می کنم خیلی موفق نبودم چرا که کل کتاب یک انزجاری از این همه قاطی کردن نیاز جنسی با باقی مسائل احساس می کردم که ممکنه هم درست نباشه اما ترجیح میدم تفکر ساده تری داشته باشم و گسترهی میل جنسی رو کمتر از حدی که فروید بیان می کنه بدونم. تو دنیای ذهنی من مسائل زیادی پیچیدهن اما نیاز جنسی یکی از اون ها نیست. شاید هم این کتاب برای ذهنیتی که الان راجع به این مبحث دارم زیادی صریح و پر جزئیات بود و توانایی درک خیلی از مسائلش رو نداشتم.
September 25, 2020
I am a graduate student and mental health professional of Freud's foundational thoughts of how the mind works. Though his ideas have been contradicted about aspects of his theories, he remains my mainstay for early beliefs of what it means to be human.
This belief system was supported by my experience in analysis that has enabled me to better understand psychological issues.
This belief system was supported by my experience in analysis that has enabled me to better understand psychological issues.
January 10, 2018
A única coisa que presta aqui é a teoria da sexualidade infantil, ironicamento uma das menos aceitas pelos detratores do Freud. O rol de perversões é risívelmente vitoriano e, óbvio, ultrapassadíssimo.
February 21, 2025
He was sort of onto something where childhood experience (particularly adverse childhood experience) shapes personality, sexuality, and self image. He just went about it so weird… like why you gotta talk about gay ppl for the first half and then talk about children jerking it for the second???
August 12, 2016
includes the famous argument that osculation, unnecessary to procreation, must, by retrograde standards of virtue, be considered a perversion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 541 reviews