Although the number of instincts may be unlimited, Freud recognized the existence of two main groups: instincts life and death. During the war years and after it, when Freud began to develop the theory whole personality, he concluded that the terrifying dreams of soldiers shocked by battle were difficult to explain solely in terms of sexual symbolism or wish fulfillment, and that aggression, like sex, must be an important instinctual object for repression and could therefore lead to neurosis. Since 1920 Freud introduces the theory of the Life and Death instincts into his psychoanalytic concept.

Instinct Life or Eros includes the concept of libido and the drive for self-preservation, that is, forces that serve the purpose of maintaining vital important processes and ensuring the reproduction of the species. Recognizing the great importance of life instincts in the physical organization of individuals, Freud considered sexual instincts to be the most essential for the development of personality. The energy of sexual instincts is called libido (from the Latin “to want” or “desire”), or libido energy - a term used to mean the energy of life instincts in general. Libido- this is a certain amount of mental energy that finds release exclusively in sexual behavior. According to Freud, there is not one sexual instinct, but several. Each of them is associated with a specific area of ​​the body, called the erogenous zone. In a sense, the whole body is one large erogenous zone, but psychoanalytic theory particularly emphasizes the mouth, anus and genitals. Freud was convinced that erogenous zones were potential sources of tension and that manipulation of these zones would reduce tension and produce pleasurable sensations.

Instinct Death or Thanatos completely separated from libido and actually represents internal destructiveness and aggression, directed primarily against oneself. While the Life instinct is creative, the Death instinct is that force whose work is constantly directed towards death and ultimately towards a return to the original inorganic state of complete freedom from tension or effort. Repetition compulsion, which manifests itself in soldiers' combat dreams in the form of recurring dreams of certain traumatic incidents, has been recognized as related to the tendency of the death instinct to return to more early conditions. Since inwardly directed aggression, regardless of its source, poses a danger to the individual, there is a constant need to deal with it in such a way as to make it less destructive towards him, which can be done in one or two ways: through its eroticization, that is, through connecting it with libido, as a result of which it can take the form of sadism or masochism (sexual perversions in which sex and aggression are combined), or by directing it outward and turning it into aggression against others. In addition, some aggression is involved in supporting the dictates of a strict conscience - the Super-I. Based on this theory, Freud suggests that war can be understood as an attempt at psychological self-preservation of a nation, since if the latter did not direct its aggression outward, it would ultimately destroy itself through internal hostility. Suicide, in turn, is a consequence of failure to preserve oneself by such means, and many lesser forms of self-harm, such as addictions and failures, to more dramatic crimes committed with the intention of being exposed, can be attributed to the inward-directed death instinct.

Any instinct has four characteristics : a) source, b) goal, c) object and d) stimulus.

a) The source of instinct is the state of the body or the need that causes this state. The sources of life instincts are described by neurophysiology (for example, hunger or thirst). Freud did not give a clear definition of the death instincts.

b) The goal of instinct is always to eliminate or reduce the excitement caused by the need. If the goal is achieved, the person experiences a short-term state of bliss. Although there are many ways to achieve an instinctive goal, there is a tendency to maintain a state of arousal at a certain minimum level(according to the pleasure principle).

c) Object means any person, thing in the environment or anything in own body individual, providing satisfaction (that is, the goal) of instinct. The actions that lead to instinctive pleasure are not necessarily always the same. In fact, an object can change throughout life. In addition to flexibility in choosing objects, individuals are able to postpone the discharge of instinctual energy for long periods of time.

Almost any behavioral process in psycho analytical theory can be described in terms of:

• 1) binding, or directing energy to an object (cathexis)
• 2) an obstacle that interferes with the satisfaction of instinct (anti-cathexis).

An example of cathexis is emotional attachment to other people (that is, the transfer of energy to them), passion for someone’s thoughts or ideals. Anticathexis manifests itself in external or internal barriers that prevent the immediate weakening of instinctual needs. Thus, the interaction between the expression of instinct and its inhibition, between cathexis and anti-cathexis constitutes the main bastion of the psychoanalytic construction of a motivation system.

d) Stimulus is the amount of energy, force or pressure required to satisfy an instinct. It can be assessed indirectly by observing the number and types of obstacles that a person must overcome in pursuit of a particular goal.

The key to understanding the dynamics of instinctual energy and its expression in the choice of objects is the concept of displaced activity. According to this concept, the release of energy and the release of tension occurs through a change in behavioral activity. Displaced activity occurs when, for some reason, the choice of the desired object to satisfy the instinct is impossible. In such cases the instinct may shift and thus focus its energy on some other object.

In none of my previous works did I have such a strong feeling as now that I was describing something generally known and wasting paper and ink, and, in turn, the labor of the publisher and printer, material, in order to explain what really speaks for itself. Therefore I should gladly seize upon the idea, should it arise, that the recognition of a special, independent aggressive instinct means a change psychoanalytic theory instincts...

