Discontent

Paraphrasing and quotations from Civilization and Its Discontents by Sigmund Freud

Civilization, or at least the aspect that Freud thinks is a socialized super-ego, is merely a cultural metaphor for the psychic fulfillment in each of us of a narcissistically thrilling wish to destroy the world, a wish "fulfilled" in a monstrously ingenious phantasmatic scenario of self-destruction. 

Interestingly, it is difficult to determine a proper definition for the word "civilization". I remember this always being a complicated topic in school, and during my studies (particularly of Literature, English, and Sociology) the question often arose: what makes people that much better than others? Colonization, for example, notoriously comes with disdainful notions that one people deserve or rightfully should be ruled by another. The definition that seems to be ultimately settled on in this book is actually quite poetic compared to any definition I was ever taught (or ever discussed) while in school.

We also welcome it as a sign of civilization if people devote care to things that have no practical value what-so-ever. We soon realize that what we know to be useless, but expect civilization to value, is beauty. Beauty has no obvious use, nor is it easy to see why it is necessary to civilization; yet civilization would be unthinkable without it.

The idea that beauty can be, at some level, a requirement or defining feature of civilization is beautiful itself. When the care of an individual is extended to something (often outside of themselves) that does not necessarily have logical or explainable value, I believe that is the true definition of beauty. That is why I tell people that I believe that all people are capable of art. Because to me, art is merely the purposeful creation of beauty, that is, art is externalizing the care you have for something outside of yourself. Similarly many artists strive to externalize their own image of themselves- many times this is not so much an expression of vanity as it is the expression of their love for something they see as useless (identity)- many artists feel this contradictory sense of hating themselves, believing they are worthless, and yet loving themselves enough to try to externalize that feeling and name what is it that they are so fixated on.

Much of mankind's struggle is taken up with the task of finding a suitable, that is to say happy, accommodation between the claims of the individual and the mass claims of civilization. At this point there seems to be a regular cohesion, as it were, between the cultural development of the mass and the personal development of the individual.

A majority comes together that is stronger than any individual and presents a united front against every individual. Justice is the assurance that the legal order, once established, shall not be violated again in favor of an individual. Nature, by her highly unequal endowment of individuals with physical attributes and mental abilities, has introduced injustices that can not be remedied. (Order is in fact copied from nature; observation of the great astronomical regularities gave mankind not only the model for the introduction of order into their own lives, but the first clues of how to do it.)

The origin of the religious temperament can be traced in clear outline to the child's feeling of helplessness.

The arbitrary power of the father, the head of the family, was absolute. 

The common man cannot imagine this providence otherwise than as an immensely exalted father. Only such a being can know the needs of the children of men, be softened by their pleas and propitiated by their signs of remorse. All this is so patently infantile, so remote from reality, that it pains a philanthropic temperament to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above such a view of life.

Religion interferes with selection and adaptation by forcing on everyone indiscriminately its own path to the attainment of happiness and protection from suffering. Its technique consists of reducing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world by means of delusion (and this presupposes the intimidation of the intelligence). At this price, by forcibly fixing human beings in a state of phychical infantilism and drawing them into a mass delusion, religion succeeds in saving many of them from individual neurosis. But it hardly does any more...if the believer is finally obliged to speak of God's 'inscrutable decrees', he is admitting that all he has left to him, as the ultimate consolation and source of pleasure in the midst of suffering, is unconditional submission. And if he is ready to accept this he could probably have spared himself the detour.

The last cause of hostility toward civilization in history was the victory of Christianity over Paganism. This was very nearly due to the devaluation of earthly life that came about through Christian teaching.

In these areas I am trying to express my own thoughts and not repeat what I was taking from the book. However, there was an additional quote I was unsure of how to word or work into how I was organizing the parts I highlighted. It basically stated that "Love thy Neighbor" is equal to "Love thy enemies". I honestly didn't find this idea very profound on its own... and the parts about religion and Christianity (all critical by the way) were pretty scattered, so it was hard to see it as fitting in with the rest. Basically I agree with everything I quoted/paraphrased above, but I have strange feelings about this particular idea. I felt particularly in agreement while reading about love (further below) but came back to this idea of how religion/Christianity commands this and felt that it sort of contradicts the criticisms (above). It's not contradicting it that dramatically, but I just had to point out that he refers to those who are trying to love all others as "sages" and seems to indicate that this is a sort of "evolved" love from just loving one person/thing. So this conflicts with the idea that religion is infantile, since some aspect of it is "evolved". HOWEVER, I still very much agree with both (above and below) because for many this evolution coincides with turning to religion. They failed more horribly without religion (possibly at love, but often just at life) and turned to religion as the only source for upgrade (because they were usually too devolved alone to improve themselves).

Sorry, I'm not sorry, to any Christians who might be offended by the quotes from the book or that I agree with them. Not just Christianity, but many religions devalue life by focusing on a possibility of an afterlife. This is truly the most insidious flaw in most modern religions today, that they promise something they can not be sure of at the expense of the living. People live their lives in a constant state of delusion, unhappiness, or thoughtless submission for the sake of something that probably doesn't exist, and many criminals believe their actions are forgiven (or will be) or justifiable by religion because of their belief in the existence of God and an afterlife. Life matters, and the focus on something beyond that is not only crippling individuals, it is making the hate and suffering in this world that much stronger by devaluing the lives of others as well.

"Whoever possesses science and art also has religion. Whoever possesses neither of these, let him have religion!"

We achieve most if we can sufficiently heighten the pleasure derived from mental and intellectual work. Fate can then do little to harm us. This kind of satisfaction, the artist's joy in creating, in fashioning forth the products of his imagination (or the scientist's in solving problems or discovering truths), has a special quality.

Long ago mankind formed an ideal conception of omnipotence and omniscience, which were embodied in the gods, attributing to them whatever seemed beyond reach of their desires- or was forbidden to them. Now, in our age of technology, man has become, so to speak, a god with artificial limbs. Our desires, even our own omnipotence, are becoming closer to our reach, yet the means we use to achieve these things remains external and can never truly be a part of our identity and self. 

This reminds me of many recent studies or suggestions of the existence of "flow", when people are so involved in something that they lose themselves. This and the statements about how technology has essentially turned us into our own false gods really speaks to me. Lately I am repeatedly coming to conclusions that dissolving the sense of self is the ideal state for humanity- it is also probably impossible (or ultimately inevitable with our own deaths and eventual passing from memory). The attachment we have to technology further clouds our perception of ourselves, while intellectual activities (or flow) allow us to look beyond ourselves into a truth where we do not matter and that's okay (which is ironic, since that is when we tend to make the most meaningful things/ideas/art/discoveries).

We never have so little protection against suffering as when we are in love.

We are never so desolate as when we have lost the object of our love or its love for us. Since sexual love had afforded man the most potent experiences of satisfaction, it had actually supplied him with a model for happiness. By doing this one made oneself dangerously dependent on a part of the external world. One would be exposed the extreme suffering if one was spurned by it or lost it through infidelity or death. For this reason, sages in every age have emphatically advised against this way of conducting one's life. Shifting the main emphasis from being loved to their own loving, they protect themselves against the loss of an object of love by directing their love not to individuals but to everyone in equal measure. One ethical view sees this readiness to love mankind and the world in general as the highest altitude to which human beings can attain. We will not withhold our two main reservations: first, that an undiscriminating love seems to forfeit some of the intrinsic value of the object of love, thus doing it an injustice, and, secondly, not all human beings are worthy of love.

My love is something I value and must not throw away irresponsibly. It imposes duties on me, and in performing these duties I must be prepared to make sacrifices. If I love another person, they must in some way deserve it...They deserve it if, in certain important respects, they so much resemble me that in them I can love myself. They deserve it if they are so much more perfect than myself that I can love them in an ideal image of myself. I must confess, however, that the majority have greater claim to my enmity, even my hatred. (There comes a point at which each of us abandons, as illusions, the expectations we pinned to our fellow men when we were young and can appreciate how difficult and painful our life is made by their will.)

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" shows too little concern for the happiness of the ego. It issues a commandment without asking whether it can be obeyed. It assumes that it is psychologically possible for the human ego to do whatever is required of it. It is impossible to keep this commandment. Such a huge inflation of love can only lower its value, not remove the problem. Civilization neglects all this, it reminds us only that the harder it is to comply with a precept, the more merit there is in compliance. Yet in today's civilization, whoever adheres to such a precept puts himself at a disadvantage in relation to those who flout it. The demands concerned with the mutual relations of other beings are collectively known as ethics. In the case of "Love thy neighbor as thyself", what we call natural ethics has nothing to offer but the narcissistic satisfaction of being able to think one is better than others. This is where ethics based on religion enters the scene with its promises of afterlife. For as long as virtue goes unrewarded here below, ethics will preach in vain.

On the one hand, love comes into conflict with the interests of civilization; on the other, civilization threatens love with substantial restrictions. For there is no prospect of curbing the sexual appetites of adults unless preparatory measures have been taken in childhood. Now and then one seems to realize that this is not just the pressure of civilization, but that something inherent in the function itself denies us total satisfaction and forces us on to other paths.

Worldy wisdom will perhaps advise us not to expect all our satisfaction to come from one endeavor. Success is never certain; it depends on the coincidence of many factors, and perhaps on none more than the capacity of our physical constitution to adapt its functioning to the environment and to exploit the latter for the attainment of pleasure. But what good is a long life to us if it is hard, joyless and so full of suffering that we can only welcome death as a deliverer?

There isn't a whole lot more I can say about these ideas. I was just nodding the whole time. But it does lead into talks about dependency and could be seen to suggest a less complicated idea of love than many would like to pursue. It's interesting that the book (to my memory) never really tried to define or interpret the meaning of "love" like it did for other words and ideas. I am finding the whole concept of love frustrating (at times enraging) lately, so this unassuming use of the word was very refreshing- and in some way re-orienting. If I was going to try to find a definition for love from it, I might take something from the part about my love being of value and how one is deserving when I can see some aspect of myself (or ideal self) in them. People have been insisting that "God is love" or "love is taught by being loved by your parents", but after reading this book I feel that love is more deeply rooted inside oneself. I think that love is a desire for life- perhaps relating to Eros (below)- or perhaps merely the appreciation of life. So we intrinsically appreciate our own life, and can learn to extend that appreciation to others' lives... and because the absence of life is actually just death- or nonexistence, nothing- the absence of love is not hate, but a lack of care for the life or existence of something (whereas hate is a wish for that thing not to exist).

"One should not speak of conscience until the super-ego can be shown to exist." (pg.73)

Assuming human beings have a natural aggression, or urge to inflict our will by force to another, and assuming the existence of the super-ego...

The benefit of a fairly small cultural circle is that it allows our aggression an outlet in the form of hostility towards outsiders. It is always possible to bind even quite large numbers together in love, provided that others are left out as targets for aggression.

Any restriction of this outward-directed aggression would be bound to increase the degree of self-destruction, which in any case will continue. Masochism, for example, would be a combination of inward-directed destruction and sexuality. Sadism's satisfaction, on the other hand, is linked with an extraordinarily high degree of narcissistic enjoyment, in that this satisfaction shows the ego how its old wish for omnipotence can be fulfilled.

Conscience is aggression which has been internalized and actually sent back to where it came from; in other words it is directed against the individual's own ego (by the super-ego). Regarding the origin of the sense of guilt, however, is difficult to account for. Even a person who has done no wrong, but merely recognizes in themselves an intention to do wrong, may consider themselves guilty. Remorse is a general term for the reaction of the ego in cases that involve a sense of guilt. A sense of guilt that arises from remorse for an "evil" deed should always be conscious, whereas one that is prompted by the perception of an "evil" impulse might remain unconscious, both involve internalized aggression. For those who have not developed a sense of guilt, sometimes referred to as having a "bad conscience", their behavior is really due to a fear of loss of love. For adults the place once occupied by the father, or by both parents, has been taken over by the wider human community. Hence adults regularly allow themselves to commit wrongful acts that hold out the promise of enjoyment, so long as they are sure that the "authority" will not learn of it or cannot hold it against them; their only fear is of being found out.

The price we pay for cultural progress is a loss of happiness, arising from a heightened sense of guilt. The development of the individual comes from two trends: the striving for happiness, which we commonly call egoistic, and the striving for fellowship within the community, which we call altruistc. It is almost as though the creation of a great human community would be most successful if there were no need for concern with individual happiness.

We shall always tend to view misery objectively- that is to project ourselves, with all our demands and susceptibilities, into their conditions, and then try to determine what occasions for happiness or unhappiness we should find in them. It substitutes our own mental state for all others, of which we know nothing. Happiness, however, is something altogether subjective.

I should start by explaining why there is a page number for this one, and not any others. I tried to explain to people that reading "Freud" does not mean I believe what he is saying- but there are also many parts of his own writing that suggest that he doesn't believe it either, not whole-heartedly. It seems to me that his ideas are less truth and more just intellectual experimentation. It was a great brain exercise to read this book, and it really demanded some thought. I think it's likely that he wrote it for the same reason- to exercise the thought. So anyways, much of the above section was highlighted for the sake of thinking more about it. I don't know if I have any established opinions on those ideas, but they are definitely interesting.

Eros is making one out of more than one. Its ultimate purpose is to gather together individuals, then families and tribes, finally peoples and nations in one great unit- humanity. The struggle between Eros and death, between the drive to live and combine and the drive to die and cause destruction, is the essential content of all life; hence the development of civilization may be described simply as humanity's struggle for existence.

Human beings have made such strides in controlling the forces of nature that, with the help of these forces, they will have no difficulty in exterminating one another, down to the last man. They know this, and it is this knowledge that accounts for much of their present disquiet, unhappiness and anxiety. With this triumph of humanity's collective desire for destruction and death, it is to be expected that immortal Eros will try to assert himself over his equally immortal adversary. But who can foresee the outcome?

The gods of a past cultural period become the demons of the next.

I can't help but imagine some kind of epic movie scene with colossal gods fighting in space when I read about his ideas of Eros and Death being immortal rivals. If he did not mean it to be so poetic I can't fathom what he was intending. This whole notion really appeals to my own inclinations toward the concepts of "gods", anthropomorphizing concepts (or things that appear to be of a particular order, even a truth). Although thinking about it deeply really moves me, I'm also laughing at/by myself by trying to imagine anthromorphizing scientific laws like gravity. The difference, I guess, is that gravity is very clearly definable and perceivable, while the causes of death and human behavior seem incomprehensible to me. Truly we assume gods of what we don't understand.

While anatomy can distinguish between male and female, psychology can not.

Thus conscience doth make fools of us all...that a modern upbringing conceals from the young person the role that sexuality will play in their life is not the only criticism that must be leveled against it. Another of its sins is that it does not prepare them for the aggression of which they are destined to be the object. To send the young out into life with such a false psychological orientation is like equipping people who are setting out on a polar expedition with summer clothes and maps of the North Italian lakes. The severity of these would do little harm if the educators said, "This is how people ought to be if they are to be happy and make others happy, but one must reckon with their not being like this." Instead the young person is led to believe that everyone else complies with these ethical precepts and is therefore virtuous. This is the basis of the requirement that they too should become virtuous.

The paragraph here is actually from a note- not Freud's work. And there may be sprinklings of such information in some other parts of what I took from the text. Most of it was directly quoted, but some areas may have small tweaks (not to mention much reorganization). It seemed like it was actually about male sex-lives/sexual desires, but I changed it a little to represent what I gleaned from it. Even though it was not a topic in the book at all, the short quote and paragraph got me thinking a little more about genders/sexuality. To what extent is male/female part of our nature or identity? I, myself, and many people I know have come to the conclusion that it really isn't. There is unquestionably biological sex and its functions, but sexual desire and gender identity are almost definitely learned(enforced), in my opinion. If we could remove life experiences and memories to cut out everyone's brains and analyze them I bet that beyond naturally varying physical differences we are are really just the same. Nothing in your brain tissue makes you male/female/or attracted to either... we aren't pre-programmed, we're all the same and we just learned differently. But that probably doesn't give enough credit to genetics, which I admittedly don't understand at all. Which brings me to...

My impartiality is facilitated by my scant knowledge of such matters. There is only one thing I know for certain: the value judgments of human beings are undoubtedly guided by their desire for happiness and thus amount to an attempt to back up their illusions with arguments. I dare not set myself up as a prophet vis-a-vis my fellow men, and I plead guilty to the reproach that I cannot bring them any consolation, which is fundamentally what they all demand.

Again I sense a little bit of poetry. I really appreciated this whole quote near the end of the last chapter. When people think you know better than them, they sometimes take your word for law, or blow you out of proportion. It seems like this was a friendly reminder not to do that, but alternatively I feel like it really summarizes what the whole book was trying to say. Something like, "Thanks for listening to me rant, but I didn't really mean most of it and I was really just trying to say 'this'. Don't hold it against me," which is really something I have wanted/still want to say to anyone who ever listened/listens to me (or read/s my blog) intently ever.