What is Freud's image of human existence?

The work of Sigmund Freud is extraordinary not only in that it challenges the beliefs of thousands and what is found to be socially acceptable, but is actually an examination of the obvious. "It seems my fate to discover only the obvious..." By reading the work of Freud one glimpses a fascinating image that isactually a concept that no one would have any trouble accepting...in theory.

The essential framework for Freud's image of human existence begins with the recognition of the unconscious. The unseen and elusive body of thoughts, emotions and desires that remains hidden within the confines of the mind as a whole. Whereas once the mind was considered to be made up completely of what is conscious, Freud states that the greater portion of it is undoubtedly unconscious. But what leads to the creation of a mental faculty that remains almost completely unseen? And what possible function does this serve?

Freud states that the unconscious is that the unconscious mind is the body of repressed or unpalatable thoughts we harbor and resist from day to day. He came to such conclusion after his early years in which he was exposed to the mechanics of hypnotism. Particularly the demonstrations of Charcot and a fellow neurologist who used hypnotism to cure nervous disorders. Patients could be told while in a trance to, say, open an umbrella or perform any action after awakening, which they did, often at a specific time and in a particular described manner. They could even be told to forget being told such directions and yet would still perform the action. This prompted Freud to ask how such a thing could occur. For example, how could someone forget something they were told and yet perform the very action they were asked to execute? Obviously the command remained with them in some psychical form or another and yet was not consciously "recalled" or recognized. Indeed, this is a fascinating question, and provides strong support for the final conclusion that Freud was to arrive at. But it also details exactly why his theory has remained so popular; so easily accepted. Evidence. Freud represents a great deal of evidence, through case studies and references to everyday events (that is, the parapraxes). It is therefore almost illogical for us to accept any other theorem for human existence, or rather, the psychical or mental image of human existence. We would need to present a hypotheses that was equally valid in order to attack or dispute Freud, and this in itself would require the same amount of believable testimony and experience that provide evidence for Freud's model of the unconscious. Indeed, how is any theory found to be valid if not essentially due to agreement or general consensus? The unconscious is repeatedly described as a hypothesis for the functioning of the psyche, and is not to be accepted as a complete and untainted truth. Even if we cannot counter or provide an alternative possibility to Freud's work, we cannot accept that it is the only working hypothesis. Why? Because the very grounds on which it is 'proven' to be 'correct' are questionable themselves (?)! The study guide provides an excellent comparison by referring us to the previously examined work of Sartre concerning self-deception. Self-deception is completely conscious in that a person has some conscious recognition of this deception. He may deny the idea he finds repulsive or unacceptable and yet this is a conscious choice. You will choose not to see specific things or pay attention to particular thoughts. Freud's theory of the unconscious mind is now distinctive and hard to ignore considering the evidence that seems to surround us. Why, even dismissing the principles which follow or are connected with this hypothesis may be convoluted so as to be justification for them!

The unconscious finds itself manifested within reality, and many of our conscious actions, ideas and desires cannot be taken at their face value as they are often expressions of our unconscious motivations. Consider the implications such a model for existence has on mankind. inherently this suggests that every action we perform on a conscious level has some significance and is always our responsibility due to the fact that we can claim that there is now no such thing as an accident or 'chance'. However, is responsibility something that we must say accompanies only conscious action and reflection? No, not according to Freud's model for psychical existence. We are beings responsible for every action, word and thought that we involve ourselves in. That is of course, if we are mature enough, in my opinion, to recognize that our upbringing does not mean we may avoid responsibility for our actions even though Freud stresses the importance of these early, formative years.

Consider the concept of Psychic Symbolism when pondering this. Our need to understand and interpret the world in a mental aspect leads us to examine and interpret everything that we do, see or generally associate ourselves with. We need to explain the physical world so that we may interpret. Freud suggests that everything has meaning therefore simply because we associate meaning to it. Even dreams have a latent content (something of a 'hidden agenda', the real unconscious motivations) hidden within and around the manifest content (apparent content, what is actually 'seen') in the form of symbols and metaphor. The symbolism of the dreams needs to be interpreted, or understood, on the patients behalf before the latent content can be uncovered. Psychoanalysis, the treatment that involves examining and discovering these unconscious motivations, thoughts etc.. of a patient, hopes to gain knowledge of exactly what meaning one might associate with a particular thing. Usually by free association, in which the patient will state the first thing that comes to mind, which will be a bread-crumb on the trail to the unconscious desire which seeks to be recognized. Yet, this has received criticism as such associations, especially after dreams, are often completely different thoughts from the latent content of the dream or unconscious motivation behind the conscious process. The goal is to understand the psychic reality (the inner fantasy) of the patient. Their 'Primary-process' thinking, which involves the unconscious and it's repressed material, is projected outward. It is presented to our 'Secondary-process', the preconscious (that which lies just below consciousness and is easily retrieved) and conscious mind, for evaluation, as mentioned above. An interesting hypothesis on Freud's behalf, but what purpose does it serve? how does it work? And, perhaps most importantly, how can its validity be proven?

