1

Name: Wafa Khan

Course no: VS-351,

Roll no: 56, Seat no: B19822120

Histroy of ideas

Professor: Sa’ad Shakeel

August 18, 2020

 2

Q1: How is philosophy concerned to our lives as human beings?

we, homo sapiens are the only species awarded with the ability to think by the God Almighty.

when i first came to my senses and started to think, i used to look at myself, my body and

think who I was, where I came from and what would it be like if I didn’t exist. I used to

ponder and glance at random people and wondered how their life was, what it would be like

if I were them and to live in their skin. I remember as a kid, watching several shows thinking

to myself if i'm watching their story who's watching the story of my life or who's show or

movie am I playing a part in. I don't believe that there's a day in my life that hasn't passed that

I haven't contemplated this thing we call life and the idea of consciousness. As I grew up

I started looking into this thing called ‘life’ and trying to understand the world, not through

religion or by accepting authority but using reason. The daily lives of most of us are full

things that keep us busy and preoccupied. However, every now and then we find ourselves

drawing back and wondering what it is all about. Then, perhaps we may start asking

fundamental questions that normally we do not stop to ask. This can happen with regard to

any aspect of life. Studying philosophy enriches one's life, it provides intellectual joy its the

joy that comes from attaining truth. knowing the truth of life brings some special kind of

satisfaction, philosophy is the kind of knowledge that is speculative, the better we get at

improving our knowledge the more human we become we improve that specific power that

we human beings posess. philosophy teaches an individual to think more and ask oneself

questions like, why are we alive, where we came from, how we ought to live, what is life and

its purpose?, what is right and what is wrong?, why does God exist etc, we should take stand

on these questions as they are concerned with our lives. When a person studies philosophy,

he is able to intelligently discuss all these important questions. this subject involves critical
 3

scrutiny of our fundamental beliefs and convictions- about the nature of reality, about

knowledge and about value. It is about careful disctinctions and good arguments, not those

arguments which include verbal quarrels, but those which have a chain of reasoning, where

there is logic and everthing logically fits together. it teaches us to value independent critical

thought and to scrutinize the arguments we hear from our surroundings, television etc. with

time humans have learnt how to communicate ideas and arguments clearly and effectively

both in speech and in writing due to philosophy. it also teaches us how to reason with abstract

concepts and ways of applying abstract concepts to particular cases, it makes a person

become really good at seeing the practical consequences of adopting different higherlevel

principles. Philosophical inquiry is very valuable, suitable only for those who possess a

modest amount of courage, humility, patience and discipline. (When we study philosophy our

problem-solving capacities increase. It helps one to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments

and problems. It contributes to one's capacity to organize ideas and issues, to deal with

questions of value, and to extract what is essential from masses of information. Doing

philosophy requires courage, because one never knows what one will find at the end of a

philosophical investigation. Since philosophy can deal with the most fundamental and

important issues of human existence and since these are things that most people initially take

for granted, genuine philosophical inquiry has the potential to unsettle or even to destroy

one’s deepest and most beliefs. It requires humility, because to do philosophy one must

always keep firmly in mind how little one knows and how easy it is to fall into error. The

very initiation of philosophical inquiry requires one to admit to oneself that one may not,

after all, have all of the answers. Doing philosophy requires both patience and discipline,

because philosophical inquiry requires long hours of hard work. One must be prepared to

commit huge amounts of time to laboring over issues both difficult and subtle. It also

contributes uniquely to the development of expressive and communicative

 4

powers. It provides some of the basic tools of self-expression. For instance, skills in

presenting ideas through well-constructed, systematic arguments that other fields either do

not use, or use less extensively. Lastly, I believe that one of the great values of philosophy is

found in questions. In a world so consumed by finding the "right" answer sometimes we

forget that first we must ask the right question. Philosophy allows us to do just that, find the

right question.

Q2: What are the challenges being faced by ‘mind body dualism’ from contemporary modern

science?

