Talk:Erich Fromm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mexico Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: The following excerpt is extremely difficult to read. After about three passes, I think I got the gyst of the author's point, but it seems like it could be cleaned up a great deal to make attempts at comprehension less of a chore. Suggest rewriting in a manner that makes the same points, but with fewer parentheticals and less of--these imbedded asides--in order to aid readability. -GTW. Fromm's thesis of the "escape from freedom" is epitomized in the following passage. The "individualized man" referenced by Fromm is man bereft of "primary ties" of belonging (nature, family, etc.), also expressed as "freedom from": "There is only one possible, productive solution for the relationship of individualized man with the world: his active solidarity with all men and his spontaneous activity, love and work, which unite him again with the world, not by primary ties but as a free and independent individual . . . . However, if the economic, social and political conditions . . . do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality in the sense just mentioned, while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his freedom." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom [N.Y.: Rinehart, 1941], pp. 36-7. The point is repeated on pp. 31, 256-7.) In terms of Karl Marx's societal dialectic, Fromm is saying in the above that if the "relations of production" (Fromm's "economic, social and political conditions") are ineluctably hostile to the development of the "productive forces"--man, principally, and, in Fromm, "individualized man"--the principal productive force (man), instead of changing the relations of production in a positive way (as Marx predicted), will achieve a "dynamic adaptation" (i.e., an active psychological adaptation); yielding "socially patterned defects" associated with a specific "social character," whereby the productive force (man) internalizes without cavil the imperatives of the relations of production. Thus Fromm disavows Marx's assumption that the historical development of the productive forces must be lineally economic (always more productive capacity, etc.) and determinative (such that the relations of productions must do all the adjusting). With reference to Marx's mentor (G.W.F. Hegel), Fromm's view is as if Hegel's Absolute Spirit were to get sick--mentally, of course--instead of relentlessly superseding the various inadequate "shapes of consciousness" (the philosophical progenitors of Marx's "relations of production") on the high historical road to absolute self-knowledge (liberation from all self-misconceptions, analogous to Marx's goal of human self-emancipation). In this manner a Frommian Absolute Spirit would experience its truth as unbearable, hence something that must be "repressed"; the upshot being a neurotic World Spirit escaping from its erstwhile Enlightenment destiny. In such a world, contrary to the master's (Hegel) formula, the historically real would not be rational; nor would the rational comprehension of such a world attain to reality. The post-mortem does not vivify the corpse. Fromm therefore implies that Marx's materialistic "transformational criticism" (via Feuerbach)—turning Hegel's idealism "right side up"—erred by leaving the agency that is inverted to materiality (Absolute Spirit) untouched in its exclusively progressive imperative. Marx said that the worker had nothing to lose but his chains, and a world to win. Fromm's psychological demurrer shows how and why the worker becomes attached to his chains, very much in the classic Buddhist sense of "attachment" (upadhi); and thereby has a human world to lose. (edit)

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) The following excerpt is extremely difficult to read. After about three passes, I think I got the gyst of the author's point, but it seems like it could be cleaned up a great deal to make attempts at comprehension less of a chore. Suggest rewriting in a manner that makes the same points, but with fewer parentheticals and less of--these imbedded asides--in order to aid readability. -GTW. Fromm's thesis of the "escape from freedom" is epitomized in the following passage. The "individualized man" referenced by Fromm is man bereft of "primary ties" of belonging (nature, family, etc.), also expressed as "freedom from": "There is only one possible, productive solution for the relationship of individualized man with the world: his active solidarity with all men and his spontaneous activity, love and work, which unite him again with the world, not by primary ties but as a free and independent individual . . . . However, if the economic, social and political conditions . . . do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality in the sense just mentioned, while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his freedom." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom [N.Y.: Rinehart, 1941], pp. 36-7. The point is repeated on pp. 31, 256-7.) In terms of Karl Marx's societal dialectic, Fromm is saying in the above that if the "relations of production" (Fromm's "economic, social and political conditions") are ineluctably hostile to the development of the "productive forces"--man, principally, and, in Fromm, "individualized man"--the principal productive force (man), instead of changing the relations of production in a positive way (as Marx predicted), will achieve a "dynamic adaptation" (i.e., an active psychological adaptation); yielding "socially patterned defects" associated with a specific "social character," whereby the productive force (man) internalizes without cavil the imperatives of the relations of production. Thus Fromm disavows Marx's assumption that the historical development of the productive forces must be lineally economic (always more productive capacity, etc.) and determinative (such that the relations of productions must do all the adjusting). With reference to Marx's mentor (G.W.F. Hegel), Fromm's view is as if Hegel's Absolute Spirit were to get sick--mentally, of course--instead of relentlessly superseding the various inadequate "shapes of consciousness" (the philosophical progenitors of Marx's "relations of production") on the high historical road to absolute self-knowledge (liberation from all self-misconceptions, analogous to Marx's goal of human self-emancipation). In this manner a Frommian Absolute Spirit would experience its truth as unbearable, hence something that must be "repressed"; the upshot being a neurotic World Spirit escaping from its erstwhile Enlightenment destiny. In such a world, contrary to the master's (Hegel) formula, the historically real would not be rational; nor would the rational comprehension of such a world attain to reality. The post-mortem does not vivify the corpse. Fromm therefore implies that Marx's materialistic "transformational criticism" (via Feuerbach)—turning Hegel's idealism "right side up"—erred by leaving the agency that is inverted to materiality (Absolute Spirit) untouched in its exclusively progressive imperative. Marx said that the worker had nothing to lose but his chains, and a world to win. Fromm's psychological demurrer shows how and why the worker becomes attached to his chains, very much in the classic Buddhist sense of "attachment" (upadhi); and thereby has a human world to lose.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers

According to this page, Erich Fromm postulated five basic needs. The page then goes on to list exactly four. Is a fifth one missing, or is the number five incorrect? 152.2.240.125 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that Fromm was the originator of the idea of unconditional love. Does anyone know if that is true?

---

--- Yes, it is true. I totally stole the idea from him. -Jesus

---

I looked it up and he was born on 23 March not 22.
User:kpjas

Contents 1 Is Fromm Really a Philosopher? 2 Fromm worked with Maccoby in the 60s? 3 Needs a serious reworking .... 4 When did he become a psychoanalyst? 5 I cut this bit 6 Fromm and the IPA 7 Critique of Marx 8 new tag 9 Writing books after death? 10 Removed this.

[edit] Is Fromm Really a Philosopher?

It can be admitted that Fromm is generally considered to be a philosopher. Still, how can he be properly called a philosopher when his writing displays such obvious logical mistakes? Rather than philosopher, Fromm is a typical bombastic intellectual lacking any sense of responsibility for what he is writing. How good psychologist he is I cannot judge; a man who makes such blatant mistakes does not deserve to be called a scientist either. Fromm's ideological setting can easily be traced to that of Hegel and Marx. Karl Popper's arguments against the two made in his Open Society and its Enemies easily apply to Fromm as well. Admittedly, Fromm tries to answer questions belonging to the domain of philosophy. Nevertheless, is anyone giving his opinions on philosophical questions a philosopher? Similarly, writer telling us that 2 + 2 = 5.78 is answering a mathematical question, which does not suffice to call him a mathematician.

---

<< It can be admitted that Fromm is generally considered to be a philosopher.>>

And as Wikipedians, it is our job to report that generally accepted fact. -- NetEsq 17:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

<< Still, how can he be properly called a philosopher when his writing displays such obvious logical mistakes? Rather than philosopher, Fromm is a typical bombastic intellectual lacking any sense of responsibility for what he is writing. >>

See Wikipedia:Talk Page - What is it used for?. Wikipedia is not a soap box. -- NetEsq 17:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can someone cite generally accepted examples of his logical errors?

What logical errors are you talking about be specific or else I dont see why I should agree with you or fee like you have an argument against him? Also whats up with the attitude?

"Popper's method is hardly applicable to any serious philosophical inquiry, anyways." - Dean Sayers

[edit] Fromm worked with Maccoby in the 60s?

I am writing this as a simple sticky note since i am bored today. I was looking for what the two guys (Erich and Michael Maccoby were working on and the article didn't mention it. I will probabily google it later once i get a chance. Maccoby later want to do funky research on how phb guys think and got the first break after meeting John Young a HP phb

[edit] Needs a serious reworking ....

This article is pretty bad. It has listed every single job that he ever did, and the analysis of his ideas solely concentrates on the religious aspect.

What about Freud, Reich and Marcuse? I will work on it tomorrow, this guy deserves it .....

Although Erich Fromm is marxist he doesn't call for revolution - because the violence isn't a correct way to resolve problems of the society. Soviet Union proves it, Iraq too. So, he was very true about the politics of both Soviet Union and USA. He stated that the way (approach) someone wants to achieve something (a goal) is an integrated part of the goal and I consider this as a very important thought. You can't teach someone to be humane by violence. His explanation of love as a respect and equality is also very much appealing to me. Before reading his works I didn't really understood what the love is, such as the 99% of the people in the world as well, unfortunately. The love is also the answer to the most of the society problems, although it seem to be utopical. Yet, he's tried with his books to improve this world. Shame that the world didn't hear him. As for logical mistakes and so on - well, the complexity of the world can't be squeezed in strict borders of logic. Even ancien chinese knew that, yet europeans still desperately trying it.

The world can be explained by logic, that's how science works :-) And science has done a lot for us humans over the last few thousand years. It's only fairly recently that science has held much ground in the humanities, so some people don't expect human behaviour to be explained by science. But that doesn't mean it can't be. matturn 08:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone tell what the logical-or-not issue circles around? Fromm said a little on Aristotelian logic and Eastern logic, but which argument specifically do people criticise. 80.130.151.201 23:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It was an insult to compare Fromm's ideas to those of "classical liberals" (aka rightist libertarians) as he viewed capitalism as an evil, demoralizing structure. That's like comparing Chomsky's works to that of classical liberals, and Chomsky called Libertarianism "...the worst kind of totalitarianism imaginable."

