Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
  • Time Travel Rome

Mosquito

Caesar - personality

Recommended Posts

Something has just struck me from MPC's post above describing the Narcissistic pesonality. Who defined this?

 

Sigmund Freud, the same lovable goofball who gave us the term "penis envy" and Moses and Monotheism.

 

-- Nephele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has just struck me from MPC's post above describing the Narcissistic pesonality. Who defined this?

 

Sigmund Freud, the same lovable goofball who gave us the term "penis envy" and Moses and Monotheism.

 

-- Nephele

 

Thank you, Nephele - I wondered if it was indeed the lovable goofball!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has just struck me from MPC's post above describing the Narcissistic pesonality. Who defined this?

Sigmund Freud, the same lovable goofball who gave us the term "penis envy" and Moses and Monotheism.

 

 

Sorry gals, Sigmund Freud did not provide the symptoms of NPD. Freud's narcissism was never defined precisely, and the early attempts to add any rigor to psychoanalysis (which is a term that refers only to Freud's system) provided the basis of the DSM-I and DSM-II. These diagnostic systems were no more likely to elicit identical diagnoses for a given set of symptoms than would be expected by chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPC, how would you like to be diagnosed in the EXACT same fashion that you have Caesar? Ditto, N.N.

We have your writings.

Edited by Gaius Octavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has just struck me from MPC's post above describing the Narcissistic pesonality. Who defined this?

Sigmund Freud, the same lovable goofball who gave us the term "penis envy" and Moses and Monotheism.

 

 

Sorry gals, Sigmund Freud did not provide the symptoms of NPD. Freud's narcissism was never defined precisely, and the early attempts to add any rigor to psychoanalysis (which is a term that refers only to Freud's system) provided the basis of the DSM-I and DSM-II. These diagnostic systems were no more likely to elicit identical diagnoses for a given set of symptoms than would be expected by chance.

 

OK. I don't know whether you saw the other question in my post above, Cato - or anyone - but can I put it this way? To start at the beginning, we have an Alexander, a Xerxes, a Cyrus, a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Hitler - whatever. Let us loosely term them conquerors, living well before the period when psychoanalysis became a science (except Hitler, of course) Did the psychoanalists define their theories from a study of the actions/personality traits of men such as these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. I don't know whether you saw the other question in my post above, Cato - or anyone - but can I put it this way? To start at the beginning, we have an Alexander, a Xerxes, a Cyrus, a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Hitler - whatever. Let us loosely term them conquerors, living well before the period when psychoanalysis became a science (except Hitler, of course) Did the psychoanalists define their theories from a study of the actions/personality traits of men such as these?

 

 

Hitler wasnt military genius but a simple soldier. He doesnt belong to this group. Instead of him Genghis Khan and Attilla are better candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the TYRANTS would allow it, but I am sorely tempted to start a thread to analyze MPC in the same way he has Caesar. Oh, I'd throw in N.N. for the heck of it. Now that should be lots of fun. How would you (MPC & NN) go for such? :D Do I smell hair burning? :angry:

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the psychoanalists define their theories from a study of the actions/personality traits of men such as these?

 

No. The psychoanalysts following Freud saw narcissism as a sexual disorder in which the libido was directed toward the ego rather than being directed outward, and narcissism was viewed a major cause of homosexuality, for which the psychoanalysts had no theory and which presented problems for their overall theory of object-relations. (I swear, you can't parody this nonsense.) If you look at the early writings on narcissism in the pre-history of modern psychology, they are overwhelmingly influenced by this focus on sexuality.

 

In contrast to the psychoanalytic clap-trap, modern psychologists view homosexuality as a completely healthy sexual preference, and there is nothing in the diagnosis of pathological narcissism that refers to sexual preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that the TYRANTS would allow it, but I am sorely tempted to start a thread to analyze MPC in the same way he has Caesar. Oh, I'd throw in N.N. for the heck of it. Now that should be lots of fun. How would you (MPC & NN) go for such? :lol: Do I smell hair burning? :rolleyes:

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Do it Gaius! Do it! I start looking MPC descriptions in Cicero's letters, thats gonna be funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that the TYRANTS would allow it, but I am sorely tempted to start a thread to analyze MPC in the same way he has Caesar. Oh, I'd throw in N.N. for the heck of it. Now that should be lots of fun. How would you (MPC & NN) go for such? :lol: Do I smell hair burning? :rolleyes:

:ph34r:

 

I am absolutely cool about that! The results however would be far from scientific in my case, as a substantial number of ideas I pose on this forum are not neccessarily views held by me, but intended to fuel debate and perhaps give an opposing point of view when one is needed. Other comments I make are intended to be humerous, and often I poke fun at myself. Fire away! My armour is impenetrable. :tank:

 

With MPC I fear the results would be uninteresting. As far as I am aware he has never murdered anyone, and his comments are in the main intended to provide a logical or balanced view of a given subject backed up by evidence, in which he finds mere speculation pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the psychoanalists define their theories from a study of the actions/personality traits of men such as these?

 

No. The psychoanalysts following Freud saw narcissism as a sexual disorder in which the libido was directed toward the ego rather than being directed outward, and narcissism was viewed a major cause of homosexuality, for which the psychoanalysts had no theory and which presented problems for their overall theory of object-relations. (I swear, you can't parody this nonsense.) If you look at the early writings on narcissism in the pre-history of modern psychology, they are overwhelmingly influenced by this focus on sexuality.

 

In contrast to the psychoanalytic clap-trap, modern psychologists view homosexuality as a completely healthy sexual preference, and there is nothing in the diagnosis of pathological narcissism that refers to sexual preferences.

 

Thank you, Cato - things are becoming clearer, slowly but surely (you'll be glad to hear) :rolleyes: It really is quite a fascinating topic and I am quite glad that I've kept nagging on, because I'm learning a lot from this. But I think I'll retire gracefully now, as we've rather lost sight of our Caesar, and I can see myself being dragged to Tartarus by the Triumvirs if I'm not careful. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As MPC holds, a bit of humor cracks the tension. It's not my place to judge, but I don't think that anyone has crossed the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From our very own P. Clodius:

 

"Aside from Jesus, Caesar has to be the most written about figure in history."

 

This, for a narcissistic murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From our very own P. Clodius:

 

"Aside from Jesus, Caesar has to be the most written about figure in history."

 

This, for a narcissistic murderer.

 

 

Whatever else one might think about Caesar, saying that he (or anyone else) is one of the most written about figures in history doesn't always serve as a character reference.

 

After all, Time Magazine has selected, at various times, for their front cover "Person of the Year" ("a man, woman, or idea that, for better or worse, has influenced events in the preceding year"): Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 & 1942), and the Ayatollah Khomeini (1979). Despite the fact that each of these was "honored" by Time only for the events they influenced in a particular year, they are still talked about and written about today. Caesar had two millennia on the rest. Give them time.

 

-- Nephele

Edited by Nephele Carnalis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N.C., you speak of the unknown future; P.C. speaks of the past and the present.

 

Men were killed as a result of war against armed people. He did not murder millions of innocents. Enslavement was of the time. Hitler may have taken Germany out of a depression. Stalin industrialized the USSR. Mao took China out of its dark age. These murdered untold millions. Only idiots write of these beings admiringly. The title 'Caesar' has proudly lasted for two millenia. I believe that even the word 'shah' is derived from 'Caesar'. MPC's view notwithstanding, it is the common belief in the West that Caesar was a Great man. "The voice of the people, is the voice of God."

Edited by Gaius Octavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×