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.
