![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brown's Life Against Death begins "All men dream. Dreaming is a neurotic symptom. Therefore all men are neurotic." Sorry Norm, but if all men dream then dreaming is normal. The logical flaw in his work is right there at the begining. I mean besides the flaw of both Freudianism and Marxism as guides to human nature. Besides, all mammals dream and probably birds also. Brain wave patterns match those of dreaming humans and simple observation shows it. Are all border collies neurotic? Perhaps all parakeets? There are other errors. Brown can't be taken seriously. Calypsoparakeet 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. Brown is just summarizing Freud here (and in the whole first chapter of Life Against Death). You make it seem like these are his ideas. The whole book is a long complex look at this tricky formula. He's hardly treating it as naively as you suggest here. Of course, Brown does go on to say that "the universal neurosis of mankind" is "the pons asinorum of Psychoanalysis" which, combined with your simplistic dismissal, says pretty much all that needs to be said. Aglie 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Freud can't be taken all that seriously, either. At least he has the excuse of being a bit of a pioneer, synthesizing traditional knowledge (which he ignored was traditional) with scientific findings. Jung was smarter (he realized the traditional nature of much of psychoanalysis and became incredibly rich using it), but he, too, was limited by the knowledge of the times. There's little excuse for Brown, who was obviously smart but uncritical of the cultural fossil that psychoanalysis, especially freudianism, had already become. At least he achieved a measure of fame and gained followers while acquiring critics. Dreams, however, seem to be a function of information processing and memory formation and not the secret expression of a burning desire to crap your pants. -- Calypsoparakeet 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article reads, 'Brown's Love's Body, written in an unorthodox and creative style that was as much poetry as prose, was a synthesis of Freudian and Marxist ideas, with Nietzsche thrown into the mix.' This isn't accurate - whatever else it is, that book is hardly a 'synthesis of Freudian and Marxist ideas.' I suppose whoever wrote that must have been thinking of the fact that Freud and Marx are part of Brown's intellectual background - that's true, but that doesn't make that description of that book accurate. Skoojal ( talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article states that Brown, "was an American intellectual of wide ranging interests." I'm afraid this prompts a response of, so what? It's fine to have wide ranging interests, but this surely can't be the most important thing about Brown. Can't a better description be found? Also, I feel that this description is redundant. Anyone who is a genuine intellectual must by definition have wide ranging interests. Skoojal ( talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add more information about his "stay at the University of Rochester?" Kingturtle ( talk) 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead says Brown was, as his primary description, "an American classicist". I don't think that best describes him, at all, but another editor is saying that it does, so let's think this through.
Yes he was educated in classical studies, with a PhD in classics, and had interesting things to say about that. But that's not his main source of notability, and not what's most important about him. Looking over his books:
Sure as heck doesn't sound like a classicist to me. I am willing to grant that:
But he was also informed by Freud, Joyce, and many many other post-classical writers and thinkers. He was a very smart guy and widely read.
Brown taught classics for a living. Well Wallace Stevens ran an insurance company for a living, but we don't describe him as primarily "an American insurance executive". Brown got his doctorate in classics. Well Tony LaRussa passed the bar but we don't describe him as primarily "an American lawyer".
When someone says "Norman O. Brown" does the average person say "Oh yeah, that guy who wrote about Hesiod and Hermes and stuff like that"? No, she doesn't. She says "Oh yeah, Life Against Death and Love's Body" or something similar. It's these works, and his other output -- essays, reviews, and so forth -- for which he is notable, and noted.
I'm not sure exactly how to describe him, but I think "...an American public intellectual" is best. (I had also suggested "an American scholar, writer, and social philosopher" and that'd possibly be OK too.) The N Y Times has him as "philosopher", but that's a confusing word that means different things to different people, so I dunno about that. A quick google gives me "thinker", "scholar, poet and revolutionary", and "historian" right off the bat, but none of those are reliable sources. I would say public intellectual, but any rate not primarily a classicist. Herostratus ( talk) 06:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Well it's been a year and half so let's take another look at this. Barnabas2000 has been banned so she's out of the conversation, and since she was the only person insisting on "classical scholar" as the sole descriptor I've gone ahead and changed the lede subject to reversion and discussion if anyone cares to. Herostratus ( talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason that Professor Brown`s page contains all this information about John Cage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:5982:6C45:FB78:CCBA ( talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to acknowledge in some way Brown's popularity in the sixties and seventies. I thought about adding something like the following:
"It is difficult perhaps to appreciate today how popular Brown was in the culture of the sixties and seventies, especially among college students of the time. Brown's Life Against Death argued against the path of sublimation favored by Freud and instead encouraged its readers to act more playfully. Brown's 'life instinct' demanded a union with others based not on anxiety or aggression, but narcissism and erotic exuberance. The youth culture of the sixties and seventies saw in Brown's scholarly work, an intellectual basis for their explorations of sexual pleasure and play."
