Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 6th, 2008, 11:09 AM   #1
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 530
Virtual World versus Real World


Virtual World versus Real World

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

Questions for discussion

Is there a vital difference between human sciences (such as psychology) and natural sciences (such as physics)?

Is it possible for humans to create a virtual world that is more important than the real world? What is the difference between a virtual world and the real world?

coberst is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 19th, 2008, 03:23 PM   #2

Sharks and love's Avatar
Knows he knows not
 
Joined: Jul 2008
From: Sharkland
Posts: 5,397
Re: Virtual World versus Real World


The answer to your question, Freud has already answered.

Many people do make the world as the perceive it more important than the reality of the world. We want things to be the way we see them, and many cast aside evidence to the contrary.
Sharks and love is offline  
Old July 19th, 2008, 03:26 PM   #3

Insomnia's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2008
From: Chicago
Posts: 37
Re: Virtual World versus Real World







First off weather we want to believe it or not humans are driven by instinct and by primitive characteristics. We are made a certain way and we cannot change over time as to adapt to a new enviroment, in other words we cannot escape our primitive ways so i do not think that there is indeed a vital difference between human sciences and natural sciences.

Yes, i think it is possible for humans to create a virtual world which would be far more important than the real world. The human mind is a powerful thing and anything we think of goes, we create our own fear, we make ourselfves believe things such as the "bogeyman" ,"monsters" etc. Our society is shaped by the human mind, and we cannot escape it.

Just take for example the online gamers most of them do not have any other lives besides playing there game all day long and socializing with their online friends, they forget the real, world and have withdrawl symptoms when they are forced to come out into the real real world. There are countless many examples how humans create other worlds in which they exist, and for some the virtual worlds stand as some sort of "escape from reality, in which some dont even wanna be in".
Anyways hope that makes sense.

As for something else i wanted to comment on the article that yes, indeed there is a human need to belong to a group and follow what the group or the group leader tells them to do. It is a very sad fact in our society that many have forgotten what "critical thinking" is they just wanna do their own things and not mind what goes on around them.
Insomnia is offline  
Old July 20th, 2008, 07:19 AM   #4
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 530
Re: Virtual World versus Real World


The great truth of human nature is that wo/man strives for meaning. S/he imposes on raw experience symbolic categories of thought, and does so with conceptual structures of thought. “All human problems are, in the last resort, problems of the soul.”—Otto Rank

In the nineteenth century, after two hundred years of opposition paradigms, science faced the dilemma: if we make wo/man to be totally an object of science, to be as this object merely a conglomeration of atoms and wheels then where is there a place for freedom? How can such a collection of mere atoms be happy, and fashion the Good Life?

The best thinkers of the Enlightenment followed by the best of the nineteenth century were caught in the dilemma of a materialistic psychology. Does not the inner wo/man disappear when humans are made into an object of science? On the other hand if we succumb to the mode of the middle Ages, when the Church kept man firmly under the wraps of medieval superstitions, do we not give up all hope for self-determined man?

“Yet, we want man to be the embodiment of free, undetermined subjectivity, because this is the only thing that keeps him interesting in all of nature…It sums up the whole tragedy of the Enlightenment vision of science.” There are still those who would willingly surrender wo/man to Science because of their fear of an ever encroaching superstitious enemy.

Kant broke open this frustrating dilemma. By showing that sapiens could not know nature in its stark reality, that sapiens had no intellectual access to the thing-in-itself, that humans could never know a nature that transcended their epistemology, Kant “defeated materialistic psychology, even while keeping its gains. He centered nature on man, and so made psychology subjective; but he also showed the limitations of human perceptions in nature, and so he could be objective about them, and about man himself. In a word man was at once, limited creature, and bottomless mystery, object and subject…Thus it kept the best of materialism, and guaranteed more than materialism ever could: the protection of man’s freedom, and the preservation of his inner mystery.”

After Kant, Schilling illuminated the uniqueness of man’s ideas, and the limitations from any ideal within nature. Schilling gave us modern wo/man. Materialism and idealism was conjoined. Wo/man functioned under the aegis of whole ideas, just as the idealists wanted, and thus man became an object of science while maintaining freedom of self-determination.

The great truth of the nineteenth century was that produced by William Dilthey, which was what wo/man constantly strived for. “It was “meaning” said Dilthey, meaning is the great truth about human nature. Everything that lives, lives by drawing together strands of experience as a basis for its action; to live is to act, to move forward into the world of experience…Meaning is the relationship between parts of experience.” Man does not do this drawing together on the basis of simple experience but on the basis of concepts. Man imposes symbolic categories of thought on raw experience. His conception of life determines the manner in which s/he values all of its parts.

Concludes Dilthey, meaning “is the comprehensive category through which life becomes comprehensible…Man is the meaning-creating animal.”

Does it make sense to you that “All human problems are, in the last resort, problems of the soul”??

Quotes and ideas from “Beyond Alienation” Becker

coberst is offline  
Old July 21st, 2008, 11:49 AM   #5

galteeman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: Sodom and Begorrah
Posts: 2,198
Re: Virtual World versus Real World


Quote:
Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish
cobert we may be dealing with a genetic driving force here that is directing our behavior from behind the scenes. if we examine our closest relatives, the other great apes we see parallels in their societal structures. our 2 closest relatives, the chimpanzees(split 6 million years ago) and the gorillas(split 7mya) have societies which are totally dominated by a single male group leader who monopolises power and is followed slavishly. the orangutans(split 14mya) by contrast live solitary lives, which suggests that the gene that caused the group leader structure mutated between 7 and 14 million years ago (or possibly the gene which caused the solitary behavior of the orangutan appeared since then). what evolutionary advantage this gene may convey, or what advantageous effect it is a side effect of, are questions that are to be fully explored elsewhere.
if it is our genes which are driving us to behave in this submissive way then our minds will try and construct whatever realities and false truths that will allow us to assuage these hidden forces. we are dealing with forces that are pushing and pulling us on a subconcious level. mabye we do not have any free will at all in this matter in many ways.
when the great leap forward occured approximatly 40000 years ago which suddenly gave us a much more skillful and intelligent mind these powerful selective genetic forces which caused our ancestors to survive for millions of years did not dissappear. the new and improved model mind had to live side by side with old subconscious driving force.the mind since then would have to create realities to accomodate the old forces that lie beneath consciousness

Last edited by galteeman; July 21st, 2008 at 01:11 PM.
galteeman is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
versus, virtual



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
World War 3 Nick Speculative History 136 July 7th, 2010 09:17 AM
Hello World Isaac New Users 3 June 22nd, 2006 07:16 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.