We will see, however, that this is not so, it is simply a case where I tried to focus on a thought that had arisen for a long time and bring out its meaning. Of all the slowly developing parts of analytical theory, the theory of instincts made its way most painfully. And yet, the theory was so necessary for the structure as a whole that it had to be replaced with something. At first, being in extreme difficulty, I took as my starting point the statement of the poet and philosopher Schiller that “hunger and love are what moves the world.” It can be assumed that hunger represents instincts aimed at preserving the individual; whereas love strives for objects, and its main function, favored in every possible way by nature, is the preservation of species. Thus, we must begin with the fact that ego instincts and object instincts collide with each other. To designate the energy of the last and only the last instincts, I introduced the term “libido”. Thus, the antithesis was between the ego instincts and the libidinal instincts of love (in the broad sense), which were directed towards the object.

Any analyst will agree that even today this point of view does not sound like a mistake, which was long ago renounced. However, it has undergone significant changes, since the focus of our research has shifted from restrained to restraining forces, from object-instincts to the ego. The decisive step along this path was the introduction of the concept of narcissism - namely, the discovery that the ego itself is tied to the libido and is indeed the natural seat of the libido, and remains to some extent its center. This narcissistic libido turns to objects and thus becomes object-libido; and it can again turn into narcissistic libido. The concept of narcissism makes it possible to analytically explain traumatic neuroses and many diseases bordering on psychosis, as well as the psychoses themselves. It was necessary to give our interpretation of the transference of neuroses as an attempt made by the ego to defend itself against sexuality; but in this case the concept of libido is endangered. Since ego instincts were also libidinal, at one time it seemed inevitable to identify Libido with instinctive energy as a whole, which was previously advocated by K.G. Jung. Nevertheless, I still have the conviction, which I am not yet able to substantiate, that all instincts cannot be homogeneous. My next step was taken in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), when the compulsion to repetition and the conservative character of instinctual life first attracted my attention. Based on thinking about the beginning of life and biological analogues, I came to the conclusion that in addition to the instinct that preserves living matter and uniting it into larger units, there must be another, opposite instinct aimed at decomposing these units and returning them to a primitive, inorganic state. In other words, along with Eros, there was the death instinct. An explanation for the phenomenon of life can be given on the basis of the coinciding or mutually exclusive actions of these two instincts. It was, however, not easy to demonstrate the operation of this supposed death instinct.

The manifestations of Eros were quite bright and noticeable. It could be assumed that the death instinct acted silently within the body in the direction of its decomposition, but this, of course, is not proof. More fruitful was the idea that this instinct is aimed at outside world and manifests itself in the form of an instinct of aggressiveness and destruction. In this, instinct itself could be put at the service of Eros in the sense that the organism would destroy something else, living or inanimate, instead of destroying itself. And, conversely, any restriction of this outward aggressiveness will necessarily increase the self-destruction that will occur in any case. At the same time, from this example a suspicion may arise that the two kinds of instinct rarely, perhaps never, appear separately from each other, but are combined with each other in different and very different proportions, and thus become inaccessible to our judgment. . In sadism, long before it was recognized as an integral part of sexuality, one should consider a particularly strong fusion of this kind between the tendency towards love and the destructive instinct; while its counterpart, masochism, would be a union between inward-directed destructiveism and sexuality - a union that turns a previously insignificant tendency into a noticeable and tangible one.

The assumption of the existence of a death or destruction instinct has caused resistance even in analytical circles. I am aware that there is a constant tendency to attribute any manifestation of the dangerous and hostile in love to the natural bipolarity in its own nature. Initially, it was only as an experiment that I put forward the ideas that I developed here, but over time they took such hold of me that I could no longer think otherwise. In my opinion, they are much more useful with theoretical point vision than any other possible ideas; they provide the simplification, without ignoring or misusing facts, that we strive for in scientific work. I know that in sadism and masochism we have always seen the manifestation of a destructive instinct (directed inward and outward), closely intertwined with eroticism; but I can no longer understand how we could have overlooked the ubiquity of non-erotic aggressiveness and destructiveness and failed to place it in its proper place in our interpretation of life. (The desire to destroy, directed inward, most often eludes our perception, of course, if it does not have an admixture of eroticism). I remember my own wariness when the idea of ​​the destructive instinct first appeared in psychoanalytic literature, how long it took before I was able to perceive it. What others have shown and are still showing similar attitude rejection surprises me less. After all, “little children don’t like” when we're talking about about the innate human tendency towards "viciousness", aggressiveness and destructiveness, as well as cruelty. God created them in the image and likeness of his own perfection; no one wants to hear reminders of how difficult it is to reconcile the undeniable existence of evil - despite the assurances of Christian Science - with iro omnipotence and its universal virtue. The devil would be the best way out as an excuse for God; in this sense he would play the same role as a factor of economic relief as the Jews in the world of the Aryan ideal. But even so, God can be held responsible for the existence of the Devil just as much as he can be held responsible for the existence of the evil that the Devil embodies. In view of these difficulties, each of us will be given advice, when the opportunity arises, to bow deeply to the deeply moral nature of humanity; this will help us gain wide popularity and a lot will be forgiven us for this.

