Freud's legacy ... it's unsettling

I'm reading Freud, by Jonathan Lear, a book that explores the philosophical significance of Freud's work and the work of psychoanalysis more generally. Lear uses the word "legacy" to mean not only ideas and insights that someone (or some many) may have discovered or invented, but also the unanswered questions that are left behind. For Freud, the unanswered questions are about learning to live an examined life, clearly a activity of philosophy as well as practical action.

The book touches on many aspects of Freud's legacy, but the one key insight that Lear provides for me is the realization that as much as I'd like to believe that I'm fundamentally a rational being, that I behave reasonably, and that, in the right context, even weird, unexpected, and potentially dangerous behaviors are rational, and can be supported by reasons, it just ain't so.

It's a bit startling to take this in and Lear suggests that one reason is that, as a society and culture, we've adopted an intellectual "complacency" that's let us believe that in the right context anything is reasonable. He suggests that this kind of relativity isn't accurate, and, furthermore, it impedes my ability to really work on my own development. I find this unsettling, and, oddly, comforting. I'm not sure if this rational or not, but it keeps me inquiring.

Technorati Tags: culture, Moral Issues, psychoanalysis, Freud