Alright, this is my first post in this forum - well, on this site - so go easy on me. This is a paper I wrote for honors philosophy class this semester. It is structured with a two part abstract, the second of which could very well be a dissertation, altough I am an undergraduate. Anyway, the professor with a phd from a harvard was even so shallow to only fix grammatical errors and not give me any feedback whatsoever on insights and whatnot. What is posted is only part I, which was typed up quickly (pulled an all nighter), when it was realized that part II could not be completed in time (which I think is somewhat groundbreaking). Anyway, any feedback would be really nice, greatly appreciated in fact. Most of this was typed so fast that it disregards style, but some of it is a very pleasurable read I think, while others are manifestations of painful thinking. So sorry for grammatical errors, but hopefully you can see beyond them. To see another version of this text with pictures posted, please visit my blogsite: loverution.blogspot.com. Enjoy…
Abstract
(1)
The focus of this paper is to illustrate the parallel between Arthur Schopenhauer and Sigmund Freud by explicating a fundamental relation between their philosophies in their conceptions of Will and the unconscious, and thereby to propound Schopenhauer as the forefather of psychoanalysis. In Schopenhauer, the Will as a metaphysical doctrine is juxtaposed with the unconscious in Freud, especially with dreams as the fulfillment of wishes, which the impossibility of ultimate fulfillment forms the basis of the pervading pessimism in Schopenhauer’s conception of the universal Will - as eternal striving, yearning, wishing, desiring, longing. In Freud, this pessimism is reasserted, but to a lesser degree, by positing conscious life as negative, a perpetual stream of unfulfilled wishes, but which have only predominantly remained insatiable by the forced repression of instinctual drives and libidinal energy by civilized society, therefore establishing the unconscious as an oasis for what I call the unhappy consciousness (no reference to Hegel intended), as compensation for unsatisfied desires of which the Id unconsciously demands, but the ego and super-ego refuse to let pass unconditionally, incessantly holding it underwater - beneath the threshold of consciousness - in accordance with the restrictions of ego ideals as influenced by civilization. The similarity between Schopenhauer and Freud is simple: conscious life is negative. Thus, we call the state of consciousness a condition of unhappiness. For Schopenhauer, the unconscious will is the source of suffering and displeasure, but a distinction is made in the sense that the Will establishes both the unconscious and conscious states as negative. In Freud, there is a subtle difference: conscious life is negative only in its failure to meet the unconscious demands of the Id. Now, by comparing these two pessimistic philosophies, a parallel can be made between the state of the particular and the universal. In other words, the unhappy consciousness of the individual transcribes into the universal human condition, which is understood as a perpetual state of suffering and displeasure, and vice versa. The Freudian psychologist takes the Buddhist maxim adopted by Schopenhauer, “all is suffering,” and interprets it for itself. The Freudian thus cries aloud: “What matters the All?!? It is the ever conflicted ‘I’ that is suffering!” True as this may be, there exists an undeniable relation between the two, as it is both the “I” and the whole of humanity that experiences this state I call the unhappy consciousness. Nevertheless, both philosophers attempt to offer a way out, in both distinct and comparable ways. For Schopenhauer, it is renunciation and the ascetic life. For Freud, it is sublimation and the cultivation of culture.
(2)
(delayed)
Now, with these two fundamental dichotomies in mind (The Will/Unconscious and the unhappy consciousness), I seek to make a parallel by positing the unconscious as a metaphysical determinism, in both the universal, as in reference to the species as a whole (as elucidated by Schopenhauer), and in particular terms, as in relation to the analysand (as expounded by Freud), as independent of consciousness, but which are nevertheless inextricably bound, meaning they are both in possession of the same underlying, inherent, constitution. In apparent opposition to this, conscious life can now be understood as verification of the existence of free will, when consciousness is considered the dominant force in waking life, with its potent ability to overcome, suppress, unconscious drives and contents. Heretofore, in the reconciliation of these opposites, the possibility for transcendence is fulfilled, by means of which is brought about in psychoanalysis. The various, distinct, polar opposites are now aligned in such a way so as to be synonymous, when separated from their counterparts as distinct entities, such as in (1) the unconscious and (2) the conscious, (1) will and (2) representation, (1) latent and (2) manifest content, (1) determinism and (2) free will, (1) the metaphysical and (2) the physical, etc. and of whose interconnectedness we are brought forth to enlightenment in psychoanalysis, as well as by other means, thus bringing the self, as centered, self-balanced mediator between apparent conflicting dualities, back to a state of harmony in the inner world, and thereby, finding its home, in unison, with the outer world. Knowledge of the substance of each opposite is penetrated by intuition and sense perception - the latter used as the primordial tool into rational investigation of Wissenschaft; the former, the mysterious phantom limb of which is the key that opens the door to the metaphysical.
