Their actions stem from either hunger, which is the internal need to preserve the individual/ego, or from love, meaning when a person uses external objects to fulfill their desires. Even when humans try to impose rational thought on their desires, they fail. Civilization was created to protect people, but according to Freud, it also causes misery. Rational thought only brings more pain and suffering, unlike instinctual desire alone, which can bring momentary pleasure. Nietzsche’s view is less cynical. Although he agrees that our civilization is built on suffering, he believes that this suffering can help us achieve greatness. He sees our nature as divided into two aspects – creature and creator.
The desire for knowledge is unending in us, the creators, even if it only brings more suffering. Meanwhile, the creatures in us are satisfied with much less, but despise those who surpass their place in life. Each person must decide which kind of suffering they prefer – that of the ignorant creature who detests what they don’t understand, or the suffering of the creator, stemming from societal limitations and the constant need to challenge and evolve one’s knowledge and beliefs.
F-reed criticizes the limitations that modern society places on individuality, particularly in regards to sexuality. He suggests that repressing sexual desires can lead to the redirection of energy towards aggression and self-destruction. According to him, the constructs of our relationships do not adequately address our inherent human desire for sexual satisfaction, thus hindering our individuality.
And every effort to limit this longing only leads to frustration at the inability to fulfill it. Similarly, Nietzsche’s critique of society merely mirrors his previously stated analysis. Society esteems knowledge and the pursuit of advancement in all domains of life. And per IM, it is this thirst for knowledge that generates significant conflict in civilization. Whether it is the creator or the creation, both will feel sorry for themselves and behave accordingly.
The creature seeks to understand himself and go beyond his innate nature. In doing so, he will establish a moral code and principles to lead him on this quest. However, as he begins this journey, which mirrors that of his creator, he sympathizes with his own struggle for happiness amidst societal limitations and his unquenchable desire for knowledge. He articulates this sentiment eloquently as “Pity against pity then!” Therefore, it is the pursuit of knowledge, which humans highly value, that both generates our frustration and shapes all our subsequent choices.
Both philosophers, Freud and [Philosopher’s Name], shared a critical perspective on religion. According to Freud, feelings of guilt are merely an expression of anxiety that often remain unidentified in our daily lives. He argues that Christianity serves as a means to alleviate this anxiety by “resolving” emotions associated with sin and guilt. Additionally, Freud posits that religion emerged as a response to the perceived superiority of another entity.
The text suggests that nature serves as a defense mechanism driven by egoistic self-preservation. Freud questions the rationality of the religious principle “love thy neighbor as thyself,” arguing that it goes against human nature, which is characterized by aggression and selfishness. It should be noted that Freud holds a negative view towards this religion, along with others. In contrast, Nietzsche offers a slightly different perspective on the subject.
According to Nietzsche, Christianity enables the “lesser people” who live by their basic instincts to discover significance in their suffering without utilizing it as a chance for advancement. This continues a state of incessant suffering and feebleness among the masses. Nietzsche contends that a significant portion of what is regarded as “higher culture” is actually constructed upon the cruelty of Christianity, which advocates suffering solely for its own sake (page 159).
Now that we’ve gathered these positive opinions about society, let’s consider the recommendations of these intellectuals for solving the situation. We’ll begin with Freud’s more grim perspective. According to him, every action is driven by some form of desire, whether internal or external. Given this, Freud would likely advise society to abandon all restrictions that hinder these desires since it is futile to resist them.
By embracing an individual’s primal instincts and accepting the inherent desires that accompany them, civilization can achieve harmony with its true nature. Despite society’s attempts to divert its course, the unyielding essence of human nature will ultimately prevail. Fortunately, Nietzsche offers a more optimistic perspective on humanity’s potential. According to him, individuals have the ability to transcend their limitations and reach remarkable heights, despite the potential consequences this may have on their societal relationships.
His suggestion is to let the ‘Free Spirits’ roam freely and not be judged by society for their uniqueness and achievements. Despite feeling lonely at the top, the advantages of possessing superior knowledge outweigh the potential happiness one may experience by conforming to societal norms. Although Freud and Nietzsche may seem similar, their fundamental beliefs differ significantly.
Fraud postulated that fraud stemmed from individuals’ suppressed sexual desires and the subsequent redirection of this energy into other pursuits. The constant dissatisfaction resulting from unmet desires ultimately culminates in a tipping point. Fraud’s suggested remedy is to embrace enjoyment, as it contributes to overall happiness. In contrast, Nietzsche emphasized the notion of the “Will to power,” whereby individuals have the ability to transcend their creaturely existence and become creators.
He believed that the main driving force in humans is the ambition to reach the highest possible position in life and achieve this goal, which he referred to as the will to power. The stark contrast between this perspective and Freud’s pessimistic view of humanity is quite remarkable. Nietzsche’s examination of the pursuit of knowledge, as demonstrated in this case, also highlights its potential dangers. The analysis of humanity by Freud and Nietzsche has revealed numerous flaws in the human race, and neither thinker has an optimistic outlook on society’s potential for further development.
Both philosophers concur that humans face different challenges, such as repressed sexual desires and struggles with societal limitations. However, they differ in terms of pinpointing the problem and devising a solution. It is intriguing to contemplate whether their individual encounters, rather than objective observations, shape their perspectives. If either philosopher were to pursue therapy, they might uncover that their viewpoints stem from personal experiences.