Rene Descartes was a substance dualist. He is the most famous proponent of mind-body
dualism. He believed that there were two kinds of substance: matter, of which the essential
property is that it is spatially extended; and mind, of which the essential property is that it
thinks. Descartes’ most significant error was in assuming mind-body dualism. He had
embarked on a journey of radical doubt in order to find a fundamental ground upon which to
erect an edifice of absolutely certain knowledge. Whatever he could possibly doubt he put on
hold. He methodically questioned everything he could think of, including his own sense
perceptions. Couldn’t these be an illusion? Descartes appears to have already presupposed
that mind and body are separable. If we temporarily accept that the existence of thought
provides an evidence that the mind exists, it could equally plausibly prove that the body,
or at least the brain, also exists. This does not necessarily have to be a materialist stance,
thought could exists outside of the body but nonetheless require some form of physical
medium as a conduit. It could equally plausibly be the case that thought is entirely material
and thus Descartes would be proving that a material brain exists somewhere. The real
problem for cartesian dualism was how can an immaterial mind cause something in a material
body? And vice versa. Rene Descartes was unable to come up with a reasonable answer to
this, therefore, he wrote a letter to the Elisabeth if Bohemia and explained that our body
interacted with our mind through pineal glands, these glands are located in the centre of the
 5

brain, between the two cerebral hemispheres. The term Cartesian dualism is also often
associated with this more specific notion of causal interaction through the pineal gland.
However, the explanation was not satisfactory: how can an immaterial mind interact
with the physical pineal gland? This made the theory difficult to defend.
Another problem sometimes faced by mind-body dualism that it does not really help one to
understand the nature of mind. All it tells us is that there is a non-physical substance in each
of us which thinks, dreams, experiences etc. But, it is alleged by physicaltists, a non-physical
mind couldn't be investigated directly. in general, it couldnt be investigated scientifically
because science only deals with the physical world. All we could examine would be its
effects on the world. Against this the dualist might reply that we can observe the mind
through introspection, that is, through considering our own thought. And we can and do
investigate the mind indirectly through its effects on the physical world. Most science works
by inferring the causes of observed effects, scientific investigation of a non-physical mind
would be an instance of this same type of approach. Besides which, mind body dualism at
least has the benefit of explaining how it might be possible to survive bodily death,
something which physicalism cannot do without introducing the idea of the resurrection of
the body after death. There’s a modern fashion for asserting that only physical things really
exist, mind is not a 'thing' in itself. That would work just fine if we didn’t actually have
feelings and were insentient robots that function but don’t feel. It’s not as if we are really
discussing how things ultimately are in themselves. We’re don’t have a mystical connection
with the universe. We assemble a view of it based on nerve signals. Our brains or minds
work hard to assemble that view. All we ever know about is the view that our minds have
assembled for us. Dualism hasn’t proven at all practically useful (not scientifically anyway),
except that dualism represents the way things immediately strike us; we talk and act as
though there are actually two separate things, mind and matter. Ofcourse that doesn’t mean
that carrying through the way we think about life ordinarily is going to prove to be at all
useful in tackling difficult philosophical or scientific questions. The mind body dualism has
been debunked and the philosophers and scientists from contemporary modern science don’t
take it seriously anymore due to the objections and theories against it.
 6

Q3: How behaviorists establish their case of human nature basing it on ‘conditioning the
behaviour’? discuss it with the reference to one dominant example from the society

Behaviourism provides a rather different way out of the mind and body problem.

