Brooke's heart-stopping good looks are the essence of this epistolatory account of the romantic friendship between James Strachey and England's eternal Golden boy. He who penned the heroically mawkish yet strangely thrilling:'If I should die/ Think only this of me/That there is some corner of a foreign field/ That is forever England' is here revealed through Strachey's eyes in the guise of romantic muse, love object, sex god. Unfortunately for Strachey, his passion was unrequited.

Strachey is be-dazzled by Brooke during their first year at Cambridge, and the subsequent correspondence betrays all the hallmarks of adolescent infatuation: in turns importunate, with Strachey's 'declaration' early in 1906; adulatory:'You were so beautiful tonight';desperate: 'I suppose you know what's wrong with me...I'm in love with you'; ever hopeful: 'Why not come quietly to bed with me instead?' in response to Brooke's request for contraceptive information; finally hopeless: 'The sudden sight of him across a room made my heart...bound ... it's no use...' But it is with a start that one realises that this is no adolescent, but rather a scion of the Stracheys - long time members of the intelligentsia, darlings of the Bloomsbury set - assistant editor of 'the Spectator', putative translator of Freud.

And herein lies the fascination. Keith Hale's painstakingly edited and annotated edition of the correspondence vividly presents Strachey's personal drama of unstinting adulation of the man seemingly pursued by a host of admirers of both sexes, but also features most of England's literati and glitterati in supporting roles. Here are Vanessa and Clive Bell, Virginia Woolf, Maynard Keynes, society hostess Lady Ottoline Morrell, together with representatives of an older order - Thomas Hardy, not to mention Henry James who, for goodness sake, Brooke cycles off to call on at Lamb House as casually as if he were the man next door! And interspersed with these semi-mythical figures are the domestic details that form an integral part of Brooke and Strachey's lives. The trivia is engrossing, with its train timetables, motorbuses and postal orders: 'I'll enclose the tickets and a postal order for 10/6.'

But we never stray far from the central motif - that of Strachey's heart-sickness for Brooke. Coupled with our fascination, though, is also the uncomfortably voyeuristic sensation of being privy to Strachey's intimate yearnings and his longing makes for painful reading: 'It is You and my love that makes the universe magical....' and one finds oneself wishing that Brooke could have been kinder.

Hence it is with a start that one reads Brooke's own account of his seduction of a former university acquaintance. One wonders what the besotted Strachey could have made of his graphic and lengthy account of the physical details of his night in bed with Denham Russell-Smith. Brooke's literary executor Geoffrey Keynes vowed that the uncensored Brooke letters would be published 'over my dead body.' And such has certainly been the case as it is only since Keynes' death that the letters have been released.

Brooke's image makers certainly knew how to 'spin', and it is really only now, nearly 90 years later, that we have a clearer view of Brooke the man as opposed to the legend. Perhaps Strachey's words on Brooke , many years following his death, are the most revealing: 'He was not nearly as nice as people now believe him, but a great deal cleverer.'

This is simply a must-read for Brooke fans and anyone else interested in the aesthetists and their times. It's absolutely fascinating. By the time you finish the introduction, you will be hooked.

This is quite an achievement in editing. Brooke and Strachey comment on so many of the prominent figures of their time that, coupled with Hale's impressive footnotes and other editorial material, the book serves as a virtual history of Edwardian England. I personally am not crazy about Brooke's poetry, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading this work.

Despite being a very small book, with good introduction and preface, this is not an easy book to read and in my opinion the more the reader is well acquainted with the evolution of Freud's terminology the better. In this regard The Interpretation of Dreams is a prior reading which will give substance for the later reading of The Ego and the Id.

Some concepts already presented in earlier books are developed more soundly in this opus, despite some confusion between the terminology, a situation acknowledge by the editor and even by the author.

The Ego and the Id was written in 1924 and, contrary to some earlier books by Freud which could be read by the lay person (" The Interpretation of Dreams" , "The Psychopathology of Every Day Life" , "Jokes and Their Relations with the Unconscious" , " Totem and Taboo" and many others), this one was not written for the non-scientific person, due to a lot of psychanalitical lingo he uses in the text and the difficulty faced in the conceptualization.