The term "libido" may once again be used to designate the manifestations of the power of Eros in order to distinguish them from the energy of the death instinct. We must admit that we are faced with much greater difficulty in the awareness of that instinct, we can only assume its existence as something located in the shadow of Eros; he eludes detection, except in cases where his presence is revealed by his fusion with Eros. It is precisely in that case of sadism, when the death instinct distorts the erotic goal in its own sense, but at the same time completely satisfies the erotic impulse, that we have been able to achieve the deepest insight into its nature and its relationship with Eros; but even where it arises without any sexual purpose, in the reckless frenzy of destructivism, we cannot help but recognize that the satisfaction of the instinct is accompanied by an extremely high degree of narcissistic pleasure, due to the possibility of realizing its cherished desire for omnipotence. The instinct of destruction, softened and confined, and seemingly locked in its goal, should provide the ego with the satisfaction of its vital needs and control over nature when it is directed towards objects. Since the recognition of instinct is mainly theoretical, we must also agree that it is not completely immune to theoretical objections. But this state of affairs exists now, at the current level of our knowledge; further investigation and reflection will no doubt throw light which will solve the problem.

Therefore, in what follows, I accept the view that the tendency to aggression is a natural, self-perpetuating, instinctive disposition in man, and I return to my opinion that it creates the most serious difficulties in the path of civilization. At some point during my research, I came close to the idea that civilization was a special process that humanity undergoes, and I am still influenced by this idea. I may now add that civilization is a process in the service of Eros, the purpose of which is to unite single human individuals, and then families, then races, peoples and nations into one great unity, the unity of humanity. Why this should happen we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this. These groups of people are libidinally connected to each other. Only necessity, the advantages of joint work will not keep them together. But the natural, aggressive instinct is the derivative and main representative of the death instinct, which we have discovered along with Eros and which shares with it world domination. And now I think that the meaning of the evolution of civilization is no longer unclear to us. It represents the struggle between Eros and Death, between the instinct of destruction as it expresses itself in the human race. This struggle is precisely what all life essentially consists of, and the evolution of civilization can thus be regarded simply as a struggle for the life of the human race. And it is this battle of giants that our nannies are trying to pacify with a lullaby about heaven.

Genes and the seven deadly sins Zorin Konstantin Vyacheslavovich

"Death Instinct"

"Death Instinct"

“God did not create death and does not rejoice in the destruction of the living... God created man for incorruptibility and made him the image of His eternal existence; but through the envy of the devil death entered the world,” the Bible testifies (Wis. 1, 13 and 2, 23–24).

Having expelled our ancestors from paradise, the Lord pronounced a sentence to Adam - and through him to all of us - the sentence: “You are dust, and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:19). Since then, our flesh and blood are mortal. Corruption and decay are the wages of sin that have become law. organic nature(see: Rom. 6, 23 and 8, 19–23). It is not for nothing that Saint Gregory the Theologian calls the soul a “corpse-bearer.” In fact, all human physiology is built on the fight against decay, until biological life ends with the decomposition of a corpse.

Scientists have long discovered a unique phenomenon - genetically programmed cell death, apoptosis (from the Greek apoptosis - falling leaves). This is physiologically determined suicide. For example, after removal of the testes, the cells of the prostate gland (prostate) completely die. As a woman ages, cells of the mammary glands, corpus luteum of the ovary, etc. are destroyed. Self-destruction genes regulate the normal development of embryonic tissue.

The death of some cells is also defensive reaction body. It maintains the constancy of our internal environment. Life makes its way through death, just as a snowdrop pushes away pieces of ice with its stem and grows in the frozen soil.

Attitudes towards death are manifested in people's behavior in different ways. For example, in Japan every year several fans of pulling death’s “mustache” pass away to the “other world.” In special restaurants, they order fugu, a dog-fish dish, from chefs with special licenses. Visitors pay huge sums of money for the delicacy. It is prepared extremely carefully, since individual parts of the dog-fish contain extremely poisonous tetrodotoxin. A pinhead of this substance can kill.

It turns out to be a gastronomic version of Russian roulette: you eat the “probability of dying.” The best chefs try to leave the subtlest hint of poison, and your mouth begins to tingle. It's reminiscent of playing with death and gives a lot of thrills.

