3 aspects

I was thinking in the bath the other night, incidentally an excellent place for it - probably better than the loo! I had in my mind the three parts of Freudian psychology: id, ego and super-ego - but I was thinking about the strands of philosophy that might be influenced by the, 'human condition'. The outcome was this: there are 3 parts to the human makeup: logical, emotional and moral - corresponding to Freud's model respectively.

The id is purely logical in that cause leads to effect and the effect is either correct or incorrect. Emotion is an order of magnitude more complex in that an effect is either agreeable or disagreeable. The super-ego is a moral watchdog in that the effect is either right or wrong.

Herein I must disagree with Freud, because a baby will use both the id and the ego to operate. The baby might not be able to project these logical and emotional strands onto others or far into the future, but that comes with practice. However, the super-ego must come last (or at least mature later) because moral questions just feel to damn complex, even to a fully mature and reasonably well adjusted human.

So, how can I test or prove any of this? Well, put simply, you can't. It is a nice theory and might prove a useful model, but you can't prove anything in psychology (beyond a few bio-chemical reactions). But I guess I ought to generate some research to back up my theory. I also probably want to show practical uses of the theory.

Ok, so - I want to demonstrate the separate nature of the logical, emotional and moral aspects of human nature. I suspect I would want to show (statistically) that the responses from each separate strand are predictable (in a 'normal' human being). Next might be to demonstrate cases of the lack of any one of these aspects (lack of the moral aspect springs to mind as the easiest to show). Perhaps on the back of that, some method for improving the responses from the 'under-developed' aspect(s).

Well, there's more to show on the psychology front, but applying this to the philosophy side is really where I started with this whole thing. A philosophy that deals with logic and morals is well documented, but how much has emotion been pushed aside? Also, how about relating these aspects back to my original assertion that humans are pattern-matchers? And what about explaining the physical world, alongside the social and psychological items that naturally link to this discussion? Finally, what is the 'useful' direction of this discussion?