In the interaction of id, ego, and superego, the ego (including rational thought) is not a supreme master. Rather it finds itself buffeted by conflicts arising from the relentless drives of the id, the moral commands of the superego, and the realities of the external world. Thus, external realities such as other people may prevent the satisfaction of appetitive drives; and even when they are satisfied, they may produce a sense of guilt in the ego because of a conflict with the commands of the superego. In many cases, the conflict between id and superego is great enough to require repression from consciousness so that the conflict proceeds unconsciously, showing itself in neurotic behavior of one sort or another, for example, obsessional behavior or nervous coughing. Because of this role of the unconscious, Freud places great stress on the interpretation of dreams and "slips of the tongue" as clues to unconscious experience.
The Psyche: Ethical Implications
Freud's account of the psyche has various ethical implications. He begins from the standpoint of psychological hedonism, that is, the position that human beings are so constituted by nature as to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, thereby achieving happiness. Nevertheless an understanding of the id, ego, and superego must provide the basis for directing psychological hedonism. Thus, for example, we need to take care in educating young people―better equipping them for the roles of sexuality and aggressiveness in human life. More particularly, we need to avoid setting ethical demands that require too great suppression of our instincts and to avoid unrealistic portrayals of human virtue.
The "misuse" of ethical demands produces a superego that creates guilt and mental illness. Accordingly, we ought to modify the development of the superego so as to lessen conflict between it and the id. In particular, society should allow more outlets for expression of sexuality. Note well however that Freud is not an advocate of complete sexual freedom as the path to happiness. First, to seek happiness solely in sexual love renders us dangerously dependent upon external, chosen love-objects, thereby exposing ourselves to extreme suffering in the face of rejection, unfaithfulness, or death. Secondly, the needs of civilization require some sublimation of narrow sexual love.
Civilization, Love, and Death
The advance of civilization rests upon the need to work together as a means of surviving within the environment and the need to love as a means of bonding together in communal living. Accordingly, the love instinct (Eros) must expand beyond the narrow focus upon a sexual object to include many more human beings. Freud says,
. . . civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this. These collections of men are to be libidinally bound to one another. Necessity alone, the advantages of work in common, will not hold them together. But man's natural aggressive instinct, the hostility of each against all and of all against each, opposes this programme of civilization. This aggressive instinct is the derivative and the main representative of the death instinct which we have found alongside of Eros and which shares world-domination with it. And now, I think, the meaning of the evolution of civilization is no longer obscure to us. It must present the struggle between Eros and Death, between the instinct of life and instinct of destruction, as it works itself out in the human species. This struggle is what all life essentially consists of, and the evolution of civilization may therefore be simply described as the struggle for life of the human species.5
Civilization, for Freud, is impossible without the suppression of strong instincts (and hence there will always be "discontents"). Yet we cannot rationally argue these instincts out of existence or do away with them through a strong superego. Only the love instinct is powerful enough to overcome the death instinct; and it must be a sublimated love instinct directed toward love of humanity, not toward sexual passion.
We should remember that Freud is not advocating a total sublimation of the love instinct. Its sexual focus is much too strong to make possible total sublimation. While we can advocate a sublimated love of humanity, of art, of beauty, of knowledge, such sublimation does not come easily. It happens however that the future of civilization rests upon our achieving some considerable degree of sublimated love.
Plato and Freud: A Comparison
What is especially striking as a contrast in the thought of Plato and Freud is the difference in power assigned to reason and appetitive drives. Whereas Plato constructs a consciousness-centered morality based upon the rule of reason over appetites, Freud constructs a morality based upon channeling appetitive drives so as to maximize happiness. For Plato, reason can control appetites; for Freud, it cannot. Thus, Freud hopes that happiness is achievable by allowing freer expression to the love instinct, both with respect to sexuality and to a sublimated love for humanity. Plato, on the other hand, thinks that a conscious effort at self-mastery and discipline directed by the rule of reason, helped along by personal inclination and social training, can control appetitive drives.
Freud views happiness in terms of personal pleasure and, more particularly, sees sexual love as providing the primitive "pattern for our search for happiness." Plato, on the other hand, does not focus upon pleasure; instead he views personal happiness as a proper harmony and balance among the agencies of action within the psyche, characterized by the exhibition of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. In addition, he places personal happiness within the wider, more noble context of the state as a whole. That is to say, for Plato, the goal of life is not merely personal happiness but rather the happiness of the state as a whole―which provides the foundation for, and nurtures, personal happiness in a good society. While Freud, instead, stresses personal happiness, we should remember that an essential means to attain this personal goal is the advance of civilization through a sublimated love for humanity. Hence, in practice although not in theory, Freud and Plato may not be that far apart in their concern for the welfare of society generally.