The reference would be from David Allyn's Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution, an Unfettered History. (p. 200) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:5982:6C45:FB78:CCBA ( talk) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brown's Life Against Death begins "All men dream. Dreaming is a neurotic symptom. Therefore all men are neurotic." Sorry Norm, but if all men dream then dreaming is normal. The logical flaw in his work is right there at the begining. I mean besides the flaw of both Freudianism and Marxism as guides to human nature. Besides, all mammals dream and probably birds also. Brain wave patterns match those of dreaming humans and simple observation shows it. Are all border collies neurotic? Perhaps all parakeets? There are other errors. Brown can't be taken seriously. Calypsoparakeet 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. Brown is just summarizing Freud here (and in the whole first chapter of Life Against Death). You make it seem like these are his ideas. The whole book is a long complex look at this tricky formula. He's hardly treating it as naively as you suggest here. Of course, Brown does go on to say that "the universal neurosis of mankind" is "the pons asinorum of Psychoanalysis" which, combined with your simplistic dismissal, says pretty much all that needs to be said. Aglie 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Freud can't be taken all that seriously, either. At least he has the excuse of being a bit of a pioneer, synthesizing traditional knowledge (which he ignored was traditional) with scientific findings. Jung was smarter (he realized the traditional nature of much of psychoanalysis and became incredibly rich using it), but he, too, was limited by the knowledge of the times. There's little excuse for Brown, who was obviously smart but uncritical of the cultural fossil that psychoanalysis, especially freudianism, had already become. At least he achieved a measure of fame and gained followers while acquiring critics. Dreams, however, seem to be a function of information processing and memory formation and not the secret expression of a burning desire to crap your pants. -- Calypsoparakeet 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article reads, 'Brown's Love's Body, written in an unorthodox and creative style that was as much poetry as prose, was a synthesis of Freudian and Marxist ideas, with Nietzsche thrown into the mix.' This isn't accurate - whatever else it is, that book is hardly a 'synthesis of Freudian and Marxist ideas.' I suppose whoever wrote that must have been thinking of the fact that Freud and Marx are part of Brown's intellectual background - that's true, but that doesn't make that description of that book accurate. Skoojal ( talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article states that Brown, "was an American intellectual of wide ranging interests." I'm afraid this prompts a response of, so what? It's fine to have wide ranging interests, but this surely can't be the most important thing about Brown. Can't a better description be found? Also, I feel that this description is redundant. Anyone who is a genuine intellectual must by definition have wide ranging interests. Skoojal ( talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add more information about his "stay at the University of Rochester?" Kingturtle ( talk) 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead says Brown was, as his primary description, "an American classicist". I don't think that best describes him, at all, but another editor is saying that it does, so let's think this through.
Yes he was educated in classical studies, with a PhD in classics, and had interesting things to say about that. But that's not his main source of notability, and not what's most important about him. Looking over his books:
Sure as heck doesn't sound like a classicist to me. I am willing to grant that:
But he was also informed by Freud, Joyce, and many many other post-classical writers and thinkers. He was a very smart guy and widely read.
Brown taught classics for a living. Well Wallace Stevens ran an insurance company for a living, but we don't describe him as primarily "an American insurance executive". Brown got his doctorate in classics. Well Tony LaRussa passed the bar but we don't describe him as primarily "an American lawyer".
When someone says "Norman O. Brown" does the average person say "Oh yeah, that guy who wrote about Hesiod and Hermes and stuff like that"? No, she doesn't. She says "Oh yeah, Life Against Death and Love's Body" or something similar. It's these works, and his other output -- essays, reviews, and so forth -- for which he is notable, and noted.
I'm not sure exactly how to describe him, but I think "...an American public intellectual" is best. (I had also suggested "an American scholar, writer, and social philosopher" and that'd possibly be OK too.) The N Y Times has him as "philosopher", but that's a confusing word that means different things to different people, so I dunno about that. A quick google gives me "thinker", "scholar, poet and revolutionary", and "historian" right off the bat, but none of those are reliable sources. I would say public intellectual, but any rate not primarily a classicist. Herostratus ( talk) 06:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Well it's been a year and half so let's take another look at this. Barnabas2000 has been banned so she's out of the conversation, and since she was the only person insisting on "classical scholar" as the sole descriptor I've gone ahead and changed the lede subject to reversion and discussion if anyone cares to. Herostratus ( talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason that Professor Brown`s page contains all this information about John Cage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:5982:6C45:FB78:CCBA ( talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to acknowledge in some way Brown's popularity in the sixties and seventies. I thought about adding something like the following:
"It is difficult perhaps to appreciate today how popular Brown was in the culture of the sixties and seventies, especially among college students of the time. Brown's Life Against Death argued against the path of sublimation favored by Freud and instead encouraged its readers to act more playfully. Brown's 'life instinct' demanded a union with others based not on anxiety or aggression, but narcissism and erotic exuberance. The youth culture of the sixties and seventies saw in Brown's scholarly work, an intellectual basis for their explorations of sexual pleasure and play."
The reference would be from David Allyn's Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution, an Unfettered History. (p. 200) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:5982:6C45:FB78:CCBA ( talk) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)