Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents as a Pragmatic Work He does this using a performative and therapeutic style of argumentation, in which he encourages the reader to analyze philosophical issues in the context of his daily life and to realize that Freud's psychoanalytic explanations correspond more closely to his own experience than 'to metaphysical constructions. By approaching the problems in this way, Freud wishes to show that nothing can be learned about man by appealing to abstraction, and that this type of thinking is not only illogical, but constitutes one of the main problems of civilization, preventing men from achieving greater happiness. . However, Freud also states that certain metaphysical constructs are necessary for men to remain happy and united in society. Thus, by exposing the root of any appeal to the higher nature of man, it appears that psychoanalysis is destructive. If people accepted what she said, made conscious everything that is unconscious, how would they deal with the problems of civilization? Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Civilization and Its Discontents is Freud's most philosophical work. He combines many of his earlier ideas to produce a commentary on civilization and life in general, which are normally the domain of philosophers. Freud's past work has discussed and even addressed some philosophical issues, but here he offers an insight into life based on his vast psychoanalytic discoveries. Because Freud wants to address philosophical and existential problems, the book resembles a work of philosophy. It addresses issues such as religion, aesthetics, ethics, the purpose of life, civilization versus the state of nature, and issues related to civilization. Freud uses some logic, references Schiller, and uses the term Fate in some of his explanations, such as when he expands the notion that the child is dependent on the father into the idea that the feeling of helplessness is "permanently sustained by fear.” of the higher power of destiny” (20). There is therefore no doubt that Freud wishes to address the plight of humanity and is not averse to using logic, literature, poetry or romantic language to convey his ideas. However, Freud wishes to distinguish himself from past theologians, philosophers, poets, novelists, and leaders who may have used similar language in formulating their arguments. He raises philosophical issues as stated by these philosophers in order to approach them differently from many of these thinkers of the past. Freud's style of argument, in accordance with his ideas, avoids appeal to logic and abstract ideals, to the higher nature of man, to the soul, to God and to the perfectibility of man, that is to say, to everything that separates man from general and animal metaphysical affirmations. Instead, his style of argument relates to metaphysical argument just like Wittgenstein's. Wittgenstein, in order to make sense of philosophical problems, examines the words on which the problems are centered as they are used in everyday language, not as they are idealized and pushed into abstraction by philosophical reasoning. Wittgenstein calls on the reader to analyze words as they use them in their daily lives and thus make sense of the philosophical issues surroundingtheir use. Freud uses a similar method that I would describe as performative and therapeutic. It does not examine behavior, institutions, culture or civilization in an abstract or ideal light, but as they exist in reality. The text is performative because it asks the reader to draw on their own common sense, past experience, and emotional and behavioral patterns to address philosophical questions, and it is therapeutic because it asks them to analyze themselves in the process . For example, he questions the command “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He suggests to the reader: to adopt a naive attitude towards it, as if we were hearing it for the first time; we will then be unable to repress a feeling of surprise and perplexity. Why should we do it? What good will this do us? But above all, how to achieve this? How is this possible? My love is something precious to me that I should not throw away without thinking. It imposes on me duties for the fulfillment of which I must be ready to make sacrifices. If I love someone, they must deserve it somehow? (65-66) He then expands the idea to explain why, from a psychoanalytic perspective, this feeling of surprise is actually validated by psychology. (we love someone only because they represent our ego or self-ideal). He continues to use this method when he tells the reader that "the aggressive instinct, which we can detect in ourselves and which we rightly assume to be present in others, is the factor which disrupts our relations with our neighbor." ? (69) He then goes on to give examples throughout history in which this instinct has manifested itself. He attempts to further validate and expand this method by stating at the beginning of two chapters that what he had just argued was simply common knowledge and that he had wasted paper and ink. This probably wasn't entirely true, but it serves to reinforce the reader's belief that what they read was intuitive. Freud thus uses a performative and therapeutic method because it is particularly adapted to a psychological framework. He wants to show people that his psychoanalytic observations come from real situations and common sense. But he also reasons in this way to bring philosophy down to earth, to get rid of metaphysical constructs and abstract reasoning in order to discover what is “really” happening. His work is a fairly blatant critique of religion and certain types of philosophy, such as the works of Descartes or Rousseau, political ideology and metaphysics. He launches a scathing attack on philosophy when he states that: “The question of the purpose of human life has been repeatedly