Freud and Nietzsche usually

come approach to you because

both, seppur in various ways, on
ending of the 1800's unhinge
some fundamental certainties of
the western civilization: if
Nietzsche “had trasvalutato” all
the fundamental values of the
West, hour Freud destroys the
certainty of I, on which our
civilization has been constructed
and that, to second of the
historical ages, it has been
defined “I”, “Spirit”, “Spirit”, etc
And not to case the entire
modern philosophy, from the
Middle Ages until the 1800's had
made hinge on the notion of I,
from cogito cartesian to I task
kantiano to spirit hegeliano, and
such notion had been discovered,
many centuries before, from
Socrate, since, before he, the
spirit remained a something of
vanished that it was not
identified with the person, tant'è
that for Orphean it it was the
present divine part in we. And it
is just with Socrate that I comes
to identify itself with the
conscience, to such point that “I”
succeeds in to mean “that of
which I have conscience " (we
think next to res cogitans of
Cartesio) while, always the
Orphean ones, in opposite
direction to Socrate, had shown
the idea that what they defined
“demon” manifested in the
moments of minor conscience
(the sleep, the faint, etc). The
idea of the Io/coscienza
identification, emerged with
Socrate, has become one of the
pillars of the western civilization
and single in little they have had
boldness to put it in argument:
between these, it deserves of
being remembered Plotino,
which had picked, for therefore
saying, various levels of the
conscience, so that, beyond to
the ordinary level, there was also
that sovrarazionale, in a position
to reaching One neoplatonico;
from the plotiniana perspective it
emerges, seppur timidly, the idea
that the mind is not identified
with I and this idea has been
perfected resumption and, in the
1600's, from Leibniz, which
spoke express about “small
perceptions " and “virtual
innatismo”, convinced that in the
head of the man slight
knowledge existed of which
conscience is not had, nearly like
if our mind contained something
that goes to beyond the
conscience. Also Hume, in the
age of the illuminismo, taking
apart the substance concept, had
ended in order to destroy with to
it also that most particular
substance that we are: in other
words, the Scottish thinker had
asked itself if, emptied the mind
from the contents of the
conscience, she could remain
something and she had wittily
answered that I, in the end, other
was not if a bundle of
perceptions and was not
therefore reached the conclusion
that we are not other to the
infuori of the sum of our
perceptions. Same Schopenhauer
read I like the most particular
and superficial manifestation of
that unitary and deep truth that it
defined “will”; all these thinkers
counter-current, but, have not
been enough in order to prevent
that the idea was asserted always
more than unitary I, aware and
ration them and that the passions
came considered like elements
nearly strangers to our true
personality. If Schopenhauer
were itself acutely shrewed who
the true nature of the man, in
reality, is not the reason, but the
sphere the book of martyrs
(tant'è that the reason, according
to Schopenhauer, is a species of
organ that the passion is
conferred for being able itself to
realize), with Nietzsche we find
of forehead to one true and own
resumption of the humeana idea.
Even if from the concept of
“power will” it seems to be
transparent the absolute
centralità of the individual,
Nietzsche takes apart the
substance notion radically (“ the
being lacks “ Zarathustra asserts)
and its to come less also
crumbles that most particular
manifestation of it that we are (I)
and Nietzsche is left over (in
Human, too much human ) the
alarming question if it is true that
we are to think the ideas or,
rather, are the ideas that are
believed, that they go and they
come, attracted from nearly
chemical processes, without that
there is I. The great merit of
Freud resides in ricucito having
all these hard blows arranges you
to the notion of I and in having
given the formulation better than
this thought “counter-current”. I,
famous Freud, it is not that not
there is, but, simply, is a truth
infinitely more marginal than
those that has been believed
from Socrate in then . E' like if
we were all, aware or less,
cartesian, since if there are things
of which abbiam conscience it is
not like if for we not there were;
but it is not true that the mind is
identified in all and for all with
the conscience; viceversa, the
conscience is one small portion
of the mind , a shaking portion
for many backs, and same I it is
a point of contact between things
very more important. Very it
emerges, from these
considerations, as for Freud the
mind is other thing regarding I or
to the conscience. psiche it is,
instead, the mind in its complex
and in it it finds space I (than
Freud it calls also “Ego”), which
is shaped like aware part of the
psiche. And he is much onlooker
like Freud is not, properly, a
philosopher to full load tito it,
but a doctor who is interested of
psichiatria in the attempt to cure
some precise pathologies and is
equally curious like, from good
doctor of the fine 1800's, it was
convinced of it postulates you of
the materialista Positivismo and
thought that in order to explain
made psychical it had to be
resorted to material events, like
if every activity of the mind was
tied to a part of the brain. As
mature Freud its thought, but,
more and more takes the
distances from these ideas, to
such point that will think that a
day, when there are the
instruments adapted in order to
make it, it will be necessary to
characterize the material causes
of psychical pathology, but,
since at the moment not there is
availability of such instruments,
it must project own surveying
(and is that that it makes) on that
that he is indagabile, that is the
relationships between psychical
facts, neglecting those materials.
E' like if Freud, from always
considered a anti-positivista,
were in reality a “lacked
positivista ": and it begins to
practice in the earlier stage of its
activity, with to other doctors,
the technique of the ipnosi in
order to cure sure pathologies, in
the conviction that through it can
be reverted to events of the
removed past and, making them
to riemergere, can itself be
understood the origin of
determined “nevrosi” deriving
from inner conflicts; he must
himself, that is, be made to
emerge that that he is removed
for being able it therefore to
cure. And something of this
original theory will remain
always present in its thought: in
particular, Freud always will be
convinced that psychical
pathologies have origin in traumi
and unsolved psychical conflicts
and such conflicts often come
removed, that is removed from
the state of conscience and
riposti elsewhere: the
diagnosis/therapy consists in
making them to riemergere and
the diagnosis, therefore, is also
the cure of the disease. But
Freud, in the course of its
maturation, more and more
stretches to conceive those that
in origin called “traumi real” like
“traumi virtual ", that is not
effective: in rarest cases the
trauma it is only legacy to a fact
of the real life, while in the
overwhelming majority of the
cases they happen inside of the
psiche human and, in this
perspective new, Freud stretches
to reject to hour the ipnosi, since
has the function to make to
collapse the barriers. Since with
the removal sure events vengon
made to pass from the
conscience to the not-conscience,
are obvious that they cannot
emerge through a praxis ration
them (inasmuch as they are
found hidden to the reason) and
the ipnosi then servants more not
to pull down the obstacles going
around them (because he is too
much “artificial”), but it will be
aimed at the destruction of the
removal processes , inasmuch as
they have of make them, as an
example the dreams and the
lapsus, when that is a word for
an other is said (and for Freud “
the scappata” word
inavvertitamente is which in
order indeed was wanted to be
said). She must herself therefore
be attended to that that the
persons say or make to beyond
the conscience and, just as in the
event of the lapsus a word is
pronounced rather than an other,
therefore are also for the
behaviors: there are things that
we make without to become of
account as an example (, the tic)
and digging in they the truth of
the human nature picks itself.
However, that does not imply
that not all the actions that
compiamo unconsciously have
meaning: as an example, all that
that is present in the dreams does
not have unconscious meaning.
Accepted the idea not to be able
to explain and to cure the
psychical uneasiness through
practical materials, Freud
proposes itself to work on a
psychological plan and the
fundamental concept that
emerges from this new job is that
one of removal : it implies that
determined conflict situations
that, because just such, is heavy
for the conscience, comes
“removed”, without but it are
made to disappear completely;
they come that is hidden and
placed in that immensest tank of
the psiche that freud calls “ the
unconscious one ".They exist
therefore things that our psiche
stretch to consider to for this
reason avoid to conscious level
and remove them, but this
removal creates uneasiness that
manifests in psychical and
psychosomatic estrinsecazioni
(Freud above all concentrates the
own attention on the isterica
paralysis) that they gush exactly
from unsolved psychological
conflicts whom, for being able to
be it cures to you, must in some
measure be made to emerge and
from the same fact to take of
conscience, even painfully, is
born also the cure. The problem
is that, siccome the psiche have
riposto these things to level of
unconscious, are unthinkable to
tear them in coercive way to the
unconscious one; it will have to
be tried rather than to go around
the “barriers” that proteggono
the unconscious one and, for
being able to make that, are it
varies ways to you, in particular
all those situations in which the
conscience he is more tenuous
and the irrazionali aspects of the
mind are in Association of
Bologna (the lapsus, the dreams,
i tic, etc); the lettino of the
psicanalista it renders the idea
well, in how much the extended
patient on it speaks
spontaneously lowering the
barriers about the unconscious
one. Always in this optical,
Freud used a lot the mechanism
of transfert , that is the
innamoranto of the patient
towards the psicanalista: Freud
noticed, in fact, of as many its
patients finissero for innamorarsi
of he (in how much tried a sense
of necessity of its aid and, after
all, of its person) and, at first,
she thought that this unexpected
could interfere with the cure, but
then noticed like, instead, she
was of aid, since she stretches to
make to collapse the barriers of
the unconscious one and allows
to enter in the depths of the
psiche. An other system of
which Freud takes advantage
itself in order to penetrate in the
mind is that one of free
association of ideas , which
consists, essentially, in placing
the patient of forehead to an
image or a word and in inviting
it to say all that that it comes to it
in mind. But the employed more
important method and more from
the Austrian psychologist is that
