Enter the Pessimist
From Civilization and Its Discontents
When an attempt is made to widen the community, the same conflict is continued in forms which are dependent on the past; and it is strengthened and results in a further intensification of the sense of guilt. Since civilization obeys an internal erotic impulsion which causes human beings to unite in a closely-knit group, it can only achieve this aim through an ever-increasing reinforcement of the sense of guilt. What began in relation to the father is completed in relation to the group. If civilization is a necessary course of development from the family to humanity as a whole, then—as a result of the inborn conflict arising from ambivalence, of the eternal struggle between the trends of love and death—there is inextricably bound up with it an increase of the sense of guilt, which will perhaps reach heights that the individual finds hard to tolerate. One is reminded of the great poet’s [Goethe] moving arraignment of the ‘Heavenly Powers’:
To earth, this weary earth, ye bring us
To guilt ye let us heedless go,
Then leave repentance fierce to wring us:
A moment’s guilt, an age of woe!
posted by Esteban at 1:13 PM
5 Comments:
I love that passage. Freud describes that as the “clue” that leads us to realize the aggressive instinct of mankind. At first man has an outward aggressive nature. Later in civilization we are brought to internalize that aggressiveness out of fear for the loss of love. With further explanation, which as you know is quite complex, the superego is created and guilt is not only the fear of loss of love but the fear of the superego…which is basically our conscience. Both of these feelings, Freud says, are brought about with the development of civilization. So yes, we have guilt because there is an inevitable conflict between the self and civilization, due to our aggressive nature. After all, we are individuals, and in a civilization we cannot co-exist as beings all separately driven by the pleasure principle. Too many to please.
What I love about his mention of the ‘golden rule’ is its stark expose of human narcissism—it is civilizations way of shooting for the stars. It says it all right there:
“Love thy neighbor”
Ok, I can get away with loving each person a little bit….
“No” says Civilization, “Love you neighbor as you love yourself”
Civilization clearly recognizes the inherent narcissism of ones self. Civilization could not ask anymore of us, that love is the most we can give—the highest bar. We cannot reach it. The exception, as Freud says in a Love were we somehow manage to let another individual into our ego…some sort of romantic love for the other. And the catch is—civilization wont even let us have that other…”no no no” its says waving its big fat finger, “your not allowed to cross any of the race, class, monogamic, familial, nationality, and gender lines that I have forged for your own good…”
i am no authority on Freud (or anyone for that matter)...but i generally do not like to confine philosophers and their ideas. I don’t find it helpful when used in any way other than a means of organization.
many would say that Freud's apparent (perhaps even professed) allegiance to naturalism and materialism defines the origin of his assertions
Regardless, I accept such ideas as Freud’s theory of instinctual aggression as helpful in elucidating human experience, and would rather not dismiss them due their association with biology
It is helpful to look at the reason one comes to a conclusion, I agree. I don’t know if Freud would say “we need to 'love thy neighbor' not because of what the Judeo Christian tradition tells us, but because it is necessary for survival...for the survival of civilization.”
He seems to carefully tread around such assertions.
Civilization and Its Discontents seems to be more pessimistic than his other works (as seen in the excerpt for this post) such as The Future of an Illusion, where although Freud does not tell us what to do--he lets a glimmer of hope show in the way of human progression.
I definitely have a tendency to immerse myself in the argument of a text before I am critical of it…as a good friend of mine says, ‘we should let the text wash over us before we begin to think critically’
After reading Civilization and Its Discontents three times I think I am allowed to think critically of it. I will admit, it is very hard to argue with Freud—he seems to answer every possible counter argument.
As far as the “what next?” question goes, it seems to be up to us. Take your pick. I tend to (at least in this phase of my life) gravitate towards Nietzsche and his call to “become who you are”—the re-evaluation of all values seems necessary, perhaps even the creation of a new system of morality. Who knows? That is the beauty of examining 19th Century philosophers, they tell us how it is—it is of course up to choose what do with the details—namely, ourselves.
I have nothing to offer in the way of choosing what to do; I am still becoming acquainted with myself and the world I live in.
What say you?
sorry for the late reply. ive been thinking about why and i have no idea what to say or where to start.
thats just how i feel.
what makes you ask?
Kierkegaard…hmm. I have to admit that I have yet to really delve into the works of Kierkegaard and his many guises (Victor Ermita, Johannes de silentio, Nicolaus Notabene…to name a few).
One thing I find interesting (surprise) is the emphasis he puts on the self and subjective truth being the proper source of values and morals. Not only does our behavior change with the change of beliefs and values, but our very essence—who we are. Since, as I think Kierkegaard puts it, the self is the origin of action—we are our values, our morality.
Which can of course be related to the recent reference to Nietzsche’s call to “become who you are,” re-evaluate all values, and create a proper system of morals.
Sorry to continue along with previously mentioned ideas but I am at the moment working on the deconstruction and reconstruction of such things—and it is of course not something one can do overnight...better yet, it probably shouldn’t ever be fully concluded or completed.
Postar um comentário
<< Home