raised; she has never received a satisfactory answer yet and perhaps does not admit one? On the contrary, it seems that we have the right to dismiss the question, because it seems to arise from human presumption, other manifestations of which are already familiar to us. Nobody talks about the purpose of animal life? Once again, only religion can answer the question of the purpose of life. One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea that life has a purpose depends on the religious system (24). Although he characterizes this idea as religious, we can surely extend it to the domain of philosophers and metaphysicians, who are also concerned with this problem. But Freud dismisses it, not for a single moment entertaining the idea that humans are essentially different from animals. His answer to the “less ambitious question of what men themselves show by their behavior to be the aim and intention of their lives” is, of course, the pursuit of happiness. This statementsums up Freud's method of argument well, his solution to the problem formulated as "The answer can hardly be doubted", and the reader intuitively agrees. He also criticizes political idealism, particularly communism, which relies on the idea of the fundamental goodness of man and ignores the aggressive instinct. He asserts that “aggression was not created by ownership. It reigned without limit in primitive times, and it already manifests itself in the nursery almost before property has abandoned its primitive and anal form” (70-71). Freud criticizes the use of metaphysics and idealism to explain psychological phenomena, even those that seem most mysterious, a psychological explanation not so obvious or intuitive. For example, he begins by dislodging the very feeling of spirituality (this oceanic feeling) by denying its divine origin. He explains that this feeling comes from an incomplete separation of the self from the rest of the world, a vestige of childhood when we do not understand that the ego is separated from its objects. Furthermore, on page 22, he criticizes the notion of God as "extremely exalted father" and religion as "patently infantile and "alien from reality." It reduces love to pleasure-seeking in a long-standing sexual relationship, and spiritual love as love for someone who represents your ego ideal, which Freud used in an earlier work to prove that psychoanalysis recognized the higher nature of man, his greater capacity for good, is revealed here as nothing more than the internalized prohibitions of the human being. parents and authority figures and the aggressive instinct turned inward. Finally, he characterizes art and intellectual work as sublimations of sexual energy, he notes that "such satisfactions seem more beautiful and higher." But their intensity is mild compared to that which results from the satiety of raw and primary instinctual impulses; it does not upset our physical being” (30). It thus attempts to overturn our current way of thinking, associating what are normally considered the most worthwhile activities with lower modes of pleasure, and those things usually considered lower, less internally rewarding, with the highest degree of satisfaction. possible. He does this in order to state that while humans may feel the need to look to higher forces to explain life, this only does a disservice to humanity. We still believe that. there must be something more, that we must look higher to discover the “truth”. However, Freud believes that this is imposed on us by an overly demanding superego that tells us that we must separate ourselves from animals and look beyond ourselves. He believes that the constant appeal to man's perfectibility and the need to strive for a psychologically constructed ideal keeps men particularly unhappy and repressed, their superego too aggressive and demanding. According to Freud, if we could overcome the tendency toward "faintness of heart" and be willing to accept the true psychoanalytic origin of behavior, we would not blame ourselves so harshly for less than pure impulses and would live happier, more natural lives. . . - It seems, however, that this appeal has its limits. If we wish to remain in civilization, Freud suggests that certain higher order metaphysical constructs are necessary. Because Freud does not propose returning to a state of nature, even if “the feeling of happiness resulting from the satisfaction of a wild and untamed instinctual impulse by the ego is incomparably more intense than that resulting from the satisfaction of an instinct tamed.” (29), because in this state, only a few electedcould experience this type of happiness (the rest presumably being miserable and oppressed), and no one would feel safe (73). In order to maintain this civilization, Freud almost suggests that we must accept the illusion that he spends so much time refuting and even mocking. For no feature, however, seems better to characterize civilization than its esteem and encouragement for the higher mental activities of man, his intellectual, scientific and artistic achievements and the principal role which it attributes to ideas in human life. Among these ideas, religious systems are at the forefront. Next come philosophical speculations; and finally what we could call the “ideals” of man, his ideas of a possible perfection of individuals, or of peoples or of humanity as a whole (47). These ideas, although they come from the repression and sublimation of instinct, are apparently inseparable from society. Indeed, Freud often referred to repression as the principal vehicle of society, almost coinciding with it, without which it would be impossible. So it seems that within society we need metaphysical constructs for two reasons: firstly, to bind people together and keep them in harmony within society, and secondly, to enable a greater degree of happiness in a situation where instincts are repressed. The most obvious