The Psychological Approach: Freudl.

The Psychological Approach: Freud
l. AIMSA AND PRINCIPIES
Of all the critical approachest literature, the psychological has been one of the most controversial, the most abused, and for many readers the least appreciated. Yet, for all the difficulties involved in its proper application to interpretive analysis, the psychological approach can be fascinating and rewarding. Our purpose in this chapter is three fold: (1) to account briefly for the misunderstanding of psychological criticism; (2) to outline a psychological theory often used as an interpretive tool by modern critics; and (3) to show by examples how readers may apply this mode of interpretation to enhancet heir understanding and appreciation of literature.
The idea of enhancement must be understood as a preface to our discussion. It is axiomatic that no single approach can exhaust the manifold interpretive possibilities of a worthwhile literary work: each approach has its own peculiar limitations. For example, the limitations of the historical-biographical approach lie in its tendency to overlook the structural intricacies of the work. The formalist approaclu on the other hand, often neglects historical and sociological contexts that may provide important insights into the meaning of the work. In turn, the crucial limitation of the psychological approach is its aesthetic in adequacy: psychological interpretation can afford many profound clues toward solving a work's thematic and symbolic mysteries, but it can seldom account for the beautiful symme-try of a well-wrought poem or of a fictional masterpiece. Though the psychological approach is an excellent tool for reading beneath the lines, the interpretive craftsman must often use other tools such as the formalist approach for a proper rendering of the lines themselves.
A. Abuses and Misunderstandings of the Psychological Approach
In the general dense of the word, there is nothing new about the psychological approach. As early as the fourth century B.c., Aristotle used it in setting forth his classic definition of tragedy as combining the emotions of pity and terror to produce catharsis. The "compleat gentleman" of the English Renaissance, Sir Philip Sidney, with his statements about the moral effects of poetry, was psychologizing literature, as were such Romantic poets as Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Shelley with their theories of the imagination. In this sense,t hen, virtually every literary critic has been concerned at some time with the psychology of writing or responding to literature.
During the twentieth century, however, psychological criticism has come to be associated with a particular school of thought, the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud (1856- 1939) and his followers. (The currently most significant of these followers, facques Lacan, will be discussed in subsequent chapters.) From this association have derived most of the abuses and misunderstandings of the modern psychological approach to literature. Abuses of the approach have resulted from an excess of enthusiasm, which has been manifested in several ways. First, the practitioners of the Freudian approach often push their critical theses too hard, forcing literature into a Procrustean bed of psychoanalytic theory at the expense of other relevant considerations (for example, the work's total thematic and esthetic context). Second, the literary criticism of the psychoanalytic extremists has at times degenerated into a special occultism with its own mystique and jargon exclusively for the in group. Third, many critics of the psychological school have been either literary scholars who have understood the principles of psychology imperfectly or professional psychologists who have had little feeling for literature as art: the former have abused Freudian insights through oversimplification and distortion; the latter have bruised our literary sensibilities.
These abuses have given rise to a widespread mistrust of the psychological approach as a tool for critical analysis. Conservative scholars and teachers of literature, often shocked by such terms as anal eroticism, phallic symbol, and Oedipal complex, and confused by the clinical diagnoses of literary problems (for example, the interpretation of Hamlet's character as a "severe case of hysteria on a cyclothymic basis"that is, a bipolar disorder), have rejected all psychological criticism other than the commonsense type as pretentious nonsense. By explaining a few of the principles of Freudian psychology that have been applied to literary interpretation and by providing some cautionary remarks, we hope to introduce the reader to a balanced critical perspective that will enable him or her to appreciate the instructive possibilities of the psychological approach while avoiding the pitfalls of either extremist attitude.
B. Freud’s Theories
The foundation of Freud's contribution to modern psychology is his emphasis on the unconscious aspects of the human psyche. Abrilliant creative genius, Freud provided convincing evidence, through his many carefully recorded case studies, that most of our actions are motivated by psychological forces over which we have very limited control. He demonstrated that, like the iceberg, the human mind is structured so that its great weight and density lie beneath the surface (below the level of consciousness). In "The Anatomy of the Mental Personality," Freud discriminates between the levels of conscious and unconscious mental activity:
The oldest and best meaning of the word "unconscious" is the descriptive one; we call "unconscious" any mental process the existence of which we are obligated to assume because, for instance, we infer it in some way from its effects but of which we are not directly aware. . . . If we want to be more accurate, we should modify the statement by saying that we call a process "unconscious" when we have to assume that it was aclive at a certain time, although at that time we knew nothing about it. (99-100)
Freud further emphasizest he importance of the unconscious by pointing out that even the "most conscious processesa re conscious for only a short period; quite soon they become latent, though they can easily become conscious again" (100). In view of this, Freud defines two kinds of unconscious:
one which is transformed into conscious material easily and under conditions which frequently arise, and another in the case of which such a transformation is difficult, can only come about with a considerable expenditure of energy, or may never occur at all. . . . We call the unconscious which is only latent, and so can easily become conscious, the "preconscious," and keep the name "unconscious" for the other. (101)
That most of the individual's mental processes are unconscious is thus Freud's first major premise. The second (which has been rejected by a great many professional psychologists, including some of Freud's own disciples for example, Carl Gustav jung and Alfred Adler) is that all human behavior is motivated ultimately by what we would call sexuality. Freud designates the prime psychic force as libido, or sexual energy. His third major premise is that because of the powerful social taboos attached to certain sexual impulses, many of our desires and memories are repressed (that is, actively excluded from conscious awareness).
Starting from these three premises, we may examine several corollaries of Freudian theory. Principal among these is Freud's assignment of the mental processes to three psychic zones: the id, the ego, and the superego. An explanation of these zones may be illustrated with a modification of Freud's own diagram (New lntroductory Lectures 78):
The diagram reveals immediately the vast portion of the mental apparatus that is not conscious. Furthermore, it helps to clarify the relationship between ego, id, and superego, as well as their collective relationship to the conscious and the unconscious. We should note that the id is entirely unconscious and that only small portions of the ego and the superego are conscious. With this diagram as a guide, we may define the nature and functions of the three psychic zones.
1. The id is the reservoir of libido, the primary source of all psychic energy. It functions to fulfill the primordial life principle, which Freud considers to be the pleasure principle. Without consciousness or semblance of rational order, the id is characterized by a tremendous and amorphous vitality. Speaking metaphorically, Freud explains this "obscure in accessible part of our personality" as " a chaos, a cauldron of seething excite ment [with] no organization and no unified will, only an impulsion to obtain satisfaction for the instinctual needs, in accordance with the pleasure principle" (103-4). He further stresses that the "laws of logic above all, the law of contradiction do not hold for processes of the id. Contradictory impulses exist side by side without neutralizing each other or drawing apart. . . . Naturally, the id knows no values, no good and evil, no morality" (104-5).

Hasil (Melayu) 1:

Pendekatan psikologi: Freudl. AIMSA dan PRINCIPIESDaripada semua di Genting approachest kesusasteraan, psikologi telah menjadi salah satu yang paling kontroversi, Tempahan didera, dan untuk banyak pembaca-kurangnya dihargai. Namun, bagi semua kesukaran terlibat dalam pemakaiannya betul analisis interpretasi, pendekatan psikologi yang boleh menarik dan memberi ganjaran. Tujuan kami dalam Bab ini adalah tiga kali ganda: (1) ke akaun secara ringkas untuk faham mengenai psikologi kritikan; (2) mengemukakan satu teori psikologi yang sering digunakan sebagai alat interpretasi oleh para pengkritik moden; dan (3) untuk menunjukkan dengan contoh-contoh bagaimana pembaca boleh memohon mod ini daripada tafsiran kepada waris enhancet memahami dan menghargai Sastera. The idea of enhancement must be understood as a preface to our discussion. It is axiomatic that no single approach can exhaust the manifold interpretive possibilities of a worthwhile literary work: each approach has its own peculiar limitations. For example, the limitations of the historical-biographical approach lie in its tendency to overlook the structural intricacies of the work. The formalist approaclu on the other hand, often neglects historical and sociological contexts that may provide important insights into the meaning of the work. In turn, the crucial limitation of the psychological approach is its aesthetic in adequacy: psychological interpretation can afford many profound clues toward solving a work's thematic and symbolic mysteries, but it can seldom account for the beautiful symme-try of a well-wrought poem or of a fictional masterpiece. Though the psychological approach is an excellent tool for reading beneath the lines, the interpretive craftsman must often use other tools such as the formalist approach for a proper rendering of the lines themselves.A. Abuses and Misunderstandings of the Psychological ApproachSecara umum yang tebal perkataan, ada apa-apa yang baru tentang pendekatan psikologi. Seawal abad ke SM yang keempat, Imam Al-Ghazali digunakan dalam menetapkan mengemukakan definisi klasik beliau tragedi seperti menggabungkan emosi kasihan dan keganasan melahirkan catharsis. "Compleat lelaki yang" zaman pembaharuan Bahasa Inggeris, Sir Philip Sidney, dengan kenyataan-kenyataan beliau mengenai kesan moral puisi ialah psychologizing sastera, kerana penyair tersebut Romantik sebagai Coleridge, Wordsworth dan Shelley dengan teori mereka imaginasi. Dalam pengertian ini, ayam t, hampir setiap pengkritik Sastera telah berkenaan pada beberapa waktu dengan psikologi menulis atau bertindak balas terhadap Sastera. During the twentieth century, however, psychological criticism has come to be associated with a particular school of thought, the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud (1856- 1939) and his followers. (The currently most significant of these followers, facques Lacan, will be discussed in subsequent chapters.) From this association have derived most of the abuses and misunderstandings of the modern psychological approach to literature. Abuses of the approach have resulted from an excess of enthusiasm, which has been manifested in several ways. First, the practitioners of the Freudian approach often push their critical theses too hard, forcing literature into a Procrustean bed of psychoanalytic theory at the expense of other relevant considerations (for example, the work's total thematic and esthetic context). Second, the literary criticism of the psychoanalytic extremists has at times degenerated into a special occultism with its own mystique and jargon exclusively for the in group. Third, many critics of the psychological school have been either literary scholars who have understood the principles of psychology imperfectly or professional psychologists who have had little feeling for literature as art: the former have abused Freudian insights through oversimplification and distortion; the latter have bruised our literary sensibilities. These abuses have given rise to a widespread mistrust of the psychological approach as a tool for critical analysis. Conservative scholars and teachers of literature, often shocked by such terms as anal eroticism, phallic symbol, and Oedipal complex, and confused by the clinical diagnoses of literary problems (for example, the interpretation of Hamlet's character as a "severe case of hysteria on a cyclothymic basis"that is, a bipolar disorder), have rejected all psychological criticism other than the commonsense type as pretentious nonsense. By explaining a few of the principles of Freudian psychology that have been applied to literary interpretation and by providing some cautionary remarks, we hope to introduce the reader to a balanced critical perspective that will enable him or her to appreciate the instructive possibilities of the psychological approach while avoiding the pitfalls of either extremist attitude.B. Freud’s TheoriesThe foundation of Freud's contribution to modern psychology is his emphasis on the unconscious aspects of the human psyche. Abrilliant creative genius, Freud provided convincing evidence, through his many carefully recorded case studies, that most of our actions are motivated by psychological forces over which we have very limited control. He demonstrated that, like the iceberg, the human mind is structured so that its great weight and density lie beneath the surface (below the level of consciousness). In "The Anatomy of the Mental Personality," Freud discriminates between the levels of conscious and unconscious mental activity:The oldest and best meaning of the word "unconscious" is the descriptive one; we call "unconscious" any mental process the existence of which we are obligated to assume because, for instance, we infer it in some way from its effects but of which we are not directly aware. . . . If we want to be more accurate, we should modify the statement by saying that we call a process "unconscious" when we have to assume that it was aclive at a certain time, although at that time we knew nothing about it. (99-100)Freud further emphasizest he importance of the unconscious by pointing out that even the "most conscious processesa re conscious for only a short period; quite soon they become latent, though they can easily become conscious again" (100). In view of this, Freud defines two kinds of unconscious:one which is transformed into conscious material easily and under conditions which frequently arise, and another in the case of which such a transformation is difficult, can only come about with a considerable expenditure of energy, or may never occur at all. . . . We call the unconscious which is only latent, and so can easily become conscious, the "preconscious," and keep the name "unconscious" for the other. (101)Kebanyakan proses mental individu yang tidak sedarkan diri adalah Freud di premis utama pertama. Kedua (yang telah ditolak oleh psikologi profesional banyak yang besar, termasuk beberapa pengikut-pengikut Freud sendiri misalnya, Carl Gustav jung dan Alfred Adler) adalah bahawa semua tingkah laku manusia adalah bermotivasi akhirnya oleh apa yang kita akan memanggil seksualiti. Freud berdasar psikik pengerak utama sebagai libido, atau tenaga batin. Premis utama beliau ketiga adalah bahawa kerana pantang sosial kuat melekat impuls seksual tertentu, banyak keinginan dan kenangan kami adalah repressed (yang aktif adalah, dikecualikan daripada kesedaran sedar). Bermula dari premis tiga ini, kita boleh memeriksa beberapa corollaries Freudian teori. Utama golongan ini adalah tugasan Freud di proses mental kepada tiga zon psikik: id, ego dan superego yang. Penjelasan daripada zon-zon yang boleh digambarkan dengan pengubahsuaian Rajah Freud sendiri (baru lntroductory 78 kuliah):Gambarajah dengan serta-merta mendedahkan bahagian luas radas mental yang tidak sedar. Selain itu, ia membantu untuk menjelaskan hubungan antara id, ego, dan superego, serta hubungan bersama mereka yang sedar dan tidak sedarkan diri itu. Kita perlu ambil perhatian bahawa id adalah sama sekali tidak sedarkan diri dan bahawa bahagian-bahagian yang kecil sahaja ego dan superego yang bertakwa. Dengan gambarajah ini sebagai panduan, kita boleh menentukan jenis dan fungsi zon psikik yang tiga. 1. The id is the reservoir of libido, the primary source of all psychic energy. It functions to fulfill the primordial life principle, which Freud considers to be the pleasure principle. Without consciousness or semblance of rational order, the id is characterized by a tremendous and amorphous vitality. Speaking metaphorically, Freud explains this "obscure in accessible part of our personality" as " a chaos, a cauldron of seething excite ment [with] no organization and no unified will, only an impulsion to obtain satisfaction for the instinctual needs, in accordance with the pleasure principle" (103-4). He further stresses that the "laws of logic above all, the law of contradiction do not hold for processes of the id. Contradictory impulses exist side by side without neutralizing each other or drawing apart. . . . Naturally, the id knows no values, no good and evil, no morality" (104-5).

Hasil (Melayu) 2:

Pendekatan Psikologi: Freud
l. AIMSA DAN PRINCIPIES
Daripada semua kesusasteraan approachest kritikal, psikologi telah menjadi salah satu yang paling kontroversi, yang paling didera, dan bagi kebanyakan pembaca-kurangnya dihargai. Namun, untuk semua kesukaran yang terlibat dalam permohonan yang betul kepada analisis tafsiran, pendekatan psikologi boleh menjadi menarik dan bermanfaat. Tujuan kami dalam bab ini adalah tiga kali ganda: (1) untuk mengambil kira secara ringkas untuk salah faham kritikan psikologi; (2) untuk menggariskan teori psikologi sering digunakan sebagai alat tafsiran oleh para pengkritik moden; dan (3) dapat memberikan contoh bagaimana pembaca boleh dikenakan mod ini tafsiran untuk enhancet pemahaman waris dan penghayatan sastera.
Idea untuk penambahbaikan perlu difahami sebagai kata pengantar kepada perbincangan kita. Tidak dapat disangkal ada pendekatan tunggal boleh ekzos kemungkinan tafsiran manifold sesuatu karya sastera yang bernilai: setiap pendekatan mempunyai had sendiri pelik. Sebagai contoh, batasan pendekatan sejarah-biografi terletak pada kecenderungan untuk mengabaikan selok-belok struktur kerja itu. The approaclu formalisme di sisi lain, sering cuai konteks sejarah dan sosiologi yang boleh memberi maklumat penting ke dalam pengertian kerja. Seterusnya, had penting dalam pendekatan psikologi estetik dalam kecukupan: tafsiran psikologi mampu banyak petunjuk yang mendalam ke arah menyelesaikan misteri tematik dan simbolik kerja, tetapi ia jarang boleh mengambil kira indah symme-percubaan puisi yang tempa atau sebuah karya fiksyen. Walaupun pendekatan psikologi adalah alat yang sangat baik untuk membaca di bawah garis, tukang tafsiran mesti sering menggunakan alat-alat lain seperti pendekatan formalisme untuk pemaparan yang sesuai untuk laporan baris diri mereka sendiri.