Despite all this, I think it is an useful reading to everyone interested in the history and theory of psychanalisys. The figth between the Id (which equals the Unconscious plus some conscious departments), the Ego (mainly inputed by senses perception) and the Ideal Ego (or Super-ego), who represents a kind of moral agency who reviews and criticizes all the actions by the Ego, is of special beauty and are quintessential Freudian. A pretty much intereting reading for anyone interested in the history of psychanalisys and in concepts already of working value.

Id- Unconscious part of the mind which consists of natural instincts, urges, and drives that are repressed. It includes "internal events" which stem from the influence of heredity. Although the id is the cause of all activity, the thoughts are often unconscious and repressed. The id represents biological forces. It is also a constant in the personality as it is always present. The id is governed by the "pleasure principle", or the notion of hedonism (the seeking of pleasure).
Ego- A defense mechanism that is partly conscious and contains the capacities to calculate, reason, and plan. As the Id relates to internal events, the Ego is occupied with the external world. Its task is to regulate and control the instincts provided by the id. However, in times of sleep, the ego detaches itself from the outside world and changes, its organization. The prime function of the ego is determined by the individuals experiences. The ego is the surface of the personality, the part you show the world. The ego is governed by the "reality principle ," or a pragmatic approach to the world. For example, a child may want to snitch a cookie from the kitchen, but will not if a parent is present. Id desires are still present, but the ego realizes the consequences of brazen cookie theft.
Super-ego- the connection between the id and ego. The super ego is the minds link to reality and society. It contains the influence of what is learned from other people. The super-ego, unlike the id, is not intuitive from birth, but acquired from childhood. Once established, one begins to feel guilt. The superego consists of two parts, the conscience and the ego-ideal. The conscience is the familiar metaphor of angel and devil on each shoulder. The conscience decides what course of action one should take. The ego-ideal is an idealized view of one's self. Comparisons are made between the ego-ideal and one's actual behavior. Both parts of the super-ego develop with experience with others, or via social interactions. According to Freud, a strong super-ego serves to inhibit the biological instincts of the id, while a weak super-ego gives in to the id's urgings. Further, the levels of guilt in the two cases above will be high and low, respectively.

The ID strives for the needs, wants desires; as the ID strives for pleasure it encounters experiences of frustration. The desires and needs of the ID do not get responded to as soon as the individual would like; in essence the reality of life; this results in the development of personality that governs orientation to reality. During early development of a person there are other influences as moral and ethical expectations of family and society. As the ID strives for gratification it encounters these moral and ethical expectations that tend to frustrate the ID; as a result of this the SUPER-EGO develops which represents the individuals moral orientation. Also known as the conscience. Family and society play an important role in defining for a person what these moral and ethical expectations include. Unresolved conflicts between ID-EGO-SUPER EGO can lead to fixation or blockage in development and can result in excessive dependence in manipulation. The resolution of each crisis depends on the interaction of the individual's characteristics and the support provided by the social environment.

Quote from Dr Freud:
"...the ego seeks to bring the influence of the external world to bear upon the id and its tendencies, and endeavours to substitute the reality principle for the pleasure principle which reigns unrestrictedly in the id. For the ego, perception plays the part which in the id falls to instinct. The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions. "

Sigmund Freud is not known for his easy-to-read writing style. Those that translated Freud's works have recently been under fire for being misleading or inaccurate. When I set out to read this book, I felt it neccessary to make as many notes neccesary and to dig beneath and between to bring out what Freud really meant by "ego" and "id." To my conclusion, the reason Freud is argued against so much is because of the confusion that surrounds his theories.

The words "ego" and "id" are Greek, and we have carried them into the English language and then nominalized. By doing this our consciousness solidifies them as things within our brains. The word "ego" means "I" or "self". The word "id" means "non-I" or "non-self", or "it." We dont say "the I" when we refer to ourselves. But so often we say "the ego" as if to refer to a specific part or thing of our minds.