example of the first case is that of the Superego. Although it is not a metaphysical construct in itself, it is responsible for the creation and adherence to moral codes and, through repression, causes the need for sublimation of instinct. It is this construction that gives rise to commandments like “love your neighbor” and “love your enemy.” Freud characterizes the superego as a feeling of guilt, originally born from the fear of losing love from parental figures, and which, later in life, transforms into an internalization of the parents' demands. This feeling of guilt, or conscience, prevents us from giving voice to instincts considered incompatible with society. People engage in activities such as art, music, and intellectual work as a substitute for satisfying an instinct prohibited by the Superego. It seems that without this sense of guilt, people would feel no moral obligation without fear of punishment. However, the Superego ensures that people believe that moral obligation arises from man's "higher" nature and that intellectual activities are objectively better than instinctive activities. Furthermore, the idea of justice, that there is a right of the community over the individual, arises from the attempt to exert control over the individual, so that no person can freely reign over their instincts and exerting power over others through “brute force.” This is an important precondition for civilization, and it is articulated in terms of the democratic ideal, of societal morality (49). Finally, the idea that we should love and respect those around us comes from society's constant need to bind its members together through an inhibited libido, in order to combat the aggressive instinct that threatens to divide people. This is even the reason for sexual prohibitions, society needs to take the libidinal energy that would normally go towards individual sexual satisfaction and redirect it towards society as a whole (69). In the second case, metaphysical constructs, or "illusions", often help people cope in a society where powerful instincts must be repressed. He states that “each of us behaves in certain respects like a paranoid, corrects some aspect of the world which is unbearable to himby the construction of a wish and introduces this illusion into reality? The religions of humanity must be classified among mass delusions of this kind” (32). He includes art among these illusions, and of course religion. He talks about how religion protects against suffering by "imposing equally on each person his own path to the acquisition of happiness and protection against suffering" and "succeeds in sparing many people from individual neurosis" (36). . Thus, in many cases, Freud shows the need to construct higher ideals immediately after proving that these ideals are illusory - as when he shows the absurdity of "loving your neighbor" and feeling blind love for others. humanity, then he discusses the necessity of this libidinal link to combat the death drive. It seems, then, that although Freud is committed to exposing the roots of metaphysical claims and revealing the social origins of supposed absolutes, he also sees the need to maintain certain illusions and substitutions. Although these types of statements ignore the true origin of human motivation, they are essential for the harmony of societal life. Thus, Freud finds himself faced with a dilemma: as a scientist and philosopher, he is committed to discovering truths and condemning illusion. But as a psychologist, he is concerned with human happiness and the improvement of society. But even from a psychologist's point of view, Freud knows that the individual's happiness would be greatly increased if he were able to undo the repression of society and give voice; however, depending on his instincts, he might also suffer from a lack of protective illusions. And if everyone acted this way, the social fabric would collapse. So how should Freud conduct his practice? If the goal of psychoanalysis is to make conscious everything that is unconscious, how will Freud maintain certain societal restrictions that he considers necessary repression in the individual? Does he entertain certain delusions in his patients? Because “Integration or adaptation to a human community appears to be a condition that is difficult to avoid and which must be met before this objective of happiness can be achieved. If this could be done without this condition, it would perhaps be preferable. " But Freud also states that in a community, “the aim of happiness is always there, but it is relegated to the background” (105). But as a psychologist, Freud strives to increase this happiness as much as possible. It therefore seems that its goal, increasing individual happiness, is intrinsically divergent from that of a community, but that in the long term, civilization is a necessary evil for a greater good. Thus “the two drives, one towards personal happiness and the other towards happiness and the other towards union with other human beings must struggle against each other in each individual” (106). Where does Freud stand in this struggle? He devotes the majority of the book to exposing the falsity of societal appeals to man's "higher" nature, a vehicle through which we ultimately encourage man to act altruistically rather than selfishly. Freud strives to denounce this type of illusion, but reluctantly admits that it may be necessary for the human community. Indeed, he seems to be very supportive of society when he asserts that civilization represents the eternal struggle between Eros and Thanatos, with society attempting to use Eros to save the human species from the destruction of instinct aggressive (112). However, Freud's constant criticism of philosophical appeals to man's perfectibility and moral capacity shows that he is deeply conflicted about the goals of society. Freud's assertion that "it is.?

Essay / Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents as a Pragmatic Work He does this using a performative and therapeutic style of argumentation, in which he encourages the reader to analyze philosophical issues in the context of his daily life and to realize that Freud's psychoanalytic explanations correspond more closely to his own experience than 'to metaphysical constructions. By approaching the problems in this way, Freud wishes to show that nothing can be learned about man by appealing to abstraction, and that this type of thinking is not only illogical, but constitutes one of the main problems of civilization, preventing men from achieving greater happiness. . However, Freud also states that certain metaphysical constructs are necessary for men to remain happy and united in society. Thus, by exposing the root of any appeal to the higher nature of man, it appears that psychoanalysis is destructive. If people accepted what she said, made conscious everything that is unconscious, how would they deal with the problems of civilization? Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Civilization and Its Discontents is Freud's most philosophical work. He combines many of his earlier ideas to produce a commentary on civilization and life in general, which are normally the domain of philosophers. Freud's past work has discussed and even addressed some philosophical issues, but here he offers an insight into life based on his vast psychoanalytic discoveries. Because Freud wants to address philosophical and existential problems, the book resembles a work of philosophy. It addresses issues such as religion, aesthetics, ethics, the purpose of life, civilization versus the state of nature, and issues related to civilization. Freud uses some logic, references Schiller, and uses the term Fate in some of his explanations, such as when he expands the notion that the child is dependent on the father into the idea that the feeling of helplessness is "permanently sustained by fear.” of the higher power of destiny” (20). There is therefore no doubt that Freud wishes to address the plight of humanity and is not averse to using logic, literature, poetry or romantic language to convey his ideas. However, Freud wishes to distinguish himself from past theologians, philosophers, poets, novelists, and leaders who may have used similar language in formulating their arguments. He raises philosophical issues as stated by these philosophers in order to approach them differently from many of these thinkers of the past. Freud's style of argument, in accordance with his ideas, avoids appeal to logic and abstract ideals, to the higher nature of man, to the soul, to God and to the perfectibility of man, that is to say, to everything that separates man from general and animal metaphysical affirmations. Instead, his style of argument relates to metaphysical argument just like Wittgenstein's. Wittgenstein, in order to make sense of philosophical problems, examines the words on which the problems are centered as they are used in everyday language, not as they are idealized and pushed into abstraction by philosophical reasoning. Wittgenstein calls on the reader to analyze words as they use them in their daily lives and thus make sense of the philosophical issues surroundingtheir use. Freud uses a similar method that I would describe as performative and therapeutic. It does not examine behavior, institutions, culture or civilization in an abstract or ideal light, but as they exist in reality. The text is performative because it asks the reader to draw on their own common sense, past experience, and emotional and behavioral patterns to address philosophical questions, and it is therapeutic because it asks them to analyze themselves in the process . For example, he questions the command “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He suggests to the reader: to adopt a naive attitude towards it, as if we were hearing it for the first time; we will then be unable to repress a feeling of surprise and perplexity. Why should we do it? What good will this do us? But above all, how to achieve this? How is this possible? My love is something precious to me that I should not throw away without thinking. It imposes on me duties for the fulfillment of which I must be ready to make sacrifices. If I love someone, they must deserve it somehow? (65-66) He then expands the idea to explain why, from a psychoanalytic perspective, this feeling of surprise is actually validated by psychology. (we love someone only because they represent our ego or self-ideal). He continues to use this method when he tells the reader that "the aggressive instinct, which we can detect in ourselves and which we rightly assume to be present in others, is the factor which disrupts our relations with our neighbor." ? (69) He then goes on to give examples throughout history in which this instinct has manifested itself. He attempts to further validate and expand this method by stating at the beginning of two chapters that what he had just argued was simply common knowledge and that he had wasted paper and ink. This probably wasn't entirely true, but it serves to reinforce the reader's belief that what they read was intuitive. Freud thus uses a performative and therapeutic method because it is particularly adapted to a psychological framework. He wants to show people that his psychoanalytic observations come from real situations and common sense. But he also reasons in this way to bring philosophy down to earth, to get rid of metaphysical constructs and abstract reasoning in order to discover what is “really” happening. His work is a fairly blatant critique of religion and certain types of philosophy, such as the works of Descartes or Rousseau, political ideology and metaphysics. He launches a scathing attack on philosophy when he states that: “The question of the purpose of human life has been repeatedly raised; she has