Jonas and Basil: It is always a joy to see you so enganged is seeking truth. Hear is a view from some of my readings that I thought relavent so a conversation regarding secular humanism: Freud's history of the super ego.
So basically, man as a primitive hunter-gatherer has little to no ethical understanding beyond very basic survival laws, ie, hurting myself yeilds no benificial outcome for the betterment of myself. Then women enter the picture and man finds that keeping a woman around has more pleasurable oppurtunities than random "relations". And thus, the family structure is founded. Men gets pleasure, women get protection. Then man discovers more safety in packs instead of a lonely, nomadic lifestyle and turns his attention to building a civilization. As generataions pass, and laws are made to keep peace within the civilization, man teaches itself what it can and cannot do.
Freud relates a story about several sons who realize they are better off without being controlled by their father. So they band together and murder their father. But without authority to maintain civility, they are forced to create their own authority, aka, something to keep their "ego" in check. The "super-ego" (conscience) is then developed to serve that purpose. But unlike an outside authority figure who can only address and castigate one's actions, the super ego knows and claims authority over one's thoughts as well. (Freud draws a weak connection to Christ and sins of the mind).
What is interesting about his theory (at least the part I've mentioned here) is that everything is about love as expressed through the ego. He uses the term "love", but the inherent selfishness of his idea hardly warrents the use of this word (at least from our prospective). So the ego looks for pleasure and the super ego regulates the ego's desire and protects it from being self-destructive. However, a highly developed "conscience" according to Freud, can become an impediment to man's desire as it can become too overpowering. His examples are the saints, tauted as holy and righteous men and women, but quite the opposite. Their sacrificial lifestyles prevent happiness as derived from their ego and world, and are forced to hope for something spiritual (which to Freud is an absolute waste of time.)
So my question: Freud's ehtics seem to amount to a regulation of the natural pleasure in the world so as not to overstep one's boundries. Would this be closely aligned to what Jonas refers to as "The Nietzschean?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yoda – I’m extremely pleased to see you rejoin the blogosphere. I’ll keep reminding you to join in the conversations on our two “philosophy/theology” blogs, and you keep posting pictures and reminding me to explore fiction. Deal?
ReplyDeleteI have a number of responses to your post; as usual, I will take one at a time.
1. I suppose the sort of person I labeled as Nietzschean would be closely aligned with your short reading of Freud. As I used it, Nietzschean refers to people who posit the subjectivity of morality, and who only abide by rules they find beneficial to themselves. In this way, the Freudian also recognizes that the conscience or super-ego (the giver of morality) is simply a check to keep the ego from being self-destructive. Where I think the two categories divide is that Freud sees the super-ego as (usually) acting unconsciously, so that perceptions of morality feel objective to the individual – as opposed to the Nietzschean, who personally recognizes the subjectivity of morality. Perhaps, in Freud’s story, the first creator of the super-ego is like the Nietzschean; however, I think the point of the super-ego is that it is a voice within ourselves telling us what is right and what is wrong, even if it is created and maintained via societal laws and evolution.
2. Although I (sometimes) find Freud fascinating, I also find him grossly egotistical. How the hell could he know the development of the super-ego? Even if a portion of what he is saying was true, how in God’s name would that allow him to understand its evolution all the back from caveman times? I think people study ancient texts/literature, histories, and societies in order to understand their evolution - i.e. we can understand a lot about medieval values and fears through our reading of Beowulf – but to go back to before man created society? Come on, that’s even egotistical for the man who made the word a common term.
3. And let me respond to Freud’s story of man’s societal evolution. His simple story is flawed because he doesn’t grasp the social nature of man. Since Basil hasn’t responded via his communion theology, I will. Freud’s story has man and woman separate. Not only is this an assumption (another one of the “1000 bad assumptions made by Freud”), it denies the commonly accepted idea that man is social. Why this is the case is open to debate, but us Christians know this is because that is how we were made. Reality is from and reflective of God (even though it is Other to God), and it is based on the Trinity. Man didn’t decide to live with woman for “pleasure,” and he didn’t decide to create society for the sake of “protection.” Instead, he did these things because it fulfilled how he was made to live.
Last, from a completely non-religious standpoint, Freud was a pretty miserable and spiteful man. And those religious people who were sacrificial attained a happiness, even from a non-religious standpoint, that Freud never could.
Well said, Jonas.
ReplyDeletein the words of freud, three jews and a jewess moralized the commonly lauded ideals of humanity naming as evil all that had been elevated by the ego. This reversal, this usurpation, he notes, is most commonly seen in the plagued consciences of christians.
ReplyDelete