Comparison of Freud’s and Plato’s Aspects of Human Character Essay

Aspects of gentlemans gentleman character have been discussed in a number of fields inputs from the philosophical and political perspectives goat be identified by how man character is in place with respect to the edict whereas concepts from the psychological field can be notice to focus more on the private and its relationship with his environment. Such is demonstrated by Plato in his The state which can be seen to potentially contrast with Sigmund Freud in his discourse in Civilization and its Discontents. Plato had apparently came up with literature describing a executeal society according to certain controls needed in order to set up a civilization according to certain ideologies such as justice, authority, and the ideal state, among others. Freud, on one hand, tackled a world that is already in existence and presented an analysis on life and reality.From this, when it comes to their respective discussions on the human character, Platos The Republic presented how human ch aracter should be while Freud discussed what human character is through consciousnessual drives. Platos prescription for the Guardians, the social class tasked to incur the society, mentioned that their education should emphasize their love for sapience and high liquor. This characterization can be therefore compared with Freuds discussion on eros and remainder the simile can thereby give way in identifying whether their references for the jibe aspects of human character were the same or not.Platos Love of Wisdom and High SpiritsPlato proposed the formation of a social class called the Guardians who would rule the society. Given the great responsibility that is going to be vested in them, these Guardians are proposed to learn certain aspects that would progress to them an effective ruler and manager of the state. In this case, it was brought up in the discussion in The Republic that its our job, as it seems, to choose, if were able, which are the natures, and what kind they are, fit for guarding the metropolis (Book II, 374e). Hence, the discussion exited to a description of the Guardians, as follows (Book II, 376c)Then the man whos going to be a fine and good guardian of the city for us will in his nature be philosophic, spirited, swift, and strong.The context in which they discussed the trait of love of scholarship (Book II, 376b) apparently referred to the philosophical leanings of the Guardian. In admittance, possessing the love of wisdom is overly associated with having the love of learning (Book 2, 376b). It can be gathered that love in this context is based on having the nature to pursuit a ambiguous interest for knowledge thereby demonstrating how an individual can have the characteristic of an ideal ruler.In addition to the discussion on love of wisdom, possessing a high spirit or spirited is also seen as a significant characterization of a Guardian. The characters initially discussed this aspect in the context of citing carnal behavior , hence, demonstrating that the high hard liquor may initially come from the individuals courageous nature. What makes the human classifiable from the animals, as seen in the discussion, is how this ideal someone also injects a sense of gentleness in this rude(a) characteristic (Book II, 375c)Yet, they must be gentle to their own and cruel to enemies. If not, theyll not wait for others to destroy them, solely theyll do it themselves beforehand.In this case, what they are looking for in a Guardian is someone who is gentle and great-spirited (Book II, 375c) the challenge, however, as noted in the dialogues, is how these two traits oppose each other.The concept of love of wisdom and high spirits in Platos work, in the context of Guardians characters, clearly show that they are discussing human characteristics that are admirable. The twin aspects of human character, in this case, show how these two characteristics complement each other in which case, the ideal person for the function is some who is spirit and by nature, philosophical.Freuds concupiscence and DeathThe context in which Freud discussed Eros and Death in Civilization and its Discontents is how these two consciousnessive forces, albeit opposing, work together in life. As Freud discussed (66)That is to say, as well as Eros there was an instinct of death. The phenomena of life could be explained from the concurrent or reciprocally opposing action of these two instincts A more fruitful idea was that a portion of the instinct is diverted towards the external world and comes to light as an instinct of aggressiveness and destructiveness. In this way the instinct itself could be pressed into the service of Eros, in that the organism was destroying some other thing, whether animate or inanimate, sort of of destroying its own self. Conversely, any restriction of this aggressiveness directed outwards would be bound to increase the self-destruction, which is in any case proceeding.Although Freud noted that Death, which is also associated with destruction, and even Evil, may name his adversary not what is hallowed and good, but Natures power to create, to multiply lifethat is, Eros (68), he noted that Eros and Death can be alloyed with each other, thereby resulting to an integration which hides either purpose. An example Freud cited is how this is apparent in sadism in which destruction can also bring satisfaction, the very idea in itself brings a certain degree of enjoyment.Conclusion ComparisonBased on the above discussions, the contexts in which Plato and Freud discussed love for wisdom and high spirits, and Eros and Death can be regarded to be total opposites. For Plato, how these human aspects function is for the purpose of greater good the ideal nature of the individual in the form of the Guardians is meant to benefit the society which the Guardians are tasked to serve. In this case, the intent to define these traits, which is the union of philosophy and vivification, is mean t to put together an exceptional leader. In Freuds discussion, on one hand, presented a justification as to how two opposing ideas, Eros and Death, really work, and how these are in fact a reality of human nature.Plato and Freud discussed human nature in contrasting contexts for Plato, the opposing twin aspects of human nature (love of wisdom and high spirits) can be reconciled and further enhanced through education, thereby resulting to an ideal functional leader for the ideal city. Freud, on one hand, discussed how the opposing Eros and Death do exist in human nature and how this is exemplified by the presence of satisfaction in destruction the integration of Eros and Death may not result to an ideal person, but this demonstrates the humanness of the individual.Apparently, the similarity ends there the similarity can be seen in the beginning of the argument which is how opposing ideas do work together as a part of human nature. two demonstrated how internal contradictions furt her contribute to human characteristics that lead to how people eventually function. In this case, the stick in of their discussion is the same yet the intent of the discussion is different. For Plato, the marriage of love of wisdom and high spiritedness gives way to an ideal class in an ideal society whereas Freuds alloyed Eros and Death benefits the destruction more because it is in the face of Eros that Death can hide.Upon a close reading of the texts, there is also a similarity of the premise in terms of these two works Platos The Republic contains a series of discussions leading to the definition of an ideal state whereas Freuds Civilization and Its Discontents showed how the individual can be in conflict with the society. In addition, both agreed how the implementation of laws can create control in a society basically manned by individuals with baser instincts however, Plato pointed out how education can manage these instincts and how people can be formed into functional ci tizens while Freud mostly highlighted how individuals will be always governed by the pleasure principle.