The death drive

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a Facebook post a friend of mine made. I thought it was so good it deserves putting here. "Death drive" is a Freudian term.

The real dichotomy going on in the global digital empire right now is not about "vile white males" versus "innocent oppressed women and people of colour" or any such nonsense.

The real dichotomy is between Mortido (the death drive, dwelling in victimhood culture driven by envy and resentment, gathering digital mobs around the Abject) versus Libido (phallic life affirmation, forming digital swarms that lead society towards a Utopia).

Fascism, communism, loony fem-left and so on are all manifestations of Mortido, of the death drive - the yearning for a mythical safe space, a warm womb, that shields the victim from life's unavoidable ups and downs.

A true leader unites around utopia. A false leader unites against an Abject, an object of hate, such as "the jew", "the bourgeoisie" or "the white male". The likes of Stalin and Hitler played that game all too well.

 

[lpetrich]

So if you want to punish criminals and be safe from them, you have Mortido rather than Libido?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The real dichotomy is between Mortido (the death drive, dwelling in victimhood culture driven by envy and resentment, gathering digital mobs around the Abject) versus Libido (phallic life affirmation, forming digital swarms that lead society towards a Utopia).

Sooooo, the oppressed are just envious and therefore are “dwelling in victimhood” not because they are actually victims and anyone with a cock is leading us all to Utopia. And you found this insipid drivel worthy of posting why?

ETA: The death instinct was actually developed by a woman, Sabina Spielrein.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So if you want to punish criminals and be safe from them, you have Mortido rather than Libido?

It doesn't really enter into it. Either you punish them to support your utopian ideal or death drive ideal. The result is the same. The only difference is on the corner cases. Death drive makes us pass laws against hate speech or making others uncomfortable or even wearing a burkha.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The real dichotomy is between Mortido (the death drive, dwelling in victimhood culture driven by envy and resentment, gathering digital mobs around the Abject) versus Libido (phallic life affirmation, forming digital swarms that lead society towards a Utopia).

Sooooo, the oppressed are just envious and therefore are “dwelling in victimhood” not because they are actually victims and anyone with a cock is leading us all to Utopia. And you found this insipid drivel worthy of posting why?

ETA: The death instinct was actually developed by a woman, Sabina Spielrein.

It's more complex than that. The opressed victim rarely benefit by identifying as victims. That's the point. By overly focusing on the oppressors you're just giving them more power over you.

There's of course times when identifying as a victim is good. When it comes to stuff like rape. But there's loads of things vaguer and less clear cut where it isn't helpful. And we never want to have victimhood as our primary identity

Also... we don't want to be led to utopia. That's not a real thing. We want to be led towards utopia. It's a huge difference. We will never reach utopia.

The point is that its a much more pleasant life if you focus on the positive a growth rather than focusing on what you have lost. It's a better head-space to be in. For you.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

"By focusing on oppressors you just give them more power." Yeah, that's how we defeated Hitler, by not focusing on him.

 

[bigfield]

"By focusing on oppressors you just give them more power." Yeah, that's how we defeated Hitler, by not focusing on him.

Hitler conquered Germany in 1933, and he did so by exploiting the Germans' feeling of emasculation. "We" didn't even come into conflict with Hitler until he had set himself and his country on an inevitable path towards defeat.

 

[bigfield]

Brainstorming some examples of "Libido":

• The Space Race and the Mars Race
• Large-scale adoption of clean energy
• The creation of the welfare state
• Marching for civil rights
• Raising children who surpass their parents

Fundamentally, it's an act of creation, in one form or another. It requires not only that we have a vision for the future but that we pay the price to build it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"By focusing on oppressors you just give them more power." Yeah, that's how we defeated Hitler, by not focusing on him.

In this model that's incorrect. Hitler was defeated by upholding the ideal of the free democracy. It was a stronger and more motivating ideal. It was precisely a war between libidinal affirmation and death drive. It was a war between these two different ways of thinking. The death drive will always be the weaker because it's self defeating.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't like the term "phallic" in this context. Bit it's an inheritance from Freud that's been retained. It doesn't actually mean the penis nor men.

It's a metaphor. It's the active force as opposed to the passive receiving force. Let's ignore for a fact how actual sex is done.

The reason I don't like it is precisely that it often leads to assumptions of misogyny among those who haven't read so much philosophy. Which is unnecessary on an open forum like this. But it is a term used in philosophy, and it is a well understood and well used metaphor. So I'm running with it. Still not a misogynist or sexist

 

[Horatio Parker]

"By focusing on oppressors you just give them more power." Yeah, that's how we defeated Hitler, by not focusing on him.

In this model that's incorrect. Hitler was defeated by upholding the ideal of the free democracy. It was a stronger and more motivating ideal. It was precisely a war between libidinal affirmation and death drive. It was a war between these two different ways of thinking. The death drive will always be the weaker because it's self defeating.

How does Stalin fit into this calculus?

 

[DrZoidberg]

"By focusing on oppressors you just give them more power." Yeah, that's how we defeated Hitler, by not focusing on him.

In this model that's incorrect. Hitler was defeated by upholding the ideal of the free democracy. It was a stronger and more motivating ideal. It was precisely a war between libidinal affirmation and death drive. It was a war between these two different ways of thinking. The death drive will always be the weaker because it's self defeating.

How does Stalin fit into this calculus?

Socialism is often more death drive. The point is to not be afraid. Shoot yourself out into the world, aim high and grab what you can and embrace what comes. Amor fati.

