Erich fromm, existentialism and the art of loving

The term existentialism has been obscured and dissolved in a plurality of vague and diffuse meanings due to the abuse that has been exerted on it. Thus, there is talk of an existentialist literature (Kafka, Musil) or an existentialist attitude towards life that eventually became a fashion, the one in which anti-conventionalism and a certain aesthetic prevailed in clothing contrary to " good looking ».

Introduction

As a philosophical movement, existentialism developed in Europe, first in Germany and then in France, as a result of the tremendous crisis caused by the two world wars. The world ceased to be a peaceful place and the enlightened project of a humanity that would conquer justice and social welfare with the sole force of its reason failed completely. Not even science or technique proved useful to improve the world. Man turned all knowledge into instruments of domination and devastation.

This research work is divided into three chapters: the first deals with Existentialism, the second develops Erich Fromm and the last chapter presents an Analysis of the work of this author: "The art of loving".

Chapter I

Existentialism

1.1 History of existentialism

Existentialism is a philosophical and literary movement typical of the 19th and 20th centuries, but existentialist elements can be found in the thought (and life) of Socrates, in the Bible and in the work of many philosophers and writers before the contemporary age.

1.1.1 Blaise Pascal

The 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal was the first thinker to anticipate the main concerns of modern existentialism. He rejected the vigorous rationalism of his contemporary René Descartes and, in his Thoughts on religion and on other subjects (1670), affirmed that a systematic philosophy that is considered capable of explaining God and humanity represents a form of pride. Like later existentialist writers, he viewed human life in terms of paradoxes: the human personality, combining mind and body, is itself a paradox and a contradiction.

1.1.2 Søren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, regarded as the founder of modern existentialism, reacted against the absolute and systematic idealism of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who claimed to have found a total rational understanding of humanity and history. Kierkegaard, by contrast, highlighted the ambiguity and absurdity of the human situation. The individual response to this situation must be to live a fully committed existence, and this commitment can only be understood by the individual who assumes it. The individual, therefore, must always be ready to challenge the norms of society in the name of the highest authority of an authentic type of life in the personal order. Kierkegaard called for a "change of faith" in the Christian way of life which, although incomprehensible and full of risks, was the only commitment that,he believed he could save the individual from despair.

1.1.3 Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche, unfamiliar with Kierkegaard's work, transformed later existentialist thought through his critique of traditional metaphysical and moral assumptions, and his adoption of tragic pessimism and the life-affirming individual will that opposes moral conformity of the majority. In opposition to Kierkegaard, whose attack on conventional morality led him to defend radical and independent Christianity, Nietzsche stated in Gay Science (1882) that "God is dead" and rejected the entire Judeo-Christian moral tradition in favor of the heroic pagan ideals.

1.1.4 Martin Heidegger

Heidegger, like Pascal and Kierkegaard, reacted against the attempt to base philosophy on a rationalist conclusive basis, in this case the phenomenology of the German philosopher Edmund Husserl. Heidegger, author of one of the most representative works of existentialism, Being and Time (1927), affirmed that humanity finds itself in an incomprehensible and indifferent world. Human beings cannot hope to understand why they are here; instead, each individual must choose a goal and follow it with passionate conviction, aware of the certainty of death and the ultimate meaninglessness of one's life. Heidegger contributed to existentialist thought by emphasizing being and ontology as well as language.

1.1.5 Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre, who used the term existentialism to define and qualify his own philosophy, became the great diffuser of the movement on an international scale after the end of World War II. Sartre's thought, impregnated with atheism and pessimism in an explicit way, argued that human beings need a rational basis for their lives but are incapable of obtaining it and, therefore, their existence is "useless passion". However, he insisted that existentialism is a form of humanism and highlighted freedom, choice, and human responsibility. With great literary refinement, he attempted to reconcile these existentialist concepts with a Marxist analysis of society and history. Sartre was the author of another of the key works in the history of existentialism, Being and Nothingness (1943).

1.1.6 Existentialism and theology

Despite the fact that existentialist thought encompasses the absolute atheism of Nietzsche and Sartre and the agnosticism of Heidegger, its origin in the religious meditations of Pascal and Kierkegaard heralded its great influence on theology of the 20th century. Although he rejected orthodox religious doctrines, the German philosopher Karl Jaspers influenced modern theology with his concern for the significance and limits of human experience. German Protestant theologians Paul Johannes Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann, French Catholic theologian Gabriel Marcel, Russian philosopher Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdiyev, and Jewish philosopher Martin Buber inherited many of Kierkegaard's concerns, particularly regarding the belief that a personal sense of authenticity and commitment is essential to religious faith.

1.2 Definition

Below we will quote the opinions of various authors who will outline their point of view on the developed topic: Existence.

Masoni (2007), states that modern existentialism arose in a Europe torn by the struggles between conflicting interests, where man felt threatened in his individuality, in his concrete reality. Hence its emphasis on the fundamental loneliness of the individual, on the impossibility of finding the truth through an intellectual decision, and on the irremediably personal and subjective nature of human life.

Existentialism is called a series of philosophical doctrines that, although they tend to differ radically in many points, coincide in considering that it is the existence of the human being, the free being, that defines his essence, instead of being his human essence that determines his existence.

Existentialism in philosophy. Even constituting a current of modern thought, it is possible to trace an existentialist sensibility throughout the entire history of philosophy. This is the case, for example, with the Socratic imperative "know yourself"; with Pascal's anguished imprecation, when he placed man between being and nothing; or with the defense of the irreducibility of existence to reason, formulated by the German idealist FWJ Schelling.

Ruiz (2007) explains that even though Sartre moved away from existentialism, he became famous as an existentialist and it is very likely that he is simply remembered as such.

At the end of the Second World War, the destruction and death sown by the conflict triggered the optimistic view of the progress aroused in the positivist discourse. It is there where he develops the figure of Sartre who, without having invented the term of existentialism, gives a strong presence to a philosophy that, although for some it is more an attitude than a school of thought, draws attention for addressing issues such as subjectivity, finitude, authenticity, freedom and solitude.

But a series of philosophical doctrines is called existentialism that, although they usually differ in many points, coincide in considering that it is the existence of the human being, the free being, that defines its essence, instead of its human essence that determines its existence.. For Sartre, existentialism is the philosophy that endorses the communication that "existence proceeds to the essence" but what does it really mean?

In order to understand it, let's consider the opposite "essence precedes existence" where essence means:

What is a thing The definition of thing The idea of thing The nature of the thing The function of the thing The program of the thing

According to Wikipedia (2007), existentialism is understood as a European philosophical and humanistic movement that has been attributed a realistic character; very concerned with the problems more properly inherent in the human condition, such as the absurdity of living, the issue of time, freedom, the God-man relationship, etc. Existentialism finds its clearest antecedent in the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), called the "father of existentialism". Already late in the 20th century, it was developed - never in a systematic way to fit within the so-called philosophical irrationalism - by renowned thinkers and novelists such as the French Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus and the German Martin Heidegger. These last two, however, reject that his thought is called existentialist.

The main characteristic of existentialism is the attention it pays to the concrete, individual and unique existence of man, therefore in the rejection of mere abstract and universal speculation.

The central theme of his reflection is precisely the existence of the human being, in terms of being outside (that is, in the world), of living, and especially of pathos or temperament of mind. In Heidegger's expression: "the-being-in-the-world". Heidegger, in fact, is characterized, according to some, by his deep pessimism. Consider the human being as a project (thrown) in the world. Sartre, following Heidegger, is also far from being characterized by an optimistic style and discourse; Like Heidegger, he poses the human being not only as a project, but as a project: a project in situation. However, these positions do not necessarily have to be understood as pessimistic.

It is quite rightly considered that, already in the 19th century, the Russian Fedor Dostoevsky and the Germans Schopenhauer, Max Stirner and Nietzsche are existentialists avant la lettre. And irrevocably existentialist (even if the word "existentialism" had not been coined in his time), it is, as we say, the pessimistic Søren Kierkegaard, who inaugurates what is called Christian existentialism (in this sense, even Blaise Pascal is to be considered a preceding).

Valdebenito (2004), maintains that the existentialist current of thought, as its name indicates, centered its philosophical analysis in everything concerning the evident existence of the human being, considering in vain any reference to instances outside the sensible world and whose reality could not be tested. Therefore, his method could not be other than the phenomenological, circumscribed by definition to the evident manifestations of things and completely exempt from any metaphysical implication.

In existentialism an inclination is established for the study of the individual and concrete. The individual contains the true reality, with his daily existence. It is considered the main center of existentialist philosophy, and the only point of interest. The existentialist philosopher creates a general panorama of reality, visualizes the universe through the individual. Each being is in close relationship with other realities, and the union of them results in universal truth.

The analysis must start immediately with the "existing self", we must be very clear about all the experiences that mark our lives, including those hidden data deep within our intimacy. We must describe reality in the most objective way without deviating from our consciousness and thoughts alien to our search.

Comte(2003), states that all philosophy that takes individual existence as a starting point, and not being or concept (in this sense, Pascal, Kierkegard were often considered as the precursors of existentialism), and especially, according to the famous formula of Jean - Paul Sartere, every doctrine according to which "existence precedes essence". What does it mean? That man does not possess beforehand an essence that pre-exists him and that he would be a prisoner, but that there is an author of power to be defined by no concept and that only (when it is possible to speak of his essences in the past) will be what chosen to be. That is to say, it is absolutely free: What does it mean here that existence precedes essence and means that first of all, man exists, finds himself, arises in the world, and then defines himself.If man, as existentialism conceives it, is not definable, it is by oneself, in the first place, it is nothing. Man is nothing other than what he does with himself (Existentialism is a humanism), so this current is a philosophy of freedom, in the metaphysical sense of the term, and one of the most radical that has ever occurred. Existentialism is nothing more than an imaginary humanism. In the present, essence and existence are confused, and they could not proceed mutually. Neither existentialism, therefore, nor essentialism: existence cannot over essence, just as essence cannot over existence. They only exist together, in the same world, in the same present, and that is what it means to exist.Man is nothing other than what he does with himself (existentialism is a humanism), that is why this current is a philosophy of freedom, in the metaphysical sense of the term, and one of the most radical that has ever occurred. Existentialism is nothing more than an imaginary humanism. In the present, essence and existence are confused, and they could not proceed mutually. Neither existentialism, therefore, nor essentialism: existence cannot over essence, just as essence cannot over existence. They only exist together, in the same world, in the same present, and that is what it means to exist.Man is nothing other than what he does with himself (Existentialism is a humanism), so this current is a philosophy of freedom, in the metaphysical sense of the term, and one of the most radical that has ever occurred. Existentialism is nothing more than an imaginary humanism. In the present, essence and existence are confused, and they could not proceed mutually. Neither existentialism, therefore, nor essentialism: existence cannot over essence, just as essence cannot over existence. They only exist together, in the same world, in the same present, and that is what it means to exist.Existentialism is nothing more than an imaginary humanism. In the present, essence and existence are confused, and they could not proceed mutually. Neither existentialism, therefore, nor essentialism: existence cannot over essence, just as essence cannot over existence. They only exist together, in the same world, in the same present, and that is what it means to exist.Existentialism is nothing more than an imaginary humanism. In the present, essence and existence are confused, and they could not proceed mutually. Neither existentialism, therefore, nor essentialism: existence cannot over essence, just as essence cannot over existence. They only exist together, in the same world, in the same present, and that is what it means to exist.

Theodorson(1978), states that Existentialism is a modern philosophical movement, with ancient roots in the history of human thought, which underlines the reality of "being" as solely determined by existence, the importance of the particular case, ignoring the abstractions for the sake of uniqueness, experience and individual human existence. The significance of the individual person is highlighted to a high degree in contrast to collectivism and the emphasis on organizational goodness originating from modern corporations, government, and any other sphere of society. Existentialism is also a reaction against excessively rationalistic or scientific approaches to the study of man that attempt to eliminate all subjective phenomena in the analysis and interpretation of behavior.It highlights the inevitable subjectivity of man in his attempts to be objective and provides a compensatory philosophical alternative to theories of behavior (including beliefs) that affirm the supremacy of society and the social group.

1.3 Types of Existentialism

According to Wikipedia (2007), in terms of the existence and importance of God, there are three schools of existentialist thought: atheistic existentialism (represented by Sartre), Christian existentialism (Kierkegaard) and the agnostic, whose proposal is that the existence Whether or not God is a matter irrelevant to human existence: God may or may not exist (Heidegger).

Heidegger expressly distances himself from Sartre in his Letter on Humanism. Buytendijk, a psychologist close to Heidegger, admits to being existentialist. Merleau-Ponty is a great representative of the current, although maintaining more links with Husserl's phenomenology. Martin Buber, meanwhile, represents a stream of Jewish existentialism heavily influenced by Hasidism. While Gabriel Marcel and Jacques Maritain are fit within a "Christian existentialism".

Other prominent thinkers ascribed to existentialism, to a greater or lesser degree, would be: Miguel de Unamuno, José Ortega y Gasset, Edith Stein, Nicola Abbagnano, Nicolai Berdyaev, Emmanuel Levinas, Peter Wessel Zapfe, Karl Jaspers, Max Scheler, and even Paul Ricoeur and Hans - Georg Gadamer.