[edit] When did he become a psychoanalyst?

The page says that Fromm "completed his psychoanalytical training in 1930 at the Psychoanalytical Institute in Berlin.", but according to Rolf Wiggershaus' The Frankfurt School, he was "trained as a psychoanalyst . . . and opened his own practice in 1927" (p. 54). So I'm changing this... (just thought I should notify, I'm new to these things...)

(Lsamurai)

http://www.erich-fromm.de/e/play.php?shownews=10

He has finished psychoanalytical training in 1930.

[edit] I cut this bit

The following passage, strangely placed after the list of major works, seems to me garbled and poorly written. I cut it. Others may disagree, so here it is for inspection:

As mentioned above Fromm was the one, because of his interest in politics and philosophy, developed the idea that freedom poses a key psychology problem that affects personality. He said that there are 2 basic ways of dealing with freedom. The first being A)Embrace it, works with each other. And the second which was to B) Run away from it. Authoritariansm- those who support dicators Destructiveness- thpse who act not by rules but by elimination of others Antomation Confortmity- people stop being themselves and conform to peer/cultural pressure.

Fromm also believed in the 5 basic needs which were the following: a) relatedness- people need to have relationships with others b) transcendence- people must move beyond basic instincts and use creativity to develop a loving, interesting life c) rootedness-feeling like they belong d) sense of identity- see themselves as an unique person; prevents conformity e)the need for a frame of orientation and object deviation

qp10qp 00:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fromm and the IPA

Short information you can find here http://www.daedalus-verlag.de/freie-assoziation/h1_02pr.htm. Austerlitz 88.72.30.19 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of Marx

I think someone should add a critique of Marx, Fromm was as critical of Marx as he was of Freud ForrestLane42 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'd like to see it. I've only read his work on Freud, which is why I stopped there. Clarknova 06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fromm criticized all the philosophers he spoke of; he didn't worship any of them. That said, he was far less critical of Marx, particularly in regards to philosophical and ideological concerns, than he was of Freud 24.125.146.49 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new tag

I only put the tag on because of citations needed, everything seems up to par. ForrestLane42 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Writing books after death?

The article says he published the following books:

1. The Art of Being (1993)
2. The Art of Listening (1994)

But also that he died in 1980. Am I stupid (eg: I don't understand that the books could be published after his death by someone else) or it is a mistake?

No, they are from his writings that he chose not to publish - for instance The Art of Being was suppose to be part of his last book To Have or To Be? They were released by his estate and executor Rainer Funk ForrestLane42 04:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Removed this.

The following text was painful to read, systematically unreferenced, non-encyclopedic, and clearly in violation of WP:OR. I have removed it from the article.

In terms of Karl Marx's societal dialectic, Fromm is saying in the above that if the "relations of production" (Fromm's "economic, social and political conditions") are ineluctably hostile to the development of the "productive forces"--man, principally, and, in Fromm, "individualized man"--the principal productive force (man), instead of changing the relations of production in a positive way (as Marx predicted), will achieve a "dynamic adaptation" (i.e., an active psychological adaptation); yielding "socially patterned defects" associated with a specific "social character," whereby the productive force (man) internalizes without cavil the imperatives of the relations of production. Thus Fromm disavows Marx's assumption that the historical development of the productive forces must be lineally economic (always more productive capacity, etc.) and determinative (such that the relations of productions must do all the adjusting). With reference to Marx's mentor (G.W.F. Hegel), Fromm's view is as if Hegel's Absolute Spirit were to get sick--mentally, of course--instead of relentlessly superseding the various inadequate "shapes of consciousness" (the philosophical progenitors of Marx's "relations of production") on the high historical road to absolute self-knowledge (liberation from all self-misconceptions, analogous to Marx's goal of human self-emancipation). In this manner a Frommian Absolute Spirit would experience its truth as unbearable, hence something that must be "repressed"; the upshot being a neurotic World Spirit escaping from its erstwhile Enlightenment destiny. In such a world, contrary to the master's (Hegel) formula, the historically real would not be rational; nor would the rational comprehension of such a world attain to reality. The post-mortem does not vivify the corpse. Fromm therefore implies that Marx's materialistic "transformational criticism" (via Feuerbach)—turning Hegel's idealism "right side up"—erred by leaving the agency that is inverted to materiality (Absolute Spirit) untouched in its exclusively progressive imperative. Marx said that the worker had nothing to lose but his chains, and a world to win. Fromm's psychological demurrer shows how and why the worker becomes attached to his chains, very much in the classic Buddhist sense of "attachment" (upadhi); and thereby has a human world to lose.

Phrenophobia 07:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)