Civilization and Die Weltanshauung

Three Points:

1) Weltanschauung offers a solution to all problems in existences by way of a comprehensive hypothesis and construction. That way, everything finds a place.

2) Religion is a negative influence on civilization, as it inhibits thought and exerts power over human emotions. Furthermore, religion is dismissed by Freud as outdated and ignorant.

3) Civilization progresses due to economic situations, and is comparable to an organic process. Evolution of civilization is brought on by the struggle for life of humans.

Two questions:

-Freud is highly opposed to both religion and destruction, believing that both inhibit thought and progress of civilization. Would civilization be best off without both of these things?

-Freud mentions that art and philosophy cannot be enemies to civilization. I think this point is controvertible. Can art and philosophy pose threats to society?

One observation:

Towards the end of his piece, Freud discusses the struggles that humankind is faced with. These struggles eventually aid in the progression of society. Freud writes of the struggle between life and destruction, and makes note of man’s natural tendency to be aggressive. Having written this either towards the end or directly following World War I, it seems that Freud must have been influenced by the extreme power of man’s aggression. He further explains that it is this aggression in men (which is expressed in war) opposes the development of civilization. He lived through a period of significant and powerful destruction in Europe, which led him to bring these points up.

3 thoughts on “Civilization and Die Weltanshauung

  1. I believe that art and philosophy can be enemies of an ideology of a movement, but a legitimate threat to an entire civilization I am not too sure.

  2. I think that it would be difficult to explicitly state if society would be better without religion and destruction. The two are so ingrained into modern human history, it would be impossible to determine what aspects of society would change from the absence of them, and what would not. For example, human morality.

  3. I do believe that art and philosophy cannot be enemies to civilization because each represents some sort of progress. Even if that progress is reactionary, it still moves mankind forward in the grand scheme of things.

Comments are closed.