Fear of Freedom, by Erich Fromm

[mabar]

I had been reading Fear of Freedom, by Erich Fromm, , anyone had read it?, , it a psycological study of facism, had read here and there about authoritarians, I am "flapping" TheAuthoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, a little US biased? to my liking ... one should know more about US culture/people/tendencies to grasp it, and I lack knowledge about US culture, so then I got -I think, the idea- but not quite. Of curse, I just flapp it, had not read it yet. In "Fear of Freedom" I had been grasping more why -possible- nations/people/mass tend to follow or be authoritarians, cannot exclude myself since I am part of the system, but had been interesting observing my behaviours Erich Fromm mentions at the book. And while reading the essay, want to read his other book "The Sane Society", but first end this one, read the authoritarians one, Wave 94 and, Human Cosmic Connection and, "never ending" list :P

Reading about masochims and saddism without the sexual context was interesting, had underlined many pages that want to post, but will be in another time.

I had not end it yet, and had not writting skills, so had found this accurate review and essay to post it here :

Possibly most important psychological text written
By A Customer on 19 Mar. 2006
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
This is an important work, one of the greatest book I've read to date on social psychology and possibly psychology per se for both the insights it provides into people and the ease of reading to the general reader or psychologist alike.

In the main Fromm's wrote books for as wide a readership as possible aiming to avoid jargon or a convoluted or difficult style of writing, I believe will prove interesting, easy reading for the general reader as much as students of psychology or academics.

The book begins with consideration of freedom as a psychological problem, why has the concept lost its once popular appeal? Why has this once inspiring, hopeful and visionary concept fallen so far out of favour that people actively seek ways of surrendering their freedom?

Fromm continues with an investigation of how the concept of freedom has developed since medieval times and the reformation. There are chapters on the psychology of Nazism, freedom and democracy and facets of freedom for modern man. Most importantly there is investigation of how people seek to escape freedom through authoritarianism, destructiveness and conformity.

Fromm's considers not simply the political and public life, how authoritarian leaders and movements often win the support of the people who are least likely to benefit from their success or may even suffer by their success but also individual relationships, such as the perpetrators and those who submit to domestic violence.

[bT]he depiction of "caring" sadists, incapable of independence from the very "objects" of their persecution, torment and control freakery, or masochists who relish the dependency of others while appearing to be the greatest advocates for the powerless and unfortunate is intriguing.[/b]

As Fromm suggests not a few reformers and revolutionaries fit that profile, he elaborates on this in The Dogma of Christ: And Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture (Routledge Classics) when he considers the characters of rebels and revolutionaries.

In this book Fromm concentrates upon description rather than prescription, unlike To Have or to be? or The Sane Society (Routledge Classics). There are no quick fixes or solutions proposed here, at least not in the sense of structural adjustments or social reform agendas, but it does suggest insights that make life less baffling.

A book that deserves to be read and reread, reaching as wide a possible readership as it can. One thing is for sure, you cant read this book and remain unchanged.

Found this essay quite interesting as well:

VICKI DAGOSTINO & ROBERT LAKE
2. FROMM’S DIALECTIC OF FREEDOM AND THE PRAXIS OF BEING

Positive freedom, according to Fromm’s definition, is the capacity for “spontaneous relationship to man and nature, a relationship that connects the individual with the world without eliminating his individuality” (1941, p. 29). Negative freedom according to Fromm exists in dialectical relationship to this as “freedom from” (1941, p. 34) external restraints that limit the exercise of free will. To illustrate the nature of this dialectic, Fromm uses the example of freedom of speech as an example of negative freedom as the “growth of freedom outside ourselves” (p. 105) without external restraints of authoritarian force. The other dimension to this dialectic is positive freedom, viewed here by Fromm as the ability to “think originally (p. 105) and creatively express newly formed ideas. Fromm’s description of negative and positive freedom together as one holistic entity, is positively Hegelian, in that it negates Cartesian dualist separations of mind and body, objective and subjective forms of reality. Like the act of riding a bicycle, the way to maintain balance is to sustain forward motion through pedaling, steering, leaning and counter leaning. Similarly, Fromm’s use of Hegel’s notion of dialectical thought is best understood in the motion of practice. It is not a ‘method’ or a set of principles” (Spencer & Krauze, 1999, p.78) but as in the bike analogy, there are specific acts of “being” that make use of and keep balanced both aspects of freedom. In this chapter, we view the dialectic of freedom in the unity of negative freedom as “freedom from” outward, individual, limitations of unjust, inhumane and destructive conditions and positive freedom, which is the ability to create, to imagine and “be” free within yourself as well as with others and nature in ways that transcend alienation.