The author Valdebenito (2004), affirms that existentialism can be classified into the following:

Atheistic Existentialism: Main exponents, Sartre with Albert Camus. "Denial of the existence of God and of all the transcendent principles of reality and morality." Neutral existentialism: Greatest exponent, Heidegger. There is neither affirmation nor denial of the man-God relationship. Christian existentialism Main exponent, Soren Kierkegaard. "Man is not by himself more than anything and sin, and his salvation lies in distrusting himself and giving himself up to God." Mystical religious existentialism: Major exponents, Chestov and Berdiaeff. He has a tragic and distressing attitude. Man is essential and deeply religious, dependent on God, blind and fatalistic. Catholic Existentialism: Main exponent, Gabriel Marcel.Great importance to the problems and experiences that we suffer throughout our lives. Strict and deep reasoning must be maintained. Nothing was formulated "a priori", so as not to encourage ourselves in erroneous ideas and let it come to us through understanding.

Abbaganano (1986), from the point of view of the distinguished Italian existentialist, we can distinguish three forms of existentialism:

A. A pessimistic existentialism whose main exponents would be Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980).

B. An optimistic and theological existentialism, which would be represented by L. Lavelle (1951), Gabriel Marcel (1973) and Renato Le Senne (1954).

C. An existentialism not oriented to either of the two positions, which would be the one maintained by Abbagnano himself, M. Merleau-Ponty, E. Paci and the last Sartre.

This difficulty of classification inherent in existentialism as a philosophical movement requires that we approach it through its themes, fundamentally those elaborated by two of its highest representatives: Heidegger and Sartre.

1.4 The fundamental themes of existentialism

The sources from which the existentialist theme springs are found in Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and vitalism as well as the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl.

1.4.1 Definition of existence as man's own way of being.

In clear debt to Kierkegaard's thought, for existentialists what really exists is man, not things, which take their being in or through him.

Man does not have an essence that determines him to be or to behave in a concrete way, but he himself is his own becoming, his own existence. Existing is synonymous with man (Heidegger's Dasein or Sartre's "for-himself"). This means that man is freedom and conscience. Freedom because man is a way of being that is never given beforehand (Dasein or being-there is a power-being that has to constantly exercise) nor is it set by something or someone. Consciousness because existence is what is never an object, but that from which I refer to the other that is not me and with which I relate, in addition to myself (self-awareness).

For Sartre and Lavelle existence precedes essence, and makes it possible, since if I do not exist I cannot conquer my essence or give it to me through acts absolutely dependent on me. Heidegger, however, does not accept this primacy of existence over essence, but identifies both: the being (essence) of Dasein consists in its existence (existez).

1.4.2. Individualism and particularism.

The primary is the singular and concrete, human existence, but not in its generality, but in the particularity of "this" human existence or "that other". The self is not the moment of an absolute or universal Reason, as Hegel affirmed.

1.4.3. Things do not exist, "they are".

It is from human existence that the value and meaning of everything real is established. The object to which consciousness is directed does not exist. It is a "being-in-itself" (Sartre), characterized by fullness of coincidence, impenetrability and opacity. His absence from relationship shuns temporality and comes into tension with consciousness, "being-for-itself." It wishes to be both in-itself and for-itself, which would be equivalent to being God, something impossible to achieve (atheism).

1.4.4 Use of phenomenology as a method.

The existentialists start from the Husserlian analysis of consciousness, which they conceive as pure intentionality. All consciousness is always a heading towards something; it is consciousness of, and therefore it projects outwards, towards the object or "being-in-itself."

Consciousness is "a power to be what one is not and not to be what one is", an intentionality that introduces nothing into it: when it knows the object, it differentiates and separates from it (alienation). If you try to know yourself (self-awareness) you must become what is not (object), creating nothing, being nothing.

Phenomenology is constituted not only in a method of analysis of consciousness, but in an ontology (Heidegger) that allows us to uncover the sense of being: that which manifests itself (phenomenon) before human existence.

1.4.5. To exist is to be in the world.

The being of man is a being-in-the-world (in-der-Welt-sein). But "world" is not a place, nor does it designate nature. We are not "passively" in the world, but actively and creatively, always transcending "the other" (being-in-itself) that is not consciousness, towards "being-in-itself" (man, consciousness), unable to embrace it.

Human existence consists of a continuous "chore" that has to deal with "things", "what is at hand": belongings, tools. World is an instrument for which and in which consciousness is realized, the set of relations of "things" with each other and with man. Dasein creates world. Existence is worldliness.

1.4.6. Possibility and choice.

Man is open possibility, freedom to do this and that. Choice. Now, insofar as man is thrown into the world, he must count on what is "given" to him, the circumstances (widely dealt with by Ortega y Gasset) that limit his possibilities and his freedom. Authenticity consists in not giving up freedom under any circumstances: not falling between things as one of them (facticity).

Man should not shirk his responsibility to act freely, otherwise he will act in bad faith and lead an inauthentic existence.

1.4.7. Anguish, nausea, shame.

Feelings, like reason, reveal our existence and put us in contact with it, in a more intimate and radical way than reason.

The anguish is born from an indefinite future, from the lack of essence, from a horizon full of possibilities that man must face without any guarantee, fully assuming his freedom to "build himself at every moment".

Sartre's nausea arises from the lack of purpose and finality of the world and of men. Everything is too much, weaving the same framework of the absurdity of the world. No teleologism can save us because the idea of finality is itself a product of bad faith: self-deception.

Shame is the feeling by which we find that there are others for-themselves other than our own. In his presence I become an object (in-itself), and I am reified and deprived of my freedom. The other can think of me as he wants, nullifying my freedom of being.

Existentialism, through the phenomenological analysis of consciousness, overwhelms man with a heavy burden of responsibility, but it also shows him an individually creative way of making himself, despite what is given and all circumstances.

Chapter II

Erich fromm

Erich Fromm (March 23, 1900 - March 18, 1980) was a prominent German social psychologist and humanist, a member of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt, he actively participated in the first phase of interdisciplinary research at the School of Frankfurt, until the late 1940s he broke with them due to his heterodox interpretation of Freudian theory. He was one of the main renovators of psychoanalytic theory and practice in the mid-20th century, and a fundamental influence on New Age thinking.

2.1. Biography

Fromm, a native of Frankfurt, began law studies, but moved to Heidelberg University in 1919 to study sociology under the direction of Alfred Weber; During his studies he met the psychoanalyst Frieda Reichmann, an Orthodox Jew like him, whom he married in 1926. After his marriage he began the study of Freudian doctrine, and in 1929 he began his career as a psychoanalyst in Berlin, abandoning Judaism almost entirely and studying Marx's theories. In 1931 he divorced Reichmann, with whom he maintained a close friendship for life.

In 1930 he was invited by Max Horkheimer to head the Psychology department of the recently created Institut für Sozialforschung. On May 25, 1934, after the seizure of power by the Nazi party, he emigrated with other members of the institute to the United States. Intellectual differences with other members of the Institut, especially Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno, led to his separation from it in 1939.

During the 1940s Fromm carried out an important editorial work, publishing several books later considered classics on the authoritarian tendencies of contemporary society and deviating markedly from the original Freudian theory. In 1943 he was one of the founding members of the New York affiliate of the Washington School of Psychiatry, after which he collaborated with the William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and Psychology. In 1944 he married in second marriages with a Jewish-German immigrant, Henny Gurland; around 1950 they moved to Mexico, where Gurland would die two years later.

Fromm taught at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where he founded the psychoanalytic section of the medical school. In 1953 he remarried. From the mid-decade on, he was heavily involved with North American pacifist movements, and was a leading opponent of the Vietnam War. He turned away from all support for state socialism, especially the Soviet totalitarian model, and criticized the capitalist consumer society, this and his perspectives on personal freedom and the development of a free culture brought him remarkably close to the anarchist line, a question that It becomes evident when comparing the themes of his books with the classical authors of anarchism. He called himself a supporter of a humanistic and democratic socialism.

Between 1957 and 1961 Fromm combined his activity at UNAM with a professorship at Michigan State University. In 1965 he retired; after a few years of travel, in 1974 he settled in Muralto, in Switzerland. He died at home five days before his eightieth birthday.

2.2 The current human condition

Fromm affirms in his work that today's man is characterized by his passivity and identifies himself with the values of the market because man has transformed himself into a consumer good and feels his life as a capital that must be profitably invested.

Man is an eternal consumer and the world for him is only an object to calm his appetite. According to the author, success and failure is based on knowing how to invest life. The human value lies in the material, in the price that you can get for your services and not in the spiritual (qualities of love, neither your reason, nor your artistic ability). Self-esteem in men depends on external factors and on feeling successful with respect to the judgment of others. Hence, he lives dependent on others, and that his security lies in conformity; not to stray from the flock. Man must agree with society, go the same way and not deviate from opinion or what is established by it.

In order to function well, the consumer society needs a class of men who cooperate meekly in large groups that want to consume more and more, whose tastes are standardized and who can be easily influenced and anticipated. He needs men who feel free or independent, who are not subject to any authority or principle or moral conscience, and who are nevertheless willing to be commanded, to do what is planned, to fit without friction into the social machine. Today's men are guided without force, led without leaders, driven without any goal, except to continue moving, to advance. This kind of man is the automaton, a person who lets himself be led by another.

Man must work to satisfy his desires, which are constantly stimulated and directed by the economic machinery. Automated man faces a dangerous situation, as his reason deteriorates and his intelligence grows, to provide man with the most powerful material force without the wisdom to use it.

The danger that the author sees in the future of man is that they become robots. It is true that robots do not rebel. But given the nature of man, robots cannot live and stay sane. Then they will seek to destroy the world and destroy themselves, for they will no longer be able to bear the tedium of a meaningless and purposeless life. To overcome this danger, the author says that man must overcome alienation, must overcome the passive and commercially oriented attitudes that now dominate him and choose instead a mature and productive path. He must regain the feeling of being himself.

2.3 Fromm's thought

His studies of the relationship between totalitarian political systems and monotheistic religions are of transcendental importance. According to Fromm, monotheistic religions educate individuals in blind obedience to a higher authority, which puts norms above any reason or discussion. Thus man is reduced to a mere servant of an Almighty God. This masochistic mentality, acquired from childhood, would be the psychological basis that has led many men to blindly follow dictators like Hitler. It is noteworthy how similar these ideas of Fromm have with those of another great thinker: Joseph Campbell.

Shortly before dying Fromm published a book that was a step forward in his thinking: "Anatomy of human destructiveness." In this writing he raised the idea that man opts in his life between two forces: biophilia and necrophilia. The first is the force that drives human beings to love life and to create. The second is the dark reverse of this force. Necrophilia arises when man opts for selfishness, and carries pride, greed, violence, the desire to destroy and hatred of life. It is worth noting the magnificent study that Fromm made, in this book, of Hitler's personality based on this theory of biophilia - necrophilia.

2.4. Works by Erich Fromm

Can man survive? From having to beingLove to lifeThe art of lovingThe art of listeningThe dogma of christHumanism as a real utopiaFear of freedomSpirit and societyEthics and politicsThe attraction of lifeThe current human conditionThe crisis of psychoanalysisThe pathology of normalityThe unconscious SocialOn disobedienceYou will be like godsAnatomy of human destructivenessZen Buddhism and psychoanalysisThe heart of man: his power for good and evilEthics and psychoanalysisGreatness and limitations of Freud's thoughtThe mission of Sigmund Freud: his personality and influenceThe revolution of hope: towards a Humanized technology Contemporary industrial society Marx and his concept of man Psychoanalysis of contemporary society: towards a healthy society Socio-psychoanalysis of the Mexican peasant:study of the economy and psychology of a rural community. The forgotten language.

Chapter III

Analysis of the "Art of Loving" (Fromm)

3.1 introduction

The author warns us that this book is not a manual about the art of loving, but rather tries to show us that love one is an easy feeling for anyone. Loving ourselves cannot be accomplished without the ability to love others.

Before continuing, I would like to expose some personal annotations in reference to the structuring of the work, personal critical contributions or the terminology used.

I have decided to follow the outline used by the author in the book, considering it adequate, following a logical order that allows the content to be clearly exposed.

At the time of including some personal comments, on certain statements that seemed shocking or at least curious, or certain doubts that arose, I have chosen to include these comments in the development of the work instead of dedicating a section at the end, avoiding this way, having to repeat the idea developed by Fromm at the same time as placing it in the same place where the argument resulting from criticism or comment is exposed. To distinguish this personal contribution from what Erich Fromm said, the text appears in italics, appearing at the end of a certain block and not inserted between two paragraphs dealing with the same subject, trying to avoid confusion.

Finally, I would like to clarify an aspect about the terminology used. The terms used can be considered masculinizing, for example, the use of boy or son when it could be girl and daughter, man when referring to the human being itself, or it is an indistinct distinction whose example served in the same way whether he were a man or woman. Fromm plays with this a bit and sometimes uses one or the other, although the masculine prevails, however, to avoid confusion I decided to always use the masculine, but making it clear that I refer to one or the other sex at the same time and indifferently.

