John Haule's Erotic Analysis And The Shape Of Eros
2263 Words10 Pages
Theories Of Personalities
1) I chose to summarize John Haule's Erotic Analysis and the Shape of Eros. I believe the papers main point was all about transference and the code of ethics it stands behind. The article did not necessarily change my view on the theories that we have gone over in any way. I basically took the article for what it was. The article talks about how Dr. Mathews is involved in a sexual relationship, which he is trying to figure out what exactly his patient means to him. He is confused on what his patient means to him because she is not his friend, daughter, or wife (p.35). He talked about how this one when he first saw her he was really attracted to her and that she was causing chaos. This is an example of Freud’s first drive, called the libido (lecture). The libido or Eros is our first drive, which is our sexual desire.
Reading this article, it kind threw me off in a very unexpected way. I actually saw the article a little hard to follow at times. At first it was smooth and understanding, but then I found myself getting all confused with which case they were talking or referring to. My overall impressions of the material in the article were positive. I liked how they talked about the different kind of personalities that there are out there. And I also liked how it touched on the how the case of that psychologist trying to deny his point of weakness for allowing an emotional influence to have developed for his patient. The topic actually sparked in interest, because I would like to know how or what psychologists do in times when Eros interferes. Furthermore, Our sexual desire is not just the desire to have sex,
Pimentel 2 but to procreate. Procreation is actually a larg...
... middle of paper ...
...m comes Maturity- 65 to death. Freud talked about wisdom, and the understanding of stages. Erickson's Ego Integrity vs. Despair & Disgust touched on the characteristics of ego integrity/ relativity of life (lecture). And ends with despair, regret, mortality and fear. As far as which theorist makes most sense to me... I would go with Freud. Although Erikson has more than exceptional point of views, I feel like Freud makes most sense to me because of relevance in all the sexual connotations that he lists. I feel like I relate most to the sexual references then Erikson's overview. Furthermore, I can see how the sexual aspects of Freud's theory causes taboo but I feel like it is precisely that reason why his theory may make more sense to me then Erikson's. Erikson's theory tends to get a little too deep into the stages to make sense of the information at first glance.