After reading Freud thinking, I totally agree with his thinking. For those kids, who have mental problems, were usually have family conflict, or I shall say it starts with a family problem. For kids, as the only child, they received all love and attention from parents, once the second child developed, that kid will get received parent’s partial love, and attention. The kid will feel lonely, their parents doesn’t love them anymore. (I feel lonely too, after my sister’s birth, feel like my parents don’t like me anymore, all they do is complaining about me.) Those kids will do things to get back those loves, or else personality reform will be shaped. They feel like since their parents don’t like them anymore, they can do whatever they want no matter what the consequence is as long as they were satisfied. The personality of jealous was formed.

According to the article entitle “Family Romance”. Freud attempted to explained the common phenomenon when children first become independent of their parent’s authority. Freud states that “one of the most necessary though one of the most painful result brought about by the course of a child development. “In the first couple of years of life the parents are at first the only authority and the source of all belief and it is only after multiple experiences that child gets to know other parents and compares them with his own and so acquires the right to doubt the incomparable and unique quality he had attributed to them”. However, at some point in childhood, some child feels ignored and humiliate by their parents and later seeks revenge through some imaginary means.

Ultimately, Freud focuses on the development of basic romantic attachment and fantasies between children and family members, especially parents. As Freud says, the progress of civilization, history is the process of one generation superseding another. Similarly, the process of growth of children in the family involves the desire of the children to supersede and overcome their parents.

I remember growing up I would always see my mother as this sort of “hero” who would always protect me from anything that could possibly happen. I could never go anywhere without her being by my side. I also remember that as time went by that attachment slowly started to disappear. Regarding that, yes, I do agree with Freud. I also agree that there is rivalry between siblings, especially two siblings who are near the same age who strive to seek their mother or father’s love. However, to me, psychology has never been real science. I say this simply because everyone is different and you simply can’t assume everyone will experience the same exact “psychological emotions”. Unless Freud managed to find the roots of consciousness, the spiritual self -the soul-, essentially reaching a higher dimension or state of awareness and grounding it down to be scientifically analyzed, then I believe he’s nothing more than an overblown observer. For his time his theories may have been seen as groundbreaking, but nowadays, in my personal opinion, they’re just that–opinions. I’ve always believed that psychological healing can only occur when you attend to your spiritual self, not when some other, for lack of a better word, mortal being tells you everything is going to be okay. Yes, that may be an aid, but it’s nothing more. So yes, I believe in the spirit and in higher planes of existence after bodily death, but I should probably mention that I do not believe in what people refer to as “God”. Religion, for what it is today, I’ve always viewed as silly and very flawed so I guess with that Freud and I have something in common. Anyways, I digress. That’s a discussion for another day.

Carlos Montoya

The structures of personality consist of many aspect during childhood. Cultural characteristics and mental maps comes from growth and self-fulfillment like pleasure seeking energies. Sigmund Freud’s views on human personality is agreeable, due to the preconscious thoughts an individual experiences during childhood stages, which follows throughout adulthood. Freud’s states that emotions and biological urges are often internalized creating conflict within a child. According to Freud, the thoughts, wishes feeling and memories that individuals are aware of come from the unconscious mind.  He believed that in order for individuals to not act on these ideas that powerfully influence expression, the person must become aware of these trouble some feelings. Relationships are not the only predictive aspect of development but it forms and emotional foundation into the continued development of a parent -child relationship for healthy social relationships throughout their lifespan.

Freud’s thinking and research is helpful when understanding children’s development in relation to their personality. How a child is raised and cared for can have a huge impact on their personality later on during their existence. As the brain and mind develops in children, so do their social, emotional and moral behavior. Freud speaks of children longing to be free from parents and replacing them with others of higher social standards calling it “ child’s envy”. This creates expression of ignorance and function for satisfying the (ID) gratification of physical desires right away. I observed these findings from Freud’s research throughout my son, brothers, cousins and nephews development. Freud’s findings of conflicting tendencies that children go through provides a manual for parents to take better care of their children’s need mentally and physically.