The other confusion that adds to nominalization is then believing the rest of the book is about things in space. Yet, Freud specifically says, "The state of things which we have been describing can be respresented diagramatically, though it must be remarked that the form chosen has no pretensions to any special applicability, but is mere intended to serve for purposes of exposition (p. 18)." What Freud is saying is that in order to communicate clearly what is happening in ones psyche, or mind, there needs to be a working model of the psyche.That is to say, a model meaning a diagram with its parts that do not act as the psyche itself (or of reality), but shows what the psyche consists of. He does this by discerning that which is "descriptive," and that which is "dynamic." The descriptive only describes through language or imaginative use, while dynamic is more at the process that actually occurs.

Now the model Freud eventually used as a diagram is not a very good model. In fact it is a bit unwieldy and clumsy and in the end served little purpose (later in he updated the model in 'New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis', 1933). Because Freud is the first to devise the model, it is primitive and modifications would be neccessary. Actually Freud seemed to have modeled what looks to be an ill-defined organ giving way to the idea that it functions like a heart would. While reading the book, I chose not to use the model he drew, but rather found it useful to create my own based on his descriptions of where things are in relation to each other. This does not mean I believe the model is a literal drawing of my mind or anyone elses, but rather a means in which we understand how one part of the psyche works with another. Similarly is Neil Bohr's model of the atom. He did not draw what he actually saw, he created a model only for communication purposes. When a group understands the parts, and the relationship of those parts, then you create a vernacular, or as Freud called it, a "shibboleth of psycho-analysis." Then we can clearly understand what we are talking about when referring to these parts.

The book is only psychological in language, where Freud describes his theories of ego and id. He raises other aspects of the psyche that one may need to already understand, such as cathexis, the Oedipal complex, displacement, reaction formation and so forth. He sets out essentially how ego is created in relation to id, and by creating our ego we also create repression. It is sometimes misconstrued that ego is associated with egotistical, or egotism, or even conceit, however, Freud is aware that our ego is as much benevalent as malevalent.

"The Ego and the Id" was written in 1923, so the language is sometimes archaic, even in the translated form. Its more popular to be adverse with Freud, usually due to the claims Freud made regarding childhood sexuality, and that all of his theories are based upon sexual experiences in our youth. I believe if one set that opinion aside and read as if you never heard of Freud, you might think differently. I found it useful while reading not only to understand the times Freud wrote in, but to also update the language in more modern terms. If ego does not suit you, choose another word, as long as the relationships and understanding of their functions remain constant. But what you call them may reveal that Freud really hit the mark in describing the functions and processes of our minds. When you observe as he did, you will discover how memories are repressed, what your consciousness holds, what you observe in your consciousness and what you are holding out on in your unconscious. How our ego's and super-ego's (ego-ideal) serve and protect, yet hinder potential. For me, updating the language allowed me to understand Freuds work much better than if I kept his work in the past and attempted to apply it to today. I dont feel that works for any author. It would be like knowing how to fix an Apple IIe and expecting to be able to fix a Macintosh G3 computer.

Freud's "Ego and the Id" is a great book to begin to understand his theories. Its a small book (62 pages) and will create the foundation of understanding for any of his other works. Having a good working knowledge of this book will also aid you in reading other authors who discuss ego functions as well as your ability to discern how the word is used in relation to Freud's understanding.

Really hard to read, this book is not for the laymen.

This engaging little memoir charts the ascent of psychoanalysis as seen through the eyes of its world-famous originator. Beginning with the youthful Freud's days with pioneer Josef Breuer in late 19th Century Vienna, it charts the burgeoning movement through the psychoanalysis organization that Freud founded in 1908--and which nearly went to pieces a few years later due to some nasty internecine battles. These were obviously trying times for Freud, and the book sometimes lapses into an acrimonious tone (he calls one detractor an "evil genius"); he also shoots a few poisoned arrows at former colleagues Jung and Adler. For the most part, though, it's a very readable, revealing look back at the days when psychoanalysis was young and had far more enemies than allies: "Occasionally a colleague would make some reference to me in one of his publications; it would be very short and not at all flattering--words such as 'eccentric', 'extreme', or 'very peculiar' would be used."

The "question" alluded to in the title has to do with the proper legal status of psychoanalysts who lack conventional medical training. Freud argues that psychoanalysts, though they certainly need extensive training of some kind before they hang up a shingle, shouldn't be required to go through the med school route, which he finds largely irrelevant to the field of psychology. Subtitled "Conversations with an Impartial Person," this book is set up as a dialogue between Freud and a not quite convinced but sympathetic listener; as a literary device, it functions pretty well.