I. WILL AND THE UNHAPPY CONSCIOUSNESS
To understand the influential roots of psychoanalysis we must first discuss the greatly ingenious and imaginative philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer’s philosophy centers around his metaphysical conception of the universal Will, which he equates with Kant’s notion of the noumenal world, or the thing-in-itself, in contradistinction to the phenomenal world, which Schopenhauer refers to as the world of representation, or the world of idea. The world of representation or idea, to Schopenhauer, is really only the physical manifestation ? being that which makes itself perceptible to our sense perception ? of the metaphysical world of the Will. At any given instant, whether one is conscious of it or not, the Will is incessantly sweeping through all living beings in the phenomenal world through space and time ? for all eternity. It was Pascal who said that time is nothing but “matter in motion;” in Schopenhauer, all matter in motion is really an illusion concealing the forces of the unconscious Will, the noumenal world, which is measured by time. To see matter in motion is to see the phenomenal world swept through by the noumenal forces at work. A caterpillar blossoms through the noumenal will into a phenomenal butterfly, spreads its wings and embraces life in the heavens. The material world as matter is analogous to the phenomenal - being that which can be perceived by sense perception; and motion is a sign of the noumenal existence - being that which transcends primordial sense perception in penetration of its metaphysical reality. Their synthesis, now, is that which we call temporality instead - paradoxically, it is time, but time can be known through the mere phenomenal observations devoid of noumenal intuitions. The phenomenal world that we perceive through the senses is really only a mask concealing an underlying, pervasive, unconscious and irrational force that directs all sensible, material, entities eternally through a series of painful obstacles that can only reach brief cessation in pleasure.
Like a track and field star, the athlete exerts a certain amount of force in order to jump over the hurdle, only to repeat the process again and again, until he has run the track and retired at the finish line. This is the idea of the Will in a nutshell. But if one were to imagine a track and field star, as representative of the entire phenomenal world, running in this circular track, we can now see the Will as the primordial cause that propels the runner through the painful exertion in forceful overcoming of the hurdles. The runner himself, as he exists in his physical constitution, is the matter that is thrust forward around the track by the Will in motion. The attainment of pleasure, or cessation of pain, is only achieved at the point in which he has reached his peak, suspended in air at the height of his jump over the hurdle; but in the inevitable falling back to earth by the universal force of gravity, in the landing of his feet back on the track, the runner is once again subjected to suffering and pain, and the continual process of painful exertion begins over and over again with no ultimate end - the Will is eternal. The runner forever runs the track, as the world is forever swirling through space and time, driven by unconscious wishing, striving, longing, to reach a final goal that is in actuality nonexistent. To say that the Will, then, as a universal metaphysical notion, is eternal, then refers to Schopenhauer’s rejection of a teleology, or final end, to the universe as a whole. This is precisely why the Will is a negative force - it is a deterministic cause sweeping through each and every phenomenal being, the cause that will inevitably lead all to suffering and pain, of which the conscious individual is only a mere participant and passer-by.
Now, with the establishment of a universal metaphysics as the cause for the absolute unhappy consciousness of the species, each individual possesses a particular will analogous to the universal Will, in contradistinction to the individual phenomenal or physical constitution, which is only a constitutive part of the greater whole. Now we can see the track and field star as no longer a phenomenal representation of the universal Will, but reduce his being as he stands to a particular and individual will, which is now understood, nevertheless, as one and the same with the universal Will. Now, with this in mind, happiness or pleasure cannot possibly be conceived as a final end, as Aristotle declares, because all happiness or pleasure is merely transitory in relation to will, as an imperishable metaphysical entity. Thus, all pleasure is negative, as the fire of Prometheus can never be fully extinguished - that is, fully satiated by water. Will is eternal and therefore desire is ultimately insatiable. Inversely, however, pain is now considered positive, as it seen as the driving force towards the attainment of pleasure in a future state, in which the unhappy consciousness is relieved of its misery and is therefore not entirely unhappy any longer. It is positive in that it anticipates a future state of affairs in which pleasure will be experienced. But the time span in which pleasure is actually experienced makes it a negative affect on this or that particular being, for it is only a transient affect, and will inevitably die sooner or later when the agonizing return to the state of the unhappy consciousness takes over the organism once again. Pleasure can never be sustained for eternity because pleasure entails an opposite state of pain, and one could not possibly exist without the other. Therefore, the Will - as striving, desiring, wishing for an absolute happiness that is nonexistent - is everlasting. With this refutation of a teleological end in mind, the unconscious will cannot be understood as the well of replenishment of unfulfilled conscious life, but rather, as the source of evil. One should not look to the will as the waystation for the unhappy consciousness, as wish fulfiller; rather, the will is the reason, the primordial cause, for the unhappy consciousness, and is therefore considered evil. It is the metaphysical scapegoat for the universal unhappy consciousness of the species as is the particular will for that of the individual.
