I’ll begin by saying that although I don’t often read the introductions to our texts (shamelessly, I skim through them at best) there was no way of avoiding reading this one. I’m quite fond of Christopher Hitchens, and keep meaning to read a book of his, though I haven’t gotten around to it yet. Some of his opinions on religion are a little too aggressive for me to wholeheartedly agree with (that’d be the Canadian in me), but I definitely think he’s an intelligent man with more than a few points to be taken note of. Anyway, point being, I read the introduction and found it quite helpful. He brought up Plato’s Republic and Oedipus Rex, and although the later is frequently associated with Freud, the former was a less expected connection for me. All-in-all it was a nice transition into the text, and I especially liked the quotes he brought up, such as the one by Ernest Jones. He said that “Human happiness, therefore, does not seem to be the purpose of the universe”. Surprise surprise.

Getting into the text itself, I found myself entering it with many preconceived notions about Freud. Mostly I knew that he put quite a lot of emphasis on sex and sexual desire. Then of course I knew about the id, ego, and superego, terms which he coined himself. I put a small note at the front of my book, however, as I had to keep reminding myself about the meanings of each. Got it all down pat though now. I learned a little about him in grade 11 for a class on psychology, sociology and anthropology. I don’t think knowing about him and his theories beforehand hindered my reading in any way though, as it was mostly just helpful to recognize a few ideas throughout the text. I was frequently reminded of Rousseau and Hobbes as read through “Civilization And Its Discontents”. For one thing I held a wary eye as I saw him criticizing civilization for much unhappiness in humanity, and was waiting for him to propose “going back to nature” in some form. However, he quickly surprised me by criticizing the vary people who believe this. On the second page of chapter 3, he says its “astonishing” that people would take up “this strange attitude of hostility” toward civilization. Though he doesn’t believe things should stay exactly as they are, he doesn’t believe we should abandon it completely. He later makes a point Rousseau would wholeheartedly agree with by saying (on page 73) that we should not believe that civilization is synonymous with perfecting. This also brings up Frankenstein, and the belief that pursuing science too aggressively is not necessarily “progress”.

I also felt hints of Hobbes’ Leviathan at certain parts as he mentioned that civilization requires the removal individual power in exchange for communal power, a power “bigger” than the individual. Though he is not an advocate for the civilization that Hobbes wants us all to believe in, Freud saw some truth in this understanding of it.

Though I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about some of his arguments, I found this to be a text I enjoyed. He’s certainly interesting and I didn’t frequently find my self lost, as I have with many of the past texts.

Looking forward to the lecture, hope everyone had a great weekend!

I have been exposed to Freud only in psychology class, hearing his strange concepts on the importance of sex and the rather interesting idea of incestuous relationships. I was surprised to see this jawless, cocaine-addicted psychologist delving into the depths of religion, and philosophy in general. Personally I am not a fan of religion, actually scratch that, I’m against the restrictions it indiscriminately places on the individual. Therefore, I was intrigued to read the argument made by a psychologist regarding the fallacy he considers religion to be.

He states that there are many mediums by which happiness and pleasure can be found. These methods depend on the individual. Some will find happiness internally, some will find it externally, etc. He argues that religion is detrimental towards happiness by blindly categorizing everyone under guidelines which do not cater to the individual. This is the first time i have heard such a Humanistic argument made by the King of Psychoanalysis. However, I completely agree with the idea he presents. Under a society religious congruence  the level of happiness will be unequal. This is destined because some individuals will find more happiness through the religious medium than others who are equally forced into the way of living. It is only by separating ourselves and putting emphasis on the individual that happiness and pleasure can be maximized.

I disagree with Freud stating the Roussea-like idea of civilization and science not aiding in the happiness of society. He says that in the thousands of years of scientific improvement, there lacks an improvement in the happiness of society. He states that we are no closer to happiness despite the improvements of technology, science, and health care. However, those past issues are no longer the issues of today. Infections are no longer a life-threatening issue, but simply a easily solved issue for humanity. There are still many problems which remain in society, however, many of the past issues have been resolved. This is not a matter of perception or taste; what is questioned is if this does or does not create new problems for humanity. To that, my answer is uncertain.

First of all, I actually found this to be one of my favorite books we have read so far. It was simple, concise, but most importantly, exciting! The thrill of uncovering the mysteries of Dr. Jekyll as Utterson and Poole break into the lab was engaging and made the reading of this story incredibly enjoyable. The lingering ideas of what plagued Jekyll, which is which, and the nature of denial all came to mind upon the completion of this text.

I was drawn to the idea that perhaps Jekyll’s potion was never actually effective. It seems as though Dr. Jekyll never fully has a grip on his situation. He finds himself questioning the time he has left and the state of his sanity and self perception. I believe that the problem was specific to Jekyll, and he looked for ways to explain, or at least blame his conflict with his alter-ego. He describes how the newer batches of salt he receives no longer contain the impurity required to fabricate his elixir. I believe that he never actually had a effective potion to battle his ailment. He used the drug as a barrier between himself and Hyde. He does not want to accept this monstrous part of himself. The potion is a way of circumnavigating around what Jekyll considers his bad self. Reaching his death, the potion no longer seems to work because it has never worked. Jekyll has lost control of the situation, but he is not willing to blame himself. Claiming an impurity in the salt displaces the responsibility away from Jekyll.

Another interesting idea is whether Jekyll or Hyde represents the individual. Simply because we are exposed to the milder tempered individual known as Jekyll, it is not fair to assume he is what the being is identified by. Hyde also can be present within the body of this doctor. The identity cannot be identified since both personas inhabit this body. I personally like to think that Jekyll is inhabiting the body, as it is suggested in the story. Jekyll seems to be the one creating the initiative to cure himself as opposed to Hyde maintaining his evil state. However I cannot be certain due to the mysterious nature of each character.

Well… Freud is.. interesting.

Okay seriously, as the first philosopher we’ve ever studied to equate practically everything we do to our desires, love and need for sex, he’s pretty darn revolutionary.  I mean Plato, Hobbes, they all talk about how desire is a bad thing.  In fact, they try to severely repress desires severely, through the Kalliopolis and the Leviathan.  Freud is probably the first to say that desires and libido are necessary or else we’ll self-destruct ourselves.  And he’s darn fascinating, in fact, his ideas may explain many things we are confused about.

I’ll get to the point, porn.  Why is porn, particularly internet porn so popular these days? Seriously, it’s skyrocketed and the adult media industry has grown hugely. The priest in my church keeps focusing on the issue, so when I read Freud, I thought of the issue.  Well if we look at Freud, its kind of explained.  Humans know that sexual love affords the greatest pleasure.  Of course, the risk (as Freud explains) is that getting married, and getting bonded to a particular love-object has great risks, particularly of betrayal, of rejection and so forth. Therefore, it makes sense why man and men of this time have become so bloody interested in internet pornography.  There are no risks.  The love-object, is anonymous, a piece of media, and it satisfies sexual desires.  Of course the attachment is very temporary, but it does explain why people are so attracted to adult media of this time.  This shows that Freud’s ideas on sex and pleasure can be quite easily applied.  I also quite liked his idea on how saints direct their desires, by diverting their love toward everything.

Then again, Freud does have his drawbacks.  I mean it seems very unlikely that EVERYTHING in the world is motivated by sexual desire.  Pain and pleasure do play a part of it and the superego as well but everything by sexual desire?  That’s a little pushing it.  However, I can’t think of a convincing argument against it yet, so I’ll leave that in the air.

I also understand why we are reading this after jekyll and Hyde.  It raises questions on what part of Hyde is Jekyll… I mean is Hyde the ego and Jekyll the superego?  But if Jekyll is the superego… that means he has to have an ego… but Jekyll is Hyde… well I’m getting off track, the point is, Freud offers some convincing explanations on how Hyde and Jekyll developed and how human conscience developed.

All in all, I found Freud very informative, though I tended to get lost as he began to explain more advanced concepts.

Having heard vague – and somethings strange – references and ideas relating to Freud throughout high school it was interesting to finally read his book. Although I expected a compilation of essays, or something else of the sort, I was surprised by his simple writing and a rather normal chapter form book. Freud raises some interesting points about religion, and the idea that it is there in order for humans to have something to rely on/give blame to/feel as if something else control their life. He looks at this as if it were a pitiful fault of humanity that they cannot rise above the idea of the “exalted father” who takes care, hears, prayers of, and is the person in charge of everything that happens to us. Freud also takes about the things which threaten to cause suffering in human lives: the internal, as in our own bodies inevitable decay; the external, our world around us, I suppose perhaps similar to Hobbes’ idea of humans beings afraid of being violently and suddenly killed; and the relations with other humans, the idea of this is how other people affect us and cause us suffering, this, according to Freud, is the kind of potential suffering which is ” more painful to us than any other”  (44).  Freud further talks about how intoxicating substances help alleviate suffering and increase happiness because they blank out suffering and it is interesting that while his ideas are not all right, or even good for us in some cases such as this, he writes so convincingly that it is important, in my opinion, not to get convinced by what he’s saying.