If you instead obsess about fairness, obsess about other prople having the wrong opinion, obsess about your lack of sex, then your life won't be as rewarding.

An example. We can either be upset about Trump's lack of support for environmentalism or you can just do your little bit... fuck Trump. You get some teeny progress as opposed to frustration. Probably won't matter in the big picture. But is more rewarding for you

 

[Angry Floof]

Here's a Facebook post a friend of mine made. I thought it was so good it deserves putting here. "Death drive" is a Freudian term.

The real dichotomy going on in the global digital empire right now is not about "vile white males" versus "innocent oppressed women and people of colour" or any such nonsense.

The real dichotomy is between Mortido (the death drive, dwelling in victimhood culture driven by envy and resentment, gathering digital mobs around the Abject) versus Libido (phallic life affirmation, forming digital swarms that lead society towards a Utopia).

Fascism, communism, loony fem-left and so on are all manifestations of Mortido, of the death drive - the yearning for a mythical safe space, a warm womb, that shields the victim from life's unavoidable ups and downs. That would require vulnerability, and well, let's just say that some ideologies, political and religious, are there to protect against vulnerability, not to engage it or encourage it as a way of bonding and connecting with our fellow human beings.

A true leader unites around utopia. A false leader unites against an Abject, an object of hate, such as "the jew", "the bourgeoisie" or "the white male". The likes of Stalin and Hitler played that game all too well.

That is someone justifying a fear-based ideology. If you want a warm womb and protection from the big, scary world, you are likely going to be drawn in to strongman, absolutist, us vs. them ideology, not "peace and love, one world" ideology.

I suggest it's safe to just ignore this person and move on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a Facebook post a friend of mine made. I thought it was so good it deserves putting here. "Death drive" is a Freudian term.

The real dichotomy going on in the global digital empire right now is not about "vile white males" versus "innocent oppressed women and people of colour" or any such nonsense.

The real dichotomy is between Mortido (the death drive, dwelling in victimhood culture driven by envy and resentment, gathering digital mobs around the Abject) versus Libido (phallic life affirmation, forming digital swarms that lead society towards a Utopia).

Fascism, communism, loony fem-left and so on are all manifestations of Mortido, of the death drive - the yearning for a mythical safe space, a warm womb, that shields the victim from life's unavoidable ups and downs. That would require vulnerability, and well, let's just say that some ideologies, political and religious, are there to protect against vulnerability, not to engage it or encourage it as a way of bonding and connecting with our fellow human beings.

A true leader unites around utopia. A false leader unites against an Abject, an object of hate, such as "the jew", "the bourgeoisie" or "the white male". The likes of Stalin and Hitler played that game all too well.

That is someone justifying a fear-based ideology. If you want a warm womb and protection from the big, scary world, you are likely going to be drawn in to strongman, absolutist, us vs. them ideology, not "peace and love, one world" ideology.

I suggest it's safe to just ignore this person and move on.

No, you got it completely wrong. I suggest reading it again.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Add it to the list of things Freud was wrong about.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Add it to the list of things Freud was wrong about.

Well... it's not Freud. It's a summary of a work of the Philosopher Alexander Bard. He's simply used Freudian terminology. Philosophers often do this. They prefer using old established terminology (when possible). Because people who are interested have usually already read all the classics. It just makes it easier to understand... if you're well read in philosophy.

If you're not you probably won't read his book either... so it a moot point

 

[Politesse]

I'm not sure what this pseudoscience is supposed to accomplish; even if one agreed with all your premises (as even most Freudians, at the time, did not), both aspects were considered necessary parts of an individual psychology. We need both, not just the part you have arbitrarily declared better. Freud favored the libido and feared the malfunctions of Thanatos, but he did consider it a naturally reoccurring property that could not be canceled or killed without consequences.

 

[Politesse]

Add it to the list of things Freud was wrong about.

Well... it's not Freud. It's a summary of a work of the Philosopher Alexander Bard. He's simply used Freudian terminology. Philosophers often do this. They prefer using old established terminology (when possible). Because people who are interested have usually already read all the classics. It just makes it easier to understand... if you're well read in philosophy.

If you're not you probably won't read his book either... so it a moot point

If you're well read in philosophy, but not well read in the actual social sciences.

 

[Kharakov]

I thought this was like a blood drive.

The last time I showed up at one, I felt socially ostracized. I have no idea what they were screaming about. They had signs up that said blood drive.


Someone once told me Satan takes things literally. Which is what you get when you put a kleptomaniac in a dictionary.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not sure what this pseudoscience is supposed to accomplish; even if one agreed with all your premises (as even most Freudians, at the time, did not), both aspects were considered necessary parts of an individual psychology. We need both, not just the part you have arbitrarily declared better. Freud favored the libido and feared the malfunctions of Thanatos, but he did consider it a naturally reoccurring property that could not be canceled or killed without consequences.

It's not science at all. It's philosophy. But more importantly, never claimed it was science.

- - - Updated - - -

Add it to the list of things Freud was wrong about.

Well... it's not Freud. It's a summary of a work of the Philosopher Alexander Bard. He's simply used Freudian terminology. Philosophers often do this. They prefer using old established terminology (when possible). Because people who are interested have usually already read all the classics. It just makes it easier to understand... if you're well read in philosophy.

If you're not you probably won't read his book either... so it a moot point

If you're well read in philosophy, but not well read in the actual social sciences.

Ok, I'm listening. Please, explain yourself.