At the root of the differences between Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud regarding the nature of human happiness are their almost diametrically opposed models of human nature. Freud describes human nature in terms of universal and instinctive drives, the satisfaction of which constitutes happiness in its most elementary form; Marx believes that humans are the only creatures capable of expressing themselves through work and postulates that this distinctively human self-expression is fundamental to true human happiness. At their most fundamental level, Freud and Marx can be separated by a single assumption: the idea that human beings are essentially different from animals. Marx embraces this, appearing to appreciate the idea of ​​human exceptionalism and rejecting animalistic pleasures as a means of happiness for man; Freud, with the influence of Charles Darwin weighing heavily on his thinking, refrains from making such a distinction, instead understanding man as simply another product of natural selection. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayFreud explains human nature through a universal system of unconscious drives, which force humans to engage in activities such as reproducing, eating, and committing aggressive acts. These drives – which presumably derive from the Darwinian process of natural selection, and therefore have (or have had, in the evolutionary environment) some adaptive value for the purposes of survival and procreation – are common to all human beings, regardless of the environment external. Marx's concept of human nature is more ambiguous. Unlike Freud, Marx does not consider instincts such as aggression to be intrinsic human qualities; rather, it explains violence and greed as byproducts of a flawed social and political system. According to Marx's theory, the defining characteristic of man is his consciousness, both on an individual and social level. At the individual level, man's consciousness manifests itself in his ability to change nature through some form of work and to express himself in the product of that work. Although animals are also capable of changing nature, often in seemingly beautiful and expressive ways, Marx separates the human activity of labor from the actions of animals by defining labor as a conscious rather than instinctive act. Because the product of human labor arises from the individual's thoughts, it is an "objectification" - the expression or transformation into an object - of the worker's self: a spider performs operations that resemble those of a weaver and a bee he shames many architects in the construction of his cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in the imagination before erecting it in reality. At the end of each work process we obtain a result that already existed in the worker's imagination at its beginning. According to this theory of human nature, self-realization through free and productive work is the essence of individual human happiness. Note that Marx consistently places the highest value on the unique activities and behaviors of human beings; any pleasurable activity that an animal is capable of experiencing cannot bring humans true happiness. In a description of the effects on the worker of alienation of labor (i.e. forced labor whose product is not an expression of the worker himself), Marx describes simple pleasurable activities as subhuman: Consequently, man (the worker) does not he feels more freely active in none of his animal functions, eating, drinking, procreating, at most in housing, dressing, etc.; Andin his human functions he no longer feels like anything other than an animal... Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc. are also genuinely human functions. But in the abstraction that separates them from the sphere of all other human activities and transforms them into unique and ultimate ends, they are animals. Marx's fundamental model of human nature and happiness, therefore, is intrinsically incompatible with Freud's. While Marx insists that humans can achieve satisfaction only by striving to express themselves in ways that distance them as much as possible from animals, Freud considers human happiness to be nothing more than the fulfillment of animalistic desires and the avoidance of pain. impulses, human happiness in Freud's model is difficult to maintain. His description of the pleasure principle suggests an addiction to substances: One feels led to say that the intention for man to be "happy" is not included in the plan of "Creation". What we call happiness in the strict sense derives from the satisfaction (preferably sudden) of largely repressed needs, and is by its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon. When a situation desired by the pleasure principle is prolonged, it produces only a feeling of mild satisfaction. Freud's use of "scare quotes" around the word "Creation" suggests that he believes that human desire and satisfaction mechanisms are a natural product of nature. selection, transmitted to the human species from a primate ancestor, and finally from a much simpler organism. Indeed, the influence of Darwin's On the Origin of Species is felt throughout the book, as Freud describes human behavior without the exceptionalism displayed by Marx and other writers. Indeed, one of the only essential differences that Freud describes between man and animal is that the latter lacks the "...struggle between Eros and Death, between the instincts of life and the instincts of destruction." He offers no explanation for what he perceives as the lack of death drive in animals. However, it is worth noting that contemporary research in evolutionary psychology, if available to Freud, may have allowed him to better understand the Darwinian logic behind these drives, possibly guiding him towards the conclusion that human beings are driven by instincts not unlike those those experienced by an animal. For example, what Freud understands as the “death drive” – a self-destructive instinct that, in Darwinian terms, seems unlikely to be adaptive – may actually be a misunderstanding of the aggressive instincts that compel humans to seek status. However, even considering this slight ambiguity, Freud's portrait of human nature indicates the belief that man is little more than a highly intelligent animal. Furthermore, when Freud notes that man does not appear to be designed for happiness, he predicts an important claim of modern evolutionary psychology: that a capacity for prolonged contentment without the need for stimulation would not be adaptive. Humans who crave sexual activity and material wealth may never be truly satisfied, but they propagate their genes. A comparison of Marx's and Freud's views on the nature of human happiness can be further illuminated by an examination of the roles that society plays in each. analyses. Both philosophers describe modern society as generally harmful to human happiness, but for different reasons and with different normative conclusions. Marx sees capitalism as destructive to workers. His complaints about the capitalist system are myriad, but on the topic at hand, his main complaints concern the alienation of labor (where workers, exchanging their labor for wages at the.