A Fine Line between Normality and Abnormality

  • Thread starter Thread starter coberst
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the philosophical and psychological exploration of normality versus abnormality, drawing heavily on Freud's theories of repression and the unconscious. Freud posits that repression is fundamental to human nature, with dreams and neurotic symptoms serving as expressions of unconscious desires. The conversation highlights the subjective nature of defining normality, suggesting that the distinction lies in the degree of neurosis affecting one's functionality in daily life. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes that all individuals experience some form of neurosis, blurring the lines between normal and abnormal behavior.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Freud's theory of repression
  • Familiarity with concepts of the unconscious mind
  • Knowledge of psychoanalytic terminology
  • Basic grasp of psychological theories regarding normality and abnormality
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Freud's "The Interpretation of Dreams" for deeper insights into dream analysis
  • Explore the concept of psychic determinism in psychoanalysis
  • Research the Bell curve in psychology and its application to normality
  • Investigate contemporary interpretations of Freud's theories in modern psychology
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for psychology students, mental health professionals, and anyone interested in the complexities of human behavior and the distinctions between normal and abnormal psychological states.

coberst
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
A Fine Line between Normality and Abnormality

Aristotle said that all men seek happiness. Freud said that the goal of the pleasure-principle is happiness. Man’s desire for happiness sets at odds to the reality-principle. It is the reality-principle that propels the world into tomorrow. Humans naturally seek what they wish but “reality imposes on human beings the necessity of renunciation of pleasures”.

Freud says that the whole edifice of psychoanalysis is constructed on the theory of repression—the essence of society is the repression of the individual--the essence of the individual is repression of him or her self—Freud’s theory is that the phenomena dreams, neurotic symptoms, and errors are caused—i.e. the principle of psychic determinism—they are meaningful because this means there is purpose or intention—“since the purport of these purposive expressions is generally unknown to the person whose purpose they express, Freud is driven to embrace the paradox that there are in a human being purposes of which he knows nothing, involuntary purpose”—i.e. unconscious ideas.

Freud discovered the importance of repression when he discovered the meaning of the “mad” symptoms of the mentally deranged, plus the meaning of dreams, and thirdly the everyday happenings regarded as slips of the tongue, errors, and random thoughts. He concludes that dreams, mental derangements, and common every day errors (Freudian slips) have meaningful causes that can be explained. Meaningful is the key word here.

The rejection of an idea which is one’s very own and remains so is repression. The essence of repression is in the fact that the individual refuses to recognize this reality of her very own nature. This nature becomes evident when it erupts into consciousness only in dreams or neurotic symptoms or by slips of the tongue.

The unconscious is illuminated only when it is being repressed by the conscious mind. It is a process of psychic conflict. “We obtain our theory of the unconscious from the theory of repression.” Freud’s hypothesis of the repressed unconscious results from the conclusion that it is common to all humans. This is a phenomenon of everyday life; neurosis is common to all humans.

Dreams are normal phenomena and being that the structure of dreams is common to neurotics and normal people the dream is also neurotic. “Between “normality” and “abnormality” there is no qualitative but only quantitative difference, based largely on the practical question of whether our neurosis is serious enough to incapacitate us for work…the doctrine of the universal neurosis of mankind is the psychoanalytical analogue of the theological doctrine of original sin.”

Quotes from “Life against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History” Norman O. Brown
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AHHHH---what a fine line between normal and abnormal-----I see many behaviors/attitudes even on this forum (and many other places) that I would consider both normal and abnormal----so the question is where on the Bell shaped curve do you put the vertical lines to divide---and from whose experience and judgment do you go by?

(and do you consider this a rhetorical question?)
 
rewebster said:
AHHHH---what a fine line between normal and abnormal-----I see many behaviors/attitudes even on this forum (and many other places) that I would consider both normal and abnormal----so the question is where on the Bell shaped curve do you put the vertical lines to divide---and from whose experience and judgment do you go by?

(and do you consider this a rhetorical question?)


We are all neurotic. The dividing line is a practical one. If I can function at my job I am normal if not I am abnormal.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K