one of interpretation of the
dreams (to which dedication
perhaps more famous written
its): in the dream present they are
contained removed, but the
human mind is not therefore
ingenuous to make to emerge in
the dream that that it holds
hidden during the waking and
therefore that that we see in the
dreams is not, banally, that that
has been removed; but they
emerge contained removed but in
rielaborata shape and a language
that says and hides at the same
time, in how much gives
contained but it expresses them
in enigmatic way. Therefore it
will be mistaken, famous Freud,
to say that I have dreammed to
fly and that therefore I want at
all costs to fly; the job that Freud
proposes itself to make is exactly
that one to try to decipher the
syntactic rules of the language of
the dreams, distinguishing
between meant latent (that is true
meant, hidden) and meant the
manifest one (that one appearing,
therefore like appears to us in the
dream). Already Platone had
opportunely noticed as in the
dreams often we make things
that in reality never we would
make neither think to make:
therefore, after that the patient
will have dreammed to fly, it
will be able to be said that the
manifest meant one was exactly
to fly, but that latent one was an
other; a lot often, in fact, the
dream proceeds for images and,
therefore, the contents come
expressed through symbols and
objects (animals, things, persons,
etc) of which it is not in a
position to explaining the true
one meant (that therefore it
remains “latent”). Much more
than second a mechanism of
condensation in an only object
they are it crystallizes multiple
contained and it means to you to
you. But not only: through the
mechanism of movement the
content is moved and sli on
objects that enter not there null,
for which even dreams a cat but
it does not have null to that to
see with the content. Curious E'
like Freud, left from a
therapeutic issue, is moved more
and more, in way graduates
them, towards a
sistematizzazione of its thought
and comes elaborating a general
interpretation of the psiche
human and therefore its speech is
increased, from doctor who was,
towards the anthropology. One is
born some metapsicologia , that
is a psycology that gives mere
instrument in order to resolve
problems becomes one general
theory on the man: and Freud
discovers, in this optical,
infantile sexuality , one of the
aspects that mainly scandalized
the society of the time. In
particular, it supports the
centralità of the sexuality in the
human life, putting in evidence
like the pulsioni that are to the
base of the life are sexual and as
from the sex the civilization and
many even derive other things.
And for being able to confer
such fondativo character to the
sexuality, Freud looks at itself
forced to conceive it in a more
rather wide meaning and
succeeds in to second propose
the thesis which the removal
graduates them of the sexuality
from the society is from
attributing itself to the fact that
always has been conceived in too
much narrow way in order then
to frame it in rigid rules that
attenuated it: not being able to
eliminate it, it is shrunk to the
within of the sexuality turns to
procreazione in the matrimoniale
within, sicchè are succeeded in
to morally consider unacceptable
shapes of “ various” sexuality
(like that one not time to
procreazione, that homosexual,
that extramatrimoniale one) and
for more it comes eliminated that
character of sexuality that in
reality many things have,
between which the children. The
child, in fact, has one its
sexuality and, in intentionally
provocative shape, Freud defines
it like “ to be perverso poliformo
": when one is born, a shape of
sexuality to trecentosessanta
degrees is had, a various
sexuality from as it means it and
it imposes us to mean it the
civilization of which we are
sons: the sexuality, according to
Freud, coincides with the ability
to try appeals to with the body
through functions that are not
closely physiological and,
therefore, the child tries yes
appeals to in taking the latte ones
maternal because it satisfies its
food requirement, but is also true
that try appeal to to suck the
maternal breast (and the
ciucciotto it is born from this
consideration), that it is a
sexuality shape. The child
therefore is “polimorfo” because
in he the limitation of the
sexuality sets up from the
civilization not is still and its
sexuality still is not oriented to
one single “zone erogena”; as it
grows, however, he endures the
infuence of the society and ends
in order to identify the single
sexuality with the zone erogena
genita them; and therefore,
beyond to being “polimorfo”, the
child is also “perverso” because
in he those shapes of sexualities
are all that a P2o to the time
vengon cut outside from the
society in which it lives because
it thinks to them perverse. Inside
of this is made of maturation of
the child, is a lot important the
relationship with the parents and,
above all, with the father (the
attention of Freud is always
classified, generally, to the male
sex): and it is to this point that
Freud draft of the celebre
complex of Edipo ; as its
psycology vanishes in the
anthropology, he stretches to
stravolgere (a P2o as it had made
with the myth of Atteone) meant
of myths the classics Tawny.
More in the detail, it notices in
the vicissitudes of Edipo one
mitologica transposition of the
life of the child: the mother
constitutes for the child, just like
for Edipo, the first individual
with which rapporta and to
which its sexual attention
addresses and, in this first phase,
the father conceives as opposing
and of it confrontation for the
possession of the mother is born
one; such phase, but, will be
exceeded and it will arrive itself
to the identification with the
father. The family and, above all,
the figure of the father become
for Freud the key of reading of
all: all the stages that are covered
in the increase process are
necessary, the important are not
to remain block you to a stage
(that one of the complex of
Edipo) without to even exceed it;
if it is not exceeded, the
“regression” is had and is born
uneasiness and pathologies that
the psicanalisi must resolve. The
presupposed one of the speech is
that, in absence of physiological
replies, the psychical life must
strongly be interpreted on the
base of one inner pulsione that
goes unloaded, nearly like if
existed a flow of inner energy
that until is not unloaded ago star
badly; and, according to Freud,
such inner energy is above all a
sexual pulsione, than he it calls
libido . The Austrian doctor
more and more stretches to
elaborate which same he calls
“metapsicologia” and within this
elaboration deserves of being
examines some concepts to you
centers them of its works: a first
attempt to explain the conflict
that travaglia the psiche human
resides in observing two
opposite principles between they,
than Freud it calls principle of
the pleasure and truth principle .
The man, of for himself, would
always stretch to at once satisfy
the pleasure that tries, for being
able therefore to find a shape of
inner equilibrium; and however
to this “principle of the
pleasure”, for which it would
have been induced to always
realize and however the pleasure,
the “principle of truth " , that is
the knowledge of the coming
from demands from the
surrounding atmosphere is
opposed: if, in fact, all the
pulsioni immediately were
realized, not only that would be
incompatible with the rules of
the society, but even with the
simple physical survival of the
individual, and to case everyone
of we does not stretch to repress
the principle partially of
according to appeals to the fact
that must living. According to
this freudiana interpretation, the
man alive in a perennial
ineliminabile tension for which
nobody of the two principles (of
appeals to and truth) can come
less: the pulsioni must be
scariocate but holding account of
the surrounding truth and from
that it rises, gradually, an inner
conflict, just as in the dreams
things removed from the
conscience emerged. And it is
curious to notice as this
distinction between the two
principles recalls strongly that
nietzscheana between apollineo
and dionisiaco: like for
Nietzsche, also for Freud to the
base of the man there are
irrazionali and vitalistiche
pulsioni (that is dionisiache),
than but they come reorganized
from the apollineo, that is from
the rules taxes from the society
and the rationality. In some more
mature works, Freud openly
declares of to have gone to
beyond the principle of appeals
to: account becomes that is that
in appearance the principle of
truth and that one of pleasure
only are between opposite they;
if better it analyzes to you, they
turn out indeed to be two faces
of the same medal, just like the
profit, if examined in depth, are
not in contrast with the pleasure,
but it is indeed a way in order to
realize it usefully; therefore the
truth principle other is not if a
manifestation of the principle of
does not appeal to, more just
consists in expressing the
pleasure in mediated shape. And
then Freud becomes account that
against this bipolar principle that
is the principle of it appeal to
(comprising, as we have as soon
as said, also that one of truth)
there is an other principle to
opposite it and consists in one
tendency to the autodistruction.
Hour Freud to the vital principle
(it appeal to to + truth)
contrappone that one of dead
women, under autodistruction
shape and in order to express the
conflict between these two
principles resume the binomial,
typically romantico, eroV kai
qanatoV , “love and died”:
paradoxicalally, in the man we
find a tendency vitalistica that he
expresses himself in the principle
of it appeal to (eroV)
contrapposta to that
autodistruttrice (qanatoV) and
Freud asserts that the pulsioni
must absolutely be unloaded and
that the pleasure consists exactly
in unloading them, but adds that
if a relative unloading of they
gives again the equilibrium and
coincides with the eroV,
sometimes there is one tendency
exasperated to one unloading
total of the pulsioni and the
vitalità: in that it resides
qanatoV. Where it emerges this
according to impulse that
stretches to cancel the life?
Freud discovers itself, says,
above all in the aggressiveness
towards the outside and if same
and, still more, in coazione to
repeat , that is in the tic with
strongly repetitive character: in
fact, the same fact that stretches
to repeat itself to the infinite
gives a sense of dead women,
because it implies the abolition
of the vitalistica creativity and
reduces the life to a inanimato
mechanism, nearly like if tried
nostalgia for the beings lacking
in life. Always in the within of
the metapsicologia, Freud
elaborates two celebrates
theories, said of “ before topical
“and of” second topical ": “ the
topical” term is desunto from the
Greek topoV, “place”, and Freud
employs it because she stretches
hour to read to the psiche human
like if uniform in various E
regions reigns, even if, she is
well to remember it, he has
rinunciato to the materialistica
interpretation and therefore for
“places” physical zones of the
brain do not have to be meant
literally, but more rather,
metaforicamente, zones with
various characteristics from
whose interaction derives the
human behavior. If Nietzsche
had put in doubt, resuming the
humeane theses, the compactness
of the notion of I, hour Freud
with the “topical ones” sfalda it
completely: it, in fact, suggests
the idea that not there is a
personality very defined and
equipped of varied
manifestations, but, viceversa,
proposes the hypothesis that is
“reigns” separates you of which
ours I it is only an aspect. In the
“first topical one” it
characterizes three ambles you of
the psiche: 1) “conscious” he is
that of which we have
conscience effectively; 2)
“preconscious” it is that tank to
which the conscious one it
reaches: if, as an example, I am
speaking, the things that I say
hour consciously, yesterday they
were already in my head but I
was not thinking to they and
therefore they were to level
subconscio, was enough to
lengthen the hand in order to
take them; 3) “unconscious” he
is all that that has been removed
from the conscience, so that a
solid barrier is created much that
prevents the access. In the
“second topical one”, instead,
that it is by far more famous, we
meet three various elements: a) I
(or Ego) it is the aware
personality, b) the Superego (or
Superego) is the conscience that
are overlapped to the decisions
of I, c) the Es (or Id) is not
identifiable with the personality
characterizes them, but it is with
of the irrazionali pulsioni and
just for this it comes expressed
with pronome the neutral “Es”
(“Id” in Latin). I it corresponds
to the conscious dimension, to
that in “the first topical” Freud it
had defined like “conscious” and
“subconscio”; the Es, instead,
corresponds to the unconscious
one of the “first topical one” and
is, in short, that that influences
the behavior heavy. That that but
it does not find a corrispettivo in
the “first topical one " is the
Superego, than, essentially,
which is usually identified with
defines voice of the conscience,
that sense of the duty that I
impose a behavior that it, of for,
would not adopt, just as in Kant
the duty (Superego) I impose not
to make that that I he would
want to make. The reference to
Kant is not accidental: when the
German thinker spoke about
categorical imperative, she said
express that she must be known
to recognize that that effectively
it is a coming from duty from the
inside (to even help the others),
without some motivation
eteronoma. Kant but had not
succeeded in to assume, like
instead ago Freud, than the one
which usually we consider the
voice of the conscience she has
anch'essa an origin eteronoma or,
in order to say it with Nietzsche,
human, too much human; in
other words, for Freud the voice
of the conscience is with of the
behavioural norms that the
society in which we live imposes
us to interiorize and making to
become moral duties; centuries
before, the sofista Crizia had
supported the theory second
which the religion would have
been invented from an intelligent
legislator who, resosi account
that the men behave themselves
well only if he controls to you,
created the concept of God,
policeman rising who us controls
all how much ventiquattr'ore on
ventiquattro. And also when we
reject the eventuality of a God,
famous Freud, remains however
the conscience, than in bottom,
as already Hegel had said, is an
interiorized God. The child,
therefore, is born with all the
pulsioni of the Es that would
immediately stretch to come true
themselves (for the principle of
the pleasure): then, but, the
family limits to them lively and
the first authority with which the
baby it enters in contrast is the
paternal figure, in how much it
represents an external authority
that imposes rules and that it is
placed as avails again in the
possession of the woman
(complex of Edipo); however,
this authority, originally
understanding like enemy,
stretches little little to being
interiorized to such point that the
boy ends in order to identify
itself with the father; and when
