Thinkers and philosophers have been pondering misery since the dawn of civilization. At the dawn of humanity, humans existed to survive and reproduce; every day was a struggle. However, with the advent of civilization, humanity has moved further and further away from its original evolutionary drives, and it can be argued by secular thinkers that humans exist now to find happiness. Therefore, misery can be seen as the biggest obstacle to human happiness, yet misery itself is a mystery to many. Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents put forth the authors’ opinions on the origins of mortal misery, and suggest methods to solve the problem of misery. Although the two have differing views, both see …show more content…
However, in Civilization and its Discontents, Sigmund Freud wholeheartedly takes an abstract and philosophical approach to explaining the misery of humans. To Freud, misery has always been a part of the human experience. Indeed, he makes the conclusion that suffering has been caused by three forces since the dawn of humanity: the decay of the mortal body, nature, and relationships with others (Freud 44). Freud states that human interaction is often disregarded as a cause of human suffering, yet to him it seems to cause the most pain out of the three. In the novel, Freud goes on to explain that civilization was created to reduce and mitigate the suffering caused by nature and the mortal body, while ignoring the suffering caused by human interaction. Seeing as humans still suffer as they always have, Freud comes to the “astonishing conclusion that civilization itself is the primary cause of human suffering (58). He and others have come to this conclusion through observing the victory of Christianity over pagan religions (as Christianity places low value on earthly life), the conquering of content native peoples by Europeans, and the development of …show more content…
In chapter 5, Freud tangentially discusses communism, and why he thinks that it wouldn’t solve the problem of misery. Freud states that, “The communists believe … man is wholly good and is well disposed to his neighbor; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature… If private property were abolished, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men” (Freud 96-97). He counters the communist ideas by stating that, “In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression one of its instruments…but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature” (97). To Freud, there isn 't an easy fix for human misery, and suggestions such as communism just serve to direct the problem elsewhere. It seems that Freud lacks a solution and, with World War II on the horizon, concludes with the suggestion that either Eros or Thanatos will need to assert itself, but none can foresee the
In Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents and Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz, both authors explore the source of human violence and aggression. Sigmund Freud’s book reacts to the state of Europe after World War I, while Primo Levi’s narrative is a first-hand account of his experiences during World War II. International and domestic tensions are high when both works are written; Sigmund Freud adopts a pessimistic tone throughout the work, while Primo Levi evolves from a despairing approach to a more optimistic view during his time at Auschwitz. To Sigmund Freud, savagery comes from the natural state of human beings, while Primo Levi infers violence is rooted in individual’s humanity being stripped away is.
The struggle between happiness and society shows a society where true happiness has been forfeited to form a perfect order.
In Cause of Suffering, everyone craves a lust for satisfaction, whether it is hunger, power, or entertainment. We never forget the thirst for attentiveness as it becomes repetitive until the thirst subsides for a while. For this reason,
After reading this week’s readings, I decide to focus my attention on Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents, and to briefly touch on pragmatic views. I can see the similarities between the two, were religion, philosophy and science all intertwines, as it relates to finding truth or should I say truth as it relates to achieving certain goals in order to support social values and needs. The implications that what is true, may not necessarily be true, and that any and all knowledge that contributes to human values, can be interpreted as truth. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics should be viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes and that knowledge can be evaluated from the goals that this knowledge is able to support
In David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Voltaire’s Candide, both writers illustrate a world where humans are in a constant state of misery. In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, three philosophers named Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo argue and debate on the existence and nature of God. During this argument, the question of evil and how it contradicts with God’s perfect benevolence is raised. Thus, Hume brings into discussion a much broader and deeper question than that of the existence and nature of a perfect, divine being. The existence of happiness on Earth thrown into the debate. Like Hume, Voltaire also brings into the discussion of happiness through his satirical text, Candide. This is shown through the philosophy of
"The feebleness of our own bodies and the inadequacy of the regulations which adjust the mutual relationships of human beings in the family, the state and society" (Freud) Freud also thinks that there’s sense of frustration in finding happiness. To him, humans were more independent and had more freedom and liberty before the existence of civilization as it limits a lot of someone’s needs and desires.
The position of God and misery is a quite difficult position. Hume the author of this book wanted to show that not everything has to involve a God and it is not reasonable to do so. Hume’s characters resemble points that generally describe opinions of the general population of the Earth. With this he is able to create a dialogue that all people can relate to. But his intention of this book is not to support all opinions but his own.
Society seems to have improved through time, but has not yet reached the point of perfection in which everyone is happy. The truth is, not everyone will always be hap...
