I thought about if someone would be rid of their ego(logical, intelligent part of the psyche). It seems pretty obvious to me. Would I have questions about if the Id(primal, illogical part of the psyche)? I thought that maybe that person who eliminated their id from their psyche would be more clairvoyant, wiser, more intelligent. Then I thought, that wouldn't just be it. There would be some vital consequence(s) that followed that. What do you think would happen if someone would eliminate their id?
Sounds like something for you to write about. I don't think there's an absolute answer. That's the kind of question that makes a good central conflict.
The id is a base driving force, the passionate determined side of our personalities so I'd imagine someone without it would be sensible, moral and logical (assuming the ego and superego were intact) but would have little or no 'drive'. They'd sit around all day waiting for someone to tell them what to do, even when to eat etc - like someone with very severe depression, they'd have nothing pushing them to do anything. I doubt they'd be wiser or more intelligent either, as although they'd have the logical capacity they'd have no reason to be interested in learning anything, or in using what they already knew. Although the id seems to be the childish chaotic side and the ego, and superego, seems more directly useful, the id really fuels the mind, pushing you forward.
I probably not as am Learned as most people on this site however i believe that every person has an opinion and everybodies opinion should be heard. However back to the post in question. My basic understanding of your question is that you are asking whether we would change if we lost "self" whether that be ego or such. It is one of the toughest questions, what makes a person who they are, If you die aren't you still you? Im sorry I cant be of any further help.
I just started psychology today, so bear with me, but... I'd have to say that there would be something unnatural about a person missing their id. They would be unnatural, almost perfect, like a real-life Mary-Sue (gestures at other thread). I think normal people would probably sense the difference and react to them differently, maybe feel like the town idiot speaking with Socrates. Naturally though, they'd look down on us pitiful humans encumbered by the id... What a cool idea!
questions like that have fueled sci-fi authors from the beginning, which is why there are so many stories about robots and androids... and i guess that answers your question...
Unless they rewrote Psychology since I took it in college, that is not what the ID, Ego and Super Ego are. So I think you might have some strange answers to this question. Perhaps maybe you just need to ask a different question.
Ok well then, since it is not used anymore, I guess no point in pondering if one of them goes away. What are they using in place of the Id/Ego/Superego and if you start citing Jung, I am gonna hurl.
I think an Id-less person would be something less than a person. Remember that the Id is as much a part of you as the Ego and the Super Ego. The Id is not the bad guy. The Id keeps you safe in dangerous situations and is the one who feels a hunch when you feel a hunch. You know when someone tells you to go and do something with them, and you get a bad feeling about the idea? That’s the Id talking to you, trying to keep you safe. The Id much maligned, and it is a shame, because the Id has a very important part to play in the you of you.
Aw, come on! You gotta' face your Shadow sometime! *Oops, sorry 'bout that. Wow, that's some street pizza you just made!*
I had a best friend elsewhere on the Internet whose handle was SpiritQuest, or SQ for short. And he was one of the silliest folk I had the pleasure of knowing. He and I used to have everyone groaning with our punning duels.
I don't think modern psychological theories divide up the psyche like this... I think they tend to speak of mental processes instead. For example, the mental process of reading, which involves seeing the printed words as-they-are, reducing them to lines and curves, fitting the lines and curves to a word you recognise (except if you're dyslexic, in which case you fit the lines and curves to individual letters which you then try to form into words), "sounding out" the words in your mind, and fitting them into a context to grasp their meaning. Or the mental process of dreaming, which involves the brain stem activating random parts of the neocortex, causing random thoughts and sensations to appear to the dreamer, that he or she tries to make sense of and fit into a narrative. (So basically, everyone who dreams, is a storyteller.) It's not my area of expertise, though, so this is probably horribly over-simplified...
