At the root of the differences between Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud regarding the nature of human happiness are their almost diametrically opposed models of human nature. Freud describes human nature in terms of universal, instinctive drives, the realization of which constitutes happiness in its most fundamental form; Marx believes that humans are the only creatures capable of expressing themselves through work and posits that this distinctly human self-expression is fundamental to true human happiness. At their most fundamental level, Freud and Marx can be separated by a single assumption: the idea that humans are essentially different from animals. Marx accepts this, seeming to appreciate the idea of ​​human exceptionalism and rejecting animal pleasures as a means of happiness for man; Freud, whose influence from Charles Darwin weighed heavily on his thinking, refrained from making such a distinction, instead considering man as a simple product of natural selection. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayFreud explains human nature through a universal system of unconscious drives, which compel humans to engage in activities such as reproduce, eat and commit aggressive acts. These drives – which presumably arise from the Darwinian process of natural selection and therefore have (or had, in the evolutionary environment) a certain adaptive value for the purposes of survival and procreation – are common to all human beings, whatever their environment. outside. Marx's conception of human nature is more ambiguous. Unlike Freud, Marx does not consider instincts like aggression to be inherent human qualities; rather, it explains violence and greed as the byproducts of a flawed social and political system. According to Marx's theory, the defining characteristic of man is his consciousness, both on an individual and social level. At the individual level, man's consciousness manifests itself in his ability to change nature through a certain form of work and to express himself in the product of that work. While animals are also capable of changing nature, often in a seemingly beautiful or expressive way, Marx separates the human activity of labor from the actions of animals by defining labor as a conscious rather than instinctive act. Because the product of human labor arises from the thoughts of the individual, it is an "objectification" - the expression or transformation into an object - of the worker's own self: a spider carries out operations which resemble those of a weaver , and a bee shames. many architects in the construction of its cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best bee is that the architect raises his structure in imagination before erecting it in reality. At the end of each work process, we get a result that already existed in the worker's imagination at the beginning. According to this theory of human nature, self-realization through free and productive labor is the essence of individual human happiness. Note that Marx consistently places the greatest value on activities and behaviors that are exclusive to humans; any pleasurable activity that an animal is capable of experiencing cannot bring true happiness to man. In a description of the effects on the worker of labor alienation (i.e. forced labor whose product is not an expression of the worker himself), Marx describes simple, enjoyable activities as subhuman: As a result, man (the worker) no longer feels freely activethat in its animal functions - eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in its housing and clothing, etc.; and in his human functions, he feels no more than an animal... Certainly, eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also authentically human functions. But in the abstraction which separates them from the sphere of all other human activities and transforms them into unique and ultimate ends, they are animals. Marx's basic model of human nature and happiness is therefore intrinsically incompatible with Freud's. While Marx insists that men can only achieve satisfaction by striving to express themselves in a way that distances them as far as possible from animals, Freud views human happiness as nothing more than satisfaction. animal desires and the avoidance of pain. Human happiness according to Freud's model is difficult to maintain. His description of the pleasure principle suggests substance dependence: There is a tendency to say that the intention for man to be "happy" is not included in the plan of "Creation." What we call happiness in the strictest sense arises from the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of strongly contained needs and is, by its nature, only possible as an episodic phenomenon. When a situation desired by the pleasure principle continues, it produces only a slight feeling of contentment. Freud's use of "scare quotes" around the word "Creation" suggests that he believes that human mechanisms of desire and satisfaction are a product of natural action. selection, transmitted to the human species from a primate ancestor, and finally from a much simpler organism. Indeed, the influence of Darwin's The Origin of Species is felt throughout the book, as Freud describes human behavior without the exceptionalism exhibited by Marx and other writers. In fact, one of the only essential differences that Freud describes between man and animal is that the latter lacks the "...struggle between Eros and Death, between the instincts of life and the instincts of destruction." . He does not offer an explanation for what he perceives as the absence of the death drive in animals. However, it should be noted that contemporary research in the field of evolutionary psychology, if available to Freud, might have allowed him to better understand the Darwinian logic behind these drives, likely guiding him toward the conclusion that humans are motivated by instincts which are no different from those of Freud. those that an animal experiences. For example, what Freud understands as a "death drive"—a self-destructive instinct that, in Darwinian terms, seems unlikely to be adaptive—may actually be a misunderstanding of the aggressive instincts that drive humans to seek status. . Yet even allowing for this slight ambiguity, Freud's description of human nature indicates that man is little more than a highly intelligent animal. Furthermore, when Freud notes that man does not seem to be designed for happiness, he predicts an important claim: modern evolutionary psychology: that a capacity for prolonged contentment without the need for stimulation would not be adaptive. Humans who crave sexual activity and material wealth may never be truly satisfied, but they spread their genes. A comparison between Marx's and Freud's views on the nature of human happiness can be further illuminated by an examination of the roles society plays in each of their areas. analyses. Both philosophers describe modern society as generally harmful to human happiness, but for different reasons and with different normative conclusions. Marx sees capitalism as.