Freud paints an interesting picture of humanity and the things which affects it. While the most memorable things about Freud, from what people say, are his strange ideas this book shows otherwise. While the book is devoid of the usual disturbing Freudian ideas (the popular ideas, the ideas that everyone remembers) it shows another side to his theories and ideas and these are not as controversial seeming or as disturbing as the other ones. Its interesting to see how people choose one aspect of a persons ideology or theories and those become the only generally known, or ‘popular’, ideas from the individual. However when reading further and actually learning about the individual they are more than just one idea or one hypothesis.

I believe Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents is the last philosophical text in our reading list for Arts One this year. Hopefully I’m right- if I am, then the fact that I’m done with philosophy (at least for this school year) is a fact worth celebrating!

Alright, back to business. Civilization and its Discontents is probably the most enjoyable philosophical text I’ve read since September. I hated Plato’s Republic, Hobbe’s Leviathan, Rousseau’s A Discourse on Inequality, and I especially hated Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals. Freud didn’t even stir my dislike. Maybe after Nietzsche, Freud seemed much easier to handle. During Caroline William’s lecture on Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, she mentioned Freud a number of times. I can see why she did. In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud talks about how people have created society, only to have society limit our personal happiness by repressing our natural instincts. Isn’t that what happened to Dr Jekyll? He cared too much about his reputation and society’s expectations of him that he made the drug to turn him into Mr Hyde, so that he could indulge in his less socially approved of desires. Freud would say that Dr Jekyll’s so-called “evil” desires by society are, in fact, natural. He had no need to create a Mr Hyde! Freud thinks the more civilization we have the less human we are becoming.

Prior to taking Arts One, the conventional belief was that humans are very different from animals. Humans were supposed to be viewed as this very intelligent figure that could control their emotions and think logically. Animals, on the other hand, thought simply of things: They eat, they sleep, they reproduce, and they die. They don’t strive for Nobel Prizes, or compete for grades to get into Harvard. I think Freud thinks that in reality, the “real” human is supposed to be something like an animal. No jealousy, no corruption, just someone who eats/sleeps/reproduces/dies. What has happened is that we have formed civilization (with good intentions- to protect ourselves from murder!) but civilization came at a huge cost. We have gradually lost our humanity. We think that our natural, unconscious desires are bad, disgusting and evil so we repress them. We have come up with a solution only to have our problems multiplied. Now we hate ourselves because the “natural human” in us is being repressed and hidden away from the public eye. We’ve become walking zombies while our real selves are locked in a dungeon somewhere in ourselves. At first, I thought Freud was a great deal like Rousseau. Now that I think of it, he’s not quite like Rousseau. Rousseau thinks that nascent man has long since been extinguished and that there’s no going back to nascent times. While Freud agrees that we can’t go back to the primitive state, he does think that our “natural self” is still in us- hence, unconscious desires that may surface in dreams. Our “natural state of self” is still there and haunts us. What we do is play “ghost-busters” and try to drive that natural state out of us. Do we succeed? Probably not, it’s still there.

This essay surprised me. Although I credit Freud with the standardization of psychoanalysis and his essential role in the establishment of psychology as a science, I never really held that high of an opinion towards him until now due to his dubious methods of gathering data and obsessive fixations on even more dubious theories. This essay, however, is a departure from that semi-neurotic Freud that I admittedly only knew primarily through a psychology textbook. Now that I think about it, actually, this essay explains Freud’s theories far better than that textbook, which displayed them through a hazy filter of misunderstanding (intentional or not), and I am pleased to finally be given a proper definition of altruism. Anyway…

If there’s one thing that you want to take from Freud (maybe because you think everything else is BS), then take the pleasure principle. Take it, examine it, think about it, throw it at the person next to you, and try to imagine a situation in which this principle doesn’t apply (then tell me so I can either write a paper on it or tell you you’re wrong). If, like me, you cannot imagine a situation in which someone will do something that it is not to their benefit in any way, shape, form, or mental satisfaction, then welcome to the foundation of human behaviour—the human law. This particular concept is to me classified in the second tier of natural laws; a synthesis of the law of causation and the law of relativity. It takes the order of cause and effect (pure motion) and applies it relative to the acting container (humans, in this case). This law, although simple, has many implications. It is not only the basis for psychology and society in general, but it’s even an indirect proof of metaphysics. Not only is it the greatest drive possible, it is *arguably* the only drive possible. Why do I say arguably? Because of what Freud went on to propose exists beyond the pleasure principle, which completely caught me off-guard.