3.2 Is love an art?

Most people believe in love as a pleasant sensation; however, the author considers love an art that requires knowledge and effort.

Most people make the mistake of assuming that there is nothing to learn about love, and this is due to several reasons: considering that the problem of love is to be loved and not to love, valuing aspects such as success, to be powerful, rich, to be attractive, in short, a mixture of popularity and sex appeal; the fact of believing that love is easy and the difficult thing is finding someone to love, the importance of the object against that of the function, the assumption that the problem of love is that of an object and not of a faculty; the confusion between the initial sensation of "falling in love" and staying in love when the other person is no longer unknown and the initial halo of mystery is lost.

Love is an art, and all art needs a learning process, both theoretically and practically.

There is a curious aspect that Fromm comments in reference to the mistakes that lead many people to suppose that there is nothing to learn about love. He affirms that human love relationships follow the same scheme that exists in the market for goods and labor, in the idea of a mutually favorable exchange. "An attractive woman or man is the prize you want to achieve."

3.3 The Theory of Love

Love, the answer to the problem of human existence

In animals, their affections are a part of their instincts, something that also remains in man. Man suffers the need to overcome his separateness, to leave "the prison of his loneliness", because the experience of separateness causes anguish. The solution to this loneliness has received several responses throughout history, using various means that help achieve it such as worshiping animals, military conquests, lust, obsessive work, artistic creation, love of God, love of man. In the child the presence of the mother avoids her feeling of separateness.

Fromm speaks of "orgiastic states". Many primitive tribal rituals used drugs as a way to escape the state of separation, or through sexual experience, orgasm being a state similar to that caused by a trance or the effects of certain drugs. Communal sexual orgies were part of many primitive rituals. Participating in these orgiastic states, being a common practice and even required by witch doctors or priests, did not produce anguish, guilt or shame.

In a non-orgiastic culture it is about escaping separateness through alcohol or drugs, the individual experiencing feelings of guilt and remorse. The loveless sexual act does not eliminate, except momentarily, the abyss that separates two human beings. In this culture, this way of escaping separateness causes a growing sense of separation.

The orgiastic unions are intense, they occur in mind and body, they are transitory and periodic.

There is another aspect to consider, the union based on conformity with the group.

Man went from living in a small group to integrating into cities, states, members of a church. Uniformity prevails in a union where the individual being disappears in favor of belonging to the herd. Conformity with the flock is the predominant form, where thoughts, customs, clothing, jobs, leisure… They hardly differ between the 'different' individuals who are part of the community. It is believed to be different, to have ideas or thoughts of their own when in reality they are practically the same, to believe that being able to choose between certain differences accepted by a majority represents an absence of conformity or that this is being individualistic. Equality as a condition for the development of individuality. This standardization or equality suits society,as a way to avoid friction. Even what many represent a great achievement, women's equality, is part of the movement leading to the elimination of differences. It is curious what Fromm writes: «the polarity of the sexes is disappearing, and with it the erotic love, which is based on said polarity».

But conformity union does not per se resolve the anguish of separateness. Symptoms of her failures are alcoholism, drug abuse, compulsive sexuality, or suicide. At the same time, unlike orgiastic solutions, it mainly affects the mind and not the body. The only advantage of compliance is permanence. Other aspects to consider are routine at work and leisure. There are few initiatives regarding tasks prescribed by the organization of work. The amusements are routinized and prefabricated.

The question that Fromm asks / us is conclusive. "How can a man imprisoned in this network of routine activities remember that he is a man, a unique individual, who has only been given a single opportunity to live, with hopes and disappointments, with pain and fear, with the desire to love and fear of nothingness and separateness? »

A third way to achieve union would be creative activity, where the individual who creates and his object become one. This would not encompass an assembly line worker, who feels quite removed from what he produces in his routine work.

But the union achieved in orgiastic fusion is transitory, the one that provides conformity is a pseudo - unity and the creative activity is not interpersonal.

Thus, Fromm concludes that in the face of these partial responses only love can achieve fusion with another person, being the "most powerful impulse that exists in man." So convinced is Fromm of this that he even wrote that «without love, humanity could not exist one more day». However, now a question arises, what love are we talking about? Love as a solution to the problem of existence or as a symbiotic union? Fromm criticizes love as a symbiotic union, considers it an immature way to love. One could speak of a symbiotic union between the fetus and the pregnant mother; submission or masochism, where the person renounces his integrity becoming an instrument of someone or something alien to him; domination or sadism, active versus passive form that represents submission,who escapes his solitude creating in another individual the prolongation of his being.

That is why when Fromm speaks of love he refers to a mature love where "there is the paradox of two beings who become one and, nevertheless, remain two". We must understand the ability to love as an act of giving, without thinking about the mercantile sense where giving implies receiving. In the end, giving means receiving, because when giving with sincerity one does not stop receiving, or as Fromm says "love is a power that produces love." And this would not be circumscribable only to love, we could for example speak of the teacher who learns from his students.

But love is not only giving, it also implies care, responsibility, respect and knowledge, all forming a mutual interdependence. We do not love what we do not care for. The person who loves responds. Respect as concern for others, thus preventing responsibility from degenerating into domination; or as an old French song says, respect only exists on the basis of freedom. But care, responsibility or respect are not possible without knowing the person. As Fromm says, "Knowledge would be empty if not motivated by concern." Only love makes knowledge possible, in the act of loving I find myself. However, the wise man said that the more he knew the more he realized that, in fact, he knew nothing.Another curious phrase that Fromm writes is that "the ultimate consequence of psychology is love."

Until now, love has been discussed as a way to face human separateness. But there is an existential need for a union of biological order, the polarity of the sexes. Fromm criticizes the Freudian theory about sexuality, Freud saying that the purpose of sexual desire is the elimination of the chemical tension produced in the body, without taking into account the psychobiological aspect of sexuality, the male-female polarity and the desire to resolve this polarity through bonding.

It is curious the conclusion that Fromm reaches about homosexual attitudes: «Homosexual deviation is a failure in achieving that polarized union, and for this reason the homosexual suffers the pain of never resolved separation, a failure that he shares, however, with the ordinary heterosexual who cannot love ». Saving the distances, I think I could be wrong. Although it does not seem demonstrated that in homosexuals there are differentiating pathological aspects with respect to the rest of their sex, there is evidence that suggests that genes may be a factor in sexual orientation; although other opinions, such as that of Sigmund Freud, affirm that the determining factors are more likely to be experiences during childhood. At this last point,Freud states that the lack of a same-sex parent with whom to identify could be a cause of homosexuality. If we go back to the 19th century, homosexuality was then classified as a disease.

