There seems a similarity between Plato’s doctrine of the hierarchy of love in the Symposium and Freud’s doctrine of sublimation of baser desires into more remote desires. Plato’s language prefers the more remote desires as higher ones, but Freud’s language seems to imply the more remote desires might even be unhealthy.
I was wondering if anyone could suggest a method to analyse these similar psychologies.
For example, has anyone been harmed psychically by sublimating lower desires into higher ones? Or by failing to do so?
I believe that both are right, and do not contradict themselves, because they do not exactly concentrate on the same aspects of one’s desires. While Plato encouraged sublimation, and the moritification of the body to let the soul become closer to perfection, Freud was actually engaged in his war against the suppression of desires.
I believe Freud discouraged to shove aside our base instincts beause he thought they would be suppressed, and not sublimated. Both of these men said the same thing, IMO: we should live our passions to the fullest of our capabilities. However, Plato put an accent on sublimating and distancing ourselves from our bodies, while Freud wanted to have people be more comfortable with their pulsions, and stop them from suppressing those.
The fact that Freud was also a doctor, and not only a theorician, explains, I believe, why he wanted the masses to do what would be easiest for them and their current health, rather than for their sociological and spiritual evolution.
I think psychologicl harm comes from a dilemma, a struggle between id and superego or a lack of realization of the desire, that could happen either with base desires (“I shouldn’t lust after my cousin like that!”) or more remote desires (“My son just died in a car wreck.”)
One of the things I rarly hear about Plato is the fact that it is very outdated almost to the point of irrelevance. People some how believe that his “Republic” is somehow compatable to modern society when in reality the United States is a perfect example of Plato’s Republic hard at work. The evident fractures that appear are overly comical in nature due to their over predictability. The corruption of public officials is rampant. Even these are the ‘intellectuals’ so highly praised by Plato. But the intellectuals only use their minds to extort money from the average citizen. Then there is the issue of censorship of the citizen. I mean obviously the US invaded Iraq for oil but there was not one whiff of this in the mainstream press. Its rediculous to believe Plato actually had an effective system of some great ideals when really he was an idealist and a dreamer.
The difference is that Plato sublimated his pedophilia into the sublime world of the sempiternal ideas, while Freud would turn any coarse peasant into a kind of Platonic hero…
If this discussion is regarding the difference between Plato and Freud, to me the main difference is that Plato’s thoughts are much more philosophical than Freud’s. But of course that seems like stating the obvious.
Well, I would say Plato is more of an idealist and Freud more of a materialist, but materialism might be as much a philosophy as idealism. Actually, if philosophy looks for the true essences of things, and Freud found these truths in the sublimation of lower desires, wouldn’t that qualify Freud as a materialist philosopher?
upon reading the first part it’s suspect to me whether they’re really talking about the same thing. Plato’s language prefers the more remote desires as higher ones, but Freud’s language seems to imply the more remote desires might even be unhealthy. confirms for me that they’re not talking about the same thing. but then, i haven’t read the literature.
you seem to be equivocating a little, ‘remote desires’ sounds more ominous to me than ‘higher desires’. i would agree that sublimating base desires to remote desires is unhealthy, but when you use the word ‘higher’ it’s hard to frame it as a bad thing. personally, i’d leave the desires at exactly what they’re at and not try to manipulate my passions. not that i’m suggesting refusing to grow, either.
but no, i haven’t been psychically harmed by it because i’ve never tried it.
i don’t think there’s anything ‘low’ or unworthy about sexuality (if that’s what the baser desires are supposed to be).
I think you are right when you stated, I would say Plato is more of an idealist and Freud more of a materialist. Plato was much more metaphysical than Freud. Freud, I think, tried to ground his theory in a ‘realist’ position. Another big difference is the positive notion Plato attaches to love, whereas Freud sees the sexual instinct as a menace to society and the self.
An excellent method to begin to analyse these different views would be by understanding Plato’s conception of the ‘metaphysical’, and Freud’s ideas on sexual instinct he got from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, which he ultimately morphed into his own. Plato’s metaphor of the cave and the ignoring of the senses and using solely the mind’s eye to fathom the ‘good’ stands in stark contrast to Frued’s theory. Freud’s theory of sexual instinct, although originally comes from Schopenhauer’s metaphysical ideas, is ultimately grounded in sense perception and observation of society in general via quasi-modern scientific methods.
Maybe Freud is explaining physical desires and Plato spiritual desires. But if Freud’s work is actually based on observation, where are the spiritual desires in it? Is it really fair to reduce all desire to the physical?
I didn’t know he was in the Schopenhauer/Nietzsche school. I thought he was just medically trained.
inhahe,
point taken. in both of their thoughts there is a progress from one type of desire to another. “remote desire” was the best i could do to capture both ending-desires with one term.
as for sexuality, it is certainly part of what we are. but whether it commands all our desires or it becomes useful to a spiritual end seems to be the difference between the two theories. but perhaps to say that every desire is itself and not something else might be a safe approach to the subject (as i think you were saying).
Freud totally rejects the ‘spiritual’. Read the opening pages of Civilization and its Discontents.
I think Schopenhauer, maybe apart from St. Augustine, was the first to reduce human existence to the sexual will - a point which Freud completely agreed with. Also, Freud had to answer charges of plagarism in regards to his book Civilization and its Discontents for being too close to Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, particularly the second essay, ‘Bad Conscience, Guilt and the like’.
Nevertheless, I see and agree with your point about how they both, Plato and Freud, explain the sublimation of instant impulses into more far-reaching and meaningfull desires. The difference is, correct me if I am wrong, Plato maintained that people would always do ‘good’ - transforming bad impulses into the far-reaching ‘good’ impulses - if they always knew what the ‘good’ was. Whereas Freud specifically claims that the sublimation of instant impulses into far-reaching, remote desires can only be obtained by the few - philosophers, artists, scientists and the like.
I don’t think Schopenhauer had only sexuality in his will, and as for Augustine, he willed marriage but he also willed holiness.
As for Freud and Plato, I should side with Plato. Freud seems like one influenced by the spirit of his age, given up to hypnosis and all that. In fact, I’m not sure what Freud’s limits are in human behaviour; his materialism and insistence on the role of sexuality is shocking in light of the credibility and power he has in the thought of men.
For Plato, maturity comes from love hierarchy, not forces of the market. I’m not sure primitive impulses are “bad” impulses, except in comparison with more mature impulses.
As for philosophy being the only way into higher behaviour, fortunately, religion (esp. Christianity) does that too.
By the way, I think this answers a personal question on why, since high school, I became such a crappy person in college. Instead of following Plato and loving the lovable, I have been a Freudian and actually falling into fear of love lest it be a Freudian sublimation. I didn’t let it affect my will.
If you do not love along with being a philosopher, you are “a bronze gong, a clanging symbol.” Now to find a way to love the lovable in the universe, since contemporary culture does not seem to promote Platonic love – by which I mean a love inclusive of the spirituality of the person.
I thought Freud maintained they all come from the psychical?
His position is similar to that of Schopenhauer’s - desires come from within, they may seem to originate from without, but it is we, the human being, who is the sole desirer. Physical objects do not force us to desire them, we, our subjective selves desire them.