Now, when the universal Will is reduced to the particular will of the subject, and therefore understood as one and the same, a consciousness of one’s own metaphysical reality is the only possible redemption and salvation from the destructive effects it may have, and the only possible means to attaining insight into the metaphysical reality of the universe as a whole. Self-consciousness is the only window into the ways of will, which is made apparent to our perception in representation, its reality penetrated by intuitive power, and consequently, an ascetic life of renunciation the only redemption, like a dam built to obstruct a perpetually flowing current of vehement passions and wants. The ascetic abandons the petty pursuit of pleasure, in the disclosure of its utter superfluous nature, for the pursuit of enlightenment in its place, or the attainment of wisdom and truth. The ascetic isolates himself from society and all external influence so as to uncover the self and world in independence from will, in resistance to instinctual urges and drives, and to therefore transcend the engagement with appearance and the physical world. In careful observation of the reality of the Will by means of sense perception of the phenomenal, and intuition as a means to knowledge of the noumenal of which it represents, enlightenment is brought forth to the subject in pure perception, by the discipline and subjugation of its own will, which must be suppressed by all means possible if one is to be given knowledge in pure, will-less, perception in the workings of the metaphysical mind of the universe. The ascetic has unveiled the veil of Maya and sees the world, now, as it really is, from a detached perspective, in a higher state of consciousness, in which the noumenal world and phenomenal world stand as mutually distinct and exclusive entities, allowing pure perception to take hold, as a window to the metaphysical reality of the universe in all its beauty and suffering, in all its good and all its evil.
Now, in Freud we see a fundamental relation between Schopenhauer’s universal Will, when reduced to the particular will, in the notion of the unconscious id. With the reality of an unconscious force now established, Freud reasserts Schopenhauer’s pessimism in reference to conscious life as a state of pain and unhappiness but reduces its overarching negativity in his idea of the pleasure-principle, claiming that when the unconscious and conscious ego are somehow unified, or in agreement, pleasure can be briefly attained in conscious life and the bigger picture of Schopenhauer’s ateleological, aimless, universal metaphysics is negligible. But because instinctual drives are predominantly repressed by the ego, the conscious state still stands as a condition of unhappiness and a pessimistic view of life holds firmly.
The libidinal appetite of the id, analogous to the fire of Prometheus, is constantly changing, becoming, for the sake of satisfying itself in accordance with the pleasure principle and directs itself towards the consummation of pleasure by the ego, reaches its goal and achieves satisfaction - this is what we call happiness (or at least what some people call happiness). Pleasure is attained. A continual process of becoming, flux and change propels the ego into all sorts of painful obstacles in order to meet the demands of the id, which can never ultimately be fulfilled, as Schopenhauer declares; but in Freud, this is beside the point. With regard to the symbolism in the myth of Prometheus, fire is synonymous with displeasure, standing as a symbol for continual changing, becoming, as propounded by Heraclitus centuries ago. Fire as the representative element of the unhappy consciousness, is always changing, in flux, becoming in a painful process that stands in diametrical opposition to unchanging, immutable, water, which is representative of the inverse state of the unhappy consciousness in the unconscious. The repression of the id by the ego in the state of the unhappy unconsciousness causes the individual to engage with the manifest representation of water - concealing the latent content of satisfaction - which is in turn, disclosed as a positive factor in its compensatory relationship to the ego. It is the relief of painful becoming in immutable being. The unhappy consciousness, as a negative state of fire, is counteracted by the unconscious as a positive oasis filled with water, in satisfactory replenishment by its overcoming in the cessation of negative fire. In accordance with the pleasure principle - in union with the unconscious in the experience of dream life - the phallus extinguishes the libidinal fire of the id at its peak, resulting from copulation with the opposite sex. The release of sexual energy cleanses the id with water through the urinary tract, only to make way for a new need, which is then brought to consciousness in waking life and the painful process of becoming for the sake of being, the development of the ego for the sake of the id, begins again only to be hurled back and forth through dual states of wishing and fulfillment - the unhappy consciousness and pleasure. The expulsion of urine through the urinary tract signifies the attainment of pleasure, and in cessation, its cleansing as a means to making way for novel desire. Fire is extinguished by water; fire renewed in absence of water. Although this may not always refer to sexual satisfaction, it is the ultimate root and reduction of all our striving and wishing in Freud’s opinion, as water is in some cases understood as the archetypal dream symbol for sexual satisfaction.