3.4 The love between parents and children

The child at birth is not aware of the reality around him or himself. He only feels the stimulation of the mother's heat and food, the satisfaction and security that the mother produces for him; the exterior is real depending on your needs. When he grows up he learns to perceive things, learning to handle things and people. Feel unconditional maternal love. Children between the ages of eight and a half to ten can already love and not only respond with gratitude and joy to the love they receive. The child goes from her egocentrism to valuing the needs of others, where giving or loving is more satisfying than receiving, feeling a new sense of union. Fromm reduces it to the following: «Childish love follows the principle: 'I love because I love myself'. Mature love obeys the principle: 'love me because I love'. Immature love says:'I love you because I need you.' Mature love says, "I need you because I love you."

The love for the father is different and of little importance during the first years of the child's life, the father "does not represent a natural home" where we come from. The father will be the one who teaches the child the way to the world, in a love that is conditional that, unlike the maternal, can be controlled. After the age of six, the child begins to need the father's love, authority, and guidance. The mother's role is to provide security, the father will be the one to teach and guide in the face of the problems that society poses. The paternal qualities would be the discipline, independence, ability to dominate the life by itself.

The foundation of mental health and the achievement of maturity are the result of the success of the mother-child and father-child relationship. Neurosis is the result of failure or certain imbalances in this relationship. Thus, «certain types of neurosis, the obsessive, for example, develop especially on the basis of a unilateral attachment to the father, while others, such as hysteria, alcoholism, the inability to assert themselves and face life in a realistic way, and depressions, are the result of a mother-centered relationship. "

I think it is quite debatable when he says: «If an individual kept only the paternal conscience, he would become harsh and inhuman. If he retained only maternal consciousness, he could lose his judgment and hinder his own development or that of others.

3.5 Love objects

It is a mistake to think that we only love a certain person, because this is nothing but a symbiotic relationship or expanded egotism. As Fromm poetically writes, "If I really love one person, I love all people, I love the world, I love life." Although this does not mean that we can distinguish different types of love.

Fraternal love, maternal love, erotic love, love of self and love of God are distinguished as love objects.

3.6 Brotherly love

Let us understand fraternal love as love for all human beings, just as Jesus told his disciples to love their neighbor as themselves. Thus, love only begins to develop when we love those we do not need for a selfish end.

3.7 Maternal love

This has already been mentioned before, however, it would remain to add some observations. Maternal love not only contributes to the preservation of the child's life and growth, but must also instill in the child the love of life. Mother-child love creates a necessary dependency on the latter, and unlike erotic love, where two separate beings become one, in maternal love two beings who were united will separate. At the moment of separation, maternal love becomes more difficult, impossible if a mother cannot "love her husband, other children, strangers, all human beings."

3.8 Erotic love

Unlike fraternal or maternal love, erotic love is a union with a single person, exclusive and not universal, being "the most deceiving form of love that exists". It should not be confused with the experience of "falling in love", a situation limited by the fact of getting to know the other person as much as oneself, or rather, so little. Other factors that many people confuse when considering them as ways to bridge separateness are talking about oneself, hopes, showing childish aspects, establishing a common interest in the world… It is also wrong to confuse sexual desire with love, although love can inspire the desire for sexual union. Sexual desire without love does not lead to union, except in a transitory orgiastic sense.

An important aspect to consider is the already mentioned exclusivity of erotic love. Erotic love only excludes love for others as erotic fusion. We have seen erotic love as an individual and concrete attraction between two people, but we could also speak of an act of will and commitment, since if it were just a feeling there would be no point in speaking of eternal love, of marriage until death separates them. Here Fromm does not distinguish between marriage decided by third parties and that of individual choice, since it is the will that guarantees the continuation of love.

Given the above, I ask myself the following questions: Is there eternal love? Can there be only erotic love between two people, can there not be a third? Is not love as an individual choice more intense than that agreed upon by other interests, even when the will and commitment make the couple remain united?

3.9 Love yourself

There are many opinions that throughout the ages have objected to self-love. Some considered it a sin, others like Calvin would describe it as a "plague", they would speak of narcissism, of being insane, that love for oneself excludes love for others.

Fromm is blunt in stating that it is a "logical fallacy" to speak of this reciprocal exclusion. The biblical phrase "love your neighbor as yourself" is known to all. But what explanation does egoism have if love for myself and others is conjunctive? In response to this, the answer is that "selfishness and self-love, far from being identical, are really opposite." If an individual only loves others, he cannot love at all; for the same reason, if you only love yourself, we know nothing about what it is to love. The selfish person does not even come to love himself, feeling empty, unhappy, worried about taking from others the satisfactions that he cannot / wants to achieve. In the case of an overprotective mother, more than excessive love, what it shows is the way to compensate for her total inability to love.In essence, there is little difference between the effect produced by the generous mother and the selfish mother, the former being worse, as soon as the children avoid criticizing her, they feel pressured, the obligation not to disappoint her. To bring a child to know happiness, love and joy there is nothing like a mother who loves herself. Something similar could be said of a 'generous' person who wants little or nothing of himself and lives only for others: he is not happy, he is hostile towards life, generosity is a facade that hides intense egocentrism.Something similar could be said of a 'generous' person who wants little or nothing of himself and lives only for others: he is not happy, he is hostile towards life, generosity is a facade that hides intense egocentrism.Something similar could be said of a 'generous' person who wants little or nothing of himself and lives only for others: he is not happy, he is hostile towards life, generosity is a facade that hides intense egocentrism.

I think it leaves the overprotective mother in a very bad place. Although taken from an extreme case, what Fromm affirms may be true, in a normal case it is a relatively normal attitude that I do not think is so damaging to the child because, what is the limit of the intensity with which we must or can love others or ourselves? Has it been shown that exceeding this supposed limit, if it exists, has more negative than positive effects?

3.10 Love of God

If we consider the number of pages Fromm uses to talk about love of God, it seems to be more complex or important than the preceding ones.

If it were necessary to synthesize the idea that Fromm brings about the need to love, we could say that this need exists motivated by separateness, as a way to overcome the anguish that the state of separation produces in man, union being the solution.