FROMM ON CAPITALISM AND ALIENATION
Freedom has a twofold meaning for modern man: that he has been freed from traditional authorities and has become an ‘individual,’ but that at the same time he has become isolated, powerless and an instrument of purposes outside of himself, alienated from himself and others; furthermore, that this state undermines his self, weakens and frightens him, and makes him ready for submission to new kinds of bondage. Positive freedom on the other hand is identical with the full realization of the individual’s potentialities, together with his ability to live actively and spontaneously. (Fromm, 1941/1994, p. 268)

According to Fromm, our goal as humans is to be free and to live authentically. Historically, becoming free has meant being left alone to choose for ourselves; to have the right to think and act according to our own desires. Yet, what has happened is that even as modern man has achieved this negative freedom (freedom “from”) he has failed to become fully free. This is because he has failed to appropriate both positive and negative freedom because, psychologically, he fears freedom. This fear of freedom leads him to attempt to escape from freedom by responding in one of three ways: a) by looking for security outside of himself again, in terms of looking for an authoritative person, belief system, or other external power source, to relieve them of the responsibility of being free (masochism), or (b) seeking to become the authority over others so that they do not feel so alone (sadism), or (c) falling into mindless (automoton) conformity. Fromm states, “In our effort to escape from aloneness and powerlessness, we are ready to get rid of our individual self either by submission to new forms of authority or by a compulsive conforming to accepted patterns” (1941, p. 134). The crucial need in Fromm’s day as well as today is to move towards a productive orientation towards life that will fulfill the feelings of aloneness, isolation, alienation, and separation. This requires providing a positive solution for the psychic need for relatedness. This human need must be addressed in order for people to fully appropriate positive freedom in loving relationships and productive work. To be truly free.

We must be both sociologically free from external oppression and psychologically free from the fear of freedom that leads us back into oppressive relationships. Given that we have achieved to a large degree the former, we must begin to acknowledge and fully claim the latter. If we want to reclaim a sane society, we must not only create the external conditions for sanity, but we must help develop the internal conditions which will reinforce the sane society. Fromm goes into great detail in the beginning chapters of Escape from Freedom (1941) to demonstrate that “The breakdown of the medieval system of feudal society had one main significance for all classes of society: the individual was left alone and isolated” (p. 99). Yes, he was free, in the sense of being free from traditional bonds, however, this freedom had a twofold result.

Man was deprived of the security he had enjoyed, of the unquestionable feeling of belonging, and he was torn loose from the world which had satisfied his quest for security both economically and spiritually. He felt alone and anxious. But he was also free to act and to think independently, to become his own master and do with his life as he could—not as he was told to do. (p. 99) Hence, the new religious doctrines of Luther and Calvin gave expression to the feelings of isolation which resulted from the loss of the sense of belonging and security which had been in place in feudal times. “Protestantism was the answer to the human needs of the frightened, uprooted, and isolated individual who had to orient and relate himself to a new world” (p. 99). [/b]

The effect of the industrial system on this kind of inner freedom, Fromm suggests, has affected the development of the entire human personality. Fromm contends that capitalism has outwardly freed man spiritually, mentally, socially, politically, and economically. For instance, under the feudal system the limits of one’s life were determined even before he was born; whereas under the capitalist system, “the individual, particularly the member of the middle class, had a chance – in spite of many limitations – to succeed on the basis of his own merits and actions” (1941, p. 107). Man, under the capitalist system learned to “rely on himself, to make responsible decisions, to give up both soothing and terrifying superstitions … [he] became free from mystifying elements; [he] began to see himself objectively and with fewer and fewer illusions” (i.e., to become critically conscious), and hence he became increasingly free from traditional bonds, he became free to become more. As this freedom “from” grew, positive freedom (the growth of an active, critical, responsible self) also advanced. However, capitalism also had other effects on the process of growing freedom as well. “It made the individual more alone and isolated and imbued him with a feeling of insignificance and powerlessness” (1941, p. 108). It also increased doubt and skepticism, and all of these factors made man more anxious about freedom. The principle of individualist activity characteristic of a capitalistic economy put the individual on his own feet. Whereas under the feudal system of the Middle Ages, everyone had a fixed place in an ordered and transparent social system, under capitalism, if one was unable to stand on his own two feet, he failed, and it was entirely his own affair.