However, this reality of the unconscious as a positive source of replenishment for the unhappy consciousness must not be understood as positive in itself, but the effect of forced repression of the id in a civilized society. In Schopenhauer, we see this process of pleasure and pain, being and becoming, as verification of a pessimistic worldview in the consequent discernment of the permeating suffering of the species – the metaphysics of the Will is the cause for the unhappy consciousness. In Freud, however, the unconscious is not so much negative and evil, but only the positive result for the impossibility of complete fulfillment in the state of the unhappy consciousness. The existence of the individual as a conscious ego, as only a constitutive part in the greater whole of civilization, now represses the unconscious forces of the id to such an extent that conscious life can only be seen as unhappy, as negative. In other words, a quantitative analysis of pain and pleasure favors repression of the id at the expense of satisfaction or fulfillment in the waking state, so consciousness can only be deemed as a state of unhappiness. The ego represses the id so as to avoid self-destruction, but a destruction that would not be in existence without the presence of certain moral standards which society demands conformity. In primitive society, the savage could have his way, rape, pillage, kill and destroy without bringing about his own destruction. The id would attain unconditional fulfillment of desire without question, without resistance or qualification. In civilized society, this is obviously not the case when the id is regulated by social taboos, the law, and for those to which it may apply, religion. If they were to be violated, punishment would ensue, whether it be by law enforcement, imposition of guilt and shame upon the subject by the Other or super-ego, or eternal damnation in the afterlife.
In the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, we see this existence of a super-ego and a society-influenced ego as an unhealthy psychic function as is delineated in “The Geneaology of Morals”. There, he expounds upon the notions of guilt and bad conscience as a result of the existence of a morally inclined super-ego and an ego that is not entirely one’s own, but influenced by external factors. These psychic components pose themselves as a hindrance, an impediment, to a healthy lifestyle; and the imposition of societal ideals is seen as the great counterforce to the libidinal instincts for life and health. Objective morality and social taboos only contribute to the effect of a socially constructed reality that blinds the individual to the true reality of life in Dionysian engagement. The rational consciousness poses as a threat to the creative potential of the individual by regulating the libidinal psychic activity. Society is posited as the prime obstruction to the instincts for life and the overly rational ego-consciousness is the guilty culprit for the decadence of civilization as a whole, as well as in individuals. An example of this decadence is the figure of Socrates, whom Nietzsche deems as the decadent philosopher par excellence for praising and glorifying reason at the expense of instinct. Now, this is not to say that Nietzsche advocates the life of the savage, promotes unconditional engagement with instinctual drives and urges, but he believes that the passions should be exalted in creative celebration as the royal road to the individual self, directed by the ego only in self-discipline. One does not allow the ego to perish - rather, it rids itself of outside influence. The individual does not create for the sake of social acceptance or recognition, for to sublimate the libido in the creative act in accordance with societal norms and standards would be a betrayal to the self, as creator, as life redeemer-- and thus, to the truth. The super-ego is relinquished and the ego strengthened in self-disciplined surrender to inner power forces. Here, we see an affinity between both Freud and Nietzsche as advocates of sublimation and the cultivation of culture. But there is a very significant difference.
Nietzsche sees society as a threat to creative sublimation while Freud looks to the act of sublimation as a means to living a life in accordance with the pleasure principle, in which both id and the ego are satisfied without disregarding the external factors of societal ideals and expectations.
Not only does sublimation contribute to the whole of society, but it contributes to the health of the individual as well, as it is a means to curing neurotic disease by providing an outlet for the id in correspondence with socially accepted self-expression and behavior. The affects, which may range from a strong sex drive to aggression, may be expressed through artistic expression such as painting or dance, or through sports such as boxing, by means of which the affects are purged in catharsis and the unconscious drives are satisfied through socially accepted mediums. Whether art be created or experienced, a fundamental relation between subject and object is synthesized in which the affects are able to find an outlet. If I am an actor in a Shakespearean play, the affects are purged through tragic reenactment of Hamlet; if I be an outside observer, my relation to the characters and plot lure me in by an emotional engagement, thereby allowing the release of the affects, so long as a rational consciousness does not predominate (as it would interfere with the emotional engagement). As the stage actor reenacts dear Hamlet’s dilemma through the sorrowful expression of a troubled life, for example, one is drawn into the pathos of the play and the spectator purges itself through the emotional release of pity; and when the apparition appears before the guardsmen on an eerie night and the dark vocal tone emanates from the ghost of Hamlet’s deceased father, one cannot help but relate to the fear which has been inspired in these men by this phantasm . The spectator is just as much a participant as the actors on the stage. Here, in both actors and in audience, the affects of pity and fear have been brought back to consciousness, allowed its expression and release through the somatic membrane (granted, this is assuming the spectator is not a Stoic philosopher).
Now, when the unconscious forces of the id are not able to find an outlet for some reason, have simply been either neglected by the individual in suppression or by repression by dominating external factors, the unconscious and the conscious are separated to such an extent that neurosis, or psychosis, ensues. Which disease takes hold depends on the severity of the partition. In Schopenhauer, this oblivion to the unconscious reality of the will causes great suffering in the subject, as the inability to make the will conscious only causes it to take a greater hold of the individual being and inflict suffering upon him or her. Without any insight into its ways, into the unconscious reality of the will, and by the engagement of conscious life at the expense of consciousness of the unconscious will, the subject will be continually directed by the will in oblivion until it takes complete hold of the ego, imposes its forceful demands upon it and tears it apart. Here, we can clearly see Schopenhauer’s idea of will as a forerunner to Freud’s conception of the unconscious id, and the philosophy as a precedent to the practice of psychoanalysis. In Freud, the individual suffers from neurosis and psychosis when the partition between the conscious and the unconscious expands and the subject becomes out of tune with one or the other. Schopenhauer’s vague establishment of suffering in the world is transformed into pathological symptoms which can be cured by psychoanalysis, in which the analysand undergoes the process of hypnosis in order to dig into the repressed unconscious forces responsible for symptoms such as paranoia, hysteria, etc. The subject is hypnotized so as to weaken the ego to a certain degree in order to attain a state in which unconscious contents are able to pass freely above the threshold and manifest themselves in free associative speech. The ego consciousness gradually drops its pale into the inner well of the unconscious, weakening itself so as to avoid intellectual or rational interference, drinks from the source of that which is the cause of neurosis in the unconscious contents, cures itself with refreshing drink in psychic enlightenment, integrates the unconscious contents into the ego consciousness and the patient is brought forth to health in knowledge of its psychic totality, thereby ridding the subject of neurotic symptoms and preventing a future state of collapse.
Now, if the unconscious id is repressed to such an extent, psychotic symptoms may result, an example of which is the case of the schizophrenic. In Freud’s elucidation of the daydreamer, the individual neglects conscious reality for the sake of pleasurable engagement with the unconscious. The daydreamer weakens the rational ego and conjures up all sorts of fantastic images and scenarios as compensation for the loss of pleasurable play with real objects in childhood while dangerously avoiding the reality of the conscious component of the psyche. Now, the act of daydreaming is a normal psychic function, but with regard to psychosis, with regard to those who do not have a firm grasp on the distinction between psychic opposites, when these unconscious contents are seen as reality at the expense of the outer world and not a mere constituent of the greater psychic reality of both unconscious and conscious, when the unconscious contents disrupt conscious activity to such a degree and the subject loses touch with the ego, psychosis follows.
In C.G. Jung’s account of the schizophrenic, he provides a detailed analysis of the possible causes for the symptoms of psychosis. In one of his cases, one of his patients had invested almost all of his psychical energy into a single object - a girl. When the engagement with the imaginative world was gradually intensified, the subject completely lost touch with conscious reality and the external world. The unconscious contents, as they manifested themselves in the act of daydreaming, were taken as reality and when the girl disappeared from his life, the ego deteriorated – the distinction between waking and dreaming life could no longer be made. The ego had been weakened to such a degree that it could not reassert itself and the unconscious contents rushed into consciousness without any control of a rational ego whatsoever ? the threshold between the conscious and the unconscious was completely torn apart. In this case, we can see psychosis as the intensification of neurosis. The symptoms of the neurotic are heightened to such a degree that the psychic constitution takes a hold of the physiological or neurological activity so that greater means must be brought about in medical treatment, in addition to treatment in psychoanalysis. The patient is not only disrupted by unconscious forces and contents, as is the case with the neurotic, but the unconscious forcefully makes itself manifest in the form of visual and auditory hallucinations, and life is none other than a dream and dreams none other than life itself. Without taking into account the schizoid’s inability to participate in society, I think it is easy to assert that schizophrenia might just be as beautiful and interesting as the word sounds itself.