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.
I find it difficult to comment constructively on Dr. Grotjahn's essay “The New Technology and Our Ageless Unconscious” because his approach is not at all historical and I lack the competence to judge of his thesis on the basis of psychoanalysis by itself.
I do see some danger, though, in broad generalizations about the Greek mind or kindred phenomena. We know what the views and attitudes of some select figures were, but we are certainly entitled to doubt whether the average, aggressive and businesslike Greek of ancient times would come near meeting the specifications of the philosophers. Furthermore, it must be remembered that that entire civilization rested upon slavery and that man need have no interest in gadgets or machines if he can exploit others for his purposes.
It strikes me that man has at all times had a keen curiosity about all kinds of contraptions and that, in cases of necessity, he could invent machines (building and war machinery, clocks, mill-wheels, harness, etc.) for which he could not enlist human power. After all, we know that animals, too, share this basic curiosity.
Finally, I think I have less animus against the machine than Dr. Grotjahn. From my own researches I can only conclude that the machine has saved humanity from untold misery. I recognize the dangers that the machine may run away with us and I see that the machine age has confronted us with a host of psychological problems. But I would feel better if the entire, broad question could be viewed a little more in its historical context.