'civilization and its discontent, Sigmund Freud - Essay Example

Freud was controversial and influential and in “civilization and its discontent”, Freud explicitly argues that humankind is violent and cites different terrible instances that suggest part of humankind is violent and he refers to it as “the inclination toward aggression”. Freud suggests that humans were never meant to be happy because what is often referred to as happiness comes from satisfaction of needs, which are currently complex therefore from this nature is possible as episodes.

However, in “Civilization and its Discontents” Freud emphasized the social role of superego in preserving social order by preventing and turning individual aggression against the society which result in increased discontent with civilization. Though Freud has less to say regarding the common defense against guilt; he manages to show that instead of being victims of sadistic superego people become its agent in the name of ideals, laws and ethics. According to Freud (p.66), conscience is one of the three functions of superego; however, Thrasymachus, the sophist, promotes doing away with justice as well as all moral standards when he breaks into the discussion angrily claiming to offer better definition of justice.

Thrasymachus considers justice to be merely an advantage for the strong even though he considers his definition to be not the real definition of justice because it is de-legitimization of justice since he believes that it is not rewarding to be just. Thrasymachus believes that just behavior works for the benefit of other individuals and not the individual who behaves justly; therefore, he considers justice to be the unnatural restraint on people’s desire to have more. Hence, to Thrasymachus justice is a principle forced on people and does not benefit them to adhere to it so the rational thing is to ignore it entirely.

Nevertheless, this view of Thrasymachus promotes injustice as a virtue because the perception of life from this view is that life is a continuous competition for more money, power among others and individuals who possess much in the struggle have the greatest virtue. As the discussion progresses, its burden shifts from the challenge of defining justice to defining justice in a way that is proven and worthwhile. In “The Republic” Socrates tackles the challenge of describing justice and injustice throughout the discussion (Lear 186).

Nevertheless, Thrasymachus manages to show that justice is never universally presumed to be valuable because there are individuals who this it better to look out for their interests instead of following rules. Thrasymachus claim points down to general sophistic moral concept that norms and mores considered just are mere conventions that hinder individuals who adhere to them while benefitting those who flout them. Thrasymachus does not only make assertions that norms of justice are conventions but also claims that the norms are conventions promoted by rulers for their interests and keeping the subjects in oppression.

In countering Thrasymachus claim, Socrates has various arguments against Thrasymachus claim the first argument involves making Thrasymachus admit that he advanced injustice as a virtue where life is a competition. Socrates also launches another long and complex chain of reasoning that results in him concluding that injustice can never be a virtue since it remains contrary to the virtue of wisdom. Injustice goes against wisdom since wise men like men skilled in some art do not seek to thrash out those that possess similar skills in the same art; as well, mathematicians are never in constant competition with each other.

Socrates moves to another argument from the understanding that justice involves adherence to certain rules that enable similar