1

As in title. I'm relatively familiar with Deleuze’s early works on Nietzsche and Spinoza, but have not yet ventured in the D&G zone.

From a secondary source I learned that Anti-Oedipus can be seen as an attack on Freud's "Wo Es war, soll Ich werden" principle which prohibits Egos interaction with the real. Is this a misconception?

Also any general tips on reading Deleuze will be appreciated.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    I would say no. It wouldn't hurt to know Freud's language, but insofar as some of the language of engagement is from Lacan, not Freud, I'm not sure Freud would help all that much. It should also be noted that this book is not soley about psychoanalysis. It equally engages anthropology and political economy. It's key to note that for them these separate fields are useful abstractions perhaps but obstruct ones thinking of how they all meet in presenting pictures of the very same individuals/populations (humanity), so in a sense it jumps around, but as different lenses (levels) of a same object. – ClearMountainWay Aug 11 '19 at 16:26
  • I would say there is no need whatsoever. Reading D&G, even their takes on Freud, you will get a whole lot of D&G and very little Freud. – transitionsynthesis Aug 11 '19 at 16:42
2

Any move away from Freud is going to be a positive move, an evasion and ironically a reduction of human scope. So from the negativity of the Weltschmerz "period", see book below, we see a positive way of evasion through the Super Man (Nietzsche), and I don't know D&G, but if you will read Russell Jacoby's book, Social Amnesia, you will see various moves by other psychiatrists and intellectuals (essentially happiness coaches) to evade Freud's pessimistic evaluation of man's lot.

For a long time it was a veritable industry to outdo Freud, to do better than him, and I don't think anyone was able to improve on him, though there are many who dislike his message (if they ever got his message to begin with).

To get reality into the Ego space, which could be the space of reason, is so, so difficult, since from "above" it tends to be "contaminated" by Super Ego, and from below subject to the upswelling urges of sex and aggression.

When I mention the "Weltschmerz" book by Beiser, I do not mean to say that Freud is the same as Schopenhauer, etc. Freud was his own person, he had his own theories and so on, so I mention the Weltschmerz book only to give historical context.

See:

Social Amnesia: A Critique of Contemporary Psychology, Russell Jacoby (Beacon Press, 1975; Transaction, 1997) Available Internet Archive. This book comes at the end of Freud studies, not at the beginning. Neo-Freudian in this book is not a good thing, but is seen as a corruption of Freud.

Weltschmerz, Pessimism in German Philosophy, 1860-1900 Frederick C. Beiser.

The Freud Reader, Peter Gay ed., many reprints, and in many libraries. https://www.amazon.com/Freud-Reader-Sigmund/dp/0393314030#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div

A good Encyclopedia of Psychology in the Reference section of a library can save time in mastering Freud on Oedipus.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    Can't agree with recently added last para. The original Sophocles play has a sheer quality of terror-buildup that no explanation/exegisis can match. Unless you mean Freud on Oedipus? – Rusi-packing-up Aug 11 '19 at 15:17
  • @Rusi I agree with you, and I have made an edit. – Gordon Aug 11 '19 at 15:27
  • "Any move away from Freud is going to be...a reduction in human scope." How do you figure that? For example, Sartre departs from Freud by denying the existence of the unconscious--how does he thereby reduce human scope? – transitionsynthesis Sep 5 '19 at 23:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.