The whole "lay analysis" angle, which members of the general public (like me) could hardly be expected to find terribly compelling, makes up only part of the book. The chief interest here, I think, lies in Freud's lucid description of how psychoanalysis is conducted (whereas most of his other books provide only brief glimpses of what happens on Freud's couch). It also sums up some key Freudian concepts for those who came in late. All in all, it's readable and informative.

A fascinating book that explores the hidden factors behind anxiety, written when Freud was still studying his first hysterical patients that became famous in the psychoanalytic literature. The collaboration with Breur was actually sealed with this book, but ironically it was also the end of their friendship. Apart from the psychoanalytic concepts, the reader can really enjoy the five case studies included in "Study on hysteria". Only one case study was written by Breur and this goes to show that Freud really wanted to go deep into the unconscious whereas Breur after the first patient didn't go any further; basically because he would have had to confront himself with the patient's sexual drives as well as his instincts. This is a very stimulating book that allows the reader to appreciate the kind of female patients affected by hysteria before the 20th century, that were not understood by most psychiatrists. Freud menaged to understand why the repression of the sexual instinct led to a neurosis.

One of man's greatest struggles is his effort to determine his position in the universe. From the past ages to present history, mankind has been in conflict with his own mortality. In his attempt to rectify his seemingly meaningless existence, he has created countless religions and renditions of the afterlife. Often man has also created numerous supernatural agents, such as divine spirits, to aid him in his walk through life. Religion has been a hallmark of every civilization. However, in The Future of an Illusion Sigmund Freud has come to the conclusion that religion is an illusion. Freud believes that the sooner mankind shuns all aspects of a divine, supernatural being the better off man will be in all facets of life.
In the passage, Freud has a tendency to compare the belief of Providence and a benevolent God with a concept he developed through psychoanalysis: the father-complex. He sees mankind as a frightened child using God as a crutch in order to make it through his every day occurrences. Freud sees this as a weakness and labels this as an illusion. His conclusion is basically that humans who depend on-or even believe in God-are delusional.
My reaction to Freud is one of disgust. I believe that in Freud's attempt to psychoanalyze every facet of the mind he merely saw an aspect of life which he could not rationalize scientifically and simply removed it altogether. Since God cannot be explained through the scientific method, belief is a divine Being is rubbish in Freud's eyes. I see this as a weakness on Freud's own character. I believe that Freud is uncomfortable with the idea that there is something in which science cannot wholly explain. Therefore he argues in this exposition in a way in which he justifies his own insecurities by making himself out to be a sadder but wiser man. However, I wonder if he considered the fact that although he could not prove the existence of God, he does not necessarily rule out God's existence. I believe that God is a postulate, something that cannot be proven or invalidated through scientific discourse. Freud may be right in the nature of God, but he automatically rules out His existence without giving a definite reason. I am sorry Freud, but a father-complex model does not have enough reasonable evidence to convince me that you are correct and that I am wrong.
Another aspect of Freud in which I find disconcerting is his religious fervency for science. Since Freud has discredited the existed of God he is forced to replace the vacuum with the only rational solution: science. Freud is so obsessed with the scientific method that he even rationalizes its shortcomings. In his comparison between Aristotle's "error" and Columbus's "illusion", he supports Aristotle over Columbus. This is due to the fact that Aristotle's mistake was an inaccurate scientific hypothesis, whereas the Columbus's fallacy was caused by a false belief. He states that the difference between these two mistakes is that an illusion is "derived from human wishes" and therefore it is the feebler mistake. However, I see Aristotle as a much more drastic error than Columbus who simply had a major miscalculation of the world's size and poor navigation equipment.
All in all, I appreciate Freud for his support for science. However, I believe that science does have its limits. Therefore, in the areas which science cannot explain, we should not immediately jump to conclusions as Freud has done. Until science can reasonably discredit God, I will continue on with my delusion. Actually, even if science was able to prove that there was not a God, I would probably continue to believe. In my case, hope is better than what Freud has, which is nothing. I will let Freud remain the sadder, but wiser man while I continue to believe in my Illusion.