never received a satisfactory answer yet and perhaps does not admit one? On the contrary, it seems that we have the right to dismiss the question, because it seems to arise from human presumption, other manifestations of which are already familiar to us. Nobody talks about the purpose of animal life? Once again, only religion can answer the question of the purpose of life. One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea that life has a purpose depends on the religious system (24). Although he characterizes this idea as religious, we can surely extend it to the domain of philosophers and metaphysicians, who are also concerned with this problem. But Freud dismisses it, not for a single moment entertaining the idea that humans are essentially different from animals. His answer to the “less ambitious question of what men themselves show by their behavior to be the aim and intention of their lives” is, of course, the pursuit of happiness. This statementsums up Freud's method of argument well, his solution to the problem formulated as "The answer can hardly be doubted", and the reader intuitively agrees. He also criticizes political idealism, particularly communism, which relies on the idea of the fundamental goodness of man and ignores the aggressive instinct. He asserts that “aggression was not created by ownership. It reigned without limit in primitive times, and it already manifests itself in the nursery almost before property has abandoned its primitive and anal form” (70-71). Freud criticizes the use of metaphysics and idealism to explain psychological phenomena, even those that seem most mysterious, a psychological explanation not so obvious or intuitive. For example, he begins by dislodging the very feeling of spirituality (this oceanic feeling) by denying its divine origin. He explains that this feeling comes from an incomplete separation of the self from the rest of the world, a vestige of childhood when we do not understand that the ego is separated from its objects. Furthermore, on page 22, he criticizes the notion of God as "extremely exalted father" and religion as "patently infantile and "alien from reality." It reduces love to pleasure-seeking in a long-standing sexual relationship, and spiritual love as love for someone who represents your ego ideal, which Freud used in an earlier work to prove that psychoanalysis recognized the higher nature of man, his greater capacity for good, is revealed here as nothing more than the internalized prohibitions of the human being. parents and authority figures and the aggressive instinct turned inward. Finally, he characterizes art and intellectual work as sublimations of sexual energy, he notes that "such satisfactions seem more beautiful and higher." But their intensity is mild compared to that which results from the satiety of raw and primary instinctual impulses; it does not upset our physical being” (30). It thus attempts to overturn our current way of thinking, associating what are normally considered the most worthwhile activities with lower modes of pleasure, and those things usually considered lower, less internally rewarding, with the highest degree of satisfaction. possible. He does this in order to state that while humans may feel the need to look to higher forces to explain life, this only does a disservice to humanity. We still believe that. there must be something more, that we must look higher to discover the “truth”. However, Freud believes that this is imposed on us by an overly demanding superego that tells us that we must separate ourselves from animals and look beyond ourselves. He believes that the constant appeal to man's perfectibility and the need to strive for a psychologically constructed ideal keeps men particularly unhappy and repressed, their superego too aggressive and demanding. According to Freud, if we could overcome the tendency toward "faintness of heart" and be willing to accept the true psychoanalytic origin of behavior, we would not blame ourselves so harshly for less than pure impulses and would live happier, more natural lives. . . - It seems, however, that this appeal has its limits. If we wish to remain in civilization, Freud suggests that certain higher order metaphysical constructs are necessary. Because Freud does not propose returning to a state of nature, even if “the feeling of happiness resulting from the satisfaction of a wild and untamed instinctual impulse by the ego is incomparably more intense than that resulting from the satisfaction of an instinct tamed.” (29), because in this state, only a few electedcould experience this type of happiness (the rest presumably being miserable and oppressed), and no one would feel safe (73). In order to maintain this civilization, Freud almost suggests that we must accept the illusion that he spends so much time refuting and even mocking. For no feature, however, seems better to characterize civilization than its esteem and encouragement for the higher mental activities of man, his intellectual, scientific and artistic achievements and the principal role which it attributes to ideas in human life. Among these ideas, religious systems are at the forefront. Next come philosophical speculations; and finally what we could call the “ideals” of man, his ideas of a possible perfection of individuals, or of peoples or of humanity as a whole (47). These ideas, although they come from the repression and sublimation of instinct, are apparently inseparable from society. Indeed, Freud often referred to repression as the principal vehicle of society, almost coinciding with it, without which it would be impossible. So it seems that within society we need metaphysical constructs for two reasons: firstly, to bind people together and keep them in harmony within society, and secondly, to enable a greater degree of happiness in a situation where instincts are repressed. The most obvious example of the first case