That this principle furthered the process of individualization is obvious and is always mentioned as an important item on the credit side of modern culture. But in furthering ‘freedom from,’ this principle helped to sever all ties between one individual and the other and thereby isolated and separated the individual from his fellow men. (1941, p. 93)

The results of capitalism (the increasing freedom “from” and the strength of the individual character which it built) has led people to assume that modern man is “the center and purpose of all activity, that what he does he does for himself, that the principle of self-interest and egotism are the all-powerful motivations of human activity” (Fromm, 1941, p. 109) He goes onto sat that “much of what seemed to him to be his purpose was not his” (p. 109). Rather, the capital that he earned and created no longer served him—he served it. “Man became a cog in the vast economic machine … to serve a purpose outside of himself” (p. 110). Man became a servant to the very machines he built, which gave him a feeling of personal insignificance and powerlessness. Those who did not have capital (like the middle class) and had to sell their labor to earn a living suffered similar psychological effects, according to Fromm, because they too, were merely cogs in the great economic machine, and hence instruments of “suprapersonal economic factors.”

--- for some reason cannot see a couple of the pages of the essay ... so there is something lacking.

In a powerful book called Education and The Significance of Life
(1953), Jiddu Krishnamurti beautifully sums up Fromm’s point about the relationship between love of oneself, love of others, and freedom. He states, “Self-knowledge is the beginning of freedom, and it is only when we know ourselves that we can bring about order and peace” (p. 52). He further adds that “if we want to change existing conditions, we must first transform ourselves, which means that we must become aware of our own actions, thoughts and feelings in everyday life” (p. 68). Hence, Krishnamurti concludes: If we are to bring about a true revolution in human relationship, which is the basis of all society, there must be a fundamental change in our own values and outlook; but we avoid the necessary and fundamental transformation of ourselves, and try to bring about political revolutions in the world, which always leads to bloodshed and disaster. (pp. 53-54) Like Fromm, Krishnamurti (1953) stresses inner transformation as one important part of the man’s relationship with others because “It is the inward strife which, projected outwardly [which] becomes the world conflict” (p. 77). He, like Fromm, fears that “most of us are afraid to tear down the present society and build a completely new structure, for this would require a radical transformation of ourselves” (p. 80). He states:

If we are to change radically our present human relationship, which has brought untold misery to the world, our only and immediate task is to transform ourselves through self-knowledge. So we come back to the central point, which is oneself; but we dodge that point and shift the responsibility onto government, religions, and ideologies. The government is what we are, religions and ideologies are but a projection of ourselves; and until we change fundamentally there can be neither right education nor a peaceful world. (p. 80-81)

Love of self and of others is vital for the flourishing of a productive life of true positive freedom. While it is important to develop critical consciousness in the Freirean sense (a consciousness of oppression and its causes), these notions are not sufficient to create a truly liberated person. Political revolution on the sociological side alone will not cure the ills of society without an internal awareness that merges self-love and love for others in a productive way

InThe Sane Society (1955) Fromm integrates the psychological and the sociological dimensions of these conditions. According to Fromm, Americans have lost sight of intrinsic values as a consequence of the Capitalist mode of production and a focus on individual freedom. He says that a “ healthy society furthers man’s capacity to love his fellow men, to work creatively, to develop his reason and objectivity, to have a sense of self which is based on the experience of his own productive powers” (p. 72). However, the capitalistic principle that each individual seeks his own profit and thus contributes to the happiness of all, (which became the guiding principle of human behavior in the 19
th century, and which became corrupted further into individual competitiveness over the course of the 20th century onto the present time), has decreased the role of human solidarity through the inordinate obsession of having. Thus the quest for positive freedom that is spontaneously created through loving relatedness to self and others is destroyed by a focus on possessing and acquisition as a means to overcome alienation, when in actuality it leads to more alienation from self and others.