Behaviourists deny the existence of mind altogether. When a person is said and described to

be in pain or as irritated, it is not, the behaviourist argues, a representation of that very

person’s public behaviour or potential behaviour in in hypothetical situations. In other words

it is the description of what a person would do in such circumstances, that is, their

dispositions to behave. To be in pain means to wince, groan, scream, cry and so on,

depending on how much the pain is and its intensity. While, being irritated one has a

tendency to misbehave, speak aloud, get rude and stamp one’s feet. Although we talk about

our mental states, according to the behaviourists this is just a short hand way of describing

our behaviour tendencies to behave in certain ways. This shorthand way of describing mental

behaviour has led us to believe that the mind is a separate thing: Gilbert ryle a famous

behaviourist philosopher, in his book called ‘the concept of mind’ called this dualistic view

‘the dogma of the ghost in the machine’ the ghost being the mind and machine the body. The

behaviourists used to criticize the mentalists for their inability to demonstrate empirical

evidence to support their claims. The behaviourist school of thought maintains that

behaviours can be described scientifically without recourse either to internal physiological

events or to hypothetical constructs such as thoughts and beliefs, making behaviour a more

productive area of focus for understanding human or animal psychology. Ivan Pavlov, a

Russian scientist is known for his work on one important type of learning, called the classic

conditioning. He discovered classical conditioning accidentally while doing research on the

digestive patterns in dogs. During his experiments, he would put meat powder in the mouth

of a dog who had tubes inserted into various organs to measure bodily responses. Pavlov

discovered that the dog began to salivate before the meat powder was presented to it. Soon
 7

the dog began to salivate as soon as the person feeding it entered the room. Pavlov quickly

began to gain interest in this phenomenon and abandoned his digestion research in favour of

his now famous classical conditioning study. Basically, Pavlov’s findings support the idea

that we develop responses to certain stimuli that are not naturally occurring. When we touch a

hot stove, our reflex pulls our hand back. We do this instinctively with no learning involved.

The reflex is merely a survival instinct. Pavlov discovered that we make associations that

cause us to generalize our response to one stimuli onto a neutral stimuli it is paired with. In

Pavlov’s further research with the dogs he started pairing the sound of a bell with the meat

powder when resulted in salivation of a dog after hearing the sound of the bell, In this case

since the meat powder causes salivation naturally, these two variables are called the

unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and the unconditioned response (UCR), while in the

experiment, the bell and salivation are not naturally occurring; the dog is conditioned to

respond to the bell. Therefore, the bell is considered the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the

salivation to the bell, the conditioned response (CR). When we make these types of

associations, we are experiencing classical conditioning, But for classical conditioning to be

effective, the conditioned stimulus should occur before the unconditioned stimulus, rather

than after it, or during the same time. Thus, the conditioned stimulus acts as a type of signal

or cue for the unconditioned stimulus. the conditioned stimulus (CS) which had been

associated with the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) creates a new conditioned response (CR).

Human behaviours are also shaped by the pairing of stimuli. The fragrance of a particular

perfume, the sound of a certain song, or the occurrence of a specific day of the year can

trigger distinct memories, emotions, and associations.

Q4: The David Hume’s criticism of cause & effect principle (skepticism) is in-line or against

the common sense? Argue your case.

 8

Skepticism, also spelled scepticism is the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in

various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking

what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned

whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they

have challenged the rational grounds of accepted assumptions. In everyday life, practically

everyone is skeptical about some knowledge claims; but philosophical skeptics have doubted

the possibility of any knowledge beyond that of the contents of directly felt experience. In

Greek the original meaning of skeptikos was an inquirer, a curious person who was

unsatisfied and still looking for truth. David Hume was described as ‘the philosopher of

common sense’. He performs a balancing act between making skeptical attacks and offering

positive theories based on natural beliefs, though, he appears to elevate his skepticism to a

higher level and exposes the inherent contradictions in even his best philosophical theories.

He notes three such contradictions. He notes three such contradictions. One centers on what

we call induction. Our judgments based on past experience all contain elements of doubt; we

are then impelled to make a judgment about that doubt, and since this judgment is also based

on past experience it will in turn produce a new doubt. Once again, though, we are impelled

to make a judgment about this second doubt, and the cycle continues. He concludes that “no

finite object can subsist under a decrease repeated in infinitum.” A second contradiction

involves a conflict between two theories of external perception, each of which our natural

reasoning process leads us to. One is our natural inclination to believe that we are directly

seeing objects as they really are, and the other is the more philosophical view that we only

ever see mental images or copies of external objects. The third contradiction involves a

conflict between causal reasoning and belief in the continued existence of matter. After

listing these contradictions, Hume despairs over the failure of his metaphysical reasoning. He

then pacifies his despair by recognizing that nature forces him to set aside his philosophical
 9

speculations and return to the normal activities of common life. He sees, though, that in time

he will be drawn back into philosophical speculation in order to attack superstition and

educate the world. There is something pitiable about Hume’s delusion that in presenting his

few scattered remarks about the association of ideas he was doing for epistemology what

Newton had done for physics. But it is unfair to judge him because his philosophical

psychology is so jejune: he inherited and impoverished philosophy of mind from his

seventeenth-century forebears, and he is often more candid than they in admitting the gaps

and incoherences in the empiricist tradition. The insights that made him great as a

philosopher can be disentangled from their psychological wrapping, and continue to provoke

reflection. His main contribution to epistemology was a new form of skepticism. The

commom sense philosophy orginated as a reaction against the forms of idealism and

skepticism that were prevalent in England at about the turn of the 20th century, the first major

work of common-sense philosophy was Moore’s paper ‘A Defense of Common Sense’

Against skepticism, Moore argued that he and other human beings have known many

propositions about the world to be true with certainty. Among these propositions are: ‘The

Earth has existed for many years’ and “Many human beings have existed in the past and some

still exist.” Because skepticism maintains that nobody knows any proposition to be true, it

can be dismissed, Although, David Humes’ criticism of cause & effect principle eliminates

metaphysical assumptions behind his speculative philosophy and instead attempts to orient

and begin them in the observations of everyday life. His notions about cause and effect fall in

line with that practice. That tradition in the British Empiricism school of philosophy more or

less continued and descends unbroken up to the modern British Analytic Philosophy. The

theories of philosophers like Descartes and Hume had an enormous impact on the way we

talk, in our everyday language, about ourselves and our minds and thoughts.
 10

Q5: How Immanuel Kant revolutionizes the notion of knowledge? Why his framework is also

called Copernican revolution?

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most influential philosophers in the history of

Western philosophy. His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics

have had a profound impact on almost every philosophical movement that followed him.

Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics. The

reason that knowledge has these constraints, Kant argues, is that the mind plays an active role

in constituting the features of experience and limiting the mind’s access only to the empirical

realm of space and time. Kant responded to his predecessors by arguing against the

Empiricists that the mind is not a blank slate that is written upon by the empirical world, by

rejecting the Rationalists’ notion that pure, a priori knowledge of a mind-independent world

was possible. Reason itself is structured with forms of experience and categories that give a

phenomenal and logical structure to any possible object of empirical experience. These

categories cannot be circumvented to get at a mind-independent world, but they are necessary

for experience of spatio-temporal objects with their causal behavior and logical properties.

These two theses constitute Kant’s famous transcendental idealism and empirical realism.

Pure” knowledge, also known as “a priori” knowledge, is knowledge that does not depend on

our senses. Self-existence is pure knowledge, because, as Descartes showed, the very act of

thinking proves that we exist. We don’t require sensory experiences to justify self-existence.

Similarly, mathematics is pure knowledge. Immanuel Kant insists that space and time are

also pure knowledge. Kant's main concern was philosophical knowledge. How we can gain

knowledge about our being, which is based in reason rather than speculation. To understand

this we have to first look at the way we comprehend something. The two important faculties

by which we came to know about the world are sensibility and understanding. After
 11

understanding comes reason and judgement. Without sense matter there is no other source of

new information. We comprehend the matter brought by the senses by using the concepts

which are already present in us. Then we reason to establish a cause effect relationship. Then

judgement is applied to take a decision. Knowledge can be analytical. It requires a logic and

the procedural knowledge of application of the logic. We do not need any observational data.

So it is a priori. Not all knowledge are analytic. When there is a lacunae in our understanding,

that may need descriptive explanation. These type of explanations are synthetic knowledge.

In such cases, we first need to construct a theory and then validate it. Usually this validation

is a three step process. First we see if the theory can explain the lacunae in knowledge, we are

trying to explain. If the theory can explain a question, then it does not automatically becomes

a truth. It remains a belief. We then put the theory to test. When our observation supports the

theory then the belief becomes a conviction. But conviction is not an established truth.

When we can establish a conviction with reason and provide an explanation for the observed

phenomenon, then it becomes a true knowledge. It remains true till our repeated future

observations do not find any contradiction. If contradictions arise in future then new lacunae

appear and requirements arise for a new theory. This cycle continues. But this method cannot

answer certain types of lacunae. Suppose we ask if soul is there or not. Here we can form a

theory. But we cannot turn that theory into conviction through observation. Nobody can die

and narrate if there is afterlife or not. So in case of existential questions we employ a different

method. Kant was concerned about this type of knowledge and tried to show how we can

validate a theory with reason when we cannot obtain any observatory evidence in support.

When we try to seek philosophical truth we use this method. In Kantian terminology this is

called the synthetic a priori knowledge. A synthetic a priori can be considered as absolute

truth. As it can not be contradicted by any observation. However, Kant was not the first

person to distinguish between pure knowledge and empirical knowledge. It can be traced
 12

back to at least Descartes. One of Kant’s revolutionary ideas was that we can have pure

knowledge about the outside world, namely space and time. Kant was an accomplished

astronomer himself. Kant said that he created a Copernican revolution in philosophy because

he maintained that the really real, the “noumenal world,” is not knowable to us. In his mind,

thinking that we can know ultimate reality is like putting ourselves at the center of the

universe, while realizing that we can’t know it removes us into something like an orbital

position.

Q6: Can we consider romantic approach to knowledge as scientific?

Romanticism is an intellectual movement that originated in Western Europe as a counter-

movement to the late-18th-century Enlightenment. Romanticism incorporated many fields of

study, including politics, the arts, and the humanities. romanticism shares a set of social

values that limit the ways its adherents understood reality. life, love, happiness, and freedom

are core components of the romantic cognitive viewpoint. Romanticism is a philosophical

movement that rises during the age of enlightenment which emphasizes self awareness as a

necessary tool to improve society and better the human condition. In general romanticism

was a reaction of scientific rationalization of nature during the age of reason which left some

room for creativity of the human spirit and stressed on strong emotions as a source of

aesthetic knowledge. it was embodied mostly in visual arts music and literature, but also in

philosophical thoughts. In the 19th century science was greatly influenced by romanticism.

European scientists of the romantic period held the view that nature can help in understanding

of self, that knowledge of nature should not be obtained. Wellek argued that romanticism has

a kind of epistemological unity in terms of how the romantics shaped their ideas about the

sensible reality. epistemology is philosophy thinking about knowledge, what constitutes

knowledge and how we can “know” things and how certainly or uncertainly, and so on.
 13

science is making knowledge, and epistemology is about what knowledge is and how it

works. In theory advances in either can influence the other, but for some time it’s been

science affecting epistemology more than the other way around, It is the philosophical school

of thought which studies knowledge and how we can actually know things about the

universe. It asks questions such as what is knowledge and its limits, are there methods which

can be used to derive new knowledge, How can we know that our world around us is real,

and many other questions. Alongside ontology, it makes us question our own existences as

individuals and forces us to try making arguments defending the concept that we exist in a

real world and not in some virtual reality. Also, it has led to numerous key advancements in

human knowledge. For starters, it established the scientific method and, by virtue of said

method, science itself. The first people to use the scientific method were natural philosophers,

largely made up of epistemologists, who made the assumption that observing the world can

yield true results about existence. They make this claim by virtue of the patterns we observe

around us and how everything seems orderly to us. Regardless, it is still a big assumption to

make that has been challenged time and again, but it is what makes all scientific discoveries

possible. Wellek claimed that romanticism was mainly based on notions such as imagination,

symbolism, and myth. In this way, he maintained, romanticism as a literary movement tried

to make sense of the hidden dimensions of modernity. by force. They felt that enlightenment

had encouraged the abuse of science and worked hard to advance a new way of increasing

scientific knowledge which would not only be beneficial to humans but to nature as well.

romanticism advanced a number of themes, Anti reductionism hat the whole is more valuable

than the parts alone and epistemological man was always connected to nature and give rise to

creativity, experience and genius.it also emphasize on scientist role in the scientific discovery

and how understanding of nature means understanding men well, therefore they paid great

attention on nature. Romantics believed that explanation of various phenomenon should be

 14

based upon. which means that they already known causes would produce similar effects. they

didn't believe that inorganic sciences were at the top of the hierarchy but at the bottom with

the life sciences next and phycology placed even higher. in the Romantic age the awareness

of the importance of knowledge for the sake of power and of the great responsibility of

scientist was quite widespread. But this awareness did not merely bring about some sort of

myth of scientists or even of men of genius, as it did happen with many other artistic

creations of that period. It rather led to the foundation of societies and organizations that

aimed at promoting and spreading science, which was no longer presented as the exclusive

prerogative of a narrow community. In any case, we want to make it very clear that the

Romantic age was a great scientific age.

Q7: How bad faith is the negation of freedom? Is it possible to overcome overcome bad faith?

Bad faith is a philosophical concept used by existentialist philosophers Simon de biouvor and

Jean paul sartre, which describes the phenomenon in which people under pressure of society

or their minds make wrong choices and disown their innate freedom. One of the biggest

claims in existentialism school of thought is that an individual is always free to make choices

and take actions and devote their lives toward their chosen goals, that humans can never

escape these freedoms even in the overwhelming situations it is their own choice to either

commit suicide or counter attack. although external circumstances may limit individuals to

follow one of the two choices, even in this sense they have freedom of choice. we are aware

that we are more than what we are aware of that means that we are more than just character

body or personal history. Sarte always said that “human reality is what it is not and it is not

what it is “. a person can only define oneself negatively as “what it is not which is the

negotiation of the positive definition of what it is Bad faith is a paradoxical free decision to
 15

deny oneself this inescapable freedom. when acting in bad faith a person actively denies their

own freedom while relying on it to perform denial. Bad faith occurs when we lie to our self in

order to spare yourself short term pain but suffers from long term psychological

impoverishment, we force ourselves to believe something which we are not really convinced

by because it easier but sartre believed that when we continuously lie to ourselves is because

we don't have any other option we always do but we find it more reassuring to say we don't

and let us of the hook ,bad faith often happens around work ,we often tell ourselves that the

position we are in is our destiny that we have to suffer in order to survive but sartre believe

that its not true we are all free,there are scary moments that he called negative ecstasy which

might come late at night, when we realize that we are in fact more free that we actually

thought that we could work hard or can find our ways out of the problems we are facing.it

could be harrowing because we have to acknowledge that we may be wasting our lives and it

will be our wn fault in the end however most of the time we tend to blame on circumstances

or other people but we suppress this insight the next day we force ourselves to trust us once

again the price is that we close of opportunity for changing and improving our lives, sartre

says that “being precedes essence. '' which means that we cannot be pinned down by one

downfall, failures or one bad relation. our being is much bigger, we are more capable that we

think we are. it embraces sartes words that “All the things we are at the present not, but could

possibly become”.in bad faith we keep these possibilities out of our mind and tell oneself that

we are only the way we could be at the moment. So it closes down the options on freedom.

