The Progress of Civilization in the Modern World - Essay Example

Civilization Name: Institution: Course: Date: There are very many aspects that must come together before a community develops to high levels of sophistication which is commonly referred to as civilization. Our current knowledge is derived from the evidence of archaeology. However, an in-depth psychoanalysis can offer detail information regarding the formation of civilization. This is important in understanding the major factors that were involved and the main aspects that need to be taken into consideration when determining the progress of civilization in the modern world. I agree that Feud’s work has focused more on e worst aspects of things. He emphasizes on human suffering and their inability to control the forces that threatens their existence. He even states that the misery and destruction that human beings escape is just out of good luck. Therefore, he has no faith in people’s ability to put up mechanisms to protect themselves from future uncertainties and threats (Quinodoz, & J.-M, 2013). On the contrary, he believes that we only exist out of mercy of a superior being which controls our fate. He states that “only by chance do we escape the slings and arrows that are flying about the world that we cannot dodge or see, and only kiss some of us by chance” Through this statement, he tries to emphasize that its only that our turn has not cripple in to suffer from accidents, diseases, and other misfortunes (Freud, Strachey, & Gay, 2006). These points indicates his position that human beings are powerless and despite the arming themselves or even trying to improve their living conditions, fate has the final word on their achievements. Furthermore, according to Freud, our values and believes acts as a guidance to our behaviour (Warner, 2010). These emanates from civilization. However, this is not the case. Although civilization has an impact on our current behaviours, the environment we reside in contributes significantly on the way we interact and associate with others in the society. Therefore, the position taken by Freud was Pessimistic and based on personal position rather than in-depth research. Freud ground is that reward in eudemonics is more fulfilling. These are not justified. The reason is that you cannot judge a person based on personal parameters. The reason is that the position one takes might be completely different from that of another person (Kreeft, 2013). Therefore, he cannot claim to make the final conclusion or even judge others while he fails to document his moral standing. The reason is that the moral aspects of the society vary significantly with time (Westerink, 2009). Therefore, his judgment is based on the events of that time and not the historical aspects. As a result, he could have used himself as an ideal example rather than creating a notion that was not based on facts. Furthermore, he could have used other people’s perspective regarding civilization and moral objectivity rather than pretending to be the final person to make moral judgment (Freud, Crossley, & Tantor Media, 2011). Giving this example of those moral individuals whose penance fails to remove their guilt feelings but increases them shows the extent that Freud was willing to move in trying to justify his notion which was mainly based on personal suffering. Freud response to the injunction “love they neighbour” is that the commandment counteracts the original human nature (Hamid, 2015). He retaliates that history acts as the ideal proof of his position that man has proven in several times that he will most likely exploit, abuse, inflict pain, humiliate, torture, and if possible kill other men. He based his position from Huns invasion to World War I. He argues that civilization has always been threatened by continuous disintegration which results from inclination towards aggression. However, I don’t agree with his position. The reason is that he only based his position on the negative aspects that were happening in his life. However, even between these tough times, people worked together and interacted with each other despite various challenges that affected them (Santner, E2001). On the contrary, the wars were mainly between communities and governments rather than individuals. On the ground, neighbours continued to work with each other and support one another in times of need. Therefore, his position was baseless and was mainly construed by his experience of World War I. Therefore, people need to care for one another. They need to be concerned about the needs of the other person (De, 2004). With this aspect, people will not be willing to kill or maim the other because there is a feeling of care. Furthermore, issues such as global warming could not be existing because every person would be cautious while handling the environment. However, his position expands the ideology of individualism. This promotes war and global warming. This explains the reason why the world is crumpling with different challenges. The reason is that no one is bothered about the existence of the other. This makes it hard for the world to achieve sustainable growth as a unit. Freud fails to establish a convincing psychoanalytic theory of politics in Civilization and Its Discontents. The reason is that he does not focus on the behaviour of the individuals. Instead he focuses most on the major effect that were occurring and those that formed the history (Lear, 2005). Furthermore, he took a negative dimension while focusing on issues that were affecting the society at large. Therefore, he failed to address the main aspects that drove civilization and focused on issues that affected people such as wars, diseases, and conflicts. This made his views to move out of context. Furthermore, trying to justify himself by evaluating the commandments made him fail miserably in his attempts to look for the ideal basis of arguments. The reason is that people have different opinions regarding the commandments but they don’t doubt that they are ideal to bring people together and foster unity in the world (Fiorini, Bokanowski, Lewkowicz, & Person, 2009). In addition, some of his arguments such that civilized man has exchanged the possibility of happiness for security indicates the effect of World War I on his positions. Furthermore, he failed to acknowledge that he is part of the existing human being and every position he takes include himself. Therefore, such a position means he has also sacrificed his happiness for security. Moreover, the position he takes only describe his myopic stance for progress. The ‘big other’ is the virtual regulator of the etiquette and social conversation by human beings (Perry, 2013). This means that it is the ambience of the situation that emanates from the behaviour of the human beings to follow rules. This means that with no human beings in the world, the can be no ‘big other’. According to Lucan, the big other exists only in three distinct levels that are interconnected: the imaginary, symbolic, and real (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, & Virk, 2012). The little other only exists in imaginary order. Therefore, it does not have an impact on the social interactions of the human beings. There is no distinction between the two. However, one cannot exist without the other. Zizek ground is that there is no real person to be discovered beneath the outward façade. This means that if the mask dictates that the person is rotten from the inside, this would mean that the internal parts are even worse. These are not good grounds. The reason is that one cannot judge people based on their outward looks. Furthermore, once cannot make conclusions on situations without conducting in-depth research (Drucker, 2008). The reason is that in some cases, more is required in order to understand the basis of argument. Furthermore, personal looks does not dictate the value of the personal or their positions regarding different aspects in the society. Therefore, it’s important to understand someone in depth before making the final conclusion. Desire is always a desire of something different. Therefore, one cannot desire something in his possession. This explains the reason why the object of desire always differs. This makes it a metonymy. In an example, when one desires something, it is because there is another desire to possess that thing. Lacan’s stated that man’s desire is the desire of the other. Desires push one for recognition. The heavy dependence on the other for recognition pushes people to restructure their lives in order to achieve their desires. We also desire wheat we believe that other people desire. Therefore, what we desire will always be the other’s desire to gain recognition too. I believe to some extent that the claim is justified (Cordón, 2012). The reason is that people like to be associated with something that is being desired by other people. For instance, people will desire to have a nice car because when driving it on the road, other people will desire to have it too. However, this claim can be challenged by arguing that sometimes our desires are driven by need. In an example, one desires to have a nice house not because other people will desire to have the same but because it will address the rent issue. Therefore, its important to differentiate on the pressure besides the desire. The reason it affects the people’s dimension on whether it is a significant need that cannot be foregone. This explains the reason why the claim is not well grounded or expounded. Lacan’s argues that fantasy is a representation of what occurred at castration in relation to possession and loss. Fantasy therefore is the desire of other. He believed that it is nothing else but a screen that conceals something basic. Therefore it is determinate and the function that arise from repetition. It conceals the fact that the other is structured in a way that it’s impossible to symbolize something. Therefore, it entails filling an empty space of fundamental impossibility. Personally, I find these arguments compelling due to the fact that fantasy involve imagining things that are impossible to achieve (Boletsi, 2013). Therefore, his positions that the mind tries to fill a vacuum by imagining things that are out of its reach are convincing. In addition, his argument that fantasy entails the desire of other makes a lot of sense. The reason is that people cannot be able to construct other but can only desire it. Therefore, mental construction can only remain a dream which is hard to achieve under the current conditions. He argues that the manifestation of the unconscious represent small but unconscious rebellions of subjects. These are subjects that are clear to the mind and they are under-girded by more common fantasmatic structuration of identity (Turiel, 2002). Lacan view sexual difference as not a biology issue but that of significant, masculinity, and femininity. Therefore, sexual differences are a construction of human being. Therefore, its more mental rather than biological (Laqueur, 1990). The phallus is mainly taken as a signifier. However, on the other hand, women have to be contended with the complex nature of not having the phallus. Therefore, they are more of men’s objects rather than companion. They are only categorized by men based on the phallus and not their status. According to Lacan, this process by which women have to give up on the essential part of themselves can be described as the concept of masquerade (Berg, 2004). Personally, I don’t find his account convincing. The reason is that many women have been able to prove their ability to exist independently and support their needs without having to rely on their male counterparts. His notion tries to equate women as a dependent variable which cannot be able to exist on their own without getting male support. This aspect has been taken out of context, an aspect that has led to sexualisation of girls. Furthermore, this position has hampered women’s ability to exploit their potential. Therefore, I don’t concur with his perception that women can be gauged using specific parameters. The reason is that such thoughts make women to become sex objects for the men. In addition, over the years, women have proven that if offered the necessary environment similar to their male counterparts, they can achieve better results. This indicates that such positions should be dealt with in order to erase any notion that women are a lesser party which is supposed to remain in the cocoon of their male counterpart. References Berg, & H. (2004). Freud's theory and its use in literary and cultural studies: An introduction. Rochester, NY: Camden House. Boletsi, M. (2013). Barbarism and its discontents. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Calhoun, C. J., Gerteis, J., Moody, J. W., Pfaff, S., & Virk, I. (2012). Classical sociological theory. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Cordón, L. A. (2012). Freud's world: An encyclopedia of his life and times. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood. De, B. A. (2004). Status anxiety. New York: Vintage International/Vintage Books. Drucker, P. F. (2008). Managing oneself. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Fiorini, L. G., Bokanowski, T., Lewkowicz, S., & Person, E. S. (2009). On Freud's "mourning and melancholia". London: Karnac. Freud, S., Crossley, S., & Tantor Media. (2011). Civilization and its discontents. Old Saybrook, Conn.: Tantor Media. Freud, S., Strachey, J., & Gay, P. (2006). Five lectures on psycho-analysis. Princeton, NJ: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic. Hamid, M. (2015). Discontent and its civilizations: Dispatches from Lahore, New York, and London. Kreeft, P. (2013). Socrates meets Freud: The father of philosophy meets the father of psychology : Socrates cross-examines the author of civilization and its discontents. Laqueur, T. W. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lear, J. (2005). Freud. New York: Routledge. Perry, M. (2013). Western civilization: Ideas, politics, and society. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Perry, M., Chase, M., Jacob, J. R., Jacob, M. C., & Von, L. T. (2007). Western civilization: Ideas, politics and society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Quinodoz, & J.-M. (2013). Reading Freud: A Chronological Exploration of Freud's Writings. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Santner, E. L. (2001). On the psychotheology of everyday life: Reflections on Freud and Rosenzweig. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warner, R. (2010). Secularization and its discontents. London: Continuum. Westerink, H. (2009). A dark trace: Sigmund Freud on the sense of guilt. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Read More