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!

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (from now on DJMH for short) was quite a relief to read. After somehow managing to power through Rousseau and Nietzsche, a classic tale like DJMH was relaxing and definitely did me some good. Yet obviously, like all good things, there was something that bothered me about DJMH. It’s the incredibly nosy Mr. Utterson. Now it’s not to be rude to Mr. Utterson, but Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’s personal life is not his business! Perhaps another thing that bothered me about this book is the large amount of secrecy throughout it. I wanted to constantly be able to hear every character’s thoughts. I was intrigued to see everyone’s motivations, especially Jekyll/Hyde’s in depth.

I like how Jekyll and Hyde both had their places, which slowly changed throughout the book. What I mean by places is how at the start, Hyde is constantly ramping through the streets, free of worry until he trampled a girl and beat a man. During all of this Jekyll was almost always reserved and in his room. But as the search for Hyde grows, it is he who becomes more reclusive, hidden from the streets, whereas Jekyll is now more active and outside free to roam the streets and correct whatever deeds Hyde committed in the past.

Other than a few very insignificant complaints, DJMH was very enjoyable. I really liked how Dr. Jekyll seemed like a bit of an unlikely tragic hero. His hamartia (tragic flaw) is his want to transform himself and free his good and evil sides, yet the dark side ends up taking over. This is a story where the hero is defeated, by himself… Maybe it’s supposed to say something about us as people, that somethimes we’re not always able to be the best person. Sometimes our darker side manages to take over, and in Jekyll’s/Hyde’s case it leads to the protagonist (and maybe even the antagonist’s) death.

Soooo.. not sure about anyone else, but I was ecstatic to finally read a text that was not written by a philosopher. After many weeks of focusing on philosophical texts, reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was definitely a healthy alternative. Now prior to reading this text, I have heard quite about it. I always knew the basic concept of the story, with the split personalities, but reading this piece was long over due for me. I thought it was really interesting, and the huge contrast between both personalities just kept me glued to my book.

I’d say that perhaps one of the main things that I particularly enjoyed about this book, were the two characters (well, one technically).  Before actually reading this story, the only “split” personalities I’ve ever really been familiar with are the ones we see in graphic novels. Spiderman and Peter Parker, Iron Man and Tony Stark… a seemingly normal individual with a completely, contrasting, alternate life. And this is basically the same case with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. This duality portrays the battle between an age-old debate: good and evil. It shows how balancing both and trying to keep up with both immensely contrasting views can work for a while but in the end, one side will prevail. Now I obviously wasn’t shocked upon reading that the seemingly harmless Dr. Jekyll exhibits satanic and monstrous traits. However, in spite of his character being an obvious one to every reader, reading this text made me dig deeper and ponder what I believe is one of the underlying messages from Stevenson. The emphasis on dual personalities tells the reader of the evils that lie within each of us. That malevolent voice that lurks within our souls, which at sometimes, and in some instances, prevails over the good in us. That temptation, that desire to give in…. and the man who is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde exposes this struggle to us.

Anyways, in a nutshell, I found Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to be both a (very very) refreshing as well as enticing read. I completely loved the whole thing and it shined light on a disorder that people struggle with in reality as well. By reading this, I got a better understanding of just how problematic and serious of a condition this is as well. Reading Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde reveals to us, that without a strong sense of will and self-assurance and strength, we have the potential to easily give in to negative influences. But yeah… Can’t wait to hear what everyone else thinks tomorrow!

I have already seen 1, if not 2, remakes of this classic story. So unfortunately I already had a pretty good idea of what to expect. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy reading the story though. The remakes that I saw were modernized and made to be much more thrilling than the original, which happens with most stories-turned-movies.

I wrote a paper in High School about dissociative identity disorder, and it seems like a particularly scary and uncontrollable issue. Where-as in this story Dr. Jekyll is able to control his transformations to a degree using a potion. I’ve always been curious how the legal justice system treats murder cases involving attackers claiming to suffer from dissociative identity disorder. I’d assume that they would test their sincerity as much as possible, and potentially place them in a mental facility.

I also found it hard to believe that Utterson was able to hold off from curiosity and wait until after Jekyll’s death to read the letter than was given to him by Lanyon. Also, while I understand that Lanyon was likely terrified watching a physical transformation take place in front of his eyes, it seems like dying of shock and terror is an exaggerated response…

I’m looking forward to more deeply investigating the story with our class, and I definitely enjoyed having this book on the reading list.

