In an attempt to examine a
meaningful comparison, I considered the somewhat specific contrast between the significance
of relationships on the distinction of self for Hegel and Freud. In Lordship and Bondage, Hegel sees the
relationship between two selves as the only means of achieving
self-consciousness. In Civilization and Discontents, one of Freud’s (possibly less
significant) claims is that only during relationships of true love do mature
people allow the divide between ego and the outside world become blurred
comfortably, therefore dissolving a consideration of otherness mature people
otherwise maintain throughout their existence.
Hegel states “[Self-consciousness]
is only by being acknowledged or “recognized”.”
(p. 83) He is arguing that, during the sublation of the
other, the self is simultaneously realizing that the other is an other but also considering that other to be unreal, or a reflection of the self. The two selves become a
master and a bondsman, each of which is the same as the other but also
opposite. Therefore, the bondsman, through being the opposite of a “consciousness
repressed within itself” (p. 87) and also a dependent consciousness (such as
the master), is actually an independent consciousness (I think, although I
actually am pretty unsure that I actually understand). Regardless of whether or
not I actually understand what Hegel is saying about how one becomes
independently self-consciousness, it seems safe to say it requires some kind of
relationship.
Freud’s maintains, conversely, that “the ego seems to maintain clear and sharp lines of demarcation. There
is only one state - admittedly an unusual state, but not one that can be
stigmatized as pathological - in which it does not do this. At the height of
being in love the boundary between ego and object threatens to melt away. Against
all the evidence of his senses, a man who is in love declares that ‘I’ and
‘you’ are one, and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact.” (p. 5) He
continues that love isn't the only time we are concrete about the distinction
between our selves and the outside world, or that “the feeling of our own ego
is subject to disturbances and the boundaries of the ego are not constant,” (p.
5), but we are consensually allowing for the blur of independence while we are
in love.
In conclusion, Hegel sees
relationships as the only means of self-recognition, while Freud sees
relationships as the only time we allow ourselves to abandon our sense of
independence.
I agree with this post Caleb. What i'm curious about though is how Freud and Hegel are similar. It seems like Freud's views on relationships are addressed more as a romantic type of relationship, while in contrast, Hegel is focused on all types of relationships. Because this is so, what do you think Freud's views would be on non-romantic relationships? I don't feel like he would think it similar to a romantic one. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI thought he considered the origin of all desire to be rooted in sex or death. He said that all of the things we enjoy which aren't obviously sexual only exist as an alternative to our sexual needs. So I guess the relationships with your friends are just there 'cause you can't have sex all the time, so you need something to supplement your desires. I suppose the relationship with your enemies is different though, you just need to kill things and that's what enemies are good for. Food for thought - In which background of desire is the appreciation for guns rooted; sexual or deadly?
ReplyDeleteDepends on your motives I guess. Hopefully some sort of positive, sexual desire, if that's at all possible. It is weird to think that Freud could actually believe that relationships with friends, relationships with possessions, and all other relationships not involved with lust or death, are unimportant. It's like he disregards his feelings and emotions, but I don't see how you can do that when some of those feelings are clearly independent of lust and death. Crazy man.
ReplyDeleteIsaac, it seems like Freud's argument is that all relationships are sexually driven, even if they are not sexual. That's an aspect of Freud that I honestly don't see the logic behind, but I think that's what his argument would be.
ReplyDeleteCaleb, in your conclusion you say that "Hegel sees relationships as the only means of self-recognition," but it seems to me that, similarly to Freud's belief, the master and bondsman each abandon their independence (maybe more so the master) in order to benefit from the other.