This is not the first time I have been introduced to the subject matter in Family Romance.  Freud’s theory discussed in the reading is commonly known as the Oedipus complex.  However, all I knew was the phrase “every boy wants to secretly kill his father and sleep with his mother.” This is the first time I have been given a more in depth description of the theory.  I found it useful because the reading shows that this “family romance” is a fiction if put literally (at least in most cases), and in fact the process is completely natural and necessary for one to reach independence.

Although, at first, I still feel a little uncomfortable saying I agree with the theory I soon accepted it as true. The important thing to remember when accepting the theory is to look below the surface level of the text. The explanation is a reference to understand the process in a primitive way, not to say that sons will actually act upon sleeping with their mothers.  I myself as a kid thought of my father as the best man in the world and my mother in an equally flattering light. As I child I thought I should marry a man just like my father when I got older.  Fast forward a few years, and I soon started to learn things about my father that removed the veil of perfection I saw him through as a child.

When Freud mentioned, “But here the influence of sex is already in evidence, for a boy is far more inclined to feel hostile impulses towards his father than towards his mother and has a far more intense desire to get free from him than from her. ” (p. 237)  I thought of a few examples where I have seen this fight for dominance between the same sex in life -as well as basically every Planet Earth episode. I also thought of how the same situation can arise between mother and daughter.  Not to belittle the conversation, but if this complex wasn’t true then shows like Dr. Phil and Maury wouldn’t exist.

It makes sense to me that children start to “replace” their parents because of the fact that no one could live up to the ideal of a toddler. Though I think that children will return to a place of respect and admiration for their parents, even for non perfect relationships, as shown by Freud’s example of daydreaming. ” We learn from their interpretation that even in later years, if the Emperor and Empress appear in dreams, those exalted personages stand for the dreamer’s father and mother.1 So that the child’s overvaluation of his parents survives as well in the dreams of normal adults. ” (p.240) As you can see, as an adult, the child of the parents will still have am idealized few of his parents even if it is represented subconsciously.

Freud’s “Family Romance” gives an interesting perspective to how we see one’s core family in different ages. I find truth, as well as logic, in some of the things freud mentioned in the Family’s Romance. One of which is Freud’s approach to how a child sees his parents in a sense of utopia. One refers to his parents as all-can-do guardians where the father is the strongest of all men, and the mother is the most loving of all women, “his father seemed to him the noblest and strongest of men and his mother the dearest and loveliest of women.” I recall my personal experience where I was admiring my parents, sometimes it was on the spectrum of obsession  where I would not let go of my parents to go to party, and forced them to stay home. In addition, another Freudian theory that I agree with is the fact that we do not know who our father is, but we definitely know who our mother is because she is the one who gave us birth. In monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity, the common belief is that one will be a Christian or a Muslim because one’s father and paternal grandfather are christians or muslims. Yet, in Judaism one would be counted as a Jew if one’s mother and the maternal grandmother are jewish.Similarly, Freud’s approach is that, “pater semper incertus est’, while the mother is ‘certissitna.’” this approach is the main reason why Jews are counted as Jews by the mother and maternal grandmother. On the other hand, I do not agree with Freud’s approach on rivalry between the father and son. This situation depends on the Alpha of one’s home rather than the gender. One’s mother or father’s dominant persona in the house is what will trigger arguments. Hence, if one’s mother is dominant, then arguments most likely will be with her, rather than with the father of the house

I have encountered Freud’s theories many times during various psychology courses and I have always found his work to be very peculiar. While his work brought psychology into the homes of everyday Americans, I believe his theories were very flawed. The ones described in this piece specifically are the Oedipus and Electra Complex. Freud’s theory of the Oedipus complex basically means that boys want to kill their fathers so they can be with their mothers, and the Electra complex is that girls want to get rid of their mothers so they can be with their fathers, since Freud believed that children see parents of the opposite sex as a threat. While theories like this clearly got the public interested in psychology because they elicited a very strong response, modern psychology research has disproved almost all of them, and very few of Freudian theories are still applied today. I think it is wrong to assume that all children despise their parents who is of the same sex as they are, and I don’t believe this to be true unless the parent of the same sex as the child has hurt the child or the other parent in some way I don’t believe that a child will harbor resentment towards that parent.  I definitely don’t think children harbor any desires towards the parent of the opposite sex as them. However one part of Freud’s piece which I resonate with was how he said that family was the source of beliefs for a child. I definitely received most of my moral values from my family since they were what I had closest to me growing up. The way my parents have raised me has impacted me hugely and has definitely shaped a part of the person I am today.

This is by far one of the most interesting readings I have done in a while. I can start off by saying I disagree with most of Freud’s ideas in his piece of Family Romance. However, there are some parts where I actually agree or can at least somewhat understand his train of thought, most of the ideas I agree with him are at the beginning of his piece. Basing it on my own personal experience I do understand why he states that to a child their parents are their everything, every belief does come from their parents. I can totally agree with his point of view because growing up all my beliefs did come from my parents and just like Freud said I aspired to be like my parents.  Then his other idea about a child’s jealousy with another sibling is true, children will always seek attention as they grow up so that train of thought I as well agree. However, after this I ultimately start to disagree with Freud’s ideas, as I grew up, I never really wanted to exchange my parents for other adults, my parents raised me to appreciate what I have and to strive for what I wanted. I believe creating this other imagination to replace your parents is just wrong. I’m as well not sure if I understood his idea on sexuality correctly like being attracted to a family member was just way too weird I believe his thoughts and ideas can be relevant in the past not in today’s world.

Walt Whitmans “Song of Myself” is one of my favorite poems. While the poem is appreciating and giving thanks to the natural world around him, he introduces himself as the subject. He is celebrating not only the natural world, but his part and place within it. He is going out and absorbing all of which nature has to offer him. Connecting himself as one with the universe, through his senses, his body, his ancestors, all in the purest form possible. At the very basis of our existence we are constantly exchanging with the world around us; whether that be the air we breathe, the feelings we embrace, or the ideas and materials we possess.

When he goes on to say “I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable”, I think he is recognizing that even though he is one with the natural world, he is also the most unnatural. The hawk he spots is one with its environment, playing a very specific role, and living a very rigid existence amongst the circle of life. While humans may be just as animalistic and untamed as the wild hawk, we are also the hardest to understand. To explain human existence and purpose can sometimes seem untranslatable. Just as some words hold meanings amongst languages that cannot be translated to another, we as humans cannot be translated to other animals. Yet, we all may end up in the same place. We end up beneath ones feet into the dirt and “depart as air”, he suggests we never really die. We continue through future growth within the human race and within the world.

The “untranslatable self” isn’t easily defined. I think it is the idea of what humans really are. Everyone has different thoughts, feelings, perceptions and none of it is translatable to another in a perfectly understandable way.

Song of Myself by Walt Whitman is a very beautiful piece of writing. In his piece he talks about how this person is so connected to nature. He sees everything as a part of rather than how we are know so detached and lost. In his writing, he talks about grass as a human being as if it is one of us. It is true that everything around us such animals and plants are just like us. With our busy lives, we sometimes become very selfish. Where we think it is all about us and get trapped in our bubble. While reading Whitman’s piece I felt some type of freedom where I am too connected to nature. Whiteman talks about a Hawk being untamed like him in which I think he is trying to say that we are like the hawk that is hard to train. For some reason his piece reminded me of a video I watched on YouTube. His guy was talking about when we get detached from nature we started to be depressed ass if we lost ourselves. But it is all about perspective, he said you may go to a park and sitting on bench where you are doing but watch the animals play, birds sing, the green in the grass and trees. He said this act will help you feel better about yourself. He also said it is important to maintain that type of mindset in your life because the more you stick with nature the better you will be.

Simarjit Singh