None of those things exist. Freud was a pseud, Jung was a little pseudy but he had heart, was very intelligent, and cared about people. Freud was just an Austro-Semitic bug
Either you do not understand the Ego and the Superego, or you do not understand Logos and Thumos, possibly both. These are not analogous concepts, and describe very different things within very different conceptions of man. The superego is the internalized ethic of the society you grow up in, essentially it is the part of the mind, according to Freud, responsible for socialization. So comparing the superego to Thumos makes very little sense here. I will admit that there is slightly more connexion between the concept of the ego and Logos, but it is still quite tenuous.
Thymos or Thumos is supposed to be Achilles' rage and it absolutely comes from pride of your nation and it's mixed in with shame. Achilles rages when he feels ashamed of failing his country and this triggers his rage. That is the Thumos.
Logos is supposed to be how you slime yourself away from pride and country. It's completely selfish intellect.
>Id: present at birth, unconscious, primitive and motivated by pleasure. >Ego: develops out of Id, filters the impulses of the Id into socially recognized forms. Unconscious, conscious, and pre-conscious. Motivated by realistic outcomes. >Superego: the internal moral idea matrix you use to make judgements. Freud claimed it begins to form around age 5 or so and it is something you learn through socialization from your parents or other comparable authority and society. It is conscious.
That's Freud being a israelite and mixing up everything. It's the other way around.
The ego is the superego and the superego is the ego.
Thymos or Thumos is supposed to be Achilles' rage and it absolutely comes from pride of your nation and it's mixed in with shame. Achilles rages when he feels ashamed of failing his country and this triggers his rage. That is the Thumos.
Logos is supposed to be how you slime yourself away from pride and country. It's completely selfish intellect.
Ego is anything experiencable, Eros and Thumos sure as hell can be experienced in some form
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Ego is anything experiencable
Ego is cold psychopathic Socratic reason. The so called Logos.
Superego controls you so it's tied to your pride and loyalty and the Id is actually you - your emotional self.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Ego is cold psychopathic Socratic reason. The so called Logos
Ego can do reasoning through Eros, too (see Jung's extensive works on the feeling function) >Superego controls you so it's tied to your pride and loyalty
Pride and loyalty can also be instinctual instead of learned >and the Id is actually you - your emotional self.
Affects can be elicited consciously, too, though
1 month ago
Anonymous
That's why in the OP I said it's hard to tell the difference. Now you've brought me back to not knowing for sure again.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Id, Ego and Superego make up the conscious personality, Ego is the conscious, Id and Superego are two different parts of the personal unconscious, the former is originally shaped from collective unconscious, the latter is originally shaped from collective unconscious
1 month ago
Anonymous
>the latter is originally shaped from collective unconscious
collective conscious* (for Superego) ffs
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Pride and loyalty can also be instinctual instead of learned
In Achilles' case that's certainly not it. He's manipulated into being a warrior.
His rage is unleashed by Nestor and Odysseus unto the enemy. His pride is oboviously not under his control. It's almost as if he has no agency.
They may be natural but they're not sovereign.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Affects can be elicited consciously, too, though
And I don't know about that. You feel what you feel and them try to control it. Unless you're an actor.
>Ego can do reasoning through Eros, too (see Jung's extensive works on the feeling function)
It would not be pure and violent reason. It would be a sort of yielding.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Unless you're an actor
Even them actors like Brando would make themselves feel genuine emotion through the Id. The proper word for what you're describing would be fakeness.
Id, Ego and Superego make up the conscious personality, Ego is the conscious, Id and Superego are two different parts of the personal unconscious, the former is originally shaped from collective unconscious, the latter is originally shaped from collective unconscious
The collective unconscious is different from cultural norms. It's in every single human on earth. Even tribes people.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The collective unconscious is different from cultural norms. It's in every single human on earth
Moral instincts want to have a talk with ya
1 month ago
Anonymous
What would you say to the cannibal tribal people?
>You totally can consciously choose to accept and get moved by some contents/media, or evoke some emotion within yourself I mean, if that makes a lot of people actors, then okay, it is what it is.
And you would do it to manipulate others? That's called crocodile tears. What are you 5?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>And I don't know about that. You feel what you feel and them try to control it. Unless you're an actor.
You totally can consciously choose to accept and get moved by some contents/media, or evoke some emotion within yourself
I mean, if that makes a lot of people actors, then okay, it is what it is >It would not be pure and violent reason. It would be a sort of yielding.
Jung and Von Franz have plenty of analyses on use of sentimental reasoning being crude, cold and calculating as hell, if you're interested
1 month ago
Anonymous
>sentimental
That's not genuine emotion. Sentimentality is for the little people with no depth of being.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>give out designated used terms and the asswit shits out platitudes
Id is Eros or desire. Ego is Logos or reason. Superego is Thumos or pride for country.
Though Plato and Aristotle placed the Logos above the Thumos because they were philosophers. Freud was a israelite and his loyalty was to the israelites so he placed pride above all.
Ego is your conscious standpoint. s
Superego is the whatever unconscious-originating clusters that give ego the language/society-based criticisms/instructions.
Yes, superego is still bound to the unconscious.
Well, his step father was a gay playwright who probably never fricked his mom yet might've diddled the young Wagner. He would have a thing or two to say about child development.
Superego's a generally unconscious internalized judge; what it judges is ego, one's sense of self as agent, thinker.
Thymos btw is a 'drive' that cannot be (or only awkwardly is) sexually reduced-- pride of workmanship, country ('patriotism'), desire to be the best at something, etc. It often is reduced to impatience, anger, 'healthy' or not. Considerations of thymos through the years is primarily what broke down psychoanalysis; along with 'psyche' a classic internalized 'source' Freud either completely overlooked or deep-sixed fwr
Well, yeah. But when trying to explain one cannot help but be reductive. Just as one's psyche or 'ego' can be pricked, so can one's thymos. It's an important aspect of 'self' shamelessly (professionally) ignored, even today. There's not only 'righteous' anger, but healthy anger too
None of those things exist. Freud was a pseud, Jung was a little pseudy but he had heart, was very intelligent, and cared about people. Freud was just an Austro-Semitic bug
What about Wagner? His entire work is about that.
Plato and Aristotle would call them Logos and Thymos.
It's a universal concept. One is supposed to be the father's or God's authority and the other your own courage but I still don't get it.
Where is the difference?
Either you do not understand the Ego and the Superego, or you do not understand Logos and Thumos, possibly both. These are not analogous concepts, and describe very different things within very different conceptions of man. The superego is the internalized ethic of the society you grow up in, essentially it is the part of the mind, according to Freud, responsible for socialization. So comparing the superego to Thumos makes very little sense here. I will admit that there is slightly more connexion between the concept of the ego and Logos, but it is still quite tenuous.
Thymos or Thumos is supposed to be Achilles' rage and it absolutely comes from pride of your nation and it's mixed in with shame. Achilles rages when he feels ashamed of failing his country and this triggers his rage. That is the Thumos.
Logos is supposed to be how you slime yourself away from pride and country. It's completely selfish intellect.
>Id: present at birth, unconscious, primitive and motivated by pleasure.
>Ego: develops out of Id, filters the impulses of the Id into socially recognized forms. Unconscious, conscious, and pre-conscious. Motivated by realistic outcomes.
>Superego: the internal moral idea matrix you use to make judgements. Freud claimed it begins to form around age 5 or so and it is something you learn through socialization from your parents or other comparable authority and society. It is conscious.
That's Freud being a israelite and mixing up everything. It's the other way around.
The ego is the superego and the superego is the ego.
>Superego: the internal moral idea matrix
More like internalized
Id COULD contain be the internal one
Id is Eros or desire. Ego is Logos or reason. Superego is Thumos or pride for country.
Ego is anything experiencable, Eros and Thumos sure as hell can be experienced in some form
>Ego is anything experiencable
Ego is cold psychopathic Socratic reason. The so called Logos.
Superego controls you so it's tied to your pride and loyalty and the Id is actually you - your emotional self.
