Friedrich Nietzsche's “Genealogy of Morals” and Sigmund Freud's “Civilization and Its Discontents” have similar goals. Both men want to denounce what they see as society's obstacles to individual freedom. Both attack and condemn organized religion as a means of concealing the powerlessness that individuals feel in the face of society and as a historically destructive force that has separated men from their knowledge of themselves and rendered them powerless in their current life. Both essays, at their core, wrestle with the concept of morality, how it emerged in society, and how it came to govern our present. Although the present is the subject of both essays, Nietzsche and Freud necessarily delve into the past of society and the individual to explain their disparate definitions of morality and what these interpretations mean to their contemporaries. While Nietzsche views morality as a concept developed by society, Freud instead sees morality as a natural process existing in the individual before he joins society, and in human relationships before civilization. Nietzsche sees the past as an explanation of the continuing development of morality, while Freud sees the past as a direct continuum of the original existence of morality. Nietzsche does not believe that the origin of any past can be discovered from the present, or even that the origin itself exists in its pure form. In fact, his goal in “The Genealogy of Morals” is to counter the belief that moral values ​​such as good and evil existed before men constructed them. He states: everything that exists, whatever its origin, is periodically interpreted by those in power in terms of new intentions; all processes in the organic world are processes of “reinterpretation” in which previous meaning and purpose are necessarily modified. either obscured or lost. Even if we understand well an aspect of self or society, we understand nothing of its origin” (Nietzsche, 209). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be The present, whether individual or societal, is then simply a reinterpretation of the past which is the reinterpretation of another past. Whether it is personal memory or community or national history, the past we see is nothing other than the present. current interpretation, and no matter how far back we look, all we see are past interpretations. Freud, on the other hand, believes that the origin of every present state not only exists permanently in each of us, but remains in its pure form. in our minds. Using the example of the ancient city of Rome in "Civilization and Its Discontents", Freud argues that if the history of ancient Rome functioned like human memory, one could see not only the ruins of the restorations, but the buildings original intact as they were in their original incarnation (Freud, 18). While deviating somewhat in speaking specifically of human memory, Freud comments that "it is rather the rule than the exception that the past is preserved in mental life", not simply as a reinterpretation, but in its original form (Freud, 20). So while both men agree that the morality we find within ourselves is a reaction to our natural instinct to be aggressive, to dominate both nature and other men, Nietzsche sees this morality entirely as a construct societal while Freud thinksthat it can be attributed to a distinct origin both within an individual and in history. Nietzsche believes that what we think of as morality today is actually a constant struggle of weak men to inhibit the aggression and power of stronger men. He asserts that morality took shape in society when “slaves,” or those not at the top of the social hierarchy, understood that to value their own weakness, they had to label the strong as “bad.” He notes that in previous societies, the "well-born" were happy in their lives, while the common elements of society were not: "the "well-born" did not have to construct their happiness in such a way. artificially looking at their enemies” (Nietzsche, 172). These nobles were comfortable in their own lives and needed no external principles to facilitate this happiness. Additionally, the cruelty they showed towards those beneath them was an integral part of being stronger. Nietzsche uses the example of birds and lambs to illustrate the “natural” state of this societal relationship that existed without moral construction. He posits that just because lambs don't like being destroyed by birds of prey doesn't mean those birds are bad: "expect strength not to manifest itself through force?" is just as absurd as expecting weakness to manifest itself into strength. " (Nietzsche, 178). However, unlike lambs and birds, humans have the ability to use their intellect to separate this natural state from itself, to reinterpret strength as evil and weakness as good: “they arrogate to themselves the right to hold the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey. We can hear the oppressed, the oppressed, the violated whispering among themselves with the cunning vengeance of the powerless: “Let us be different from.” these bad guys” (Nietzsche, 179) Thus, for Nietzsche, the “morality” which governs society and is imbued in each individual is nothing other than a reinterpretation of social relations by the weak so that they can. defeating the strong The pitfalls of morality: selflessness, guilt for wrongdoing, and punishment for inflicting guilt are just tools developed by the weak from a young age to gain power over the strong who have. has since managed to disguise itself as the only way for a society to exist. However, society existed before the formation of these moral constructs. Freud completely disagrees with the idea that morality is a social construct with no innate origin. He believes that the development of civilization is modeled on the development of an individual which, in turn, can be attributed to a morality that existed before society codified it. Like Nietzsche, Freud believes that our natural instinct is to be aggressive. However, unlike Nietzsche, he also sees in the development of the individual the contradictory interests of aggression and the need for love. Freud believes that the fear of a loss of love on the part of the father instinctively curbs the baby's aggressiveness: “his aggressiveness is introjected, internalized” (Freud, 84). A baby learns that everything that prevents his father from protecting him is bad: “at the beginning, then, what is bad is what causes us to be threatened with losing love” (Freud, 85). Thus, the moral oppositions of good and evil are in fact established in the individual from childhood; they are innate responses to the need for love and the aggressive instinct. Additionally, once internalized, the mind or “ego” develops an internal authority or “superego” that tells the ego which acts are good and which acts are bad. Freud, unlike Nietzsche, believes that the concepts ofMorality both exist within each person. of us as a natural reaction to our aggressive instinct, and also existed historically before the development of society. He believes that moral notions of personal guilt or remorse arise from "the primordial ambivalence of feelings towards the father". At some point before the formation of society, the primordial sons actually let their aggressive hatred of their father take precedence over their love, they actually killed him: "after their hatred was satisfied by their act aggression, their love appeared in their remorse for the act" (Freud, 95). Thus, the guilt or remorse that individuals feel, whether they actually committed a bad act or are simply contemplating doing it, is the internalized guilt which results from this original continuation of the aggressive instinct. Freud sees through the past the reification of this original act and the guilt which accompanied it. The morality imposed by society in the form of punishment. It is a mimesis of the self-punishment inflicted by the superego when it desires to be aggressive. The effect that this original act of aggression had on individuals who existed before civilization has exactly the same effect on. those who live in society and we therefore naturally integrate these notions of morality into society. Nietzsche, however, believes that man's natural instinct is to be cruel, aggressive, and that personal remorse or societal punishment are simply the instruments of the weak to separate the strong from their natural inclinations. The link between aggression and punishment is a matter of societal constructs and not of natural states. In fact, this link can be directly attributed to the creditor/debtor relationship, in the same way that the notions of good and evil can be attributed to the relationship between the strong and the weak. He believes that before the construction of morality, the creditor had an obvious pleasure in obtaining pain as repayment for his debt. Given our natural tendency toward aggression: “making someone suffer was an extreme pleasure” (Nietzsche, 197). There was therefore a direct economic relationship between material gain and suffering. The same relationship between punishment and pleasure could then apply to an offense against the community, or to a crime. Nietzsche asserts that before “justice” existed as a system of laws, it existed in direct response to the amount of suffering caused. In other words, if someone stole money from others, that person would not only have the right to get their money back, but also to gain pleasure from punishing the offender. But since morality was created by the weak, and the debtor is necessarily weaker than the creditor, the laws which govern the post-morally constructed society have ignored this natural relationship of pleasure in pain and have protected the debtor or the criminal of its creditors or accusers: “justice, which began by setting a price on everything and making everyone strictly responsible, ends by winking at the defaulter and letting him get away with it free of charge” (Nietzsche, 205) . The “moral” concepts of guilt and punishment were constructed by the same societal relationships that constructed the moral concepts of good and evil. Although it seems that Nietzsche has a much more pessimistic interpretation of individuals than Freud, his theory actually develops towards a much more pessimistic interpretation of individuals than Freud. a more positive view of a person's ability to extricate themselves from historical misunderstandings. Since morality itself is a construct of society aimed at separating man from his relationship with his own nature, we have the capacity to free ourselves from historical and societal chains and..