Set in stone at 5?

Would the profession of psychology be where it is today without Freud? Of course that question is near impossible to answer, but it is certainly safe to say that Freud's contributions to psychology are perhaps some of the most important. Today's theorists have drifted a bit from the extremes of Freud, but in many respects his basics are still represented. There are many aspects of Freud's theory that resonate with me, but I do have some difficulty digesting some of his ideas.

Perhaps one of Freud's most extreme theories was his psychosexual stages of development. Through these stages, Freud believed that the adult personality was formed by the end of the fifth year of life. I'm sure that I'm not the only person to ever take issue with this, but I'd like to take my turn. I find it so odd that an adult, who clearly was bright and creative, would make such a statement.

Whenever I read something of Freud that seems a bit too extreme for me, I can't help but wonder if his own issues weren't the reason for some of his claims. I'm not sure if anyone else has even wondered this, and by doing so maybe I'm disgracing the roots of psychology. I do believe that childhood plays an important roll in the development of the self and one's personality, but to say that development is concluded at the age of 5 is almost a defeatist statement. For me, one of the most exciting aspects of life is personal growth and the constant development of self and understanding that one goes through on a daily basis. It seems to me that Freud might suggest that this isn't necessary since we are who we are going to be at the ripe age of 5. My question then to Freud would be, what is the point of living after age 5? Perhaps my take on Freud's theory is just as pessimistic as his view on human life, but I can't imagine living a life without growth and development past the age of 5.

In contrast to Freud's view on this particular issue was Jung's. According to Jung the most important stage in human development occurred around age 40 and beyond. These are almost two extremes. Freud didn't put enough weight in the possibility of development in later years, while Jung seemed to look past the early years. While I do think childhood is a very important time in one's development, the idea that there is so much more to look forward to is quite refreshing. Jung's concept of the goal of self-realization is extremely appealing to me. At this point in life, it seems to me that it should be the ultimate goal for all of us to understand life to the fullest extent possible and resolve who we are to be as individuals.

While I may not agree with certain aspects of Freud's theories, I do have a great deal of respect for many of his contributions and the enormous effect he has had on almost every facet of human life. I am interested to see how my views change as we explore more theories. Perhaps I will come to agree with Freud's notion at some point. I doubt it though.

...and the pursuit of happiness?

The older I get the more interested I become in politics.  Perhaps it's because the issues become more real.  Maybe it's because I watch more news.  It could be that my friends and colleagues talk more about politics than my peers of 10 years ago.  Or maybe it's just that our country seems to be in such a horrible state that it's a feeling of urgency and extreme concern to do something to fix it.

In recent years there has been this movement of Evangelical Christians in America.  I first became aware of this groups magnitude in the 2004 presidential election in which these people came out of the wood work to vote for George W. Bush.  Several of these people make sweeping statements that have no truth or validity at all.  

Some examples:  "God created marriage."  "The founding fathers were all Christians."  

Anyone who knows anything about the history of our country knows that these are ridiculous statements.  However, anyone who doesn't agree with these statements and the ideas of the Evangelicals is immediately called anti-American and perhaps even deemed to hell (a topic for another day).  

Let me see if I have this correct.  So, if one is aware of the history of America,  if a person understands the events and people that led to the development of this great country and accepts these facts as truth...this person is a bad American?  But if someone manipulates the facts to fit into his or her ideology and throws any sense of true American and world history out the window....then that person is a true American?

This seems to be the logic that is being applied by many people in our country today.  I must say that I find it quite disturbing.

I know that there are a multitude of problems facing the United States.  I hope that in November the country will make a collective choice to begin the difficult task of getting back on a course in a better direction.  I was certain it was going to happen in November of 2004 - I should think that I don't have to say - we failed.

I'll give this another try.

I started a blog a couple years ago.  I didn't use it all that much and now I don't even know where to find it.  I thought I would start another and see what happens.  I do enjoy writing and thinking about the various issues in the world, our country, and my own self.  It's likely that not many people will read this; it's mostly a place for me to put down my thoughts.

So here's to reflection, growth, ideas, opinions, and hopefully good grammar!