Socrates vs Freud Comparative Paper
These are the core values which Socrates has lived his life by, and in Freudian terms, this simply means Socrates’ superego has been effective in mitigating the drive of the id. In Socrates’ case, the instance of the superego dominating the id is a consistent one; so consistent that I’m forced to question any presence of the id at all. If the id creates a desire to kill, fornicate, and indulge while the superego serves as a reminder to follow the law and do what’s right, but the superego always reveals, then there is no evidence to support any presence of an id.
Socrates shows no signs of heeding to primitive desires such as breaking the law. While the two may not agree regarding the impact that laws have on their people, they both acknowledge that there is a general sense of responsibility to follow the laws that all humans should feel. How they perceive this responsibility is where the two philosophers differ. Freud talks a lot about the death drive, an innate aggression that all humans feel, resulting in a strong internal desire for death and destruction. This wasn’t the first time F-reed had referenced this concept, but it wasn’t always a foundation of his beliefs.
Early on, he always spoke of man’s constant erotic desires, driven by the id. It wasn’t until after World War I that he altered his theory to include the death drive. Given that Civilizations and its Discontents was written in sass Austria, and the physical and emotional toll left by The Great War was still fresh in the minds of people around the world, it is understandable that Fraud’s views on human nature became darker during this time. In the Critic, however, we never see any of this type of aggression from Socrates.
He most likely has fewer days to live than he can count on one hand and yet he shows no desire to lash out in any way, despite the fact that he believes that he was arrested unjustly. In fact, his complacency with certain death is alarming to Critic. On page 62 he tells his concerned friend, “it would be an error for someone of my age to complain when the time has come when he must die. ” He’s not acting on behalf of what’s best for him, he is simply accepting the hand that he has been dealt and living at peace with it this sounds eerily familiar having just finished The Degrading).
Either Socrates has the strongest superego the world has ever seen, or he was simply born without an id. In the Critic, Socrates and Critic discuss whether Socrates should be planning an escape plan to evade his imminent execution. Socrates personifies the Laws of Athens in this passage; he literally gives the Laws of Athens a voice in the discussion and speaks on their behalf. He remains objective in doing so; he simply explained to Critic the importance of following the law beyond the obvious legal reasons.
He shows legitimate reason to respect the law in the same light that one should respect one’s own father (72-73). In this discussion, the three characters represent the three parts of the human psyche. Critic urges Socrates to forge an escape and free himself. To do this would require breaking the law in order to appease one’s own desires; therefore, Critic represents the id in this sequence. The Laws of Athens remind Socrates of all the good they do. One of many examples that they provide is that without marriage laws that allow his own parents to wed and produce, Socrates wouldn’t even exist.
The Laws serve as a reminder of the greater good in life, and that fulfilling impulsive desires can be a detriment to one’s well being; the Laws represent the superego. After allowing Critic to explain himself, and interpreting what the Laws would argue in return, Socrates objectively views the facts of both sides and makes a decision based on which side satisfies the morals and expectations that he holds himself to; Socrates, then, represents the ego. A reason Socrates was (and is) so highly veered by so many is that when you look at any given action or decision he makes through a Freudian lens, the superego always prevails over the id.
Not only does he always successfully avoid falling into the temptation of the id, at no point does he even seem remotely influenced by it. It’s one thing to do the right thing because society tells us we should, but not everybody can truthfully say they do the right thing because it’s truly what they want to do. The longer I hold Socrates up to the Freudian light, the more intrigued I become by how the two compare. Freud introduced us all to his world of psychoanalysis, and ever since then his works have remained the backbone of modern day human psychology. By Fraud’s standards, it appears Socrates is the perfect human being.
If Socrates is just like everyone else and has a perpetual desire to do harm unto others, then he has shown an unparalleled level of willpower throughout his 70-year life. His famous Socratic method of questioning and dissecting anything that can be questioned and dissected has never been more effective in challenging the validity of others’ views than hen Socrates himself was the man doing the questioning. If I could take any two historical figures and put them in a room together, I would want nothing more than to see Socrates’ attempt at debug king everything that Sigmund Freud stands for.
What if it was Freud trying to convince Socrates to escape instead Of Critic? How would he react when Socrates claimed the utmost devotion to following the law? Socrates is everything that Freud claims man is not. The discussion between Socrates and Critic in the Critic consists largely of Socrates explaining to Critic the social contract that exists between man and Tate as well as the respect he holds for the laws of his state. He essentially states that the law is always just and any act that breaks the law is to be considered wrong.
Freud on the other hand, believes that laws are what restrict people from doing what they really want. After all, laws are only put in place because of the expectation that somebody would otherwise be inclined to do it. How can a law be good if it is preventing people from their true desires? How can society be helping us while simultaneously restricting us? This is one of Fraud’s more highly criticized claims; a law that prevents you room doing something would also prevent it from being done unto you. Therefore, there is plenty of good that comes from laws, even if they may restrict you from certain desires.
Some laws ensure us of our basic rights, allowing for structure on a level that without government enforcement, we wouldn’t otherwise be able to have. Socrates addresses this in his hypothetical dialogue with the Laws Of Athens, when he says, “since you were born, brought up, and educated, can you deny, first, that you’re our offspring and slave, both yourself and your ancestor? ” (73). Since the laws provided the sources necessary for Socrates, as well as everybody else, to be raised properly, they claim that they are as important as a parent and as authoritative as a slave owner, and deserve to be treated with such respect.
Ironically, Freud wouldn’t even necessarily disagree with this particular quote. In fact, the slave comparison fits right into what he is trying to say about laws and government. In exchange for providing their people with basic life necessities, the laws demand complete control over the peoples’ lives in return. The difference here between Freud and Socrates is that Freud states hat laws demand this of their people, whereas Socrates argues that they deserve this of their people.
Socrates appears to be the krypton to all of Fraud’s beliefs. It seems only fitting that the man who specialized in dissecting the validity of the beliefs of his peers is the same man being used here to observe major contrasts in Fraud’s work. There is a complete absence of a death drive, let alone any form of the id, anywhere in Socrates’ body of work. Instead of the three parts of the brain that Freud speaks of, only the superego shows any evidence of existing in Socrates’ mind.