Sartre did not see bad faith as a suppressing or unusual problem .it is how our minds work

and he wanted to remind us to be free as we really are.

 16

Q8: On what grounds Sigmund Freud criticizes the traditional concept of human nature?

Discuss the significance of ‘Unconscious Mind’ for his framework and methods to know it.

Human nature is a concept that denotes fundamental disposition and characteristics including

the way of thinking, feeling that humans are said to have naturally. Freud expresses the view

that humans are primarily driven by sexual and aggressive instincts human nature is consist

of some deep characteristics the yearn to seek pleasures and impulse such as aggression the

ego in his selfdrives him towards pleasurable experiences and need for love and avoidance of

pain in every aspects of life in his theory of human development he described human nature

as essentially historic. he suggested that in the historical process of changing human nature

and maintaining a achieved new structure has mainly been an enterprise of enlightened

political elites, which has imposed the new nature upon the ordinary people. Sigmund Frued

is defined as one of the most controversial as well as influential thinkers, was an australian

neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis. which looks to unconscious drive to explain

human behaviour. he believed that humans are responsible for both their conscious and

unconscious choices. He believed that humans are simply actors in the drama of their minds

pushed by desires and pulled by coincidence. psychoanalysis is the set of theories and

therapeutic techniques that are related to the unconscious mind which together form a method

to treat mental disorders. It was established by Sigmund Freud. He believed that people can

be cured by making conscious of their unconscious thoughts or motivations. The main aim of

psychoanalysis is to release suppressed emotions and experience. It is commonly used in

treating depression and anxiety disorders. He divides the conscious mind into three parts: the

conscious, preconscious, and unconscious the unconscious mind is everything that we are

unaware of but it can be revealed through dreaming of Freudian slip. Freudian slip literally

means “an unintentional error regarding revealing subconscious feeling means revealing
 17

something from hidden desire or feelings. The concept of unconsciousness was central to his

mind. He believed that the artists or poets had long known the existence of it but it just

needed to be scientifically recognized in the field of phycology. He assumed a cycle in which

ideas not expressed but remains in the human mind ,removed from consciousness but are still

somewhere deep down and can reappear under certain circumstances. Freud believed that the

human psyche can be divided into three parts, ID, EGO and SUPEREGO which he developed

alternative to his previous theory of unconscious mind The ID is a completely unconscious,

childlike portion of the psyche that works on pleasure and principle and seeks immediate

pleasure and gratification. The id is the part of the mind that holds man's boat basic and

primal instinct. it does not gasp on any form of reality on conscience. He explained why

certain people behave this way they are controlled by ID which makes them engaged in need

satisfying behaviour without thinking right or wrong. The EGO operates on the Bases of

reality principle. it is responsible for creating balance between pleasure and pain. The ego

takes account of ethical and cultural idea and balances out desire originating. Ego has the

ability to control the instinct demands from id because it has a close contact with the

perceptual system. SUPEREGO serves as the source of moral anxiety and contains both

consciousness and EGO. it allows the mind to control the impulses that are no favourable in

the society. It can be considered to be in the conscious mind because it has an ability to

differentiate between what is right and what is wrong .the SUPEREGO is considered AS the

consciousness of person because it has an ability to override the demands made by ID. Freud

separates the superego into two different categories ideal self and consciousness the

consciousness contains ideals and morals that prevent people to misbehave in society. The

ideal self contains the images of how people should behave in society. interpretation of dream

was freud's best known and published work. it sets the stage for his psychoanalysis work and

his approach towards the unconscious mind with regards to the interpretation of dreams. He
 18

believed that dreams were the messages of unconscious minds as wished to be controlled by

internal stimuli. Dreams are condensation, displacement, symbolism and secondary revisions.

they are nothing more that the ideas in one's deepest thoughts or unconscious minds.