Influence

I suggest Marx was true to his inheritage when he coined what came to be the materialistic orientation in the history of ideas, pointed to as aristotelic. That is, shortly, the matter (1) developing (2) into form (3). Marx stated the means of production, given by the modes of production, could lead to alienation, being the development, which in turn would lead to a revolution. In the Bible, we find this as the notion of what was, what is and what will become.

I suggest, also, Aristoteles was influenced by Hebrew thought when he by his ideas opposed Platon. I see no history before Aristotle in Greece of the materialistic orientation.

As Marx was of Hebrew inheritance, Freud was also. And he termed what came to be a basic assumtion of man, as the union of 'ego' and 'id' and 'superego' is perceived as intertwining. These terms have been formulated later than Freud, though, the general view of Freud fits. Speaking of inheritage, I see no relevance in the Bible to this notion of man. In the Old Testament, man is both fearing God and by the Law developing. There are no instances in the psyche of man in the Bible. Also, man made God valid. Man went "in" and "out" of the godly being in times of war and as prophets. And the rules regarding cleaning and freshness in the Law were obviously formulated to distinguish man from the cheap. So, this notion of Freud must have another root. He was German. He treated females, especially, which he hypnotized. And when hypnotizing, one gets what one wants. Those patiens were also German. German, thinking of dativ, accousativ and genetiv? And more; the female linguistic gender in German?

Is that notion of man from Freud wrong? Unfortunately, it is not. One must rise above the mean to distinguish. (Nietzsche stated this, in his "Genealogy of Morale." He wrote, one needs to be a genius to acknowledge a genius.)

The defence mechanisms Freud formulated also is to be seen as expectation met by terrified hypnotics. I mean, those really are what the devilish expect?

.·: † :·.