Sigmund Freud, Plato, Homer, and The Views of Civilization [Brief Summary]

Evolution of civilization has been developing throughout human history. In fact, Freud (n.d.) claims, that is the product of the development of guilt or shame: lying under our skin of civilization was a fire of instinctual satisfaction which was patiently waiting for the trigger of provocation to spread out. People have to bottle up their satisfaction for the common benefit of the community. Therefore, the more groups people are in, the more identities they have. If so, would morality likely to be a sense or a rule? Moreover, would it be right that “happiness is a matter of acting in society in particular ways”? To Homer, there is no morality. The moral sense is technically society’s standard acting (Ian, 1999). In his view, people avoid the shame of being a misfit due to society’s archetype. Homer’s theory does reflect our majority lately, people are afraid of standing out especially the young generation since the nervousness of being so different from others.

On the other hand, Plato’s theory states that social arrangements are made due to the agreement of people, which creates exchanges between people to build up common benefits. To Plato, society is built based on the harmony between people. This is familiar to Homeric theory, people have to put a limit on their instinctual satisfaction (Ian, 1999).

References:

Johnston, Ian. (June, 1999). On Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents. Retrieved from http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/lectures/freudlecture.htm.

Freud, Sigmund. (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents. Retrived from https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FreudS-CIVILIZATION-AND-ITS-DISCONTENTS-text-final.pdf.