Indeed, Freud posited that the id is a collection of sexual, violent, or hedonistic drives that stem completely from and ever are wholly submerged in the inaccessible subconscious mind. The superego is conscience, the set of moral feelings a person has--not that everyone has a conscience or that Freud did not assume that part of the superego is locked within the unconscious mind which no one could possibly know exists if it even does precisely because it is subconscious. By virtue of being a set of moral impulses (which, as I have repeatedly addressed before, have nothing to do with proving whether morality itself exists or if there are only moral preferences), it must be consciously experienced for one to even know it is a part of one's mind. Lastly, the ego is a more strategic side of someone's mind that motivates them to realistically seek out the id's desires while perhaps satisfying conscience as well.
Epistemologically, the hypothetical "unconscious" part of the mind is irrational to believe in, and at best, if it does exist, it is not the all-controlling thing some think of it as. Desires rooted in a longing for pleasure and an avoidance of pain are completely conscious, as are the pangs of conscience, or else they could not be experienced and recognized within oneself. Thus, it does not matter what word one uses to refer to the side of some people that if left unchecked would drive them to emotionalistically seek out pleasure at all costs (or to try to avoid feelings of guilt); pleasure and pain can only be experienced when one is consciously feeling them. As I have acknowledged elsewhere, of course it is logically possible for there to be some hidden part of the mind that cannot be experienced, but then it cannot possibly part of consciousness as it is experienced, it cannot be secretly controlling conscious beliefs and actions, and its very existence cannot be proven or disproven, only recognized as a possibility.
The id cannot possibly be completely subconscious whether or not the subconscious even exists, however. What Freud calls the ego and superego, the moral impulses and desire to live out moral impulses without forsaking pleasure if possible, are supposed to be partly conscious and partly unconscious, but even then, it would still be idiotic to believe in the subconscious. Any concept of the subconscious that conflicts with logical axioms, conscious experiences, free will [1], and any other knowable or unknowable aspect of reality is also objectively false by default even if one has not thought of any particular version of the subconscious that this would apply to. Still, one can identify precise ways that the concept of the subconscious relates to the immediately accessible realm of consciousness.
Consciousness, after all, is not epistemologically or metaphysically up in the air: my consciousness objectively exists, and I (and anyone else who also exists) can have absolute certainty that this is true by realizing that I could not be uncertain or in denial of this fact without already existing as a consciousness in order to believe the contradictory, self-refuting idea to the contrary. Not only does this knowledge already rely on the laws of logic, their inherent veracity, and the fact that it would neither be possible for my mind to exist nor possible for me to know it apart from reason, but I can realize what logically follows or does not follow from various ideas about the subconscious. Whether or not it is real, my consciousness, thoughts, and perceptions are objectively real, with my consciousness being the only thing that along with logical axioms is self-evident.
No comments:
Post a Comment