BEING AND POSITIVE FREEDOM
The having mode is the source of the lust for power and leads to isolation and fear and that the being mode is the source of productive love and activity and leads to solidarity and joy. In the being mode of existence, one responds spontaneously and productively and has the courage to take risks in order to give birth to new ideas. Our real goal, Fromm (1976) believes that the distinction between having and being “represents the most crucial problem of existence” today (p. 4). These two “fundamental modes of existence” are two different kinds of character structure the respective predominance of which determines the totality of a person’s thinking, feeling, and acting” (p. 12). Fromm further explains that in the having mode of existence our “ relationship to the world is one of possessing and owning, one in which I want to make everybody and everything, including myself, my property” (p. 12). The self is defined by what one has. The being mode of existence, on the other hand, refers to the mode of existence in which “one neither has anything nor craves to have something, but is joyous, employs one’s faculties productively, and is oned to the world” (p. 6). Like a fish in the water, being “oned” to the world (yes he transforms a noun into a verb) is the environment in which positive freedom spontaneously thrives in creative presence. In Fromm’s writing, he consistently refers to Meister Eckhart, whom he calls “one of the great masters of living” (1976, p. 74). Fromm describes Eckhart’s explanation for the relation between possession and freedom. Eckhart wrote that “freedom is restricted to the extent to which we are bound to possession, works, and lastly, to our own egos … By being bound to our egos, we stand in our own way and are blocked from bearing fruit, from realizing ourselves fully” (Eckhart cited in Fromm, 1976, pp. 51-52). Eckhart’s concept of not having is that “we should be free from our own things and our own actions. This does not mean that we should neither possess anything nor do anything; it means that we should not be bound, tied, chained to what we own and what we have, not even God” (as cited in Fromm, 1976, p. 51). “Being to Eckhart, means to be active in the classic sense of the productive expression of one’s human powers, not in the modern sense of being busy” (1976, p. 53). Fromm believes that “Breaking through the mode of having is the condition for all genuine activity” (1976, p. 54).

Consequently, we crave to fill the emptiness of not loving the self by domination or submission to others, and by seeking to possess things which we believe will make us more valuable as persons. A being based orientation then is based in love of self/others, productive creativity which is in essence the very nature of positive freedom. But can one learn to “to be?” Are there choices that we can make and actions to be taken that like the bicycle analogy might create and sustain the momentum of the dialectic of freedom through being? After briefly exploring Fromm’s praxis of being, we will conclude by returning to this question.

...

THE PRAXIS OF BEING AND POSITIVE FREEDOM

Love, reason, and productive activity are one’s own psychic forces that arise and grow only to the extent that they are practiced; They cannot be consumed, bought or possessed like the objects of having, but can only be practiced, ventured upon, performed. (Funk cited in Fromm, 1992, pp. 8-9)

We began this chapter with Fromm’s definition of positive freedom and an example of the dialectic of ‘freedom from’ and ‘freedom unto’ applied to freedom of speech. In paraphrase, one can be free of unjust laws that prohibit freedom of speech but still have nothing worth saying (negative freedom). Yet the social political conditions derived from this freedom create external conditions to further inward freedom. Hopefully both aspects will result in the spontaneous formation of new thoughts, words and actions that can create inward freedom and connectedness to others (positive freedom). The summary of actions in the above section, singularity of focus, awakeness, awareness and the practice of inward quietness that leads to a lifestyle of mediation are all aspects of the kind transformative praxis that can provide the environment for the growth of positive freedom.

When all these “steps” are considered as one holistic practice, it helps us envision how we might apply them to Fromm’s example of negative/positive freedom of speech. First of all the ability to focus on one thing, is not so much a matter of mind over matter exertion. It is a matter of yielding to curiosity, or ideas that grow on the more you give yourself to them. This leads to singularity of intent and a quest to discover more. In the process, awakeness, awareness, rejection of the given will hopefully lead to the quietness of incubation. Remember, it is a matter of yielding, of bringing to birth. It is in the inner quiet of incubation that connections between past experience and new created thoughts are formed.

In order for these networks to be established, time for reflection is essential and can occur in many forms. Sometimes incubation occurs in a half dream state of sleep or while driving, walking or gardening. The mathematicians Changeux and Connes (1995) give an excellent summary of the incubation process that is worth noting here. The process begins with focused conscious intention followed by a period of setting this direct concentration aside. There must be a time allowance for germination or incubation. Often an unexpected solution will make itself known. This is followed up with a time of critical assessment (pp. 75-79). The process they describe parallels well with Fromm’s praxis of being.