Man emerges from nature, from the mother, from an original unit to which he clings to find security in her. In a first evolutionary stage it was identified with animals and trees; many primitive religions reflect this evolutionary stage. Later it is capable of molding figures in clay, metals, when it no longer depends so much on nature; then idols appear that take on human appearance. There seems to have been a matriarchal phase of religion prior to patriarchal religion in certain cultures. The patriarchal phase marks certain principles or norms to be obeyed, the patriarchal society is hierarchical; but the maternal aspects cannot be totally eliminated, having a clear example in the Virgin of the Catholic religion.In many cases the gods have evolved in the same way that society did; the shift from a mother-centered to a father-centered social structure produced the field from matriarchal to patriarchal god. God in the Catholic religion is an entity without a name, just though sometimes severe, he is love, he commits himself, he is the source of all existence. He is the figure of the father to be obeyed, a conditioned love, which rewards before good acts and gets angry at disobedience.who rewards good deeds and becomes angry at disobedience.who rewards good deeds and becomes angry at disobedience.

Fromm examines the difference between Aristotelian and paradoxical logic, the first where what 'is' cannot be at the same time 'not be', and the other that does accept this premise. Thus, through paradoxical logic we can conclude that love of God is not knowing God through thought, but the act of experiencing unity with God. From this point of view the important thing is not the thought, but the act. Paradoxical logic led man to tolerance and self-transformation, Aristotelian to dogma and science; in the first case we could speak of the east and in the second of the west. Thus, in the West, love for God is above all a mental experience, whereas in Eastern religions it is an "intense affective experience of unity."

There is an important parallel between love for parents and love for God. Love for God is inseparable from love for parents, their love for man, in a relationship determined by the structure of the society in which they live; thus, if the social structure is that of submission to authority, the concept of God will be infantile and far from a mature concept.

3.11 Love and its disintegration in contemporary western society

If we start from the premise that love is a capacity of mature character, observing western society, there is no doubt that love is a relatively rare phenomenon, in fact giving rise to different forms of pseudo-love or "disintegration of love."

The social structure, governed by capitalism, at the beginning of supposed political and market freedom, needs obedient and efficient labor, as well as impulsive and uncritical consumers, people who feel free and independent who fit in easily the social gear. This has produced in man the alienation of himself and of what surrounds him, in a situation of anguish and insecurity that makes it impossible to overcome a separation before which society offers many palliatives: routine work, consumption, prefabricated leisure. It seems that happiness is about having fun, and this implies consuming. Automata cannot love, love becomes equipped with the mercantile conditions that govern society, in relationships that are often artificial.The mistake of thinking that the success of love only lies in mutual satisfaction in the sexual aspect has been maintained, when in fact the problem is love: it has been shown that the most frequent sexual problems are not caused by ignorance of the proper technique but in the inhibitions that prevent love. Fear or hatred of the other sex is the root of the difficulty of giving yourself completely.

Fromm criticizes in Freud his materialistic concept of love, of love basically considered a sexual phenomenon, of a feeling of unity that Freud interpreted as a pathological phenomenon of regression to a state of early "unlimited narcissism", of not distinguishing between irrational love and mature love.

In Sullivan he criticizes his idea that love is a collaborative situation between two people who feel, in what Fromm calls "egotism à deux", where two people love their interests in the face of a hostile and alienated world.

Thus, love as mutual sexual satisfaction and love as "teamwork" constitute the "normal" forms of the disintegration of love in contemporary western society.

Certain types of neurotic love relationships are described. A first example is emotional and affective immaturity, the result of an unsurpassed infant maternal / paternal relationship; people who show great love and affection, which is somewhat superficial and irresponsible, who enter into deep contradictions and disappointments when they believe that they are not reciprocated in due measure; or the situation where the mother was cold and indifferent and the father concentrated all his affection and interest in the son, but also in an authoritarian way, rewarding and punishing, which led the son to behave like a slave, to please the father, and this will be transferred later in his personal relationships trying to find the father figure with whom he can maintain a similar behavior,people who tend to be socially successful but relegate the interpersonal affective aspect to the background.

A more complicated nuance presents the son to parents who do not love each other and try to hide it from him. The son is unaware of what the parents think and feel, which makes him withdraw into his own world, and this will transfer him to subsequent love relationships, sometimes needing masochistic actions to release him from the burden of tension and fear caused by his no affectivity.

Other frequent forms of irrational love are: idolatrous love, in which there is a tendency to "idolize" the loved person, its intense beginning being characteristic although it is difficult to remain; sentimental love, more fantastic than real, like that experienced before a movie, novel or romantic song, or in the memory of a common past that shows a love that did not exist then, or the hope of a future love that does not exist in the present; Another form of neurotic love is through the use of projective mechanisms, seeking one's own ignored faults in others, or trying to make sense of one's life through the lives of children.

Fromm insists on the frequent error of thinking that love necessarily means the absence of conflict, when in reality the "conflicts" of most people are ways of avoiding "real real conflicts", the latter not being destructive at all.

Love is a constant challenge, which starts from the center of our existence, in the experience of two beings "who are with each other by being one with themselves and not by running away from themselves."

If we think about the religious aspect, daily life is separated from any religious value as a result of the same automatism that prevents us from loving others or ourselves, where modern man has become one more article of the mercantile gear, worried about success. that he gets to forget his own self, his own existence apart from feelings.

There is a very interesting phrase that Fromm writes: "The contemporary man is more like a three-year-old boy, who cries calling his father when he needs it, or is completely self-sufficient when he can play." God could be that father, or the mother who loves you without conditions, and the game is nothing more than our acceptance and participation in a world where mercantilism prevails, which makes us believe that it is optimal to participate in it by accepting the rules of the game. But this does not nullify the widely described feeling of separateness, rather it hides it, and this provokes contradictory feelings, anguishes, phobias, maladjustment towards ourselves and others.

3.12 The practice of love

The practice of love is a personal experience for which there are no recipes, however, there are certain approaches and premises that can be useful to us.

It has already been said that love is an art, and all art requires discipline, concentration, patience, a supreme concern for the mastery of art and, finally, being aware that an art is learned only indirectly.

Modern man is excessively undisciplined outside of the work environment. Lack of concentration prevents us from being alone with ourselves. Everything around us is accelerated, away from that patience necessary for stillness and true enjoyment, believing that something is lost when we do not act quickly, when it is just the opposite. Another condition is the concern for art that we must master, going from being a mere hobbyist to being a teacher. Why should one learn to love indirectly? Because before starting with art itself, there are many things that, although they appear to have no relationship, are fundamental.

When we speak of discipline, we are referring to a practice that is the fruit of our own will, that feels like something pleasant. Concentration is something more complicated, it requires knowing how to be alone with oneself, without doing anything more than that, being an indispensable condition for the ability to love, but at the same time we must concentrate on everything one does. And this concentration inevitably involves knowing how to listen, which is not the same as hearing. Because being concentrated means living fully in the present. You have to continually think of yourself, analyze yourself, sensitive to others. It is easy to be sensitive to bodily processes, but it is no longer so sensitive to mental processes.

Here a highly critical factor of the educational system is pointed out, which is based on the transmission of a certain type of knowledge to the detriment or absence of human traits and attitudes.

So far the necessary conditions for the practice of any art have been described, but what are the qualities with real importance for the capacity to love? In the first place, overcoming narcissism itself, acquiring the most objective view of the outside world only achievable using reason itself in an attitude of humility. Thus, love requires humility, objectivity and reason. Objectivity and reason represent half the way to mastering the art of love, but without forgetting that it is not enough to apply it to the loved one, because if we do not apply it to the rest of the world we would be doomed to failure in both directions. You have to have faith, but not irrational faith in a person or an idea where you have to submit to an irrational authority, but a rational faith in your own thinking and judgment,having faith in another person as a sign of trust, "of the essence of his personality, of his love." At the same time, faith in oneself is essential, because "only the person who has faith in himself can be faithful to others", faith in his own love, faith in humanity. Having faith requires courage, the ability to take risks, even accepting pain and disappointment. The practice of faith and courage must be ingredients of daily life. Why is loving an act of faith? Because loving means committing without guarantees, giving yourself to the loved one in the hope of producing love.faith in humanity. Having faith requires courage, the ability to take risks, even accepting pain and disappointment. The practice of faith and courage must be ingredients of daily life. Why is loving an act of faith? Because loving means committing without guarantees, giving yourself to the loved one in the hope of producing love.faith in humanity. Having faith requires courage, the ability to take risks, even accepting pain and disappointment. The practice of faith and courage must be ingredients of daily life. Why is loving an act of faith? Because loving means committing without guarantees, giving yourself to the loved one in the hope of producing love.

Another necessary condition for loving is activity, being active in both thought and feeling.

But everything described is inseparably linked to the social domain, that is, as it has been said before, love must not only reside in relationships with one's family, friends and erotic relationships, but also with all those who are Contact us through our daily activities. However, the principles on which the capital society is based and the principle that must govern love are incompatible. It is for this reason that for love to become a social phenomenon and not an individualistic and marginal exception, radical and important changes must take place in the social structure. Fromm does not propose an answer to this social change, since it would require another book, but he does suggest a way forward. We must go from the omnipresence of economic interest,where the means become ends, where man is an automaton, to a society where man occupies the supreme place and the economic machine is there to serve him and not to be served, where love is not separated from social existence itself. Because, ultimately, "love is the only satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence."

It is shocking, although it has its foundation, the recommendation that Fromm makes us as necessary to learn to concentrate: avoid trivial conversations and bad company. This is complicated in today's world, where hypocrisy is common, where triviality predominates. Because, if we eliminate hypocrisy and triviality, we can run the risk of being more alone than we already are, although it is also true that friendship and love would become true. I think that, in a way, we are aware of a triviality and hypocrisy that we accept and in which we also participate, but we are aware of when, how and with whom sincerity is real and permanent, perhaps there are few people. Sometimes it is not about eliminating or avoiding, but about being aware of it.

On the other hand, a doubt arises in what at first glance seems like a contradiction. Fromm speaks of love as an act of giving, without preconditions, without expecting anything in return although receiving is inevitable. On the other hand, he tells us that loving means committing oneself without guarantees, which is consistent with what has been said before, but this loving is a surrender "with the hope of producing love in the person loved." Is this hope not an a priori position of expecting something in return? Does union occur when that unconditional giving is not followed by receiving part of what we previously gave? Is it a mercantile position, or perhaps an innate need? I think this is not clear enough.

Conclusions

1. Towards the third decade of the 20th century, existentialism arose in Germany and from there it spread through France and the rest of Europe, especially in France. This school could be interpreted as a reaction to a period of crisis of consciousness at the social and cultural level

2. Existentialists affirm that man is a being "thrown into the world", this phrase seems to express the European feeling of those years and can be interpreted literally: Europeans feel thrown into an inhospitable world, thrown from their destroyed homes and of the security of their beliefs, values and ideals.

3. It is one of the most influential philosophical and cultural systems; a particular tendency of the humanist conception that has as its objective the analysis and description of the meaning and contradiction of human life. From the point of view of existentialism, the individual is not a mechanical part of a single whole (generation, class, partner), but the whole by itself.

4. Humanistic and existentialist psychology

Existentialist psychologies, as its name implies, is based on existential philosophy that in the 1940s achieved great popularity through the work of Jean - Paul Sartre, among others. Existentialist psychologists analyze the absurdity and the damage of modern life. According to them, these feelings give rise to apathy, fear and other psychological problems. For example, the psychologist Rollo May affirms that modern Americans are lost souls, that is, people without myths or heroes.

RD Laing, another existentialist thinker, is convinced that we must revalue our attitude towards psychotic behavior. This behavior is not normal in his opinion, but a normal and responsible response to an abnormal world. Existentialist psychologists try to help people find an inner sense of identity so that they achieve freedom and take responsibility for their actions.

5. Humanistic psychology is related to existentialist psychology.

Both establish that people must learn to realize their potential. But while existentialist psychology focuses on establishing the inner sense of identity and willpower; Humanistic psychology highlights the possibilities of nonverbal experience, unity of mind, altered states of consciousness, and relief.

Existentialist and humanistic views have never predominated in American psychology, yet it continues to exert its influence, especially on the understanding of personality and abnormal behavior.

Bibliography

Abbagnano, Nicola (1986). Dictionary of philosophy. Mexico, Economic Culture Fund.

Comte - Sponville, André (2003). Philosophical dictionary. Bacrelona, Paidós.

Existentialism.

At http: // es. Wikipedia. Org / wiki / Existentialism. Retrieved January 19, 2007.

Arteaga War, Hugo. Five years after Heidegger's death.. Father of existentialism). In Supplement to El Comercio. Lima, March 8, 1981, p.9.

Masoni, Ezequiel D. (2007). Christian Anthropology: Existentialism

At http: // www. Monographs. Com / work / existential / existential. Shtml. Retrieved January 22, 2007.

Ruiz Díaz David Isaac (2007). Who is Jean - Paul Sartre?

At http: // www. Monographs. Com / works17 / jean-paul-sartre / jean-paul-sartre.shtml # three. Retrieved on 2007 January 22

Theodorson, George A. & Theodorson, Achilles G. (1998). Sociology Dictionary. Buenos Aires, Editorial Paidos.

University of Lima (2005). General psychology. Lima, General Studies Program. Department of Publication of Reading Material.