Artaud suggests that psychological theater and the field of psychology itself are an abomination, taking away an energy and the true meaning of theater. This segment of Artaud's text is comprised entirely of reasons modern theater (since the time of Shakespeare) has failed and how indescribably surrealistic and yet real, theater should be. Yet even in his outline of techniques, he seems to offer only vague suggestions as to its improvement. My personal confusion lies within the prospect that theater of old could create a physiological effect, touching people at their core, and we cannot. We have discussed theater during the Roman times to have political agendas along the lines of satiating their audience among other things, yet this article claims that there has been something lost throughout time, something that used to be cherished as unknown, but is now known as something more simplistic, not containing nearly the same meaning as the unknown. Everything I've learned about human nature supports the assertion that we strive to recreate the known, which seems to me, the very premiss of theater. If it is not that, if it is not a reproduction of life we know, how could it be anything else?