is that of the Superego. Although it is not a metaphysical construct in itself, it is responsible for the creation and adherence to moral codes and, through repression, causes the need for sublimation of instinct. It is this construction that gives rise to commandments like “love your neighbor” and “love your enemy.” Freud characterizes the superego as a feeling of guilt, originally born from the fear of losing love from parental figures, and which, later in life, transforms into an internalization of the parents' demands. This feeling of guilt, or conscience, prevents us from giving voice to instincts considered incompatible with society. People engage in activities such as art, music, and intellectual work as a substitute for satisfying an instinct prohibited by the Superego. It seems that without this sense of guilt, people would feel no moral obligation without fear of punishment. However, the Superego ensures that people believe that moral obligation arises from man's "higher" nature and that intellectual activities are objectively better than instinctive activities. Furthermore, the idea of justice, that there is a right of the community over the individual, arises from the attempt to exert control over the individual, so that no person can freely reign over their instincts and exerting power over others through “brute force.” This is an important precondition for civilization, and it is articulated in terms of the democratic ideal, of societal morality (49). Finally, the idea that we should love and respect those around us comes from society's constant need to bind its members together through an inhibited libido, in order to combat the aggressive instinct that threatens to divide people. This is even the reason for sexual prohibitions, society needs to take the libidinal energy that would normally go towards individual sexual satisfaction and redirect it towards society as a whole (69). In the second case, metaphysical constructs, or "illusions", often help people cope in a society where powerful instincts must be repressed. He states that “each of us behaves in certain respects like a paranoid, corrects some aspect of the world which is unbearable to himby the construction of a wish and introduces this illusion into reality? The religions of humanity must be classified among mass delusions of this kind” (32). He includes art among these illusions, and of course religion. He talks about how religion protects against suffering by "imposing equally on each person his own path to the acquisition of happiness and protection against suffering" and "succeeds in sparing many people from individual neurosis" (36). . Thus, in many cases, Freud shows the need to construct higher ideals immediately after proving that these ideals are illusory - as when he shows the absurdity of "loving your neighbor" and feeling blind love for others. humanity, then he discusses the necessity of this libidinal link to combat the death drive. It seems, then, that although Freud is committed to exposing the roots of metaphysical claims and revealing the social origins of supposed absolutes, he also sees the need to maintain certain illusions and substitutions. Although these types of statements ignore the true origin of human motivation, they are essential for the harmony of societal life. Thus, Freud finds himself faced with a dilemma: as a scientist and philosopher, he is committed to discovering truths and condemning illusion. But as a psychologist, he is concerned with human happiness and the improvement of society. But even from a psychologist's point of view, Freud knows that the individual's happiness would be greatly increased if he were able to undo the repression of society and give voice; however, depending on his instincts, he might also suffer from a lack of protective illusions. And if everyone acted this way, the social fabric would collapse. So how should Freud conduct his practice? If the goal of psychoanalysis is to make conscious everything that is unconscious, how will Freud maintain certain societal restrictions that he considers necessary repression in the individual? Does he entertain certain delusions in his patients? Because “Integration or adaptation to a human community appears to be a condition that is difficult to avoid and which must be met before this objective of happiness can be achieved. If this could be done without this condition, it would perhaps be preferable. " But Freud also states that in a community, “the aim of happiness is always there, but it is relegated to the background” (105). But as a psychologist, Freud strives to increase this happiness as much as possible. It therefore seems that its goal, increasing individual happiness, is intrinsically divergent from that of a community, but that in the long term, civilization is a necessary evil for a greater good. Thus “the two drives, one towards personal happiness and the other towards happiness and the other towards union with other human beings must struggle against each other in each individual” (106). Where does Freud stand in this struggle? He devotes the majority of the book to exposing the falsity of societal appeals to man's "higher" nature, a vehicle through which we ultimately encourage man to act altruistically rather than selfishly. Freud strives to denounce this type of illusion, but reluctantly admits that it may be necessary for the human community. Indeed, he seems to be very supportive of society when he asserts that civilization represents the eternal struggle between Eros and Thanatos, with society attempting to use Eros to save the human species from the destruction of instinct aggressive (112). However, Freud's constant criticism of philosophical appeals to man's perfectibility and moral capacity shows that he is deeply conflicted about the goals of society. Freud's assertion that "it is.?

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch