Nietzsche and Freud - Essay Example

? How do Nietzsche and Freud Differ in Their Evaluation of Civilisation? Introduction While contemporary perspectives on civilization have increasingly moved towards scientific understandings through sociology and anthropology, some of the foundational perspectives emerged largely from a philosophical perspective. Two of the most prominent thinkers in this mode understanding then are Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche. Although these theorists are many times characterized as holding diametrically opposing views, it’s clear that to a great extent their embracement of irrational human urges as fundamentally contributing to the makeup of civilization places them within the same school of thought. This essay examines the extent the Freud and Nietzsche differ in their evaluation of civilization. Analysis There are a number of overarching considerations in regards to Nietzsche and Freud’s perspectives on civilization. One considers that in many regards both thinkers share a similar cynicism towards mass society. Nietzsche was greatly suspicious of the notion of morality and sought means of examining the underlining significance of moral actions, concluding that ultimately individuals were self-interested. Freud additionally questioned notions of selflessness (McGrath 1995, p. 111). Perhaps more significantly both thinkers recognized the prominence irrationality plays in civilization and human existence. While Freud embraced the Western scientific tradition of social progress, Nietzsche largely disregarded these notions. In addition to his disregard of society in this way, Nietzsche also believed that, to a large-extent, social reforms were useless and impossible (McGrath 1995, p. 111). Nietzsche viewed society as constricted by too many rules and regulations that hindered one’s pursuit of a richer and fuller human existence (McGrath 1995, p. 111). Freud’s emphasis on scientific progress seems conflicted with Nietzsche’s abandonment of social reform. Ultimately, one considers that these differing perspectives on the potential of rationality to implement social reform constitute the crux of their differing perspectives on civilization. In further understanding the way these thinkers differ in their evaluation of civilization it’s necessary to examine their seminal works. While Freud’s texts more directly consider the thrust of civilization to a large extent Nietzsche focuses on the individual. One of Nietzsche’s most seminal works is ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. One of the earlier considerations in this text is Nietzsche’s condemnation of past philosophers as too readily embracing notions of truth (Nietzsche 2003, p. 20). This is a significant criticism as Nietzsche has considered that past perspectives on philosophy and civilization must be fundamentally reconsidered as based on erroneous assumptions. For instance, Nietzsche broadly criticized Socrates. Rather than constituting ‘truth,’ Nietzsche argues that these past philosophical perspectives have merely sought to emphasize a philosophical perspective as a means of advancing the moral prejudices of the philosopher (Nietzsche 2003, p. 20). For instance, rather than Socrates’ claims being a legitimate claim to moral truth, Nietzsche argues that these beliefs merely serve to bolster Socrates’ self-interested position. This is a highly significant argument as in addition to criticizing the Western philosophical tradition, it criticizes many of the very foundational elements of society. Nietzsche notes, "from every point of view the erroneousness of the world in which we believe we live is the surest and firmest thing we can get our eyes on" (Nietzsche 1996, p. 34). While civilization through the Enlightenment had previously embraced the notion that humanity was inherently good, Nietzsche is positing in these regards that individuals must think beyond traditional notions of good and evil, as they are based an invalid premises. One considers Freud’s perspective on many of these notions in his seminal text Civilization and Its Discontents. One of the primary differentiating features between Freud and Nietzsche’s thought is their perspective on religion. Indeed, while Nietzsche criticizes many of the philosophers of Greek antiquity perhaps more relevant in regards to his perspectives on civilization is his perspective on Christianity. Nietzsche argues that Christianity is indicative of an institution that implements slave morality (Alston 1998, p. 220). For him this is a moral code that has emerged in society wherein the weak willed have convinced the strong that their mode of strength is actually evil. Nietzsche believes then that the fundamental impulse of society is the will to power and that morality and the social structures implemented by much of civilization have emerged as a means of manipulation (Alston 1998, p. 220). While Nietzsche frames religion in terms of the aforementioned slave morality Freud considers that religion emerges out of civilization’s collective feelings of helplessness and longing for the father (Pojman 1994, p. 98). While Nietzsche views religion as necessarily constricting civilization, Freud posits that religion is has emerged as a means of soothing humanity from the suffering it experiences. Another prominent consideration regarding Freud and Nietzsche’s perspective on humanity emerges in terms of their perspectives on the underlining human drives. For Nietzsche one witnesses his perspective on humanity’s underlining drives through his perspective on morality and the criticisms of good and evil. Nietzsche’s criticisms of the traditional notions of good and evil spans an array of his work and takes on more developed form in the Genealogy of Morals. In this text Nietzsche further deconstructs the notions of good and evil. He argues that what has emerged are differing forms of these concepts. One of his most potent arguments is that the concept of evil is different for the higher class than for the lower class (Tanner 1994, p. 349). This notion extends from Nietzsche’s general contention that civilization is structured on erroneous notions of morality that serve to contribute to the self-interest of the individual or institution embracing them. Ultimately then Nietzsche believes that society should free themselves from these social constraints and embrace instinctual urges to power, as it is this will to power that underlines society’s main drives. In further comparing Nietzsche’s perspective on civilization’s underlining drives with Freud’s one considers that in many ways they share a similar recognition of irrationality as a central motivating force. Although both thinkers recognized the prominence of irrationality in human experience, Freud believed that the rational mind could be implemented to tame these irrational impulses, while Nietzsche believed that humanity must give in to these irrational impulses and fundamentally reshape its moral and social structure. Freud sought to implement scientific rationality as a means of understanding and addressing concerns related to irrationality. To a large extent Freud articulated these irrational impulses in scientific terminology broadly understood as the unconscious; notably, Freud’s embracement of subconscious impulses is linked to Nietzsche’s in that both reject Enlightenment notions of rationality. Freud, however, in embracing notions of scientific progress articulated these irrational impulses in terms of the id, ego, and superego concepts. Nietzsche then can be criticized for an overly simplistic view of human instinctual drives (Helm 1999, p. 2). Conversely, Freud mission in establishing psychoanalysis in great part is an effort at managing these conflicting human instinctual urges, rather than simply embracing them. While Nietzsche believes that civilization is fundamentally driven by the will to power, Freud believes it is driven by the pleasure principle. These conflicting perspectives further inform their differing perspectives on civilization. To a great extent Freud believes that civilization and many forms of social organization emerge as a result of adaptations made through the pleasure principle (Melchert 2002, p. 23). Freud views society in terms of three primary challenges, “our own painful and mortal existence, the cruel and destructive aspects of the natural world, and the suffering endemic to the reality that we must live with other human beings in a society” (Freud 1996, p. 102). For Freud then civilization is greatly structured as an adaptation to these fundamental challenges. While these adaptations have emerged as a means of contributing to society’s happiness, Freud argues that they have paradoxically contributed to unhappiness and fundamental tensions. For Freud this emerges in terms of society’s neurosis (Melchert 2002, p. 28). While Freud embraces scientific progress, he believes that oftentimes things that are considered progress many times contributed to civilization’s underlining tensions. To an extent then Freud and Nietzsche both criticize society, both for different reasons. Nietzsche’s criticism emerges in terms of the erroneous embracement of institutions that implement manipulative notions of morality. Conversely, Freud’s perspective is the more deterministic notion that the social institutions function as a means of serving the pleasure principle, but have conversely contributed to large-scale anxiety. Indeed, Freud is much more detailed in his perspective on the development of civilization. One considers that Freud casts the development of civilization within his psychoanalytic perspective. He argues that while the pleasure principle established many of the social institutions, increasingly society is functioning on the death urge. For Freud it has subsumed this urge through laws and regulations, but warfare increasingly emerges as a means of expressing these underlining tensions. Ultimately, then Freud seems to indicate that society may be on the path to self-destruction. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has examined the Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche in terms of their differing perspectives on civilization. Within this spectrum of understanding it’s demonstrated that while both thinkers recognize irrational urges as motivating human forces, they differ in their perspective on these irrational forces. Nietzsche believes an erroneous notion of morality has emerged as a by-product of humanity’s will to power. Conversely, Freud believes that humans are driven by the pleasure principle that has been subsumed through civilization causing social neurosis. References Alston, W. (1998) “History of Philosophy of Religion.” The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 8. Ed. E. Craig. New York: Routledge. Freud, S. (1996). ‘Civilisation and its Discontents’, Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell. Print. Helm, P. (1999). Reason and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGrath, A. (1995). Nietzsche, Freud, & Marx. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Melchert, N (2002). The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill. Nietzsche, F. (2003). Beyond Good and Evil. London: Dover. Print. Nietzsche, F. (2003). Genealogy of Morals. London: Dover. Pojman, L. (1994). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Belmont CA.: Wadsworth. Solomon, R. (1974). Existentialism. New York: The Modern Library. Tanner, M (1994). Nietzsche. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More