In Freud's "The Future of an Illusion," he attempts to establish human motives for the creation of religion. If you hadn't guessed, Freud was a diehard atheist. He recognizes religion and an all-seeing, all-knowing man in the sky as an illusion to compensate for the mortality of our given father figures and as a divine system of reward and punishment for one's actions necessary for any society to function.

Most people will live to see their father die. Rather than move on and accept responsibility for his own life, man invented a fallback -- GOD. It was easier to, rather than adapt to a life without a strong but ultimately fair authoritative figure, setup and eternal epitome of "daddy."

As many philosophers have explored, man is naturally self-serving and anti-social. Without any reliable system to prevent destructive, anti-social behavior, society invented punishment for these actions, inescapable punishment that lasts eternally. Without this divine, angry-hand-of-God type punishment system, today's society simply could not exist.

Though Freud sees religion as an illusion- the paper bag that man pulls over his head to make life easier- which must be eradicated, I tend to see it more as a blessing from generations-passed. Though many people are intelligent enough to understand that their actions must be suitable for society simply for the sake of society, most are not. Further, most people are not strong enough to deal with the inevitable loss of their father figure. It is religion that allows them to function in society, and they are rewarded with the happiness that other aspects of the illusion provide (ever-lasting father, reward of heaven, etc.). If these "sheep", as some will call them, are intellectually dull enough to believe something merely because it is what their parents believed, then they would not, most likely, be acute enough to recognize that they must renounce their self-serving instincts to better server the common good.

This book is definitely worth reading. Fortunately, religion is a self-reinforcing delusion and people like Mr. Shives will read it knowing from the start that it will be brimming with blasphemy-- crimethink, and therefore read it with closed eyes. We will never run out of sheep.

Reading Freud is always refreshing -- not only is he a good writer, but he also has many deep psychological insights. In his 71 page text, "The Future of an Illusion," he tackles the subject of religion. A livelong atheist, Freud argues that religion is derived from a child-like sense of helplessness in the world. Its purpose, he says, is to explain the sometimes-unfathomable world, to provide societal order, and to give comfort and happiness (particularly for the "the masses" and the poor, uneducated and oppressed). Although Freud wants to reshape civilization's relationship with religion, he also recognizes that widespread atheism could undermine societal stability. Overall, this is a good, quick read -- perfect for those interested in religion/atheism, psychology and the intersection between the two.

And this time trough those primitive manifestations performed by that very primitive peoples like aborigenes from Australia, North and South America indians and many others discovered by colonization european, manifestation that we are used to call by Totem and Taboo. This is the standard Freud's view on the subject and to understand this book is a necessary step to proceed to other important Freud's work like Moses and Monotheism, The Future of an Ilusion and many others, where he approaches with reluctance the idea of religion as an offspring of early animism.

The prior standard way of seeing these types of primitive manifestation was to see them trough the amount of dread the primitive men have against the manifestation of some praeternatural agency, to use a term used by Mr.Thorstein Veblen, a contemporary of Freud, in his magnificent book on the leisure class (The Theory of the Leisure Class). It is worthy to note that nobody can be sure on the origins of this type of tradition and that adds substance to Mr.Freud's arguments.

Sigmund Freud goes a step further to the classical view and says that totemism and taboo as animism are the manifestation of something not outside ourselves but rather inside human minds of the primitive people, where the unconscious played a good part to the forming of this kind of culture manifestation and where there is an intricate and unconscious and almost mathematical calculation in order to attribute to the priest-king, who typifies the carrier of this tradition, both the pleasures and the burden of the function. In Freud's view, both totem and taboo are traditions that have to find their origim in the unconscious of that primitive folks and not in the concurrence of fear to the dead, following the tradition of his many other books on the latent manifestations of the unconscious. The ritual and actual killing of the father by the Horde or Band of Brothers, who are in search of vital space for their development, is the real reason behind all that happens afterwards and, following Freud's hypotheses, are the groundwork of modern and ancient religion.

The concepts here explained will be fundamental to the development of the hypotheses developed latter in Moses and Monotheism.

