|
« To say that man is quick to commit atrocities as soon as the flag is unfurled, and this by virtue of an instinctive part of human nature, would be an excellent defence for those accused of violating the principles of the Geneva Convention. While I am sure Lorenz does not intend to defend the atrocities, his arguments nevertheless lead to such a plea. His approach paralyzes the understanding of the characteristic systems in which these atrocities are rooted, as well as the understanding of the individual and social conditions that cause their development. »
|
Erich Fromm
The Passion to Destroy: Anatomy of Human Destructiveness |
|
Erich Fromm
The Passion to Destroy: Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
|
|
|
« To claim that one can only hate where one has loved is to transform the element of truth contained in this statement into mere absurdity. Does the oppressed hate the oppressor, does the mother hate the murderer of her child, does the torturer hate his torturer because they have loved him in the past or because they still love him? (About Lorenz's theories) »
|
Erich Fromm
The Passion to Destroy: Anatomy of Human Destructiveness |
|
Erich Fromm
The Passion to Destroy: Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
|
|
|
« Terminology the equivocal use of the term "aggression" has created great confusion in the abundant literature devoted to it. The word has been applied indiscriminately to the behaviour of the man who protects his life from an attack, to the thief who kills his victim to take his money, to the sadistic who tortures a prisoner. The confusion goes even further: the word has been applied to the sexual approach of the female by the male, to the impulses that prompt the mountaineer or trade representative to move forward and the peasant who plows the land. This confusion may be due to the influence of behaviouralist thinking in psychology and psychiatry. If "aggression" is called all "harmful" acts, i.e. those that have the effect of damaging or destroying an inanimate object, a plant, an animal or a man, it is obvious that the quality of the drive that leads to the harmful act loses all meaning. If acts committed with the intention of destroying, with the intention of protecting and those which have a constructive purpose are all designated by a single word, it is obvious that one cannot hope to understand their "cause"; they have no common cause because they are totally different phenomena from each other. (Editor's note: resiting the book in its time, 1973) »
|
Erich Fromm
The Passion to Destroy: Anatomy of Human Destructiveness |
|
Erich Fromm
The Passion to Destroy: Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
|
|
