Re: "Letter on Humanism"--Reading 3 (Re: infancy)

On Thu, 23 Mar 1995 [email protected] wrote:

> The reader may note that these authors belong to the questionable discipline
> of psychoanalysis. I personally feel that a lot of psychoanalysis is, from
> the perspective of transcendental philosophy (not to mention simple
> humanity), "pretty bad". But not all of it. Heidegger (and even Husserl and
> Schutz et al) didn't (at least to my knowledge) devote much attention to
> either children or distortions of communicative life (a k a "neurosis" etc.).
> There is much to be learned from both, and some persons in the perhaps
> demented world of psychoanalysis have seen things in these areas remarkably
> sanely (often at the cost of their own sanity or worse, e.g., Ferenczi, who
> wrote such radical things as: "The Unwanted Childand His Death Instinct", and
> "The Family's Adaptation to the Child").
> Tony and all philosophy teachers and other teachers in the
> Geisteswissenschaften out there: Learn this stuff!
> And now
> I will get down
> from my soapbox....
> Brad McCormick (prophet without a country?)
Heidegger disliked psycholanalysis for a reason you cite: it approaches
neuroses as something to eliminate and smooth out. The intent of
Heidegger is to heighten the feelings of (Angst/Langweile/Erschrecken)
that get covered over in our thoughtless pursuit of easy living. For
some reason I cannot quite fathom, Heidegger thought that painful
existence brings us into our true essence.

A Hopeless child of Americanism


--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: