<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not completely worthless
Review: I read this book before I knew of Fromme, who effectively diminishes the effectiveness of On Agression. This book is worth while to read if only to offer a contrasting view, but if we related Fromme and Lorenz to some sort of a sport, Fromme would clearly be the winner.
Rating:
Summary: Not completely worthless
Review: I read this book before I knew of Fromme, who effectively diminishes the effectiveness of On Agression. This book is worth while to read if only to offer a contrasting view, but if we related Fromme and Lorenz to some sort of a sport, Fromme would clearly be the winner.
Rating: 
Summary: Nostalgia and Geese
Review: Like a minnow with no brain, the leader of a school may possess the fearless attributes of a chicken which has had its head cut off through the middle, leaving enough of its reflexes to make a fuss about what happens to chickens, and the whole flock is sure to agree. It was my misfortune to hope that a lot of things in this book were true before I encountered full blown psychotic multiplicity in forms so disturbing that my friends would vote to lock me up so I could get help. There is a deep end which is not well marked in this book, except by a pair of geese that get into such a fantastic and frightful fight with each other that they must avoid getting close to each other forever after. Modern examples might include people who get so close to the truth about something that they have to be taken off the case. This would be a truly great book if aggression was not the kind of behavior which is likely to get any individual thrown into jail on a moment's notice. Putting all the instinctual background together with total repression, I would have to say that this book should be fundamental for understanding a lot of entertainment, but woe to the person who wants to participate. Also, there is a section on laughter which indicated how easy it is for me to be a laughter criminal.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Analysis of Man--However, Limited to Scope
Review: Why do we kill in each other? Why are humans so irrational when it comes to dealing with issues in a nonviolent way? In his book, On Aggression, Konrad Lorenz has attempted to answer that question. Lorenz has diagnosed the human condition and reasoned humans are the most violent species in the world because of our intelligence and lack of reason. As a reader of Lorenz, I have come to the conclusion that Lorenz is a modern day classical thinker approaching an issue that has haunted mankind for all times.
Lorenz sees mass society as an inherent component to war, violence, and aggression. He depicts mankind's situation as a spectator from Mars would view it and diagnoses how aggression is caused by "human nature" but also how humans feed off each other's aggression. Lorenz proceeds to explain how man is susceptible to a type of frenzy due to what he labels as militant enthusiasm. In mass society, aggression is an extremely contagious component and is inherent in harnessing the destructive side of the human potential.
Here Lorenz shows an approach much akin to Einstein's view on war. However, where Einstein failed to reason out that man is destructive by nature, Lorenz makes no attempt to hide mankind's irrationality. Freud also approached this issue in his book Civilization and Its Discontents, but Freud saw violence as impossible to cure whereas Lorenz sees a possible treatment to this aggressive side in the development of human understanding of mankind's situation and through the enlightening of reason. Upon reading Lorenz I have come to the conclusion that the man is a modern day classical philosopher educated in anthropology. He refers constantly to Greco-Roman themes.
"Know thyself."
This quote was said to have been engraved over the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. Lorenz quotes from it as a means of seeing the need for enlightening man. Lorenz believes that the more aware man is of his dilemma with violence, the less likely his is to act irrationally. This principle was a focal point of Hellenistic thinking and I believe that Lorenz sees this theme as viable in answering many of mankind's major problems.
Romantics believe in the power of the Ubermensch: a type of superman who is somewhat invincible. Napoleon, Alexander, and Hitler are all examples of this type of person- a dominating figure capable of conquering the world. However, Lorenz sees this as a source of mass aggression and almost chastises Heinrich Heine for his glorification of the Ubermensch. This further illustrates Lorenz's classical view of moderation which places more importance on the philosopher than the conqueror.
The greatest classical view I saw was Lorenz's answer to mankind's situation. In the Iliad, Homer sees fate as an indomitable force which mankind cannot stand against alone. Through Achilles and Priam, Homer shows that mankind needs to bond together in a type of brotherhood against this malevolent force. Lorenz's follows the same theme except instead of fate it is human aggression which is the malicious force which mankind must overcome.
In many ways Lorenz's thinking is a result of the progression of humanity. He is able to take themes from the ancients and apply them to the problems which plague us today. How much I would like to believe that there is hope in mankind against the horrors of human nature. But history has shown that mankind has no hope of overcoming the destructive nature of man. How much I would like to hope in man being able to solve his own inherent evil. But mankind is not capable of doing so, if it were possible; we would not need a Savior. I give credit to the Greeks and Lorenz for attempting to solve this issue with rational thinking. Unfortunately man is not a rational animal able to be saved by such thinking.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Analysis of Man--However, Limited to Scope
Review: Why do we kill in each other? Why are humans so irrational when it comes to dealing with issues in a nonviolent way? In his book, On Aggression, Konrad Lorenz has attempted to answer that question. Lorenz has diagnosed the human condition and reasoned humans are the most violent species in the world because of our intelligence and lack of reason. As a reader of Lorenz, I have come to the conclusion that Lorenz is a modern day classical thinker approaching an issue that has haunted mankind for all times.
Lorenz sees mass society as an inherent component to war, violence, and aggression. He depicts mankind's situation as a spectator from Mars would view it and diagnoses how aggression is caused by "human nature" but also how humans feed off each other's aggression. Lorenz proceeds to explain how man is susceptible to a type of frenzy due to what he labels as militant enthusiasm. In mass society, aggression is an extremely contagious component and is inherent in harnessing the destructive side of the human potential.
Here Lorenz shows an approach much akin to Einstein's view on war. However, where Einstein failed to reason out that man is destructive by nature, Lorenz makes no attempt to hide mankind's irrationality. Freud also approached this issue in his book Civilization and Its Discontents, but Freud saw violence as impossible to cure whereas Lorenz sees a possible treatment to this aggressive side in the development of human understanding of mankind's situation and through the enlightening of reason. Upon reading Lorenz I have come to the conclusion that the man is a modern day classical philosopher educated in anthropology. He refers constantly to Greco-Roman themes.
"Know thyself."
This quote was said to have been engraved over the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. Lorenz quotes from it as a means of seeing the need for enlightening man. Lorenz believes that the more aware man is of his dilemma with violence, the less likely his is to act irrationally. This principle was a focal point of Hellenistic thinking and I believe that Lorenz sees this theme as viable in answering many of mankind's major problems.
Romantics believe in the power of the Ubermensch: a type of superman who is somewhat invincible. Napoleon, Alexander, and Hitler are all examples of this type of person- a dominating figure capable of conquering the world. However, Lorenz sees this as a source of mass aggression and almost chastises Heinrich Heine for his glorification of the Ubermensch. This further illustrates Lorenz's classical view of moderation which places more importance on the philosopher than the conqueror.
The greatest classical view I saw was Lorenz's answer to mankind's situation. In the Iliad, Homer sees fate as an indomitable force which mankind cannot stand against alone. Through Achilles and Priam, Homer shows that mankind needs to bond together in a type of brotherhood against this malevolent force. Lorenz's follows the same theme except instead of fate it is human aggression which is the malicious force which mankind must overcome.
In many ways Lorenz's thinking is a result of the progression of humanity. He is able to take themes from the ancients and apply them to the problems which plague us today. How much I would like to believe that there is hope in mankind against the horrors of human nature. But history has shown that mankind has no hope of overcoming the destructive nature of man. How much I would like to hope in man being able to solve his own inherent evil. But mankind is not capable of doing so, if it were possible; we would not need a Savior. I give credit to the Greeks and Lorenz for attempting to solve this issue with rational thinking. Unfortunately man is not a rational animal able to be saved by such thinking.
<< 1 >>
|
