Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • According to Freud a an inner impulse is an

    2018-10-23

    According to Freud (1915a), an inner impulse is an extremely complex concept that can be understood as a mental stimulus generated inside the organism. An inner impulse is a power of constant impact, which is impossible to escape. The pressure to behave is common in every inner impulse, and these pressures are the reason for the existence of inner impulses. What decision makers desire is a response to inner impulses, established through pleasure and pain. Freud\'s concepts of inner impulse emphasizes that the consequent pleasure and pain vary in intensity according to a large numbers of interrelated factors, such as situation, learning, and goals. Hence, it is impossible to employ mathematical functions, as economists generally prefer. Following the logic highlighted in this section, the result of an inner impulse is pleasure-seeking behavior. An inner impulse motivates such a search, but does not guarantee satisfaction (Freud, 1915b). An inner impulse can stay in a “state of displeasure” over time. This unsatisfied period varies from one inner impulse to another, and only in rare cases does it correspond to a lifetime. For example, the inner impulse to reproduce the species can be in a “state of displeasure” for a long time. The same cannot occur for the instinctive impulse to eat. The goals of inner impulses are always clear; they primarily comprise food, water, and protection. Inner impulses and their goals do not change. What can change is how these goals are achieved. Such modifications are no longer a order GW 610 of impulse, but are about the means to achieve ends. For example, while there is an inner impulse to eat, people do not eat just by being guided by inner impulses, rather they eat according to norms: meals are divided throughout the day; each meal can be divided on the basis of necessary nutrient consumption; specific types of food can be avoided because they are considered unhealthy; or some types of food are eaten only on special occasions. An inner impulse is practiced through interaction with the external world, specifically with objects of the external world, such as the inner impulse to eat and its corresponding object, namely, food (see Freud, 1915b, 1923). How people deal with the objects of the external world varies from one person to another, for example, what and how people eat. However, the established relationship among inner impulses and types of objects that make pleasure possible remain common. For example, Brazilians eat different things even though there is a typical Brazilian lunch—rice, beans, and meat. In less developed societies, the inner impulse–good relationship is usually a matter of subsistence. In developed societies, the relationship may be associated with quality of life. Independently of the motive, cultural learning exists about how to acquire and use goods to satisfy inner impulses. According to Veblen (1899), the sociability that mediates the acquisition of goods is expressed in institutions and their evolution. From the Veblenian standpoint, evolution does not mean improvement, but a cumulative modification. Taking an inner impulse–good relationship, cumulative modification refers to modification in the good associated with inner impulse, which can mean replacement of the good or change in the good itself. This modification can be soft or deep depending on the evolution of the society. This evolution, as stated by Veblen (1899, 1914), is associated strongly with the role of habits and institutions in decision making. For Veblen (1909, 1919), a society is a scheme of institutions that are outgrowths of habits. Because habits and institutions assist in how common usage of goods and the thoughts about them take place in a social environment, as stated by Veblen\'s theory. From this perspective, institutions can be understood as manifestations of habits and regularities that generate foreseeable occurrences in inner impulse–good relationships. Thus, meal choices and dress codes would be examples of institutions. Such a definition of institution has a boundary: it is not applied to every decision-making scenario, but to the conspicuous consumer\'s decision making. The same is true for what follows.