Both Freud and Nietzsche not only analyse the state of guilt today, but also start by examining the origins of guilt. When examining the origins of guilt, their accounts are very similar, and revolve around key ideas such as pleasure, power, and aggression. It is not until the two give their thoughts on the present-day nature of guilt and it’s long-term prospects, that their thoughts on Guilt start to take two different and unique stances.
Nietzsche looks further back than the current mindset, where,“the criminal deserves to be punished because he could have acted otherwise”("Genealogy", P.40). According to Nietzsche,“Throughout most of human history, punishment has not been meted out because the miscreant was held responsible for his act”("Genealogy", …show more content…
If a debt is not paid, the creditor can torture the debtor, inflicting all sorts of harm on the person. In this strange exchange, the creditor will not take anything from the debtor in an effort to recoup losses, but will instead consider their “right to exercise power over the powerless without a thought”(“Genealogy”, P.41), proper amends. Freud’s theory on the origins of guilt also acknowledge that we were not originally able to judge good and bad, and that our concept of guilt evolved over time. Freud’s theory starts at the fear of loss of love, and the loss of protection. Freud’s first theory uses an example of a child who fears the loss of it’s parent’s love and protection. While Nietzsche focuses more on pleasure than Freud when explaining the origins of guilt, Freud's overall views of the pleasure seeking nature of man and the inclination to aggression are reflected in both accounts. In addition, both Nietzsche and Freud acknowledge that the superior …show more content…
Freud declares, “an absence of pain and unpleasure, and on the other, the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure”(“Civ.Discontent”, P. 429), to be the two main purposes for life. Back to Nietzsche, the “extraordinary counter-pleasure” provided by making the debtor suffer in Nietzsche's illustration is all that the creditor needs to call it even. Nietzsche explicitly states, “to make someone suffer is pleasure in it’s highest form”(“Genealogy”, P.42). While Freud does not focus on pleasure as much when he outlines the origins of guilt, the loss of love and protection that one wishes to avoid can be directly related to the absence of pain and unpleasure that men strive for in life. In addition, when using a child and their parents as an example, the closest substitute a child can get to pleasure is the love of their parents, and so there is still a relation to the desire for pleasure in Freud’s example. When attempting to explain why one get’s so much pleasure out of making another suffer, Nietzsche reflects on the,“degree to which cruelty is a part of the festive joy of the
Nietzsche looks further back than the current mindset, where,“the criminal deserves to be punished because he could have acted otherwise”("Genealogy", P.40). According to Nietzsche,“Throughout most of human history, punishment has not been meted out because the miscreant was held responsible for his act”("Genealogy", …show more content…
If a debt is not paid, the creditor can torture the debtor, inflicting all sorts of harm on the person. In this strange exchange, the creditor will not take anything from the debtor in an effort to recoup losses, but will instead consider their “right to exercise power over the powerless without a thought”(“Genealogy”, P.41), proper amends. Freud’s theory on the origins of guilt also acknowledge that we were not originally able to judge good and bad, and that our concept of guilt evolved over time. Freud’s theory starts at the fear of loss of love, and the loss of protection. Freud’s first theory uses an example of a child who fears the loss of it’s parent’s love and protection. While Nietzsche focuses more on pleasure than Freud when explaining the origins of guilt, Freud's overall views of the pleasure seeking nature of man and the inclination to aggression are reflected in both accounts. In addition, both Nietzsche and Freud acknowledge that the superior …show more content…
Freud declares, “an absence of pain and unpleasure, and on the other, the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure”(“Civ.Discontent”, P. 429), to be the two main purposes for life. Back to Nietzsche, the “extraordinary counter-pleasure” provided by making the debtor suffer in Nietzsche's illustration is all that the creditor needs to call it even. Nietzsche explicitly states, “to make someone suffer is pleasure in it’s highest form”(“Genealogy”, P.42). While Freud does not focus on pleasure as much when he outlines the origins of guilt, the loss of love and protection that one wishes to avoid can be directly related to the absence of pain and unpleasure that men strive for in life. In addition, when using a child and their parents as an example, the closest substitute a child can get to pleasure is the love of their parents, and so there is still a relation to the desire for pleasure in Freud’s example. When attempting to explain why one get’s so much pleasure out of making another suffer, Nietzsche reflects on the,“degree to which cruelty is a part of the festive joy of the