You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
For the second part of his Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics, entitled “About the Foundation of Morals,” Schopenhauer uses as a motto the line: Moral predigen ist leicht, Moral begruenden schwer. (“To preach morals is easy, to define morals is difficult “). It is indeed an understatement that the study of the literature on creativity leaves one with the impression that it is easy to apply psychoanalytic theory to various aspects of the creative personality and of the creative process, to speak of unconscious and preconscious motivations, of sublimation and of the role of autonomous ego functions—but that it remains exasperatingly difficult to define creativity. Rarely has a maxim like Freud's “Before the problem of the creative artist psychoanalysis must throw down its arms”1 been quoted more often by followers who do their utmost to disprove its validity. Ever since Sadger's pathographic studies on Lenau and Kleist, there have been innumerable psycho-biographies and psychohistories which fall into the simplistic trap of attempting to “derive an art work primarily from the author's biography.”2 Harry Slochower, as editor-in-chief of American Imago, and as its guardian of psychoanalytic methodology, has warned repeatedly against the genetic pitfall of “viewing art and literature as the author's ‘defenses'against his unconscious conflicts, guilt-feelings etc.” At this stage in his life, Harry must find it easy to identify with the seventy-four-year-old Freud, who—no doubt as a result of his continued troubles and tribulations with some of his valued disciples-made a most touching and revealing slip of the pen in a letter I came upon some time ago. In 1930, Freud was awarded the Goethe Prize as “a personality of established achievement whose creative work is worthy of an honor dedicated to Goethe's