>Ego is cold psychopathic Socratic reason. The so called Logos
Ego can do reasoning through Eros, too (see Jung's extensive works on the feeling function)
>Superego controls you so it's tied to your pride and loyalty
Pride and loyalty can also be instinctual instead of learned
>and the Id is actually you - your emotional self.
Affects can be elicited consciously, too, though
That's why in the OP I said it's hard to tell the difference. Now you've brought me back to not knowing for sure again.
Id, Ego and Superego make up the conscious personality, Ego is the conscious, Id and Superego are two different parts of the personal unconscious, the former is originally shaped from collective unconscious, the latter is originally shaped from collective unconscious
>the latter is originally shaped from collective unconscious
collective conscious* (for Superego) ffs
>Pride and loyalty can also be instinctual instead of learned
In Achilles' case that's certainly not it. He's manipulated into being a warrior.
His rage is unleashed by Nestor and Odysseus unto the enemy. His pride is oboviously not under his control. It's almost as if he has no agency.
They may be natural but they're not sovereign.
>Affects can be elicited consciously, too, though
And I don't know about that. You feel what you feel and them try to control it. Unless you're an actor.
>Ego can do reasoning through Eros, too (see Jung's extensive works on the feeling function)
It would not be pure and violent reason. It would be a sort of yielding.
>Unless you're an actor
Even them actors like Brando would make themselves feel genuine emotion through the Id. The proper word for what you're describing would be fakeness.
The collective unconscious is different from cultural norms. It's in every single human on earth. Even tribes people.
>The collective unconscious is different from cultural norms. It's in every single human on earth
Moral instincts want to have a talk with ya
What would you say to the cannibal tribal people?
>You totally can consciously choose to accept and get moved by some contents/media, or evoke some emotion within yourself I mean, if that makes a lot of people actors, then okay, it is what it is.
And you would do it to manipulate others? That's called crocodile tears. What are you 5?
>And I don't know about that. You feel what you feel and them try to control it. Unless you're an actor.
You totally can consciously choose to accept and get moved by some contents/media, or evoke some emotion within yourself
I mean, if that makes a lot of people actors, then okay, it is what it is
>It would not be pure and violent reason. It would be a sort of yielding.
Jung and Von Franz have plenty of analyses on use of sentimental reasoning being crude, cold and calculating as hell, if you're interested
>sentimental
That's not genuine emotion. Sentimentality is for the little people with no depth of being.
>give out designated used terms and the asswit shits out platitudes
Though Plato and Aristotle placed the Logos above the Thumos because they were philosophers. Freud was a israelite and his loyalty was to the israelites so he placed pride above all.
Ego is your conscious standpoint. s
Superego is the whatever unconscious-originating clusters that give ego the language/society-based criticisms/instructions.
Yes, superego is still bound to the unconscious.
I really don't see how Wagner has to say anything about the superego or ego, though he did influence psychoanalysis in other ways.
Well, his step father was a gay playwright who probably never fricked his mom yet might've diddled the young Wagner. He would have a thing or two to say about child development.
Id: You and your wants and expectations
Superego: Society and societies wants and expectations
Ego: Meeting and parsing of these two.
Desire above everything. Frick society.
Superego's a generally unconscious internalized judge; what it judges is ego, one's sense of self as agent, thinker.
Thymos btw is a 'drive' that cannot be (or only awkwardly is) sexually reduced-- pride of workmanship, country ('patriotism'), desire to be the best at something, etc. It often is reduced to impatience, anger, 'healthy' or not. Considerations of thymos through the years is primarily what broke down psychoanalysis; along with 'psyche' a classic internalized 'source' Freud either completely overlooked or deep-sixed fwr
There's more to Thymos than that. It's a pride that if wounded or shamed gets violent.
It's a man's dignity.
Well, yeah. But when trying to explain one cannot help but be reductive. Just as one's psyche or 'ego' can be pricked, so can one's thymos. It's an important aspect of 'self' shamelessly (professionally) ignored, even today. There's not only 'righteous' anger, but healthy anger too
the superego wears a cape