“We may insist, as much as we like that the human intellect is weak in comparison with human instincts, and be right in doing so. But nevertheless there is something peculiar about this weakness. The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing. Ultimately, after endlessly repeated rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points in which one may be optimistic about the future of mankind, but in itself it signifies not a little. And one can make it a starting-point for yet other hopes. The primacy of the intellect certainly lies in the far, far, but still probably not infinite, distance.” (Freud, 92, 1928)
In this passage Freud states clearly states that the human intellect does not have as much force behind it as human instincts, emotion and instincts come from a “heart” while facts, lacking passion, are all that finance the intellect. The power in the intellect is, however, in its ability to continue deeper, into a vast abyss of the unknown and undiscovered. Freud believed this abyss not to be infinite, due to the ability to have an answer for everything. While none has achieved this, but were they to, there would be no more answers beyond that, creating an end for all answers. However, this does not mean that intellect is absolute, due to the manner in which knowledge is flawed there is still room for instincts, even in Freud’s eyes.
The topic of emotion as opposed to intellect, feeling vs. fact, is often a heavy and heated topic. There are those whose lives center around the following of instincts to the extreme, such as Hindu sadhus in India and other spiritual seekers across the seven continents. There are also those who follow their intellects to the maximum, without using and having any interest in emotion, seemingly more common in academic circles than the former.
Being a nihilist one would think Nietzsche’s ideas on the concepts of emotion are fairly disheartening, to any believer in the importance of emotion. His perceptions of the intellect are at times surprising and immensely interesting. In a passage from What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals, the third essay in On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche comments on the intellect from a very different and unusual angle, for a nihilist. He begins the segment by influencing against “pure reason”, “absolute spirituality”, and “knowledge itself”. He urges toward understanding and contemplating a diversity of ideas, in order to gain a greater understanding as a collective. A little further along in a passage he declares,
“There is only a perspective of seeing, only a perspective “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing, our “objective”, be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this –what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?—” (Nietzsche, 119)
Nihilism as a doctrine deems traditional values and ideals as unsubstantiated, and survival or existence as futile and useless. This is a very interesting vantage point. Throughout the writing of Nietzsche the necessity to take others’ ideas and opinions into account is underlined. In this section we’re told that without the ideas of the other ours cannot possibly be so strong. In affect, if we do not take those who disagree into account we may very well “castrate” our intelligence, our intellect. Nietzsche insists that we not take any one opinion as superlative, whether it is abundantly positive or negative, yet to browse and discuss in order to understand an issue more fully. The style of philosophy of which Nietzsche partakes in is which views perspective as a tool for infinite understanding. Similar to those who believe in Karma, Freidrich Nietzsche’s beliefs center on each particular situation’s perspective and which side of the situation or problem you are on, though he does not comment on Karma in any of his works.
Darwin, in The Origin of Species, brings the importance of several vantage points rather than a supreme emotion or intellect into light. He pronounces the human intellect as “inappreciable”, microscopic or negligible. The intent behind Darwin’s statement on this matter is that humans are well, just as the cliché goes, “only human”. Yes, that statement refers to both intellect as well as emotion. Human lives, and their understandings, are imperfect. Darwin is an expert on the varied species as a growing, changing, mechanism. His expertise noticed in The Voyage of the Beagle that the intellect became far keener when his subject back passionately excited about something, both passion and excitement being emotionally charged. Thus the argument for either intellectually based or emotionally based supremacy is at fault.
When the question is what do I think of the Oedipus complex, of course one searches within their intellect for a greater understanding of the concept. When an old companion sends a letter, upon its reception ones heart, and more emotional side are contacted. However, what happens when and issue is not solely in the court of your heart or intellect? Unfortunately there is no supreme answer of which to follow, just as there is no supreme answer as which is more accurate, the heart or mind. Just as Nietzsche suggests, as mankind ventures deeper into the 21st century, we must attempt to see situations with our heart and minds, together. Whether the topic is politics, compassion, or hatred, as people we will have a obligation and ability to call on and utilize both heart and mind into use.
Bibliography and Works Cited
Darwin, Charles. Darwin. Ed. Philip Appleman. Indiana University: W. W. Norton, 2001.
Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion. Trans. W. D. Robson-Scott. New York: H. Liveright, 1928.
Nietzsche, Freidrich. On the Genealogy of Morals abd Ecce Homo. Ed. Walter Kauffman. Trans. RJ Hollingdale, and Walter Kauffman. New York: Random House, 1967.
http://marrium-webster.com/
http://marrium-webster.com/
