《 动机与人格》(Motivation and Personality)[PDF]
[心理学].动机与人格.pdf
[动机与人格].(Motivation.and.Personality)Abraham.H.Maslow.扫描版.PDF | 4.9MB |
[ 动机与人格].Abraham.Maslow.and.Self.Actualization.(1968).MP4 | 163.7MB |
内容简介 · · · · · ·
影响深远的巨著《Motivation and Personality》(中译名:动机与人格),由下而上,把人类的需求层次分为金字塔五阶式人格理论:从生理需求、安全需求、被归属、接纳的需求,到自尊心需求,以及第五阶段的自我实现需求。
我必须说一个关于刺激性事实字,这个真正的革命(自然科学的,终极价值的人的新形象的社会,哲学,等等)仍然几乎完全被大部分忽视知识界,特别是那部分它控制通信的受过教育的公众和青少年的通道。 (为此我已经调用它没有注意到革命。)
这个社区的很多成员提呈特点是深刻的绝望和犬儒主义有时沦为腐蚀恶意和残酷的前景。实际上,他们否认人类改善自然和社会的,或发现内在的人类价值,或者是热爱生活的一般的可能性。
怀
疑诚实的真实性,善良,慷慨,感情,他们超越合理怀疑或判断代扣到活动的敌意,当人们通过他们的人在为傻瓜,冷笑面对“童子军”,广场,无辜,做社会改
良,或Pollyannas。这种主动揭穿,憎恨和撕心裂肺超越蔑视;它有时看起来对他们认为是愚弄他们的侮辱努力,采取他们,拉他们的腿愤怒的反击。心
理分析会,我想,它看到的愤怒和复仇的动力为过去的失望和幻灭。
这种亚文化的绝望,这种态度,这种反道德在捕食和绝望是真实的,良好的意
愿不,是断然人文心理学矛盾,并在这本书中提出的那种初步数据“比你更腐蚀性”在许多参考书目中列出的著作。虽然它仍然是必要的非常谨慎人性肯定的先决条
件“善”(见第7,9,11,16),这已经是可以拒绝的坚定信念,绝望人性最终基本上堕落和邪恶。这样的信念不再是口味的问题仅仅是。现在可以只维持一
个确定的盲目性和无知,被拒绝考虑的事实。因此,它必须被认为是一种个人的投影,而不是一个合理的哲学或科学位置。
ABRAHAM H.MASLOW
MOTIVATION AND PERSONALITY
Copyright © 1954 by Harper & Row,Publishers, Inc.
Copyright © 1970 by Abraham H. Maslow
Reprinted from the English Edition by Harper & Row, Publishers 1954
This book was made possible by the generosity of my brothers Harold, Paul, and Lew of the Universal Container Corporation.
I
have tried in this revision to incorporate the main lessons of the last
sixteen years. These lessons have been considerable. I consider it a
real and extensive revision-even though I had to do only a moderate
amount of rewriting-because the main thrust of the book has been
modified in important ways which I shall detail below.
When this book
appeared in 1954 it was essentially an effort to build upon the
classical psychologies available rather than to repudiate them or to
establish another rival psychology. It attempted to enlarge our con
ception of the human personality by reaching into the "higher" levels of
human nature. (The title I had first planned to tise for the book was
Highçr Ceilings for Human Nature.) If I had had to condense the thesis
of this book into a single sentence, I would have said that, in addition
to what the psychologies of the time had to say about human nature, man
also had a higher nature and that this was instinctoid, i.e., part of
his essence. And if I could have had a second sentence, I would have
stressed the profoundly holistic nature of human nature in contradiction
to the analyticdissectingatomisticNewtonian approach of the
behaviorisms and of Freudian psychoanalysis.
Or to say it another
way, I certainly accepted and built upon the available data of
experimental psychology and psychoanalysis. I accepted also the
empirical and experimental spirit of the one, and the unmasking and
depth-probing of the other, while yet rejecting the images of man
Preface which they generated. That is, this book represented a different
philoso- phy of human nature, a new image of man.
However, what I
took then to be an argument within the family of psychologists has in
my opinion turned out since then to be rather a local manifestation of a
new Zeitgeist, a new general comprehensive philosophy of life. This new
"humanistic" Weltanschauung seems to he a new and far more hopeful and
encouraging way of conceiving any and every area of human knowledge:
e.g., economics, sociology, biology, and every profession: e.g., law,
politics, medicine, and all of the social institutions: e.g., the
family, education, religion, etc. I have acted upon this personal
conviction in revising this book, writing into the psychology presented
herein, the belief that it is an aspect of a much broader world view
afl(l of a comprehensive life-philosophy, which is already partly worked
out. at least to the point of plausibility, and must, therefore, be
taken seriously.
I must say a word about the irritating fact that
this veritable revolution (a new image of man, of society, of nature,
of science, of ultimate values, of philosophy, etc., etc.) is still
almost completely overlooked by much of the intellectual community,
especially that portion of it that controls the channels of
communication to the educated public and to youth. (For this reason I
have taken to calling it the Unnoticed Revolution.)
Many members
of this community propound an outlook characterized by a profound
despair and cynicism which sometimes degenerates into corrosive malice
and cruelty. In effect they deny the possibility of improving human
nature and society, or of discovering intrinsic human values, or of
being life-loving in general.
Doubting the realness of honesty,
of kindness, of generosity, of affection, they go beyond a reasonable
skepticism or a withholding of judgment into an active hostility when
confronted by people whom they sneer at as fools,"Boy Scouts," squares,
innocents, do-gooders, or Pollyannas. This active debunking, hating and
rending goes beyond contempt; it sometimes looks like an outraged
counterattack against what they consider to be an insulting effort to
fool them, to take them in, to pull their legs. The psychoanalyst would,
I think, see in it a dynamics of rage and revenge for past
disappointments and disillusionments.
This subculture of despair,
this "more corrosive than thou" attitude, this counter-morality in
which predation and hopelessness are real and good will is not, is
flatly contradicted by the humanistic psychologies, and by the kind of
preliminary data presented in this book and in many of the writings
listed in the Bibliography. While it is still necessary to be very
cautious about affirming the preconditions for "goodness" in human
nature (see Chapters 7, 9, 11, 16), it is already possible to reject
firmly the despairing belief that human nature is ultimately and
basically depraved and evil. Such a belief is no longer a matter of
taste merely. It can now be maintained only by a determined blindness
and ignorance, by a refusaI to consider the facts. It must therefore be
considered to be a personal projection rather than a reasoned
philosophical or scientific position.
The humanistic and holistic
conceptions of science presented in the first two chapters and in
Appendix B have been powerfully corroborated by many developments of the
past decade, but especially by Michael Polanyi's great book Personal
Knowledge (376). My own book, The Psychology of Science (292), carries
forward very similar theses. These books are in blunt contradiction to
the classical, conventional philosophy of science still too widely
prevalent, and they offer a far better substitute for scientific work
with persons.
The book is holistic throughout, but a more
intensive and perhaps more difficult treatment is contained in Appendix
B. Holism is obviously true--after all, the cosmos is one and
interrelated; any society is one and interrelated; any person is one and
interrelated, etc.--and yet the holistic book his a hard time being
implemented and being used as it should be, as a way of looking at the
world. Recently I have become more and more inclined to think that the
atomistic way of thinking is a form of mild psychopathology, or is at
least one aspect of the syndrome of cognitive immaturity. The holistic
way of thinking and seeing seems to come quite naturally and
automatically to healthier, self-actualizing people, and seems to he
extraordinarily difficult for less evolved, less mature, less healthy
people. To date this is only an impression, of course, and I do not want
to push it too hard. Yet I feel justified in presenting it here as a
hypothesis to be checked, something which should be relatively easy to
do.