Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
[read the logos, top to bottom]
Clara Venice's PHL100 Tutorial Weblog
Labels
- discussion questions (11)
- Handouts (6)
- Extend your Knowledge (4)
- Concepts in Action (3)
- Philosophy can be Fun :) (2)
- Ayer Links (1)
- Freud LInks (1)
- General Links (1)
- Hume Links (1)
- Kant Links (1)
- Miscellaneous (1)
My Favourite Philosopher:
[read the logos, top to bottom]
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(37)
-
▼
March
(11)
- And you thought I was joking...
- Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road
- Intro to Ayer - Links and Such
- Intro to Freud - Links and Such
- Question #1: Smarter than a Fifth Grader?
- Question #2: It wasn't me, it was my id! I swear!
- Question #3: Accentuate the...Negative.
- Question #4: It Can Only Go Down From Here?
- Question #5: Civilization and its (Dis) Contents?
- Question #6: Either/Or...(Not?)
- Question #7: What's in a God?
-
▼
March
(11)
6 comments:
I think like most things in the world, civilization has both pros and cons. In Freud's point of view, civilization requires our repression of feelings and urges, which ultimately results in unhappiness. However, Freud does not mention how civilization brings us happiness. For example, if people were not civilized, there may be a day when two people fight at my place, and accidently set my house on fire. This incident will definately upset me even though the two people could relief their anger at each other. Being uncivilized, I would also release my upsetness, which may result in another person's unhappiness. This will lead to an endless chain of discontents. However, if there were civilization, instead of fighting and setting my house on fire, the two people can negotiate and solve their problems logically. Therefore, I will not be troubled. Although they may be still upset deep inside, there will be one less person upset in the world. Thus, there will not be an endless chain of discontents.
I think that in some extent Freud is pessimistic about civilization and it discontents. Not everything is great in the world. Problems are just one aspect of our world. No matter where we would be, there would always be problems. Nothing is imperfect and there are always flaws in the world. So, compared to other societies that we tend to have hunter and gatherers… this is the best form. For the reason that in past the death rate was very high, people had to hunt… life in other words was not that sweet. Now, the life is not much sweeter, but at least it is not worse. Now we encounter other difficulties and so forth, but at least we have necessary and good conditions. People strived for progress for thousand years and here we start to get something since now we do not have to take a ship but rather a flight, I can contact anyone not leaving my house, take a bath at home and drink clean water… Obviously, now there are deaths due to technology like car… but before people were dying because stone felt on their head from top of the hill. Always something happens. So, life is not as bad, the population as we see increases, human conditions improved and diseases dropped down. So, what is wrong with civilization? Compared this on large scale those discontents are minor and useless in my opinion. People are always unsatisfied and have to keep things to them selves. If people could do anything in the world then our world would not exist because of chaos and so forth. Control serves a good function; people can practice anything they want in private if they want to go crazy; not everyone wants to be crazy. I rather see a civilized person rather then uncivilized because uncivilized person can do anything he/she wants like kick you because you said something he/she did not like… Civilization is good, many people criticize it, but they would still chose to live in civilized society. People did not create anything better yet and that is the best choice to have. In conclusion, obviously this issue is not black and white but that is just my opinion. We have to like what we have now because we can lose it anytime and something even worse can come.
yup..... i think freud definitly forgets to mention the happiness we have from civilization. There are millions of things we would not have if humans didnt work together..... we wouldnt even live in houses....forget about running water... grocery stores... schools... books...... technology all together.. psychoanalyses.... or even ever learning about freud!..... we would definitely live in a completely diffrent world... i dont think anyone would trade this life for that one... our biggest aims would be sex, food and then fighting eachother for the sex and food...... basically we would live like animals....... was it a huge sacrafice to give up those desires for what we have now?...... most ppl wont think so...Do we really want an exsistence where at any moment your things could be stolen, burnt up in flames, your children kidnapped, you could be killed, punched in the face or raped?? there would be no relationships and no trust.... everyone would be out for thier own good......no ethical code - no punishment for anyone who hurt you- the strongest would survive- an all out survival of the fittest> straight from darwin... anyone could exert whatever force they want on u..... even the psychos and the sickos.... is that what true happiness is???? i think we keep civilazation going because it gives us some sort of order....were afraid of what life would be without it... of the feeling of powerlessness... its some sort of way for all the conflicting interests to be accomodated... that is unless you stick out in the crowd... but then again... if we lived in that society of no civilization then we would find happiness in other things...... getting your things stolen would not feel the same way as now...... many people still live in tribes without all these things..... in documentarys they seem happy... dont they??? i guess humans make the best of what they have..... but still... i think i like living in a house and feeling a little safer more then id like to walk around exerting my instincts freely.... the problem is when we take civilization too far.... or when society puts too many limits on humans.... welcome to Orwellian dystopia.....the patriot act and fascism....
I think that, in a sense, I do agree with Freud. I think that because we live in such large civilizations and because we know that we need to be considerate of each other in order for society to function as a whole, we sacrifice our own individual happiness for the happiness of the collective. Sure, that may seem like the ethical thing to do (especially if you are Kant) but one wonders how much of a toll this constant giving in to what is expected of you and the perectual selflessness really does for the happiness of a person. If I reflect on my own actions, I know it certainly takes a toll on me. For example, the other day I was in a situation where I was having dinner with a bunch of close friends and a girl whom I don't really get a long with. The entire dinner, this girl rubbed me the wrong way, to the point where I literally had to leave to go to the "washroom" just to keep from throttling her. Civilization dictates that I keep quiet and avoid an argument at the dinner, but I really feel that if I would have said everything that was on my mind, I would have felt MUCH happier. But I kept quiet so that the group enjoyment of dinner wouldn't be destroyed. That may have been the best action for the group, or for civlization, but was it really the best action for me? I don't think so.
Civilization do repress our disires. since freud only talks about this issue from the view of the society, it does make a difference if from the view of certain person. from a certain person's view, civilization repress his desires, but simultaneously, it eliminated the possibilities of his danger caused by other's desires. it is a trade, that he can not kill other as a repression of his desires trades with that he will not be killed by others as a promise of sitisifation of his desire of living. also, it always seems that the desire of living is greater than the disire of killing. the only unfiar part is that only the first generation get the opportunity of choosing. the follow generations (us) are borned into this agreement without any choice.
Post a Comment