The primary goal of Sigmund Freud’s deliberations is to reveal where our unidentified psychological inclinations come from. In his book “Civilization and its Discontents,” Freud discusses a category of psychological themes regarding how internal influences developed by people’s psyches motivate people to act in certain ways. He focuses on complexes of the mind such as aggression, the super-ego, and the relationship between guilt and remorse. An essential argument that Freud makes is that the human psyche is structured and is largely developed based on surrounding forces, such as other people. Freud attempts to convey a message that a person’s mentality is not only primordial, but is also created in a process potentially known as the struggle
Happiness plays an important and necessary role in the lives of people around the world. In America, happiness has been engrained in our national consciousness since Thomas Jefferson penned these famous words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson). Since then, Americans have been engaged in that act: pursuing happiness. The problem however, as Ray Bradbury demonstrates in his novel Fahrenheit 451, is that those things which make us happy initially may eventually lead to our downfall. By examining Guy Montag, the protagonist in Fahrenheit 451, and the world he lives in we can gain valuable insights to direct us in our own pursuit of happiness. From Montag and other characters we will learn how physical, emotional, and spiritual happiness can drastically affect our lives. We must ask ourselves what our lives, words, and actions are worth. We should hope that our words are not meaningless, “as wind in dried grass” (Eliot).
For years, authors and philosophers have satirized the “perfect” society to incite change. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley describes a so-called utopian society in which everyone is happy. This society is a “controlled environment where technology has essentially [expunged] suffering” (“Brave New World”). A member of this society never needs to be inconvenienced by emotion, “And if anything should go wrong, there's soma” (Huxley 220). Citizens spend their lives sleeping with as many people as they please, taking soma to dull any unpleasant thoughts that arise, and happily working in the jobs they were conditioned to want. They are genetically altered and conditioned to be averse to socially destructive things, like nature and families. They are trained to enjoy things that are socially beneficial: “'That is the secret of happiness and virtue – liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny'” (Huxley 16). Citizens operate more like machinery, and less like humans. Humanity is defined as “the quality of being human” (“Humanity”). To some, humanity refers to the aspects that define a human: love, compassion and emotions. Huxley satirizes humanity by dehumanizing the citizens in the Brave New World society.
There are many factors as to why the thought of Freud differs from that of the democratic socials/social democrats, and although they both have differing ideas, they both were being written during the twentieth century. Freud focused on the human mind and how the separate segments of it affected mans role in society. Social democratic thinkers however focused on the nature of the state itself and how man was able to create a better society for the future. The key writer of social democratic thought was Bernstein and his revision of Marxism. He can be said to greatly differ from Freud. These differences will now be reviewed to prove that the thought of Freud does differ from that of the social democrats.
From the moment of birth, to the moment of death, humans are flooded with emotions both good and bad. Individuals are continuously seeking fulfillment, some failing to find it while others succeed. Many seek adoration; love, accomplishment and greatness. In literature, authors take the readers on journeys that allow imagination, granting the possibility for the reader to grasp inner desires and decide what is truly important in life. Literature allows readers to dive into a different world where happiness and fulfillment is plentiful and eternal, also described as a utopia, while other pieces of literature direct the reader into a world of dissatisfaction which is a dystopia. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is in 26th century England. With the help of advanced technology and drugs, happiness fills the lives of the people living at that time period. But, the people are missing out on one of the most important feelings of life. That is sorrow or unhappiness. The society in Brave New World is very different from modern-day society; many aspects of life are removed such as family, monogamy, and religion. The citizens of Brave New World live in false happiness with all the necessities of life provided for them but have the lack of an inferred deeper satisfaction. In Brave New World happiness is the lack of unhappiness because the inhabitants can never truly know what happiness is without experiencing true unhappiness. The lifestyle in Brave New World is built on the notion that happiness is the only thing necessary in one’s life. This novel suggest that the reader should seek things besides happiness because the citizens in the World State live bleak and monotonous lives which show the faults in this so-called ‘perfect’ society. In thi...
Life is difficult. "Suffering...is not an exception to the human condition, it is the human condition" (Gomes 405). The question of why life can be unjustly cruel is asked today and has been asked since the beginning of time.
Happiness is not easy to define. A good life has one characteristic – happiness. Happiness can be defined as pleasure, joy, contentment and satisfaction. Understandings of how to be happy were changing throughout the history. Aristotle who lived in 4th century BC in Athens and Schopenhauer who is19th century philosopher from Germany have contrasting understanding of happiness. In this essay I will argue that Aristotle and Schopenhauer provide accounts of happiness that are useful to contemporary society. The reason for this is that happiness is universal and people’s ways to achieve it did not changed tremendously over times.