Daniel Gilbert and Sigmund Freud obviously have one distinct characteristic in common: they both studied psychology. While Gilbert focuses mostly on the idea of happiness in his writings, Freud explores the human psyche on a much deeper level. Although both Gilbert and Freud take two different approaches in their writings, it is easy to identify Freud’s ideas in Gilbert’s writing.
For example, Gilbert touches on the idea of pleasure as an ultimate goal for everyone, and even directly quotes Freud in his writing. But, later on in The View from Here, Gilbert introduces an idea that I feel is similar to Freud’s “Child’s Play” or “Fort/Da.” Gilbert writes, “If we amble down to the corner pub and met an alien from another planet who asked us to define that feeling, we would [either] point to the objects in the world that tend to bring it about…” (34). This simple example reminds me of the Fort/Da idea Freud introduces in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. I know it may seem like a bit of a stretch, especially as the child’s game of Fort/Da is more of a disappearing game to demonstrate how much the child misses his mother while she’s gone, but I feel that this quote reminds me of Gilbert’s example of going down to the pub:
“One day I made an observation that confirmed my view. The child had a wooden reel with a piece of string wound round it. It never occurred to him for example, to drag this after him on the floor and so play horse and cart with it, but he kept throwing it with considerable skill, held by the string, over the side of the little draped cot, so that the reel disappeared into it, then said the significant ‘o-o-o-oh’ and drew the reel by the string out of the cot again, greeting its reappearance with a joyful ‘Da’ (there)” (12).
It is clear to see that the child feels happy when he brings the wooden reel into his view, therefore emitting the joyful ‘Da.’ I feel that this is similar to the aforementioned example from Gilbert because it shows that when we’re reduced to communicating our feelings (in this case, of happiness) in a simplistic manner, we use objects that help bring that feeling about. While the child uses the wooden reel in Freud’s example, we would most likely point to other objects in the world that make us happy if we were to communicate with an alien from another planet (assuming there is no other way to communicate, almost like communicating as a child or with a child). In this specific instance, I feel that Freud’s influence on Gilbert is pretty clear to see.
Overall, even though Gilbert solely focuses on the idea of happiness in his writings and Freud delves into the human psyche in his, Freud’s influence on Gilbert can be noted in many examples Gilbert presents. Whether it is as obvious as the idea of pleasure being a goal for everyone, or more complex with the example of the alien at the pub, the influence is still there.
I find it interesting that you asset that children and aliens use seemingly different elements of communication than do adults. I think that the only recognizable difference in our communication is language. But language itself is meaningless. There is nothing to language which makes it inherently superior in its descriptive methods to an unbiased observer. I think that Freud and Gilbert would say that we all strive to communicate and that the method is purely semantics. In this sense, I believe that I can relate to others better because I know that when something is not communicated well, I still believe that our experience of experience (meaning what goes on in our neurological language)is the same.
(Sol)
Thank you so much for leaving a response to my post and for sharing your views. Your response definitely made me look at both of the texts from a different perspective, as I really didn’t think it as a possibility that maybe Gilbert and Freud would say that communication is purely semantics. You bring up a good point as well with your own personal ability to relate to others better than some. When I read “I still believe that our experience of experience (meaning what goes on in our neurological language) is the same”, I thought about something you brought up in class..it was a while ago, but from what I can loosely remember, you mentioned something about simplifying everything to its basic form..breaking down all of the complexities so that all that is left is its purest form. So, when I read that, I thought that maybe that’s what simplifies experiences, because we all know that everyone has different experiences and they’re all complex in their own way (the feelings we get from personal experiences, the way they shape who we are, etc.). But, as you mentioned, we all go through experiences in the same, neurological way. Again, I believe that simplifies experiences. So again, thank you for the insightful comment, and I hope I interpreted what you intended to get across correctly!