Jonah Bossewitch	PSY 365/HUM 365

104 Henry Hall - x7384	Professor Sugarman

December 14, 1995

FINAL EXERCISE

1)	In Beyond the Pleasure Principle Freud introduces the Death instinct1, a bold and courageous move considering the historical context of his work. Since the time of Aristotle, philosophical tradition has recognized the Eros instinct2, or some equivalent as the sole driving force behind all life. Freud begins this work with the disclaimer that it is not his task to determine how his work fits into existing philosophical schools of thought. Perhaps Freud shies away from this task because he knows that his work does not really fit into any existing schools of thought. He himself is obviously reluctant to accept the existence of the Death instinct at first. It is only his duty as a self-proclaimed scientist "to describe and to account for the facts of daily observation" that finally compels him to argue for its existence.

The argument for a self-destructive instinct that opposes the life instinct was among the first of its kind. This distinction coupled with the controversial nature of the claim, gives Freud's theory both enhanced power and increased interest. The interest is generated merely by the fact that nobody saw the need to postulate such a mechanism previously, and yet Freud's arguments are logical and convincing. This heightened interest in Freud's theory gives it power simply because more people began paying attention to it, studying it, criticizing it, and practicing it. Furthermore, according to Freud, this addition gives his theory more explanatory power than it had previously (that's why Freud made the paradigm shift). We do not really gain an empirical advantage by postulating the Death instinct, since the Death instinct can not act in isolation. There are some cases, like the compulsion to repeat, that can be explained easily through the Death instinct, but these can also be explained (with more convolution) without it. However, the Death instinct does give us a considerable conceptual advantage, since our theory has become more compact, robust, and after time, intuitive.

2)	Not many people could fault Freud for being pessimistic about human nature if they imagined living in his time period. Two World Wars, atomic weapons, genocide, psychotic leaders, and repressive society would be enough to drive the most optimistic optimist to despair. Furthermore, we must not forget that Freud's primary work revolved around mental illness. He was constantly surrounded by people who were riddled by conflict, driven by forces beyond their control, and out to destroy themselves. Just as a cancer doctor may become pessimistic about a cure, immersion in insanity might have distorted Freud's perspective on the rest of humanity. But, was Freud really pessimistic, or was he just being realistic? Nobody really wants to admit this, but it is rational to believe in determinism, which may entail being driven by conflicting self- destructive forces. In the absence of faith (in God, Humanity, or the individual) Freud might have been taking a very rational stand - and sometimes, reality doesn't conform to our beliefs and expectations.

3)	It is somewhat misleading to evaluate Freudian concepts based on their truthhood. Freud almost always presented his concepts as models of the underlying physiological processes. As a model, we can evaluate it along a number of dimensions. We can assess its descriptive, explanatory, and predictive powers, as well as its elegance, simplicity, and beauty. Freud's theories and related concepts made their mark on history precisely because of their success in these categories.

While a tremendous amount of criticism has been leveled because of the non-verifiable nature of his claims, this need not detract from the power of the model. Freud would have hated the analogy, but his system of concepts serves a similar function that religion can. A Freudian framework can provide the individual with the language to efficiently describe certain aspects of inner life. Free floating anxiety, guilt, neurosis, and deviant behavior are more precisely depicted and explained using the conflicting id/ego/superego dynamics pioneered by Freud. These "stories" can provide a catalyst or a springboard that the individual can use to introspect by projecting himself onto it (Tarot cards can also work with this technique). Freudian "mythologies" (case studies, famous examples, etc.) provide a shared set of situations that can be referenced without full elaboration, vastly empowering the participants language. "Speaking" Freud opens up a vast new landscape of concepts that can be used to describe inner mental life. This is truly a worthy accomplishment, independent of the "truthhood" of his claims.

4)	Freud admits that the line between 'normal' and 'neurotic' is conventional, but what would he say about the line between 'neurosis' and 'psychosis'? One could rationally argue that everybody is manic-depressive, it is only the magnitude of the variables change (frequency, intensity, and duration). Recent research supports this argument, as studies on Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder indicate that it lies somewhere on this continuum. Would ADHD be considered a neurosis or a psychosis? Should it be treated with psychotherapy, psycho- pharmocology, or both? Can science tell us who is psychotic, or is that also a matter left up to convention?