Unattainable Happiness

            Sigmund Freud does not seem to be the most positive, joyful fellow.  Some may even go as far as to call him the “scrooge” of his time.  Freud wrestles with the idea of happiness and how the repression of innate human instincts results in a discontent within civilization – hence, the title of his book. Although some of his ideas may be seen as quite extreme, it is fascinating to consider the reality of his points and the relevance within our 21^st century society as well as the societies leading up to this time period. 

            It seems as though Freud does not believe true happiness and the superstructure of society can co-exist.  At one point in his book, he states, “…A man thinks himself happy merely to have escaped unhappiness or to have survived his suffering…” (44) Basically meaning happiness is defined by the absence of unhappiness.  Freud even states that creation may not have even intended for mankind to achieve happiness.  So why does Freud seem to have this view of happiness being an impossibility?  Well, it all seems to stem from one thing – the pleasure principle.  The pleasure principle, according to Freud, is the notion that people continually pursue pleasure while trying to avoid pain and suffering.  He argues that it is our instinctive desire to govern our lives via the pleasure principle, but the development of ego through maturing within our civilization causes us to be in fact governed by the reality principle.  The reality principle follows the same pursuit of happiness, but it is a realistic pursuit in the sense that we have a universal understanding that all desires may not be gratified immediately.  Gratification may, in fact, have to be deferred when the reality of regulations within our civilization are considered.  And, according to Freud, this is a result of our inner desire to satisfy our deepest cravings clashing with the reality of our civilization.  He discusses three main areas of displeasure that we all try to master, and that’s basically our mortality, the devastation of the natural world and the reality coexisting with other people in a society.  He seems to dwell on the last point and make it the focus in explaining our eternal unhappiness.  Civilization restricts our primitive desires from being gratified and from this, Freud derives an intriguing idea.  He proves that it was essentially us that manufactured our own discontents by the construction of civilization and society.  Civilized regulations and rules among societies were put in place to protect us, essentially, from unhappiness; yet, it seems to be our largest source of unhappiness in Freud’s mind.  He strongly argues that this repression of instinctual desires causes this perpetual unhappiness.  Freud even goes as far as saying chemical substances and religion are the only escapes from unhappiness that exist; however, they are still temporary sensations.  He describes the consumption of certain substances giving us a feeling of pleasure, by eliminating the pains of society for a short time and the idea of religion distancing us from suffering through the expectation of something more. 

            While I may not necessarily agree with Sigmund Freud’s unfavorable view of happiness in our civilization, it is fascinating to explore his theories and try to apply them to our society today.  In Freud’s mind, happiness seems unattainable, but in my mind there’s a balance between innate, primitive desires and the regulation of those desires within society that allows for happiness to exist.

Socrates the Martyr?

Socrates was a man who possessed an unquestionable conviction to stay strong in what he believed.  It’s almost as if he had an innate sense of duty to dissect the minds of others in order to persuade them to follow his thinking and challenge their own.  Now, before reading The Apology and The Crito, I could imagine nothing less than Socrates sacrificing his life ultimately for his fervent preaching of his beliefs and ideas.  Now, these thoughts in conjunction seem to be the necessary preconditions required of a martyr, but what exactly is a martyr?  This is a very debatable and absorbing question when examining the actions of Socrates.

            Some definitions would identify a martyr as someone who embellishes their suffering to gain sympathy, but I struggle with defining the word martyr so simply as I believe it to be a multifaceted term.  I see Socrates as a very real illustration of this in the way he challenges such a simple definition.  With the definition of a martyr being one to extract sympathy from exaggerating pain comes the preconceived notion that a martyr possesses selfish motives that dictate his or her sacrificial actions.  When I look at the actions and ways of Socrates, I don’t see someone who is driven by such selfish intentions and motives.  I see Socrates as representing the facet of martyrdom that would sacrifice everything to spread their beliefs and ideas.  Although, I’m obviously not going to claim to know the concrete motives of Socrates’ actions, but I cannot see him as someone suffering pain to pursue his own personal glory.  However, I still would give Socrates the title of a martyr for other reasons.  He definitely was a man willing to die for his beliefs and philosophical ideas, but I would argue that the difference lies in his purpose of doing so.  When reading The Euthyphro, it leads me to believe that Socrates will not plead guilty and submit to the state purely for the reason of publicizing his ideas and convincing others to believe his trial represented injustice.  I am reluctant to believe he was willing to suffer through the trial process simply for the purpose of self-gratification and sympathy.  So, this brings me back to my original point, how would you define a martyr?  I believe that while there are martyrs that die for their beliefs or suffer for other reasons in order to fulfill their insecure desire for sympathy, there are also martyrs that suffer for the development and advancement of their beliefs.  I see Socrates as a suitable illustration of the latter.  Whether or not this is a correct supposition or not, I think Socrates can genuinely challenge our thinking in how we view a martyr and how their motives can greatly alter our view of the definition.  Martyrs can be defined in several different ways giving everyone different interpretations, but in the case of Socrates especially, I feel it’s very important to recognize the goals behind the sacrifice.