A. Penyalahgunaan dan Salah faham Pendekatan Psikologi
Dalam padat umum dengan perkataan, tiada apa yang baru tentang pendekatan psikologi. Seawal abad keempat Bc, Aristotle menggunakannya dalam yang menyatakan definisi klasiknya tragedi yang menggabungkan emosi kasihan dan keganasan untuk menghasilkan pengubat. "Lelaki compleat" Renaissance Inggeris, Sir Philip Sidney, dengan kenyataan beliau tentang kesan-kesan moral puisi, adalah psychologizing sastera, seperti juga penyair Romantik seperti Coleridge, Wordsworth, dan Shelley dengan teori mereka imaginasi. Dalam pengertian ini, t untuk wanita, hampir setiap pengkritik sastera telah berkenaan pada masa dengan psikologi bertulis atau bertindak balas kepada kesusasteraan.
Pada abad kedua puluh, bagaimanapun, kritikan psikologi telah datang yang berkaitan dengan sekolah tertentu pemikiran, psikoanalitik teori Sigmund Freud (1856- 1939) dan para pengikutnya. (Pada masa yang paling penting pengikut ini, facques Lacan, akan dibincangkan dalam bab-bab berikutnya.) Dari persatuan ini telah memperoleh sebahagian besar daripada penyalahgunaan dan salah faham pendekatan psikologi moden kepada kesusasteraan. Salah guna pendekatan yang telah menyebabkan lebihan semangat, yang telah ditunjukkan dalam beberapa cara. Pertama, pengamal pendekatan Freud sering menolak tesis kritikal mereka terlalu keras, memaksa sastera menjadi katil Procrustean teori psikoanalitik mengorbankan pertimbangan lain yang berkaitan (contohnya, jumlah konteks tematik dan estetik kerja-kerja ini). Kedua, kritikan sastera pelampau psikoanalitik pada ketika tertentu merosot kepada satu ilmu ghaib khas dengan mistik sendiri dan jargon semata-mata untuk kumpulan. Ketiga, ramai pengkritik sekolah psikologi telah sama ada ilmuan yang telah memahami prinsip-prinsip psikologi tidak sempurna atau pakar psikologi profesional yang mempunyai perasaan sedikit untuk kesusasteraan sebagai seni: bekas menyalahgunakan pandangan Freud melalui melampaui batas dan penyelewengan; anak angkat itu telah lebam perasaan sastera kita.
Ini penyalahgunaan telah menimbulkan ketidakpercayaan meluas pendekatan psikologi sebagai alat untuk analisis kritikal. Ulama konservatif dan guru-guru sastera, sering terkejut dengan apa-apa terma erotisme dubur, simbol berbentuk zakar, dan kompleks Oedipal, dan keliru dengan diagnosis klinikal masalah sastera (contohnya, tafsiran watak Hamlet sebagai "kes yang teruk histeria pada asas cyclothymic "iaitu, gangguan bipolar), telah menolak semua kritikan psikologi selain daripada jenis yang akal sebagai tidak masuk akal megah. Dengan menjelaskan beberapa prinsip-prinsip psikologi Freud yang telah digunakan untuk tafsiran sastera dan dengan menyediakan beberapa kenyataan amaran, kami berharap untuk memperkenalkan pembaca kepada perspektif yang seimbang penting yang akan membolehkan dia untuk menghargai kemungkinan pengajaran pendekatan psikologi sambil mengelakkan perangkap memuat sikap pelampau.
B. Teori Freud
Asas sumbangan Freud psikologi moden adalah penekanannya kepada aspek tidak sedar jiwa manusia. Genius kreatif Abrilliant, Freud memberikan bukti yang meyakinkan, melalui banyak kajian kes direkodkan dengan teliti, bahawa kebanyakan tindakan kita didorong oleh kuasa-kuasa psikologi di mana kami tidak mempunyai kawalan yang sangat terhad. Dia menunjukkan bahawa, seperti bilangan itu, minda manusia disusun agar berat badan dan ketumpatan dusta yang besar di bawah permukaan (di bawah tahap kesedaran). Di dalam "Anatomi Personaliti Mental," Freud mendiskriminasikan antara tahap aktiviti mental sedar dan tidak sedar:
Maksud tertua dan terbaik dari perkataan "tidak sedarkan diri" adalah satu deskriptif; kita panggil "tidak sedar" mana-mana proses mental yang kewujudannya kita diwajibkan untuk mengambil alih kerana, misalnya, kita membuat kesimpulan dalam beberapa cara daripada kesan tetapi yang mana kami tidak langsung sedar. . . . Jika kita mahu menjadi lebih tepat, kita perlu mengubah suai kenyataan itu dengan mengatakan bahawa kita panggil proses yang "sedar" apabila kita perlu menganggap bahawa ia adalah aclive pada masa yang tertentu, walaupun pada masa itu kita tahu apa-apa mengenainya. (99-100)
Freud lagi emphasizest dia kepentingan tidak sedarkan diri dengan menunjukkan bahawa walaupun "processesa paling sedar semula sedar untuk hanya tempoh yang singkat; tidak lama lagi mereka menjadi pendam, walaupun mereka dengan mudah boleh menjadi sedar sekali lagi" (100). Dalam hal ini, Freud mendefinisikan dua jenis tidak sedarkan diri:
satu yang berubah menjadi bahan sedar dengan mudah dan dalam keadaan yang sering timbul, dan satu lagi dalam kes yang seperti transformasi adalah sukar, hanya boleh dicapai dengan perbelanjaan besar tenaga , atau tidak pernah boleh berlaku pada semua. . . . Kami menyeru tidak sedarkan diri yang hanya terpendam, dan sebagainya dengan mudah boleh menjadi sedar, "prasedar," dan nama "sedar" untuk yang lain. (101)
dengan itu bahawa kebanyakan proses mental individu yang tidak sedar adalah premis utama pertama Freud. Kedua (yang telah ditolak oleh ramai ahli psikologi profesional, termasuk murid-murid Freud sendiri sebagai contoh, Carl Gustav Jung dan Alfred Adler) adalah bahawa semua tingkah laku manusia adalah didorong akhirnya dengan apa yang kita akan memanggil seksualiti. Freud menandakan kuasa psikik utama kerana nafsu, atau tenaga seksual. Premis ketiga utama beliau ialah kerana pantang larang yang kuat sosial melekat impuls tertentu seksual, banyak keinginan dan kenangan kami ditindas (iaitu, secara aktif dikecualikan daripada kesedaran sedar).
Bermula daripada ketiga-tiga premis itu, kita boleh memeriksa beberapa siratan daripada Freud teori. Principal antaranya adalah tugasan Freud proses mental untuk tiga zon psikik: id, ego, dan superego. Penjelasan zon ini boleh digambarkan dengan suatu pengubahsuaian rajah Freud sendiri (lntroductory New Kuliah 78):
rajah ini menunjukkan dengan segera sebahagian besar alat mental yang tidak sedar. Tambahan pula, ia membantu untuk menjelaskan hubungan antara ego, id dan superego, serta hubungan kolektif mereka untuk sedar dan tidak sedar. Kita harus sedar bahawa id yang sama sekali tidak sedarkan diri dan hanya sebahagian kecil daripada ego dan superego sedar. Dengan rajah ini sebagai panduan, kita boleh menentukan sifat dan fungsi tiga zon psikik.
1. Id adalah takungan libido, sumber utama semua tenaga psikik. Ia berfungsi untuk memenuhi prinsip hidup purba, yang Freud dianggapnya prinsip keseronokan. Tanpa kesedaran atau kemiripan usaha rasional, id yang mempunyai ciri-ciri daya hidup yang besar dan amorfus. Bercakap metafora, Freud menjelaskan ini "kabur di bahagian diakses personaliti kita" sebagai "huru-hara, kawah gelora ment Excite [dengan] tiada organisasi dan tidak akan bersatu, yang hanya satu impulsion untuk mendapatkan kepuasan bagi keperluan naluri, mengikut prinsip keseronokan "(103-4). Beliau juga menekankan bahawa "undang-undang logik di atas semua, undang-undang percanggahan tidak tahan untuk proses ID tersebut. Impuls Bercanggah wujud sebelah menyebelah tanpa meneutralkan antara satu sama lain atau lukisan selain.... Sememangnya, id yang tidak mengenal nilai, ada yang baik dan jahat, tiada moral "(104-5).