Ладошки, у меня РАНЧИК РОДИЛСЯ! :-)
...
Уважаемые давние поклонники и посетители Ладошек!
Я запускаю коммьюнити-сайт, новый проект, а вы все, будучи
https://www.facebook.com/run4iq
Бег для интеллектуалов.
Бег для интеллекта.
Бег "за" интеллектом. Он сам не придёт ;-)
Ранчик родился!
Андрей AKA Andrew Nugged
Ладошки служат как архив программ для Palm OS и Poclet PC / Windows Mobile
и разрешённых книг с 15 окрября 2000 года.
Эрих Фромм — психолог, философ, культуролог, основоположник неофрейдизма — хорошо известен современному читателю. Родился во Франкфурте-на-Майне. Окончил Гейдельбергский университет, затем изучал психоанализ в Мюнхенском университете и в Психоаналитическом институте (Берлин). Работал психоаналитиком; быстро отошел от «ортодоксального», фрейдистского психоанализа и начал разрабатывать собственную теорию. В 1933 году эмигрировал в США; с 1934 по 1941 год преподавал в Колумбийском университете, затем перебрался в Мичиганский университет, а в 1962 году стал профессором психиатрии Нью-йоркского университета. Свою первую книгу выпустил в 1930 году — это была работа «Догмы Христа». Популярность у широкой публики Фромму принесли такие работы, как «Бегство от свободы» (1941), «Человек для себя» (1947), «Здоровое общество» (1955), «Революция надежды» (1968), «Кризис психоанализа» (1970).
отрывок из произведения:
...The species „man« can be defined not only in anatomical and physiological terms; it also shares in the same basic psychic: qualities, the same laws which govern its mental and emotional functioning, and the same aims for a satisfactory solution of the problem of human existence. It is true that our knowledge of man is still so incomplete that we cannot yet give a satisfactory definition of man in a psychological sense. It is the task of the „science of man« to arrive eventually at a correct description of what deserves to be called human nature. What leas often been called „human nature« is one of its many manifestations-and often a pathological one-and the function of such mistaken definitions was usually to defend a particular way of behavior as being the necessary outcome of man’s mental constitution.
Against such reactionary use of the concept of human nature, the liberals, since the 18th century, have stressed the malleability, of human nature and the decisive influence of environmental factors. True and important as such emphasis is, it has led many social scientists to an assumption that man’s mental constitution is like a blank piece of paper, on which {140} society and culture write their text, and which has no intrinsic quality of its own. This assumption is equally untenable and equally destructive of social progress. The real problem is to infer the core common to all the human race from the innumerable manifestations of human nature, the normal as well as the pathological ones, as we can observe them in different individuals and cultures. The task is furthermore to recognize the laws inherent in human nature and the inherent goals for its development and unfolding. Just as the infant is born with all human potentialities which are to develop under favorable social and cultural conditions, so the human race, in the process of history, develops into what it potentially is...
...The species „man« can be defined not only in anatomical and physiological terms; it also shares in the same basic psychic: qualities, the same laws which govern its mental and emotional functioning, and the same aims for a satisfactory solution of the problem of human existence. It is true that our knowledge of man is still so incomplete that we cannot yet give a satisfactory definition of man in a psychological sense. It is the task of the „science of man« to arrive eventually at a correct description of what deserves to be called human nature. What leas often been called „human nature« is one of its many manifestations-and often a pathological one-and the function of such mistaken definitions was usually to defend a particular way of behavior as being the necessary outcome of man’s mental constitution.
