This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Literature Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophical literature

Is this phrase really necessary? I assume Zombie-Freud was somewhat less interested in writing... Juansmith 20:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have removed the following phrase:

...though today it is usually read more as a cultural artifact than for its theories.

It is true that Freud's specific theories are no longer accepted as valid in psychology, but they are highly relevant to literary theory and philosophy. Additionally, his general model of man as an animal motivated by irrational subconscious urges is still deeply influential in many areas of culture. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

It is simply not the case that Freud's theories are uniformly not regarded as valid in psychology. Freud's theories remain relevant to clinical theory and practice, notwithstanding other theories that have developed since his time. 68.161.235.177 ( talk) 19:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaise_dans_la_civilisation

The article is a good synopsis of the book, and the book is an important one.

Previously, the first two sentences of the first section (the section after the introductory remarks) were:

In this seminal book, Sigmund Freud enumerates the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction stems from the individual's quest for instinctual freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and instinctual repression.

However, this wording was clearly at odds with the first sentence of the next paragraph:

Freud's theory is based on the notion that humans have certain characteristic instincts that are immutable.

Wording in the first paragraph ("enumerates the fundamental tensions..." and "the primary friction...") is at odds with the word "notion" in the second paragraph. Afterall, the whole book stems from the "notions" of an important figure in the history of psychology and psychiatry, but notions nonetheless.

The book represents Freud's views on the topic. I changed the wording of a couple sentences to reflect this, rather than leaving the article to present the synopsis of the book as though it is a statement of absolute fact.

Somebody may wish to change my new wording, but please take into account my consideration behind the alteration. Freud's theories are just that: theories — not facts. The wording should leave the reader clear that the book is the assertion and explication of a viewpoint. Joel Russ ( talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply

It is not. Freud mostly rejected the cryptic idea of instincts and most of his work was based on the idea that pleasure is what drives people. The word instinct came from poor translations of the german word trieb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surement ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Is this a reference to "component instincts"? Doughboy1234 ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC) "The word 'instinct' is used to translate two German words, 'Instinkt' and 'Trieb'" (Laplanche and Pontalis 214). Doughboy1234 ( talk) 19:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes this is embarrassing, but it's not ungrammatical, a reverse of what should be as in "instinctive repression" so I didn't address it. Possible English problem where innate was meant. 108.183.102.223 ( talk) 09:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

These two points about libido seem incorrect:

• Freud wonders if there may not be more than sexual desire within the term ‘libido’.
• In the sixth chapter, Freud reviews the development of his concept of libido to explain why it must now be separated into two distinct instincts: the object-instinct of eros and the ego-instinct of thanatos.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Freud seems to associate libido exclusively with sexual energy and aggressivity with the death drive (something different from libido): “The name ‘libido’ can once more be used to denote the manifestations of the power of Eros in order to distinguish them from the energy of the death instinct” (77). Doughboy1234 ( talk) 14:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Similar thing here with the widely known non-limitation of libido/eros to the sexual impulse rather than the life force generally and treating Psychology as Freudianism, although even with the latter ... . 108.183.102.223 ( talk) 05:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply