There is a contradiction between Sigmund Freud's theory of the psyche and current prevailing thoughts on our character and self-esteem. For Freud, psychological problems are a result of conflict between the ego, id, superego, and the outside world. The latter occurs when the ego must adjust the desires of the id and the controlling moral sense of the superego to the necessary preconditions of living in a world with others. In effect, we are to partly shape our personality around the expectations of others. But many people would suggest that happiness comes from being true to ourselves (in a Mill On Liberty sense without hurting others) and not paying heed all the time to the expectations you don't create. Which is the truth?
Have I been giving Calvinism a bad wrap for a long time…along with so many others? In the Spiked Review of Books (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7264) Dolan Cummings redefines John Calvin's philosophy as not a hopeless, punishing take on Christianity where only a select few of us will be saved but as a way to the perfect freedom we all seek. For Calvin, the concept of total depravity with a core of irresistible grace meant that since God had already fixed our immortal destinies, we have the power, through free will, to shape our mortal existence: to work hard, to stand up for that which is right, to live lives of happiness for us and our loved ones, knowing that there is a higher power in charge and grace, if not for everyone, is present. Cummings and the Christian revisionist Mark Driscoll describe this as a message against the coddling of X and Y…we aren't good enough for that much, and we can make ourselves better through effort and faith. It is a freedom, says Driscoll, from the slavery of evil which can keep us in sway forever. And most of all, we always have the choice to give in to what we see as life's inevitable or take action. That's an attitude I can get behind, that I can believe in.
From The Oxford Illustrated History of English Literature: "Being able to count on the knowledge and reactions of your readership is the sign of a restricted culture but also of a homogenous one." I stand for free expression and belief above all other things, but is there a level of value in restriction if it creates a public level of common knowledge allowing the debates which affect all of us to be reasonably waged? Wouldn't a more homogenous American culture be in a better place to accurately weight the merits of varying plans for universal health care if we all drew on the same body of information from intelligence sources knowing they could respect all levels of readership?
On the other hand, the interaction of ideas is vital to the development of all works of value, culturally, politically, and socially. In eighteenth-century England, the great precursor of the modern progressive era and follow-up to the Enlightenment, two great clubs were formed for such interaction, the Scribulerus (Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift) and the Literary (Samuel Johnson and Sir Joshua Reynolds). The latter included even more public figures, and both were extensively documented. How did their meetings, exchanges, and shared values help shape all three avenues of public life and expression…and are their effects still felt today as a testament to the value of mental brother/sisterhood?
No comments:
Post a Comment