then the individual goes away
from the family in order to enter
to make part of the society,
imbatte in new authorities, so
that the laws come respected
because the punishment is afraid
that derives transgressing them
and, above all, because they have
been interiorized like values,
forgets that is that they are
human rules and they are
conceived as absolute values
dictates from the voice of the
conscience (the “duty to you”
about which Kant spoke). In this
perspective, the Superego
corresponds a P2o to the truth
principle, in how much other is
not if not with of the rules taxes
from the outside that come
interiorized and become a part of
we. After to have said that the Es
constitutes with of the pulsioni
that are to the base of the man
and that the Superego is the so-
called voice of the conscience,
does not remain that to ask itself
in that what consists I: to it
Freud reserves an unfortunate
destiny somewhat, since
constitutes one risen of land of
border between the Es and the
Superego. To such purpose,
Freud explicitly cites commedia
“the servitore Harlequin of two
masters ", where Harlequin is I
and the two padrono they are,
respective, the Es and the
Superego. The Io/Arlecchino is
held to satisfy our essence
pulsionale and, at the same time,
to answer to the laws dictated
from the Superego, and that that
prescribes the Superego is in
clearly contrast with prescribed
how much from the Es,
inasmuch as the first one
stretches to ingabbiare the sexual
pulsioni of the second, and, in
this optical, the dressed one to
pezze ritagliate of Harlequin
symbolizes the fact that I is torn
from this conflict. In the last
phase of its thought, Freud
extends its speech to analysis of
the human civilization and its
costs : the Superego, he notices,
has to that to make with the costs
of the society, in how much
placa the impulses without to
leave them to emerge in surface;
under this profile, the notion
assumes an always greater
importance of subliming . Freud
renunciation never and then
never to the centralità of the
pulsioni inside of the human life
and ago not to notice as the
civilization always has been an
attempt to govern them, an
attempt that has come true
second two different modality:
on one side, it reduces to spaces
and ways it limits the sexual
expression to you of the libido,
but then all the libido that they
are not oriented in sexual sense
do not disappear, but they come
rather “sublimate”, that is
reindirizzate to other scopes
created to you, like if they
evaporated in order then to
ricondensarsi in an other way.
And it is therefore, like
subliming of the sexual pulsioni,
that the culture, the art and the
job are been born in our
civilization; after that, Freud,
resuming and extending the
concept of the edipico complex,
it outlines the origin of i totem
and it gives an interpretation of
the eucarestia Christian: the
primitive societies are
constructed on the base of an
original patricide with which the
father eliminates itself but, after
to have completed such brutal
gesture, test regret and,
therefore, the paternal figure
comes divinizzata through the
totem or, in the Christian world,
with the eucarestia. Made these
considerations on the religiosità
of the various civilizations,
Freud explicitly succeeds in to
assert that the religion does not
have future and that it will have
to get exausted itself: much
meaningful one, to such purpose,
is the title it of one written of
1927, The future of an illusion .
In The uneasiness of the
civilization (1930) Freud asserts
instead that the civilization is a
badly unavoidable one: it is an
evil, because it represses and it
turns aside the impulses libidici
and, just for this reason, the
entire society can be considered
sick, even if of one generic
disease: seppur not there is
suffering, reigns ciononostante
the uneasiness for the fact that
the pulsioni come repressively
suffocated but the same one is
continued to feel the need of the
civilization. This idea of a
society to uneasiness for a
apollineo excess recalls the
thought of Nietzsche strongly,
even if for the prophet of the
Superman this uneasiness is
dismissable in the moment in
which it is reached the active
nichilismo; for Freud, instead, us
it cannot under no circumstances
be freed from the Superego and
of it mesta perspective of
acceptance of a badly necessary
one is born one. In spite of these
considerations, Freud is not
therefore pessimist like can
seem, in how much, although
refusals the possibility admitted
from Nietzsche of schizzare via
from the society, she does not
refuse that second one which it is
possible to improve the society
and she is for that she notices in
the socialist movement not a way
in order to realize the paradise in
earth, but in order to reduce the
uneasiness that oppresses our
society; perhaps once again,
Freud , in the conviction that the
society can recover little to the
time through the adapted
medicine assumption, reveals of
being more doctor who
philosopher.