The death instinct. It’s definitely the most interesting theory in this essay, but at the same time, it’s the most fallible. Freud admits himself that the existence of a counter-drive to pleasure and Eros is an idea that he himself scorned at first, and yet, it’s latched onto his mind such that he can no longer banish the concept from his view of psychology and the world. Why? I have my own theory on why the death instinct exists (my idea is probably a lot different from Freud’s), but to understand it, I think great parallels can be drawn to Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals. Freud’s death instinct should be contrasted to Nietzsche’s asceticism, and horror vaccui should be kept in mind whilst conducting this cross-analysis. In any case, this essay is an excellent supplement to other philosophical texts that we’ve read. We can see that the formation of the superego is the benchmark that shows the transition between Hobbes’ state of nature and society, and the origin of Eros can be used as a contrast to Rousseau’s take on history. All in all, this was a good read.

Freud may be a return to our theme of society opposing our instinctive drives, but I rather enjoyed Civilization and It’s Discontents. Freud’s ideas are interesting to consider. Some of them are sexual of course, such as the libido’s unconscious effect on our actions, and the infamous Oedipal complex makes a quick cameo. But some questions are actually pretty enticing and philosophical. What is the origin of beauty? What good is it to us? What conceptualizes and defines it? Why do we obey the “Golden Rule”? Is it realistic or are we fooling our real emotions?

The central idea of Civilization and It’s Discontents is the idea of self-repression and guilt. This is somewhat of a callback to Nietzsche, but Freud is more insightful and clear on the matter. Where does guilt come from? Freud believes that civilization and the literal embodiment of the superego; Religion, are the two definitive culprits. Freud explains this with psychoanalysis, but his rationalizing appears more similar to operate conditioning. Mankind is taught and punished by authority figures within society and religious hierarchy to hate the actions that are most lustful and indulging. Sooner or later, after the dog has been kicked around long enough, it  begins to question and hate himself without actual physical punishment present. Man now feels shame and self-loathing all on its own! But Freud doesn’t object against the punishments placed by society. He rationalizes Law’s foundation and purpose to mankind, despite any natural reasoning behind it. His largest concern is how Law’s side effects of implemented guilt effect the everyday man, ailing his ego. He’s not Rousseau whining about the “crime” of society and law, Freud only wants to remedy the after effects.

Just think about it. You’re walking down the street, you see a pretty girl walk by you and before you know it your mind is wandering. Suddenly an “inappropriate” thought enters your mind, and you abruptly stop yourself.  You may question your thoughts, and feel some shame, or worse, reflect that you already have a girlfriend. Before you know it, you are lamenting and chastising yourself for ultimately a very natural occurring response to the opposite sex. Your mind and body are meant to take notice of attractive women! But churches, synagogues and mosques would tell you differently.  Freud would especially validate this idea since it links back to the idea of marriage and permanent kinship as unnatural, but it is more on a basis of unnecessary guilt. Freud uses the rather confusing Oedipal complex to explain his thoughts, but he acknowledges that no good can come of that form of self-hatred. What’s the point of getting mad at yourself when you’ve done nothing physically wrong! It’s not like you somehow sexually assaulted her with your mind.

Although the book doesn’t present any answers to the dilemma of unnecessary guilt, the text begins a snowballing effect towards a solution. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was infamous because it defied all cultural taboo of the late 19th Century. Talks about erotic dreams, sex and homosexuality were off the table. By writing about and openly addressing sexuality; bringing it to popular culture, these “evil” thoughts didn’t appear so sinful and unnatural after all. Freud took psychology and his therapy to the human race back to the basic of its purpose. Simply talking openly about the difficult and uncomfortable things. His intervention leaped us forward to the sexually open society we have today. Thanks Freud!

And with that my weekend begins!