Upon deeper analysis, there are even some seeds of similarity in their views of reason. For example, Freud speaks well of a sublimated love for knowledge (a love well exhibited in his own personal life) akin to Plato's love of wisdom. And despite his stress upon the unconscious, Freud was still a rational person using rational methods in psychoanalysis as a means of improving the human condition.
Controversies: Some Objections and Possible Replies
(Note About Objections and Possible Replies: You should look upon the objections and possible replies as opportunities for further thought rather than as definitive statements. Holders of the original position are not likely to be overwhelmed by the objections; and critics of the original position are not likely to be convinced by the possible replies. These objections and possible replies accomplish a proper goal if they push you to think more deeply about an issue, leading you to seek more clarity and justification in drawing your own conclusions.)
In so far as they have different positions, Plato and Freud are critics of each other with respect to human nature and any subsequent ethical implications. So we can formulate some objections simply by comparing the two accounts. But here we take up two different objections.
(1) Plato's Denial of Human Nature
While Plato supposedly calls for control of appetitive drives by reason and rejects extreme asceticism, the regimen necessary to reason adequately is so strict as to minimize the satisfaction of appetitive drives. Yet quantitatively, appetitive drives constitute the greater part of the psyche. Thus Plato insists upon a denial of the greater part of our nature. Instead of a morality based upon human nature, we end up with a morality in opposition to it.
A Possible Reply: In so far as reason is part of our nature, and the better part at that, there is no denial of human nature in insisting upon the rule of reason. Furthermore, there is no denial of appetitive drives as part of human nature; there is just an insistence upon their proper control. Finally, while the regimen for training someone to apprehend the highest good (that is, the Form of The Good) leaves little time to satisfy appetitive drives, we should remember that only those best suited by nature and interest go through this regimen. So they are not acting contrary to their nature.
(2) Expanding the Role of The Ego
Although Freud harps about the greater power of the unconscious, of the id, and of the superego at the expense of a rationally conscious ego, all of his work and all of his directives offer information and advice for the benefit of the ego. Freud is quite rational in his approach to problems; his exploration of the unconscious brings this subject within the realm of consciousness; and the ethical implications he draws from his analysis of the psyche are directives that a rational, conscious being ought to follow. It must be the case therefore that the ego's importance in human actions is much greater than Freud admits. Otherwise, he would not, or should not, be trying to inform and influence anyone.
A Possible Reply: Freud's work can be looked upon as an attempt to strengthen the ego in relation to the id and superego by making us more aware of the realities it must deal with and by lessening its burdens. This attempt to strengthen the ego however requires liberation from traditional presumptions about the enormous power of rationality and consciousness, promoted so often by philosophers, intellectuals, and moralists. Once we get beyond these traditional, false presumptions, we can move forward with a more authentic expansion of the role of the ego in human actions.
Furthermore, we must not place too great hope in expanding the ego's role in human actions. The unconscious always remains with us. The most that most of us can hope for through the techniques of psychoanalysis is the relief of guilt or other symptoms of mental distress through the cathartic effect achieved in recognizing consciously the hitherto unconscious sources of our distress.
5.10 Make up a list of ten persons you most admire. Then consider the degree to which each measures up to Plato's view of a good person, based upon his analysis of human nature. If anyone on your list does not measure up well, would you drop that individual from the list? How would you yourself measure up?
5.11 Evaluate the following cynical judgment of Plato's position: "Plato's analysis of human nature with its accompanying conception of a good person has a noble, but hollow, ring. People always pay 'lip service' to his sort of position. But when we look at the real world we find a different situation. In the real world, Plato's 'good person' strikes people as being rather dull and ineffectual. The most successful persons―for example, athletes, entertainers, business people, and politicians―very seldom exemplify the traits Plato talks about. These successful persons are much more likely to exhibit excess on the side of spirit and appetites than Plato wants. Being aggressively competitive to get ahead and satisfying appetitive drives are their major preoccupation. Moreover, these persons have the lifestyles that other people admire and want to imitate."
5.12 Does Freud properly assess the relative importance of the id, ego, and superego? (How much technical information do you think you need to know to answer this question? Do you think that the technical information is available? Do you have it?) Do the ethical implications really follow?
5.121 Would you agree with Freud's insistence upon aggressiveness being a fundamental instinct in human beings? Why or why not? What about love as a fundamental instinct? Instead of trying to answer these questions in terms of what sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, or sociobiologists might say, consider your own personal experiences. What can you say about the love instinct or the death instinct in your own life?
5.122 Why is Freud not an advocate of complete sexual freedom or the pursuit of sexual pleasure as the main interest in life? Is he correct or incorrect in taking this position?
5.1221 According to Freud, love for humanity is sublimated sexual love. Indeed he regards all love to originate ultimately in sexual desire. Would you agree with him? Or can there be other origins of love? What can we say about Christian love or brotherly love or "Platonic" love? (Those especially interested in what Plato has to say about love may want to read his dialogue, entitled Symposium.)