Totem and Taboo, along with _The Future of an Illusion_, should be necessary reading for any serious student of social science. Of course, there are massive holes in Freud's arguments (such as his tendancy to make sweeping generalizations about other cultures from his armchair in Europe), but people who disagree with him for moral and ethical reasons tend to amplify those holes and simply ridicule Freud the man instead of intelligently approaching his arguments.
The fact is, his suppositions about parental relations (as they relate to "totem" cultures), about religion, and about sexuality are extremely relevant and have proven, over the years, to possess an extraordinary predictive power. Even if one disagrees with this literature, one should read it and know exactly what they disagree with.

Parricide, guilt, cannibalism--what's not to love?

While I agree that Civilization and Its Discontents has some kernels of truth within it, I cannot recommend it either as a persuasive piece or as an introduction to Freudian thought. I do not know if, in his longer works, Freud actually supports any of his statements with more than the weak ancedotal proofs he gives here; nor do I know if he actually works through his arguments to a logical conclusion instead of relying on sensationalistic statements with no basis in his evidence. Suffice to say he does not meet the minimum requirements, in my opinion, for philosophical or scientific excellence, in this book. Furthermore, the rambling, vague, and disorganized nature of this book makes its usefulness as a mere introduction to Freud extremely weak. I would only suggest using it as a companion to such other works as Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis, or as an immediate overview and introduction to The Future of an Illusion (which, though written earlier than Civilization, more fully elucidates many of the principles Freud touts here). As a long-time student of classical thought, philosophy, and ethics, not to mention the fundamental principles of logic, I found myself highly unimpressed with this work, and saw no great haven of Truth within it. Further, having been raised by Secular Humanists, I am less than convinced of the practical merits of Freud's ideas. Read it if you like, but don't expect to find salvation or much enlightenment out of these few pages...

I would have to definitely say that this is one read that has helped change my perception on reality, as well as give me deeper insight. Although one must be patient with Freud (his writing can, at times, rather sleep inducing), this book can open up a great deal of understanding about current literature and film. My essay I wrote for school comparing Civilization and it's Discontents and Fight Club recieved an A, and I have also been able to identify similarities from here in books such as Brave New World and Island both by Aldous Huxley.

I must say this is a recommended read that you should definitely look into!

Freud's Civilization and its Discontents could arguably be one of the most compelling books you will ever encounter, if read properly. The problematic posed by Freud is a fundamental one. Freud argues that the demands of civilization and demands of our instincts are out of sync. He posits that humans are haunted by an assortment of powerful unconscious needs. These hardcore "needs" range from sexual fulfillment to a release of aggression. These primal needs for sexual fulfillment and aggressions were once the tools we used to survive. With the dawning of a new age, we no longer need to use these tools. We turn inwards. See, juxtaposed and interconnected is the other side of the coin, is civilization - a phenomenon that inhibits these primal drives. But we need civilization to give us a different sense of security. It is a catch-22. Throughout the ages, then the constant tug of war between these two forces has caused ruptures in our history was the tension is expressed in frustration.

Freud is really informative when he posits that we turn this aggression inward. Perhaps it is how civilization has configured good and evil that is turning this mechanism out of sync. In an almost sado-masochistic move, the superego is now torturing the ego. It is the collision rather than the confluence that is ruining this forced marriage. I am not certain that Nietzsche really had this sort of impact on Freud but I am reminded of Dionysus and Apollo from The Birth of Tragedy.

Nietzsche was trying to convey a partnership between them more than a countering or perhaps better, a "healthy tension." To be human is to be stretched between these two domains. The Dionysian is the raw impulses, chaos, and absurdity of existence; the Apollonian is the ordering impulse that seeks order, the eternal (in logic, religion, or morality, etc.) and beauty. As a particular existence, we are comprised of the raw stuff that is life in its very heart. We are contradiction, passions, chaos; but we cannot live in this domain alone, because it is ugly, terrifying and absurd. Thus we are wont to make it beautiful, to create from it a habitable and beautiful world (and self). Without the Dionysian, there can be no Apollonian. Without Apollonian, life would not be bearable. Hopefully, Nietzsche (as does Freud) does not advocate a return to our "bestial natures." However, Nietzsche declares that it is better to be a Cesare Borgia than a Christian, for at least great things are possible with the raw power and nobility of the beast. The Christian, to him, is enfeeblement and brutalizes the nobility and power inherent in humankind. To be capable of greatness, one must be capable of evil and good. The Christian, however, esteems everything that is meek, pitiful and weak. Action is evil, the world is evil, and we must quietly await a better one. Nietzsche, and the existentialists, would resist any attempt to ascribe a "nature" which predetermines us. We are flux. We are change. We are in a constant state of becoming and there is no prior nature that determines what we will become.

Although Freud was a champion for the recognition of these primal urges, it cannot be said that he advocated a free for all. What is really powerful in Freud is that civilization is not seen to be purely an external thing and it has real consequences on the inside. Our superego - civilizations handmaiden on the inside - is now calling the shots. As we internalize what the external is telling us to do, how to act - like gnawing guilt it invades our psyche to the extent that no matter how we wish to transgress, we become and need the very thing that causes our frustration.

If you peg the most basic response to fight or flight, then civilization can be seen to have removed that which was causing all sorts of anxiety - as we no longer express and remove sexual needs and aggression "in the wild." Freud it could be argued is saying that the superego now attacks the ego denying out most elemental needs. Those needs though, because of the reconfiguration of civilization are suppressed. The two forces - the superego and the ego, instead of working together are working against each other. If perhaps there is a hope for a sense of a new humanism, that this might be the answer - finding a way for the superego to work with rather than against the ego, that is of course if you have bought in on the duality. The debate rages on.

Miguel Llora

....but a daring example of the willingness of a thinker to make fundamental changes to his theoretical framework very late in his career. This is where Freud shifts his emphasis from ego vs. id instincts to the famous Eros/death polarity, clinically questionable but archetypally informative.

Freud did a remarkable job of reinstateing, and clearifying exsisting established beliefs, In this his finale publishcation. Although it is a bit wordy on occassions, a even a bit (dare i say) nonsenseacal. It is a enlightning and fasanating piece of work. And though I would'nt recommend it for new-comers to the world of psyco-analysim, it is diffently worth reading.

Sigmund Freud's "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" is a key text, not only for psychologists, or literary theorists, but anyone who thinks about why our minds work the way they do. If your mind is open to extreme possibilities, give this text a read. It is short, barely 75 pages, but give yourself time to pore over and make notes, as Freud moves very quickly.

In "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," Freud seeks to discover the causes and effects of our drives. To this end, he begins with the pleasure principle, which basically holds that the job of our 'mental apparatus' is to lower tension and move us towards pleasure and stability. Working against the pleasure principle are our baser instincts, which must be repressed by a vigilant brain. The pleasure principle can also be interrupted by the reality principle, which operates in moments when basic life functions are threatened - to wit, when maintaining life is more important than pleasure.

Examining the pleasure principle, Freud looks at scenarios which may shed light on mental processes that seem to challenge it. These include repetition compulsion, wherein adults seem to fixate and reenact moments of trauma. Seeking a more primal cause for repetition instinct, Freud analyses children's games. Interestingly, the further Freud regresses, the more speculative and intense he gets - from childhood, Freud talks about the brain itself, moving back to simple multicellular organisms, unicellular organisms, and ultimately inorganic matter - all the time looking for an explanation of the origin of instincts themselves.

Freud's queries on instinct and repetition compulsion lead him to the darkest possible places - the revelation of the death instinct. Freud posits that the repetition compulsion manifests itself in all conscious beings in the desire to return to the earliest state, total inactivity. The remainder of his treatise is spent developing the conditions of the death instinct, and trying to find a way out of this shocking thesis. Taking up Hesiodic Eros as symbolic of the life instinct, Freud attempts to argue out of the seemingly inescapable conclusion.

Freud's writing style is direct and fluid, but not necessarily straightforward. If you're not paying attention, Freud can go over your head quickly. For example, on page 50 of this standard edition, his line of argument dismisses Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche in a matter of two paragraphs to astounding effect. His language is highly figurative, drawing on philosophy, literature, biology, and anecdote to make and illustrate his points. A critical text for anyone interested in psychoanalysis and its figurehead author.