As in Russian roulette, one of the pleasures is an incredible feeling of relief. It comes at the end of lunch and means that you have survived, you have “cheated” death and therefore you are immortal. Hooray! The despondency of life and the fear of death, nesting in the depths of the heart, are defeated! What a naive and at the same time bewitchingly attractive illusion! It shows that man's moral compass is broken.

Once upon a time seminar lesson with medical students, the author of these lines was told a sad and very instructive story. An old woman regularly called the ambulance station and demanded the arrival of doctors. Every time they walked through the door, they saw the same picture: a woman had hanged herself a few seconds ago. The team on duty immediately provided emergency assistance and invited psychiatrists, but, alas...

The doctors noticed that the unfortunate woman was closely monitoring their arrival. As soon as the car stopped at the entrance, the old woman dashingly jumped off the windowsill. Apparently, she then opened the door lock, stuck her neck through the hinge and, hearing footsteps outside the door, kicked the stool away with her feet. And then she watched with visible pleasure as the specialists saved her.

And now, the doctors receive another call. The situation is repeated in detail. But then the paramedic says to the doctor: “Listen! Let’s stand at the door of the apartment and smoke, and then we’ll see.” In the end, the matter ended in cremation...

Of course, we do not justify the actions of doctors. They are always called upon to help people out of trouble. We also do not know the underlying motives of the sick woman. She had no intention of committing suicide at all. Such demonstrative attempts are a way to manipulate people (to awaken their attention and sympathy) and to diversify your boring, gray life. This is why such “gentle”, meticulously thought out methods of suicide are chosen.

It is possible that these tricks are invented and thrown to the deceived person by the demon of despondency. But, as you know, man proposes, but God disposes...

The instinct towards death is opposed by the instinct of self-preservation. Perhaps the Creator put it into nature precisely in order to balance the death instinct. “No one has ever hated his own flesh,” states the Apostle Paul, “but he nourishes and warms it...” (Eph. 5:29).

Indeed, food and sexual needs, our defensive reactions (fear, anger, etc.) are genetically determined stimuli of behavior. They promote survival. A painful increase in the instinct of self-preservation leads to panic, aggression and violence. Its weakening is fraught with depression and suicidal tendencies.

So, the death instinct... This concept was introduced into science by Sigmund Freud. The scientist named him Thanatos - after the ancient Greek god of death Thanatos, son of Nyx (Night) and twin brother of the god of sleep Hypnos. Thanatos was depicted as a winged youth with an extinguished torch or a punishing sword in his hand. The Greeks believed that this inexorable god had with an iron heart, did not accept gifts and aroused the hatred of other celestials.

According to the interpretation of Z. Freud, Thanatos personifies the innate attraction to aggression and destruction. It is seen as a counterweight to the life instinct (Eros), which includes libido. There is an eternal conflict between them. Both instincts are biologically embedded in all living organisms and, therefore, irreducible. If the energy of Thanatos is directed outward, then it destroys people, nature and various objects (hooliganism, sadism, vandalism, terrorism, etc.). If it is directed inward, it destroys the person himself (masochism, self-mutilation, self-torture, suicide, etc.).

Hypothesis 3. Freud is partially refuted by the prominent German psychologist and philosopher Erich Fromm. He believes that aggression and destructiveness are not enshrined in genes. The love of life (biophilia) or the love of death (necrophilia) is “the fundamental alternative facing every person. Necrophilia sprouts its shoots where biophilia withers. The ability to be a biophile is given to a person by nature, but psychologically he has the opportunity to take the path of necrophilia...” If a person is not able to create anything, he is forced to escape from the unbearable feeling of his own powerlessness and worthlessness. Then he asserts himself - destroys what he is unable to create.

According to E. Fromm, in animals, aggression plays a protective role and is in no way connected with the human passion for destruction. This passion is a “mental deformity”, a pathology, and not the norm. Therefore, the thinker writes that Freud’s theory is based on purely abstract speculative reasoning and, moreover, lacks convincing empirical evidence.

True, scientists have now discovered two centers in the human brain - “pleasure” (pleasure) and “displeasure” (pain, anger, rage). In some patients, the “pleasure zone” is stimulated less or, conversely, more strongly than the “focus of aggression” (see Chapters IV and VII).

These discoveries echo the ideas of Z. Freud about the existence of two powerful instincts - life and death. However, our actions and actions are not reduced to biological drives and functions nervous system. It is too simplistic to think that suicide is the suppression of one natural instinct by another, no less natural.

Christianity regards the desire for death as the work of the devil - “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). So, tempting Christ, he “led Him to Jerusalem, and placed Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him: If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here...” But the Savior, for the edification of all of us, answered: “Do not tempt the Lord your God.” (see: Luke 4, 9–12).