* * * Emotion, written in English as "empathy" and translated into Chinese, has different names in different schools, also called ecstasy, empathy, * * * feeling, affection and so on. This concept, first expounded by Rogers, the founder of humanism, appears more and more in the works of modern psychoanalysts. Whether it is the view of human nature or the theory and treatment of psychological disorders, it seems to be extremely opposite, but the understanding and application of * * * emotions gradually tend to be consistent.
In fact, the word "* * * emotion" comes from aesthetics. 1873, Robert Fisher, a German aesthetician, transformed the "symbolic function of aesthetics" put forward by his father into a new concept, which is German and used to describe the feelings that observers feel from works of art; 1897, German psychologist Lipps introduced this concept into the field of psychology to describe a personal experience of projecting emotions into natural and inanimate objects. It was not until 1942 that Rogers' research finally established a humanistic school with "* * * emotion" as a sectarian artifact, and * * * emotion began to spread in the field of psychological counseling.
* * * The development of love is not fully recognized as soon as it is put forward. Every school has its own ideas, and it can even be said that it was questioned from the beginning. When we trace Freud's position on * * * emotion and satisfaction, we can see that from his indifference as a surgeon emphasized in 19 12 to his understanding of sympathy in 19 13 and his understanding of sympathy in192/kloc.
Taking * * * emotion as a therapeutic method of psychological counseling is still a heated discussion in many psychological counseling schools, and humanism believes that people, as individuals, have the nature of self-improvement, which can make people stand up from the ruins of their hearts. As long as he is fully understood and recognized, the healing effect of * * * emotion is enormous.
* * * Love means being able to experience the inner world of others, just like your own, but without losing the quality of "as if". This simple definition description covers almost most of Rogers' humanism, but Rogers doesn't give much presentation in the operating system. Or, it can be said that Rogers is a gifted psychological counselor, who internalizes ordinary operations into precise ideas and externalizes them into therapeutic behaviors. Unfortunately, this idea has become very difficult in the hands of most consultants without his talent. This reminds me of Steve Jobs of Apple. He is a man who can turn decay into magic. He is the savior of Apple, but he may also be the grave digger of Apple. Because he collects too much magic, it is difficult to turn his inner magic into something that most people can practice. So he is in the Garden of Eden when he is in the apple, and will fall into the dust when he is not in the apple.
Rogers once became an excellent and "cold" psychoanalyst because of psychoanalysis. Later, psychoanalysis found the object relationship from children, but Rogers found humanism from children. In the early days when Rogers founded humanism, it was precisely the psychoanalytic circle that was strongly opposed. Different psychoanalysts questioned the humanistic teaching in this era from many angles. The intensity of the attack even reached the point where Rogers once said nothing about "goodwill", only "sincere consent" and "unconditional positive attention".
Psychologists are also full of narcissistic expansionism. Rogers, who advocates humanism, is a gentle person in life and will not care too much about the doubts of people around him. Most of them are treated calmly, academic contention can be done, and swearing can be done casually, with few replies. This society is like this. If you don't touch people, others will often bump into you because you have enough weight. When you are attacked by others, when you are depressed and angry, think about why others attack you, because you are important enough to attack you. When the weight is not enough, it is regarded as "too lazy to care about you."
In numerous academic debates, not all the attacks were indifferent to Rogers, but there was one person whose point of view he turned to, and that person was Hindes kohut. In the end, the two men became old enemies. When Rogers hid after his success because his case failed, the whole psychological circle was in an uproar. Only this guy named kohut dares to guarantee Rogers' behavior and integrity in case consultation with his personality.
During the period from 1945 to 1955, the two old enemies lived in the same city at that time and both worked at the University of Chicago. The response to kohut's "barbarism" is an attempt to interpret the unique stunt of humanistic education-* * *, which is in sharp contrast with other responses in the same period. Rogers' reaction at that time was extremely rare at least in his personal life. With kohut's strong confrontation, there is no doubt that how many poked Rogers' sore spot. Kohut did not adopt the unanimous objection of psychoanalysis at that time, but was full of interest in * * * emotion itself. In Rogers' original words, it is "full of cold observation and inhuman indifference". This makes sense. Kohut's observation is the vision of a trained psychoanalyst.
Kohut did not criticize the disadvantages of humanism from the perspective of psychoanalysis, but tried to understand humanism from the perspective of psychoanalysis. Both sides understand correctly, but what is staggered is that everyone is interested in the same thing. This may be regarded as the similarity of the masters of psychology. At least to some extent, kohut is interested in contemporary humanism, trying to find out what it is. There is a term in psychology called identity.
Identity is also a very important foundation of * * * love. Rogers was attracted to kohut first, and then he was willing to talk to him and argue with him. Today, we can't trace the source to explore the specific content of the debate between kohut and Rogers at that time, but we can vaguely speculate that the focus of kohut is precisely Rogers' pain point, the foothold of * * * love, and also the precise hit point. This is kohut's ecstasy in his psychoanalysis (English writing or empathy).
Kohut's "ecstasy" refers to the scientific observation of visitors, and then based on this observation, the three poles of self are accurately stimulated, which is neutral, rational, clear-cut and emphasizes experience. Kohut emphasized that allowing one person to understand another person's experience without losing its objectivity is a vibration of experience, which happens naturally-don't equate ecstasy with a training behavior.
Rogers is more emotional and irregular in Emotion. Sometimes the so-called "* * * emotion" may come from the anti-communist projection of the psychotherapist's own complex. His * * * emotion seems to be more active and subjective, with obvious subjectivity (but Rogers' courage lies in the fact that * * * emotion must be confirmed through feedback with visitors. But kohut's "ecstasy" emphasizes objectivity and accuracy. On the basis of a large number of observations, he made bets on the three-pole self (mirror empathy, idealized empathy and twin empathy) respectively. The relationship between them is actually very close, and it can even be said that it can be extended into one.
In other words, kohut's "ecstasy" and Rogers' * * * emotion are integrated, just as the English word they use is empathy. "ecstasy" is a profound and precise emotion, and "* * * emotion" is a primary and extensive ecstasy. Perhaps their relationship can be roughly explained by the picture below.
In other words, the change of mood is that it adds the meaning of observation to the feeling, while ecstasy adds the meaning of feeling to the observation. Suppose that in an ideal psychotherapy with in-depth therapeutic significance and exploration, emotions often appear in the first half, while ecstasy is hidden in the second half.
Rogers and kohut's later life, combined with their previous professional experience, enabled them to look at the advantages and disadvantages of their emotions or infatuation more objectively, instead of giving up because of shortcomings, they gradually improved, enriching and nourishing the inner world of both sides of psychotherapy.
In any case, * * * emotion or ecstasy is the best way for us to understand another individual at present, or the most natural interpersonal understanding known in the world.
Investigation report on myopia 1
With the popularization of computers, many children suffer from myopia. Therefore, parents an