Realization of repetitive shapes to relate to concepts/sound/ideas is unrelated to ID/Ego/Super Ego. The ID is a persons self serving desires. IE: Food, clothing, sex, shelter, pretty baubles, things like that. The ID is the "I WANT" of the human psyche. This has nothing to do with our 'emotions in general' as so much our personal desires to gratify self, and keep self content. Our ID: Both keeps us alive, "Survival Matrix" as well as keeps us motivated to accomplish "I want that, now how do I get it" The ID however has no issues of "Moral Ambiguity" to the ID: Killing someone for their food is just as good as building a farm. As long as the ID gets it's food, it does not care. This is why people think the ID is a bad thing. It is not. It is purely the desires of self. What you want&need out of life. If this is no longer used, please tell me what is has been replaced with.
I'm more of the Jungian school of thought (the conscious and the unconscious) than the Freudian (id, ego, and superego) but there are similarities. If somebody were to eliminate the id, they'd become a fanatic. Plain and simple. They'd believe in "goodness" at all costs. While in some cases this might prove beneficial (they'd never stop fighting for what they believe in), in others it would make them incredibly narrowminded and intolerant, shades of a witch hunter or religious zealot. They would see themselves as able to do no wrong, and anyone who DOES do wrong, they would have to be punished. They might even come to believe they're on a holy mission (or just a moral mission, if they're not religious/spiritual), and that the end justifies any means. They'd become just as dangerous as somebody with no ego or superego. There has to be a balance. One has to have a dark side in order to realize their light side. One has to have a way to realize and understand their flaws and shortcomings, the better to not fall prey to them. Once you accept how capable you are of committing horrible acts, it becomes much easier to avoid doing so. We have to realize we're only human and we will make mistakes. One extreme is just as bad as another; there has to be a middle ground. That's my take on it, at least. I haven't read the other responses, so I might be unintentionally repeating someone.
I don't really know, since it's not my area of expertise, but if you want me to make an educated guess, I don't think it has been replaced by anything. Modern theories seem to talk about individual drives and needs without sorting them into different layers of the psyche.
It's not a simple replacement of terms. The entire behavioral models have fallen out of favor. The newer modles have very little in common with Jungian or Freudian psychology.
The point is whichever psychological model you use, it's pretty obvious everyone has a basic survival drive, something that makes us eat when we're hungry, drives us to want to satisfy our whims and desires - whether they are good or bad. In the Freudian model that's summed up by the id, so whatever model you support you're simply talking about removing that drive. Without that you'd be a very hollow lethargic person - you'd still have a sense of reality (which Freud calls ego) and morality (superego) but why would you bother using them if you have no passion to be happy or survive? If someone had that basic 'drive' removed I don't think they'd even end up as a robot - even robots are programmed to 'do', it would be like turning off a robot and still expecting it to perform in some way. Maybe another question could be what if you could refine the ego (if you're Freudian)/ sense of reality (if you're not) so that someone could control their basic desires so well that they'd never be swayed by any base emotion and could be purely concerned with duty and justice.... that would be one scary person to me!
I think if you turned off the id of a person, you'd end up with an excessively dry, logical type of personality. I don't think it would be a proper type of logic though, as the lack of the id would deny the person the ability to creatively solve problems. The person would be limited to instinctive or intuitive data, or things that had already been experienced. They would not be able to draw conclusions from prior situations that were similar, but not identical. It would be more like a sub-par human intelligence in short. Machine like I'm not sure would capture what I'm trying to say even. I think it wouldn't work, basically.
Ego death has been explored through the use of powerful entheogens with dissociative effects, meditation, fasting, and many more techniques for some time. Those who have experienced such ego loss often find that simple human language cannot capture the essence of such a powerful and ineffable experience.
Hm... I don't think that's the same ego Freud defined. Ego has a couple of definitions: [SIZE=-1]An inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others. Self: Your consciousness of your own identity. [/SIZE]Ego-death would be like losing the knowledge of who you are in Freud's model. You would also lose conscious awareness, according to wikipedia.
