Psyche, Health, Reason

It is unclear if Freud's Id-Ego-Superego model of the Psyche is intended to correspond in some respect to Aristotle's Vegetative-Animal-Rational model.  Regardless, the latter includes a component that is significantly absent in the former.  For, Aristotle also offers a definition of Psychic Health--Balance, achieved via the application of a Rational principle, i. e. a Mean, to the Animal pursuit of apparent Goods.  In contrast, while Health in specific cases may be obvious, e. g. a limb no longer paralyzed, Freud offers no general concept of it constituted by some configuration of the three elements.  Nor, because there is no indication in it of a corresponding respect for Reason, there is no obvious translation of Aristotle's criterion into Freud's model.  So, in the absence of any inhering concept of Health, Freudian Psychoanalysis remains susceptible to extrinsic conditioning, e. g. irrational Capitalist norms.

Psyche and Phenomenalism

Freud's representation of reproductive processes as Libido or Eros is that of Organism as Psyche, and is a reduction of Biology to Psychology.  It is, thus, a species of Phenomenalism, like, notably, Hume's concept of the Self as a bundle of perceptions.  Now, as has been previously discussed, the World, according to Phenomenalism is 'in me', which, hence, entails an Atomist concept of society that is conducive to Capitalism.  Thus, not only Freud's concept of the individual human, but Marcuse's variation of it, as well, entails some latent, and perhaps unwonted, ideology.

Psyche and Health

The drives in Freud's Id are governed by a Vitalist principle--to eat, to drink, to reproduce, etc--of which 'Pleasure' is a superficial manifestation.  Accordingly, the governing principle of the Ego is Health, which seeks the optimum coordination and success of those drives, in which 'Reality' is a factor.  Now, in a Hobbesian scenario, the Superego is antagonistic to that Health, but in a well-ordered society, it is simply a dimension of it, i. e. the part of a healthy Ego that seeks integration into society, regardless of any conflicts.  So, it is unclear if Freud's concept of Psyche is of a healthy one, and, hence, if the use of it as a diagnostic tool is conducive to Health.

Pleasure and Principle

According to Freud, the Id is governed by the Pleasure Principle, though he leaves the concept of Pleasure unanalyzed, thereby obscuring several potential problems.  First, he does not distinguish between excitation and satiation.  Second, he does not consider, as Spinoza and Nietzsche argue, that Pleasure is merely the subjective aspect of an objective condition--an increase in strength.  Third, Nietzsche's concept of the Will to Power as seeking a "discharge of strength", which is evocative of male sexual processes, suggests that the sexual drive not be subsumed with those that seek "gratification", which evokes receptivity.  Finally, Schopenhauer suggests that Pleasure is a ruse of Nature that lures humans into doing something that they would otherwise avoid--engage in reproductive acts.  In each of the cases, Pleasure is exposed as equivocal or derivative, and, hence, as inadequate as a principle.

Art, Libido, Eros

Freud conceives Art to be the product of the sublimation of repressed sexual desire.  Now, the case of a prodigy like Mozart does not easily exemplify such a complicated process.  The more general problem with the formulation is that while it likely applies to Libido, it might not apply to Eros.  For, while both are interpretations of sexual desire, he does occasionally characterize the latter as a creative drive, which suggests a contrast between ejaculation and impregnation.  But, propagation is merely a special case of Creativity, from which other varieties are independent.  Thus, the production of Art can be a direct expression of Eros, not a sublimation of Libido, with the former the more plausible analysis of an otherwise underdeveloped child prodigy.

Sex, Reproduction, Humans

One characteristic that seems to distinguish the human species from others is its obsession with sex.  For most organisms, reproduction is one biological function among several, occurring with regularity, e. g.  mating season, occasionally involving idle genital stimulation, e. g. dogs.  In sharp contrast, according to one predominant theological tradition, the entire human species has been cursed because of some genital exposure, replaced by the Freudian myth according to which a person's entire life is determined by early-age psycho-sexual events.  Now, the insubstantiality of that myth is exposed by comparing its concept of 'sexual repression' with the concrete numerical restriction of reproduction in some societies.  Still, for the most part, the Freudian liberation of Sex from its theological denigration has led to the equally hyperbolic alternative to the vilification of Sex--its glorification, to which even Marcuse succumbs.  The common characterization of the instincts in question as 'animal' is thus quite ironic.

Eros and Libido

Freud's distinction between Eros and Libido follows in the tradition of that between 'love' and 'lust', and between divinely sanctioned and divinely forbidden.  These are various characterizations given the manifestation of one and the same reproductive mechanism, varying according to gender, of course.  In other words, unless Freud has an empirical basis for the distinction, it likely comes from his Superego, an interiorization of a contingent social norm, and, thus, a medium of repression that has infected his diagnostic tools.