Freud's work is under constant criticism, and indeed, it has been since day one. The very fact that the validity of his work is in question leads many to the conclusion that it is an unscientific theory. How can such a thing be proven under laboratory conditions? I would have to point out here that it doesn't really matter if it's scientific or not. The fact is that Freud's theories are intellectually valid. Science has suddenly become the paradigm of our times, and so everything we interpret and understand on a mental scale has to suddenly fit into this stream of thought. Psychoanalysis has become an increasingly effective method of counseling, especially concerning the neurotic, Freud's principle concern in his own time. He would not try to confront those suffering from psychotic disorders as he recognized the fact (as did many of his patients, including the prominent 'Fraulein Anna O'; Bertha Pappenheim) that his therapy was a "talking-cure". It involved one-on-one discussion, which itself involved speaking the first thing that came to mind (known as free association) on the patients behalf, which would then be interpreted as a significator of that persons unconscious thoughts. It bypassed the 'censor' and was spoken, and interpreted. The patient was the focal point for their own healing. The crux of the whole therapy can therefore be said to be someone 'coming to terms' with themselves. To decrease the amount of psychic conflict between unconscious impulses and the 'requirements' of the real world one must recognize what those unconscious desires are. Doesn't that sound a little too simplistic? Surely this is not enough, and is beyond the capacity for those who lack the intelligence to interpret such 'heavy' information?

The most shocking revelation is that all of this boils down to sex. Many people make this association to Freud before even glimpsing his work, as it is now a widely accepted notion. I must admit, I even dismissed him originally as a sort of intellectual sex maniac. Imagine my surprise when many of his criticisms are along the same lines. The unconscious desires that we surpress are more often than not sexual in nature, and indeed, Freud suggests that the principle behind all human functioning is this psycho-biological force (and, as I understand, he later also developed the death instinct; Thanatos) and its derivatives. Specifically known as the libido (which includes religion, art and culture). All aspects of life are transmutations of the libido into more socially acceptable forms, but the suppression of the libido 'in its pure state' leads to psychic conflict. Our need or 'hunger' to obtain pleasure from the world drives us on every day of our lives. We must understand, however, that when Freud refers to sexual gratification he is not specifying the act of sex. I would rather call it sensual gratification to prevent confusion. This is something that the general population would have fantastic trouble conceiving (no pun intended). And so they should. For Freud's theory states that due to the conflict that exists between society (itself a compromise between our need for pleasure and for security/survival) and our unconscious 'sensual' impulses, such a concept becomes abhorrent. Indeed, it equates itself with the repressed material hidden in our own unconscious and is therefore an object of tension, conflict and projected rage. Consider the implications on the population if we were to acknowledge that everything we do is merely a distraction from our ultimate objective - sensual gratification. A paradox actually exists in which society involves sexual repression but itself would not exist if it were not for the diversion of 'psychic energy' from sexuality to meeting social requirements.

He goes on to suggest that even children, infants, seek to obtain sexual gratification. The infant finds gratification first in the 'oral stage', where pleasure is centered upon the mouth, and goes on to pass through different stages as it develops. Anal, Phallic, Latency and Genital. Fixation in one of these stages, caused by conflict which is unresolved and so remains the greater 'concern' of the unconscious, leads to anxiety. The latency stage is particularly important for it is within this stage that the child recognizes its desire for the parent of the opposite sex. This sexual desire is repressed in fear of punishment, usually at the hands of the father, as this is a primarily male model. The same sex parent is then seen as a rival, but leads to further association with the same sex and a stronger recognition of gender. Again, this is an intellectually valid concept that is, however, not socially acceptable. A desire such as incest is one of the greater 'ingredients' that lead to the creation of the unconscious body of repressed thoughts and feelings. And, if we follow Freud's aforementioned theorem, will have it's effects on conscious living. One example of this that has gained considerable recognition is the notion that adults will choose mates which have corresponding characteristics to the object of their incestuous desire. But this itself is hard to prove, and yes, is unscientific, as the recognition of common characteristics is often a subjective undertaking.

Overall, we must recognize that the intellectual importance of Freud's work in 'discovering the obvious'. That psychic energy results from the repression of libido in the unconscious. A phenomena which is constantly manifesting itself in our conscious existence in the form of slips of the tongue, pen or hand; in neuroses and in the symbolic content of dreams.

"Nothing but death and sex forms the core of The Musings of Dan"
or
"On a mountain of skulls in a castle of pain can be found The Lair of Dan"