Ok so after a couple of days of intense discussions with friends about various stuff, i came up with the following thought: People’s mindset is a mixture of the homo economicus and sexuality.
By “sexuality” is meant the sum of all desires that do not result from immediate economic pressures, such as things that don’t result in money or physical possessions of any sort. According to some 20th century psychologist “Freud” basically all art is the transformed sexuality of people. The english wikipedia article states it badly because it says that this process only happens because the original sexual urge is suppressed or not allowed, while the german literature speaks of it more neutrally, as something that just happens. There’s also a lot of similar concepts such as eros which say:
Eros (/ˈɪərɒs/, US: /ˈɛrɒs, irɒs, -oʊs/; from Ancient Greek ἔρως (érōs) ‘love, desire’) is a concept in ancient Greek philosophy referring to sensual or passionate love, from which the term erotic is derived. Eros has also been used in philosophy and psychology in a much wider sense, almost as an equivalent to “life energy”. Psychoanalysis uses the term to describe the universal desire that drives all innate needs (of the id), which according to Freud is identical to Plato’s conception.
So the process goes something like that: you want to impress the girl next door, but to do that, you need to create some artwork to show her that you’re worthy, thus creating art as a byproduct, which is exactly what is meant: “all art is the result of transformed sexuality”.
You must log in or # to comment.
The second I hear Freud, my instinct is to instantly disassociate. I’m not a fan of enlightenment era political thought, but I’ll try to engage.
“Homo economicus”, the idea that people act in their own economic self interest makes far too many assumptions about people’s goals and simply isn’t seen in reality. I’d say people usually want peace of mind of SOME kind. Some (like my parents) can interpret that as economic independence in the form of generational wealth, but people can interpret that DRASTICALLY differently. I see our wealth and status as land lords as a curse, where a simple family dispute can end in a random unrelated person losing their home, the polar opposite of “peace of mind” in my book. If you look around especially outside your socioeconomic sphere, you will find exceptionally diverse opinions on this, I’d consider my take still within some semblance of a “norm”.
And if you redefine “desire” as “sexuality” then it’s hardly surprising that what you now call “sexuality” reflects the desire behind one’s “mindset”. I fail to see how this is anything but word play that just makes modern people confused, considering you’re invoking a meaning that is divorced from said word by countless generations, cultures and even languages. In my personal case, my sexual, romantic and intellectual desires have little to no overlap and therefore I find it useful to describe them as such. Their only commonality is that in practice I’d prefer my romantic partner to be able to meet me in the other 2 domains, but I can get both without a romantic partner and vice verse.
Some (like my parents) can interpret that as economic independence in the form of generational wealth, but people can interpret that DRASTICALLY differently. I see our wealth and status as land lords as a curse, where a simple family dispute can end in a random unrelated person losing their home, the polar opposite of “peace of mind” in my book. If you look around especially outside your socioeconomic sphere, you will find exceptionally diverse opinions on this, I’d consider my take still within some semblance of a “norm”.
Hmm yeah i fully agree with this. I personally don’t really want to be “rich” or wealthy beyond what i need to live myself. Sadly, we live in a world where we can only live a somewhat good life if we have enough wealth to do that. Which is sad, if it weren’t for modern circumstances, i’d consider being a vagabond or otherwise rather poor person just to travel around, do silly things, meet other people, that’s it.
Freud and his consequences.
How would you explain people who make art but don’t show it to people
I see art as a complex form of self expression that naturally came about as humanity attempted to express more complex thought.
Masturbation
That’s the worst part about Freud; everything can somehow be translated into his goofy ass worldview. It was all a self serving excuse to see everyone else as a perverted weirdo so he feels better about his own kinks.
Yep. In psych class they teach Freud as part of the history of psychology as a discipline and the history of psych theory. His theory sucked, and in the time since his popularity we’ve developed a plethora of better theories through which to view and understand psych issues.
Meh I don’t know. Both concepts are pretty weak imho. homo economicus is basically a spherical cow. Whereas Fraudian psychoanalysis is what modern researchers have come to call “bullshit”. Are you trying to define people in an “essence of humanity” kind of way, or in a “ugh people nowadays are so” kind of way?
By “sexuality” is meant the sum of all desires that do not result from immediate economic pressures, such as things that don’t result in money or physical possessions of any sort.
Okay, was there maybe a better word to describe that phenomenon. Like, “desire”? Because my sexuality usually involves someone cumming.
But seriously, if you want to read psychoanalyst literature that fucks your brain, maybe try something more recent than Freud. Like Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze & Guattari.
Just don’t ask Deleuze & Guattari about schizophrenia. Anti-Oedipus is good is some regards but it has real flaws.
From what I got through, they mostly seem gleeful that schizophrenics fuck over Freud’s theories rather than concerned with the problems of actual schizophrenics. They kind of redefine the term to talk about their point on the fluidity of desire and self.
Mostly persuasive, but I’m not sure I really believe in homo economicus. I think it’s more something like that quote misattributed to Oscar Wilde: “Everything in human life is really about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.”
If you define all desire as sexual then of course art is sexual too, no? Aside from that, commissions are art too, and yet they are driven by economical factors. Similalry, sexual drives can influence economic decisions (alpha male scam is all about that for example). It might be so that those nitpicks are mostly results of me not fully getting your point (because to be fair I also don’t see what’s revolutionary about it), but either one of us has to get better at communicating (it might be me, idk)
As a side note, you might enjoy Schopenhauer’s theory of aesthetics, there are some parallels here (I forgor what was the text tho)
yeah, commissions are an interesting point, i gotta think about that.