My experience with the story of Jekyll and Hyde before reading the book (or, novella, I suppose? It’s so short!) had been quite limited. Everyone knows the vague story of course, as with Frankenstein, as it’s referenced frequently. Prominently, I remember a song from the kids show “Arthur” that was pretty great, and the basis for the title of this post. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiB4dMwDFtg). But I had no knowledge on how the story was originally written, which is why I was surprised that the protagonist was not Dr. Jekyll, but more Mr. Utterson.

I was expecting the story to be told from the point of view of Jekyll and Hyde, and was at first slightly confused with who this Mr. Utterson was, and what his significance was. But it quickly started to make sense as I realized this is a sort of mystery novel, and Mr. Utterson is our curious detective. Unfortunately, there was really no “puzzle-piecing” to be done by us, the reader, as we all knew the plot twist before we even opened the book. However, despite being cheated out of surprize, it was still a good read. Not fantastic, but good. I guess I just didn’t find any of it particularly exciting or captivating. It was good, don’t get me wrong (side note: you’d be hard pressed to find a text in this reading list that I strongly dislike.) but it didn’t inspire any particularly strong feelings in me. Though I did feel significant disbelief that Utterson doesn’t read the letter given to him Layton right away. How could he have so much control of his curiosity? What kind of make-shift detective doesn’t investigate all the clues? The lesson to be learned here is that lawyers make bad detectives. But, somehow he doesn’t read the letter until Jekyll really is dead. I was also quite confused by Dr. Layton’s death. He sees the transformation of Hyde to Jekyll, has some kind of break down, and soon dies…? I mean, I’m sure it wasn’t a pretty sight, and I’m sure the knowledge would be quite traumatizing, but he really just dies? And doesn’t tell anyone what he saw?  I was a tad perplexed by that. But, my complaints aside, the issue of Dr. Jekyll’s personality spit was quite intriguing, and I’m looking forward to the monster discussion that may occur. Is Dr. Jekyll a monster as well as Mr. Hyde? Jekyll is the one who “creates” Mr. Hyde, by bringing him out from within himself. And yet, Jekyll is still a “good person” and doesn’t do anything terribly atrocious beyond creating Hyde. I have to say, it was nice to have a monster who was quite evil for the sake of being evil. He wasn’t mistreated by society and as a result becomes cruel and unfeeling. From the moment Hyde emerges from Jekyll his purpose is really solely to be destructive, let out steam. Looking forward to seeing how this is discussed in the lecture, see you all there!

Iconic and very well known, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the best known books of english literature.  Having read the book before and studied it, I do have an idea of what it entails and re-reading it was a little boring since I knew what was going to happen, thus the suspense was gone. Moreover, Stevenson’s writing style bored me and I didn’t like how I saw the whole case only through Utterson’s eyes.  It was as if I was distanced, unable to see deeply into Hyde or Jekyll.

Now why do I think I was distanced from Hyde and Jekyll?  This partly came from a black and white movie interpretation of J and H, in which the Point of View was from Hyde and Jekyll, this allowed me to sympathize with the characters better.  Still, Jekyll’s final account as harrowing and drew some sympathy from me.  The poor discontented doctor who brought the monster out of himself… but this made me think of something rather disturbing, isn’t Hyde the same person as Jekyll?

Hyde never surfaced until Jekyll took the potion to bring out Hyde.  That is true.  However, Jekyll himself has admitted that Hyde is a part of his personality.  A separate personality, which is accompanied by a physical change, that is true, but don’t they inhabit the same body?  I mean… Jekyll, is as much to blame as is Hyde for the murders.  If he had not taken the potion, nothing would have happened.  He would have been discontented, but in my view, Jekyll is as much as to fault for as is Hyde.

But moving on, what I am most intrigued by is the evolution of the concept of a split personality.  Robert Louis Stevenson was probably the first to think of this novel concept and transform it into a horror story.  At that time, it was so horrifying, I believe it is said that Stevenson rewrote it because the publishers were so scared.  Nowadays, the concept of a split or hidden personality, has been made funny.  We see multiple funny split personalities on screen and we don’t find it scary, in fact we find it hilarious.  Various characters in Naruto, Harvey Two-Face from Batman, The Mask.  They’re bloody hilarious and if you think about it, many heroes have a sort of hidden personality.  Bruce Wayne and Batman, Clark Kent and Superman, they’re heroes that have two personalities, a fake and a real.  A little different from Jekyll and Hyde, but similar in that they show two faces to the public.

Yet, the concept of the split-personality can be still horrifying, The Hulk and Dr. Banner being one of the more dangerous and eerily similar ones to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  Such is the power of when a hidden face is revealed.

Vincent