Nietzsche’s genealogy of morality and Freud’s concept of unconsciousness offer distinct explanations for the forces that affect behavior. The relationship in their explanations perhaps lies in the fact that both of them attribute the behavioral factors in human beings to influences. However, the point of departure between the two begins with the nuanced association of the causes of the behavioral influences. While Nietzsche would have us believe that behavioral influences are a factor of social constructs of what is bad and evil, Freud on the other hand, would have us believe that behavior are a factor of internal influences that emanate from the inner desires. The latter is what Freud characterizes as the unconsciousness. In brief, the two theorists attempt to offer explanations of human behavior from different perspectives. It is imperative to appreciate their critical approaches. With Nietzsche, it becomes apparent that human beings are heavily hypocritical and would take any chance at pretending. In addition, Nietzsche brings out the illusion in human conceptions that is only intended for self-aggrandizement purposes. On the other hand, Freud gives the human behavior a deterministic approach. In that context, Freud eliminates the concept of free will. He argues convincingly that an occurrence is an effect of the cause and that ideally, man often has conceived something before it does happen. This is what he refers to as the unconscious. It other words, he describes the unconscious as the repressed and says it influences human behavior during the return of the repressed. In addition, it is noteworthy to capture Freud’s departure with Breuer in what comes out to be Freud’s obsession with the sexual influence over human activity. Apparently, while Breuer thought otherwise, Freud insisted that human influences were the subject of the sexual arousal and influences. However, the departure is appreciated for its marks the point of psychoanalysis for Freud. It is the fruits of the psychoanalysis that informs part of the content of this discourse.
Nietzsche uses the treatises approach in explaining the good and bad. Indeed, his central argument is that what is good and what is bad is mainly a consequence of the human construct. In other words, Nietzsche postulates what in recent literature is popular referred to as relativism. This is because good and bad in essence depend on one’s conception. In fact the explanation Nietzsche offers for the existence of gods is sufficiently illustrative. He observes that tribes pay homage to their ancestors for the good they experience. The homage payment is given a direct proportionality. In essence, what Nietzsche postulates is that the higher the good returns a tribe receives, the more they feel obligated to pay homage and the larger the amount of the said homage. In extreme, this translates the ancestors into a tiny god and subsequently raises the stature of the said god. An extrapolation of this argument suggests Nietzsche’s contempt for religion. He actually stops short at rejecting the notion of religion. He observes that priests are corn artists who do not necessarily provide their flock with the relief from suffering that the latter often pursue. On the contrary, he sees priests as part of the aristocrats bent at exploiting the weakness of the poor.
However, Nietzsche’s take on the meek is what may come as a surprise. First, he contemptuously notes the ignorance of us. He says that we do not have the knowledge of our persons and that as such, we do not necessarily have the ability to comprehend each other. He then employs the example of the meek to show the apparent ignorance. Nietzsche notes that meek people live in self-delusion. He slightly rejects the biblical conception from which the meek derive their misconception. This is to the extent that the meek are ideally blessed and that they will win everlasting life. It is this, according to Nietzsche that is responsible for the triumph of the mighty over the meek. In false belief, the meek surrender to the mighty. Within that strain, Nietzsche offers an explanation in support of the strong. He refers to them as the blond beast. For him, the lion has internal and inherent strength that it employs to have its way. This mirrors what the strong in society actually do. In other words, societal constructs of good and evil depends on what is politically correct for the strong. In explaining that further, Nietzsche gives the example of the aristocrat morality versus the slave morality. While the former is merely temporary and intended to serve the immediate purposes, the latter is permanent and may serve to enslave the meek. Nietzsche appears to suggest that it is the apparent ignorance of persons that facilitate such differences to survive in society. In the end the same is ingrained into the conscious and affects the overall behavior of persons. In fact, he believes this soon becomes part of conscious. It determines one’s reasoning and depending on where one belongs (read aristocrats or slaves) one’s behavior is informed.
Freud, on the other hand, appears less controversial in explaining the forces affecting human behavior. According to Freud, everything is deterministic. This displaces free will conceptions. In fact, Freud offers the three limbs of personality. He cites the id, the ego and the superego. The id determines the basic needs and feelings and is in fact in charge of the pleasure principle. The id in that sense influences one to pursue pleasure and meet the desires of the body. The ego, on the other hand, is the realistic determinant. It reminds the person of the need to observe the realities of life. In that vein, the ego reminds one’s mind of the need to compromise. It looks at what in other quarters is called the bigger picture. That is, it is in the interest of this and this to do this. Lastly, is the superego; accordingly, the superego reminds the mind of the need to live a perfect life. It is the one closest to morality. It prefers the observation of morality standards and conceptions. According to Freud, the three limbs combine to determine one’s behavior. Freud, by offering such an explanation seeks to disabuse persons from the thought of free will. He attempts to impart on the people the fact that the human mind comprehends every single thing before taking action. It can be deducted from the explanation thereof that the id, the ego and the superego may at times be in conflict. The mind has to settle on concept and act in observance of the same.
With the foregoing, it is possible to draw the parallels and the similarity. Foremost, the point of nexus ought to be pointed out. Both theorists believe human behavior is a function of influences. In addition, both theorists seek to disabuse us of some common notions. First, Nietzsche assumes a critical approach to morality. He seeks to disabuse us of the conventional conception of morality. He postulates on the relativism of morality and the apparent double standards. He assumes a critical approach of religious leaders and the aristocrats. He also takes the opportunity to lambast the meek who he believes live in self-delusion. On the hand, Freud disabuses us of the concept of free will. In his explanations, he sets it clearly that the mind conceives ideas. Perhaps what he does not set out is the fact that the mind’s activities could be consciously or unconsciously and that it’s the latter part that is mistaken to be based of free will.
However, the parallels in the two are substantive. While Nietzsche relates the behavioral influences as being external, Freud, on the other hand, attributes the influences to internal influences. Nietzsche’s main argument is that the influences are social constructs of what is good and bad. In fact, he offers explanations that such conceptions are relative and depending on one’s perception, what could have been considered bad is actually good. The explanation discussed in this paper of the emergence of the gods is illustrative in this case. On the other hand, Freud’s main argument is that the unconscious part of the mind is in-charge of the behavioral dynamics. In fact, he offers the three limbs of personality in explaining the internal nature of the issues. The limitation in the assertions by Nietzsche and Freud is the missing linkage of what is already appreciated in the same area. This tends to suggest that their theories emanate from a vacuum. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Works Cited
Freud, Sigmund. The Unconscious. New York: Penguin Books Limited, 2006.
Owen, David. Nietzsche's Genealogy of morality. New York: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2007.