It is worth returning at this point to the emphasis in Fromm’s definition of positive freedom as the ability to spontaneously connect to others. Steps toward being have a relational/horizontal dimension as well as an individual/vertical dimension. One example of how both aspects might be experienced out of the above mentioned steps might be discovered through an enhanced ability to ask questions of others in ways that draw out personal narratives, that break through presumptions and prejudices that result in forming new bonds and relationships.

Yes there are actions that can be taken in “being” which can lead to a lifestyle of singularly focused awakened, awareness, where inner clamor gives way to new thoughts and original ideas, practical ways to be productive, to relate to others in the quality of love of self and others that Fromm sees as essential to positive freedom. As in the bike riding analogy, the dialectic of freedom in motion uses and overcomes the gravity of alienation and maintains the outward/inward balance of both aspects of freedom through productive love of self and others in the praxis of being. Erich Fromm maintains that the achievement of the ideals of knowledge, brotherly love, reduction of suffering, independence, and responsibility, constitute the most fundamental conditions for happiness and freedom. Indeed, as Fromm (1950) contends, these are essentially the fundamental ideals which comprise the ethical core of all great philosophies on which Eastern and Western culture are based (1950). Because these norms are considered so fundamental to human development, they should increasingly become the focus of our shared culture in ways that inspire each of us in our journey toward the unfolding of our full potential as individuals in a positively free democracy.

REFERENCES
Changeux, J., & Connes, A. (1995).
Conversations on mind, matter, and math
. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Freire, P. (1974).
Education for critical consciousness.
New York, NY: Seabury Press. Fromm, E. (1941/1994).
Escape from freedom.
New York, NY: Henry Holt. Fromm, E. (1947).
Man for himself.
Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications. Inc. Fromm, E. (1955).
The Sane Society.
New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. Fromm, E. (1956).
The Art of Loving
. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Fromm, E. (1976).
To have or to be
? New York, NY: Bantam. Fromm, E. (1992).
The art of being.
New York, NY: Continuum. Hegel, G. W. F. (1840/1991).
The philosophy of history
(J. Sibree, Trans.). New York, NY: Prometheus Books. Krishnamurti, J. (1953).
Education & the significance of life
. San Francisco, CA: Harper. Snauwaert, D. (2001).
Rediscovering the lost dimension of education:7 Toward a pedagogy of being
. Paper presented at the IX International Conference on Holistic Education. Guadalajara, Mexico, November 16, 2001. Spencer, L., & Krauze, A. (1999).
Introducing Hegel.
Cambridge Icon Books.

 

[Yas]

Hi mabar,

Erich Fromm was my favourite writer before I found Cassiopaea! :D

I think he had a clue, but he missed the psychopathy aspect. His books are really interesting, he's got one called "The Art of Loving" which is an excellent short book, and also one called "To Have or To Be" which is very good as well.

I read "Fear of Freedom" when I was at achool and I became really interested in his work. I think he makes an excellent job matching the social, cultural history with the development psychology by Mahler, and making sense of how we came to be what we are now. Yet, the missing factor is there, which is psychopathy, and that brings him to make conclusions that have some holes in them, IMO

I actually enjoyed that book so much that I would read it again, because it has very interesting data, OSIT. Plus, I lost all my notes I had made in that time.

I would recommend "The Art of Loving" to everyone. It is short and really well-written, and it explains why we aren't capable of real Love because of what we have become as a society.

I'll paste some quotes here:

“Love is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision.”

“Is love an art? Then it requires knowledge and effort. Love is not a spontaneous feeling, a thing that you fall into, but is something that requires thought, knowledge, care, giving, and respect. And it is something that is rare and difficult to find in capitalism, which commodifies human activity. ”

“Love isn't something natural. Rather it requires discipline, concentration, patience, faith, and the overcoming of narcissism. It isn't a feeling, it is a practice."

"The main condition for the achievement of love is the overcoming of one's narcissism. The narcissistic orientation is one in which one experiences as real only that which exists within oneself, while the phenomena in the outside world have no reality in themselves, but are experienced only from the viewpoint of their being useful or dangerous to one. The opposite pole to narcissism is objectivity; it is the faculty to see other people and things as they are, objectively, and to be able to separate this objective picture from a picture which is formed by one's desires and fears.”

“The faculty to think objectively is reason; the emotional attitude behind reason is that of humility. To be objective, to use one's reason, is possible only if one has achieved an attitude of humility, if one has emerged from the dreams of omniscience and omnipotence which one has as a child. Love, being dependent on the relative absence of narcissism, requires the developement of humility, objectivity and reason.

I must try to see the difference between my picture of a person and his behavior, as it is narcissistically distorted, and the person's reality as it exists regardless of my interests, needs and fears.”

“Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an ordination of character which determines the relatedness of the person to the whole world as a whole, not toward one object of love”

“If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism.”

“What does one person give to another? He gives of himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his life. This does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices his life for the other - but that he gives him of that which is alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of his sadness -- of all expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life, he enriches the other person, he enhances the other's sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving is in itself exquisite joy. But in giving he cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him.”

“Giving is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving, I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. This experience of heightened vitality and potency fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.”

“A person who has not been completely alienated, who has remained sensitive and able to feel, who has not lost the sense of dignity, who is not yet "for sale", who can still suffer over the suffering of others, who has not acquired fully the having mode of existence - briefly, a person who has remained a person and not become a thing - cannot help feeling lonely, powerless, isolated in present-day society. He cannot help doubting himself and his own convictions, if not his sanity. He cannot help suffering, even though he can experience moments of joy and clarity that are absent in the life of his "normal" contemporaries. Not rarely will he suffer from neurosis that results from the situation of a sane man living in an insane society, rather than that of the more conventional neurosis of a sick man trying to adapt himself to a sick society. In the process of going further in his analysis, i.e. of growing to greater independence and productivity,his neurotic symptoms will cure themselves.”

“That millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.”

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. 'Patriotism' is its cult... Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”

“It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas and feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing on reason or mental health.”

“Modern man has transformed himself into a commodity; he experiences his life energy as an investment with which he should make the highest profit, considering his position and the situation on the personality market. He is alienated from himself, from his fellow men and from nature. His main aim is profitable exchange of his skills, knowledge, and of himself, his "personality package" with others who are equally intent on a fair and profitable exchange. Life has no goal except the one to move, no principle except the one of fair exchange, no satisfaction except the one to consume.”

“We should free ourselves from the narrowness of being related only to those familiar to us, either by the fact that they are blood relations or, in a larger sense, that we eat the same food, speak the same language, and have the same “ common sense.” Knowing men in the sense of compassionate and empathetic knowledge requires that we get rid of the narrowing ties of a given society, race or culture and penetrate to the depth of that human reality in which we are all nothing but human. True compassion and knowledge of man has been largely underrated as a revolutionary factor in the development of man, just as art has been. It is a noteworthy phenomenon that in the development of capitalism and its ethics, compassion (or mercy) ceases to be a virtue.”

“We forget that, although freedom of speech constitutes an important victory in the battle against old restraints, modern man is in a position where much of what "he" thinks and says are the things that everybody else thinks and says; that he has not acquired the ability to think originally - that is, for himself - which alone gives meaning to his claim that nobody can interfere with the expression of his thoughts.”

“Reason flows from the blending of rational thought and feeling. If the two functions are torn apart, thinking deteriorates into schizoid intellectual activity and feeling deteriorates into neurotic life-damaging passions.”

“The whole life of the individual is nothing but the process of giving birth to himself; indeed, we should be fully born when we die - although it is the tragic fate of most individuals to die before they are born.”

“Freedom is not a constant attribute which we either "have" or "have not." In fact, there is no such thing as "freedom" except as a word and an abstract concept. There is only one reality: the act of freeing ourselves in the process of making choices. In this process the degree of our capacity to make choices varies with each act, with our practice of life.”

 

[Mr. Premise]

That's an amazing excerpt, Yas, thanks for posting it.

 

[riclapaz]

That's an amazing excerpt, Yas, thanks for posting it.

I second this, I found several books in Spanish of Erich Fromm, thanks to Mabar and Yas by the recommendations, will stack readings

 

[Joe]

“Love is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision.”

“Is love an art? Then it requires knowledge and effort. Love is not a spontaneous feeling, a thing that you fall into, but is something that requires thought, knowledge, care, giving, and respect. And it is something that is rare and difficult to find in capitalism, which commodifies human activity. ”

“Love isn't something natural. Rather it requires discipline, concentration, patience, faith, and the overcoming of narcissism. It isn't a feeling, it is a practice."

"The main condition for the achievement of love is the overcoming of one's narcissism. The narcissistic orientation is one in which one experiences as real only that which exists within oneself, while the phenomena in the outside world have no reality in themselves, but are experienced only from the viewpoint of their being useful or dangerous to one. The opposite pole to narcissism is objectivity; it is the faculty to see other people and things as they are, objectively, and to be able to separate this objective picture from a picture which is formed by one's desires and fears.”

“The faculty to think objectively is reason; the emotional attitude behind reason is that of humility. To be objective, to use one's reason, is possible only if one has achieved an attitude of humility, if one has emerged from the dreams of omniscience and omnipotence which one has as a child. Love, being dependent on the relative absence of narcissism, requires the developement of humility, objectivity and reason.

I must try to see the difference between my picture of a person and his behavior, as it is narcissistically distorted, and the person's reality as it exists regardless of my interests, needs and fears.”

“Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an ordination of character which determines the relatedness of the person to the whole world as a whole, not toward one object of love”

“If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism.”

“What does one person give to another? He gives of himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his life. This does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices his life for the other - but that he gives him of that which is alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of his sadness -- of all expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life, he enriches the other person, he enhances the other's sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving is in itself exquisite joy. But in giving he cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him.”

“Giving is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving, I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. This experience of heightened vitality and potency fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.”

“A person who has not been completely alienated, who has remained sensitive and able to feel, who has not lost the sense of dignity, who is not yet "for sale", who can still suffer over the suffering of others, who has not acquired fully the having mode of existence - briefly, a person who has remained a person and not become a thing - cannot help feeling lonely, powerless, isolated in present-day society. He cannot help doubting himself and his own convictions, if not his sanity. He cannot help suffering, even though he can experience moments of joy and clarity that are absent in the life of his "normal" contemporaries. Not rarely will he suffer from neurosis that results from the situation of a sane man living in an insane society, rather than that of the more conventional neurosis of a sick man trying to adapt himself to a sick society. In the process of going further in his analysis, i.e. of growing to greater independence and productivity,his neurotic symptoms will cure themselves.”

“That millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.”

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. 'Patriotism' is its cult... Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”

“It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas and feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing on reason or mental health.”

“Modern man has transformed himself into a commodity; he experiences his life energy as an investment with which he should make the highest profit, considering his position and the situation on the personality market. He is alienated from himself, from his fellow men and from nature. His main aim is profitable exchange of his skills, knowledge, and of himself, his "personality package" with others who are equally intent on a fair and profitable exchange. Life has no goal except the one to move, no principle except the one of fair exchange, no satisfaction except the one to consume.”

“We should free ourselves from the narrowness of being related only to those familiar to us, either by the fact that they are blood relations or, in a larger sense, that we eat the same food, speak the same language, and have the same “ common sense.” Knowing men in the sense of compassionate and empathetic knowledge requires that we get rid of the narrowing ties of a given society, race or culture and penetrate to the depth of that human reality in which we are all nothing but human. True compassion and knowledge of man has been largely underrated as a revolutionary factor in the development of man, just as art has been. It is a noteworthy phenomenon that in the development of capitalism and its ethics, compassion (or mercy) ceases to be a virtue.”

“We forget that, although freedom of speech constitutes an important victory in the battle against old restraints, modern man is in a position where much of what "he" thinks and says are the things that everybody else thinks and says; that he has not acquired the ability to think originally - that is, for himself - which alone gives meaning to his claim that nobody can interfere with the expression of his thoughts.”

“Reason flows from the blending of rational thought and feeling. If the two functions are torn apart, thinking deteriorates into schizoid intellectual activity and feeling deteriorates into neurotic life-damaging passions.”

“The whole life of the individual is nothing but the process of giving birth to himself; indeed, we should be fully born when we die - although it is the tragic fate of most individuals to die before they are born.”

“Freedom is not a constant attribute which we either "have" or "have not." In fact, there is no such thing as "freedom" except as a word and an abstract concept. There is only one reality: the act of freeing ourselves in the process of making choices. In this process the degree of our capacity to make choices varies with each act, with our practice of life.”

Have to agree, that's rather awesomely true.

 

[ggen]

Thanks for the post Yas. Although all of it resonated, it was helpful to see this reminder:

“Freedom is not a constant attribute which we either have or have not. In fact, there is no such thing as freedom except as a word and an abstract concept. There is only one reality: the act of freeing ourselves in the process of making choices. In this process the degree of our capacity to make choices varies with each act, with our practice of life.”

 

[Yas]

Yes, he's really interesting. But he's also very fond of Freud and Marx sometimes :P Although he does criticizes some of their ideas. But, well, you know, it's always about discernment and separating "the wheat from the chaff".

I really recommend The Art of Loving and Fear of Freedom, the later has got a very interesting summary of Margareth Mahler theory of human psychological development and he applies that to human history and society. He also uses Weber's idea of Lutheranism and Calvinism being at the core of capitalist thinking, which is very interesting to read. Another interesting thing is that he always goes to the idea that human beings become automatons, and because they can't exercise their freedom and they stay undeveloped, they can become "destructive gollems" that will ultimately walk to their own destruction.

The Art of Loving does an in depth analysis of what is love, different types of love, how a capitalist society jeopardizes love and he even proposes ways of working in oneself in order to learn how to love, instead of just waiting to be loved. He says that one must learn to love and it takes effort; and that we should focus on that instead of hoping for someone who will love us.

In To Have or To Be he analyses the fact that our society is turned towards having instead of being, which is quite obvious, but he's got some interesting points on the subjetc.

Fwiw...

 

[Jacques]

I would recommend "The Art of Loving" to everyone. It is short and really well-written, and it explains why we aren't capable of real Love because of what we have become as a society.

Thanks so much Yas.

I have bought that book in 1978 and I have never took the time to read it again.

So, the time has come for a second reading.

 

[mabar]

Yes, he's really interesting. But he's also very fond of Freud and Marx sometimes :P Although he does criticizes some of their ideas. But, well, you know, it's always about discernment and separating "the wheat from the chaff".

I really recommend The Art of Loving and Fear of Freedom, the later has got a very interesting summary of Margareth Mahler theory of human psychological development and he applies that to human history and society. He also uses Weber's idea of Lutheranism and Calvinism being at the core of capitalist thinking, which is very interesting to read. Another interesting thing is that he always goes to the idea that human beings become automatons, and because they can't exercise their freedom and they stay undeveloped, they can become "destructive gollems" that will ultimately walk to their own destruction.

The Art of Loving does an in depth analysis of what is love, different types of love, how a capitalist society jeopardizes love and he even proposes ways of working in oneself in order to learn how to love, instead of just waiting to be loved. He says that one must learn to love and it takes effort; and that we should focus on that instead of hoping for someone who will love us.

In To Have or To Be he analyses the fact that our society is turned towards having instead of being, which is quite obvious, but he's got some interesting points on the subjetc.

Fwiw...

Thanks for the excerpts Yas, had not have the time to select-copy-past exceprts from Fear of Freedom book, and you are better talking about it :)

Another book to read had come in between, it is Primal Health -Understanding the critical period between conception and the first birthday, by Michael Odent, I order it basically for my sister, -she is pregnant and does not have amazon account, it arrived just recently, this one came after almost three months after an inconvenient!!, I will have to read it before I go next month to my sister's baby shower, I am one of the organizers, so I have a month to read it.

I just started, there is something that caught my attention regarding submissive behaviours.

After talking about experiments in dogs, in which were divided in two groups, in one giving electric shocks from which could do nothing to escape, and in the other group in identical cage with no shocks, same dogs later were tested in an special box divided by a barrier. In one compartment the dogs receive an electrical shock, but jumping over the barrier, the could escape the shocks. In the other compartment happend the same, but dogs that do not receive shocks earlier discovered the escape route and jump the barrier. The first group of dogs that receive shocks earlier, did not any attempt to escape. They just crunched helplessly in the electric shock compartment. Earlier he talks about the feeding moment at the nursery, mentioning that there is no point to cry because baby will receive its food anyways, the act of struggle since the beginning start to loose, the struggle in life that let us to grow ---I suppose I got identified.

The implications of these basic experiments are of paramount importance. They help u to understand just how much a person 's entire capabilities are decreased when they have no control over what happens to them, and can only passively submit. They also help us to understand that the responses of the nervous system, the hormonal system and, the immune system should never be disassociated. They form a whole.