Augustine’s City of God and Hegel’s Philosophy of History define history in terms of values such as Augustine’s peace and Hegel’s freedom and view progress as humanities movement towards these ideals.  Both philosophers are examples of traditional thought not because of their place in time, such as in the case of Hegel who is traditional although he is relatively recent compared to Augustine; rather, both writers are examples of traditional thought by the way in which they conceive of history as defined in terms of human progress. Although each of their writings is distinct in their context and in their aims, these writers share the common assumption of history as a means of moving forward or onward from present conditions –injustice, chaos, and oppression- toward a higher ideal state of perfection.   The traditional idea of progress conveyed in their writing not only defines the ideal but also prescribes the path to that ideal: forward does not exist if the direction and destination of forward is unknown.  The traditional idea of progress also implies a linear progression:  the concept of forward does not exist in cyclic circles just as it does not exist in static points.

 The modern writer’s we have read throughout this semester are in part characterized as “modern” by the way in which the writer reinterprets the nature of human activity in history to break free from the traditional nature of “human progress.”  Modern writer’s Freud, in Civilization and its Discontents and Marx in his “Alienation of Labor,” reevaluate the assumptions behind the idea of “progress” as rational and value based to come to alternative yet complimentary conclusions.  Freud concludes that the idea of human progress is an illusion of history as rational, whereas the psychoanalytical interpretation of history is based on identifying the innate irrational aggressive tendencies behind human action.  Marx concludes that the idea of human progress contradicts the static relationship between humanity and the material world, and instead views history as humanities adaptation to changes in the material world. Ironically, the modern writer’s Freud and Marx are progressive because of the way in which both view the values of justice, peace, love, and freedom behind traditional conceptions of human “progress” as psychologically and materially oppressive.   The solution both writers offer supplants traditional human “progress” that runs contrary to innate primordial urges and material environmental changes in favor of a definition of “progress” that exists in accordance with human and material conditions. 

Freud’s analysis regarding the extent that a conception of idealized rational progress imposes demands counterproductive to individual happiness begins with the identification of the death instinct and the love instinct.  Both primordial instincts are based on universal impulses of “refined manifestations of human aggressiveness.” (pg. 70)  and the need to pursue, “the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure.” (pg. 25)  In direct opposition to the innate primordial instincts, civilization imposes social rules and boundaries that are meant to inhibit the extent of the primal impulses.     Freud views civilization’s “progress” as the development of these social rules and boundaries for the purpose of  “exploitation of the earth by man and in his protection against the forces of nature.” (pg. 45)  which in turn, “enables men to use space and time to the best advantage, while conserving their psychical forces.”((pg.46) Unlike civilization’s material and technological progress which once erected is maintained in reality and can be improved upon by the following generation, the primordial urges and instincts that exist within man and woman reoccur every generation, never to be completely transcended.   Sublimation of civilization and the taming of instincts must reoccur with every generation along side a faster and more progressive civilization with ever more increasing demands on the individual.  One result of the conflict between man and woman’s unchanging primal urges and progressing demands is a “severely impaired,”(pg. 61) restriction of the extent of personal happiness and of “sexual genital love” (pg. 56).  Furthermore, along with a general sexual impairment and restriction of happiness in all individuals within a society neurosis is likely to occur within a small minority of people who cannot tolerate societies inhibitions. (pg.64) As civilization progresses with ever increasing demands and ideals imposed on the individual, the more likely it is for neurosis to occur within individuals who cannot adjust eternal primal instincts to meet civilizations ever changing demands.   Freud ends his work with the impression that civilization’s linear progress exists in opposition to man’s psychological cyclical nature of birth and death; self-preservation and sexual selection; primordial instincts and civilized sublimation.

 While Freud analyzes the psychological contradictions of “progress” between man and civilization, Marx analyzes the material contradictions of “progress” between civilization and man.  “The more civilized the object, the more barbaric the worker.”(pg. 135).  By separating the material change of the objective world from that of the subjective human worker, Marx emphasis Freud’s separation of progress in civilization in contradiction with the stagnant human condition.  “That man’s physical and spiritual life is tied to nature means no more than that nature is tied to itself, for man is part of nature.”(pg. 135)  Harmony between man and the material world exists only within the original relation between man and nature.  Only through nature is man able to fully “affirm himself”(pg. 136) and experience “Life itself…as a means to life”(pg. 136) and reap the full benefits of a productive life.  Civilization and progress brings about the division of labor, private property, and the introduction of capital to create efficiency, to improve productivity and to accumulate wealth.  However improved and more efficient civilization may be, the effect of civilization and progress on the individual worker is a world of “alien, hostile, powerful objects independent of him.” (p.142) Marx creates the impression that material civilization is becoming ever greater and ever more powerful while humanity remains comprised of “powerless”(136) individuals. 

Freud and Marx’s conception of progress in civilization is thought of in terms of power and control over the material world, such as Freud’s characterization of the extent that modern man can exploit the natural world and Marx’s critique of capitalist efficiency, which is in conflict with the extent of individual human progress.  Both Freud and Marx’s conception of modern progress as being in conflict with the individual differ from the traditional conception of progress.  Works such as Augustine’s City of God and Hegel’s dialectic Philosophy of History characterizes the traditional conception of human progress and civilization.  “The only thought which Philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of History, is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is the Sovereign of the World; that the history of the world therefore, presents us with a rational process,” Hegel begins his work by affirming the rational process of reason as dictating the direction and the end, in Hegel’s instance the end is of universal freedom in accordance with the state and universal will.  Although Hegel is a more recent philosopher, his philosophy is particularly traditional in the way that Hegel’s future is defined in terms of actions that have occurred in the past.  Freud and Marx’s modern conceptions of the future rely on present relationships with other humans and the material world.

Although Augustine precedes Hegel and the enlightenment by centuries, his writings are an example of the traditional assumption of progress following along the lines of human reason.  Augustine, creates a consistent rational conception of human progress whose aim is rational with an end similar to Hegel’s, “The glorious city of God is my theme in this work…. expecting until  “righteousness shall return unto judgment," and it obtain, by virtue of its excellence, final victory and perfect peace.” The traditional conception of progress views human progress as being fulfilled through civilization’s progress.  The end goal of civilization is a state of peace, justice, and love which in turn is viewed as the end goal of the human individual.  The Hegelian aspects of Augustine’s writings can be interpreted by the teleological approach toward history and by the way in which individual action and individual development are interconnected with the overall development of civilization and history.

Although both Hegel and Augustine’s traditional interpretation of progress appears noble and beneficial, Marx’s materialist conception of history and Freud’s psychoanalytical critique of morals doubt the extent to which the traditional conception of history is true or even ideal.   Both Marx and Freud view the thoughts conveyed by Augustine’s and Hegel’s traditional conception of history and moral end as aggravating the extent to which civilization inhibits and restricts the nature of true happiness experienced by the individual.  In terms of ideals and high demands, Freud views traditional values the most progressive and most inhibiting form of civilization.  Based on the values of universal love and sexual restraint, Christianity in particular is viewed by Freud as being, “so strongly counter to the original nature of man.”(pg.70).  Freud views humanity as being comprised of “creatures among whose instinctual endowment is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness.” (pg. 68)  The effect of Christianity and its imposed values such as “love thy neighbor as thyself.”  (pg. 109) is a neurotic illusion of progress from humanities aggressive tendencies.  

Marx’s material objection against religion in general is consistent with Freud’s argument regarding the illusory nature of Christianity in particular.  Marx views religion as a means for civilization to take away from the worker the full benefits of the material world, “It [labor] belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.”  (pg. 137)  Furthermore, Marx’s conception of history as being comprised of man’s relationship with the material world through the methods of production contradicts the abstract and immaterial nature of religion:  “And what a contradiction it would be if the more man subjugated nature through his labor and the more the miracles of the gods, were rendered superfluous by the marvels of industry, the more man were to renounce his joy in production and the enjoyment of the product in favor of these powers.”(pg. 141)  Marx views civilizations mastery over the natural world through capitalist production as leading to the general alienation of humanity from each other and the natural world.  His materialist conception of progress within civilization is far from the idealistic Hegelian dialectic of history that envisions man progressing towards freedom.  Moreover, Marx finds it ironic that the further man progresses through more efficient means of production the more humanity is enslaved to those methods production and the more prominent religion becomes.  The impression Marx creates is that the values and the beliefs of religion, which promote a sense of abstract expectations, such as happiness and redemption in the afterlife, are what facilitate humanities material exploitation.

The question is not whether progress exists; rather, the question, more specifically, is whether human progress exists.  In the end of his work Freud concludes, “I have endeavored to guard myself against the enthusiastic prejudice which holds that our civilization is the most precious thing that we posses or could acquire and that its path will necessarily lead to heights of unimagined perfection.” (pg. 111)  While Freud doubts the extent of human progress within civilization, Marx is much more radical in his recommendation promoting “the forcible overthrow of all existing social condition,” and the uprooting of civilization.    Marx and Freud’s modernist interpretation of progress undoubtedly leads to the conclusion of the inadequacy of civilization in providing for the development of human progress because both interpret progress in material terms as opposed to human terms.  By Freud and Marx’s material definition of civilization, the objective world is moving forward while humanity is either stuck in a stationary original nature, as conveyed by Marx’s man in harmony with nature, or a cyclical nature, such as Freud’s revolving primal instincts.  Neither writer is able to resolve the contradiction between progress within civilization that has moved away from nature and the lack of progress within humanity that remains with nature. 

If the development of human thought is anything like the development of the individual then Marx and Freud’s philosophy represents the adolescence of human history that is confronting the shock of the disillusionment in the traditional ideals of early childhood.  However, just as adolescence is the first step and only the first step towards greater maturity, so are Marx and Freud’s skepticism only the first step in creating a conception of the world that not only accepts reality and all its irrationalities but also allows room for the development of meaningful human relationships, harmony within civilization, and the human progress our traditional forefathers envisioned.

Show (0) - Add comments: