Nietzsche and Freud on the "Oceanic Feeling"

Extract

[...] The human being must reach for more than an end to his suffering, Nietzsche says, he must face his pain, tear it apart with his critique and through his struggle with his suffering, create his 6 own heroic life. Freud admits, at the end of his book, “I bow to their reproach that I can offer them no consolation” (92). I would wrong to say that Nietzsche conversely can offer consolation; he would actually most likely sneer at such an insinuation, at the word “consolation” itself even. [...]

[...] Just as Nietzsche seeks that companionship in his educator (Schopenhauer), so do all people need society. The other two examples of constitutional dangers in Individual Suffering that Nietzsche names are that of one's understanding of “Truth”, and of one's own limitations. The danger of “Truth” comes from the “profound depression person] feels and the valuelessness of his existence” (Nieztsche, 142) when contemplating the complete subjectivity and indefiniteness of existence. Freud clearly explains how this suffering for lack of “Truth” in life ties in with the attraction of religion or Providence or Fate: Such a concept "explains to him the riddles of this world with enviable completeness, and[ ]assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here[ ]can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of their remorse” (21). [...]

[...] So, picture again the two systems of Nietzsche and Freud as they are mapped out next to each other. The oceanic feeling precedes both systems, as does the original split of the reality-principle from the pleasure-principle. Freud's system now introduces his categorization of the three sources of suffering: one's own body, external world or nature, and one's relations with other people. Of these three, Freud himself singles out the third as a source extremely threatening in its potential for neurosis. [...]

[...] And ultimately, this specific distinction between Herd- and Individual-Suffering points to an optimism and hope regarding human existence that Freud, who does not make such a distinction, does not seem to share. Both thinkers acknowledge the significance of the community on human suffering, and both seek with their writing to encourage self-reflection and understanding of this group-effect on the individual as a means to possibly lighten some of the suffering and thereby achieve some measure of happiness. Nietzsche diverges from Freud, even goes beyond perhaps, when he posits Individual Suffering as distinct from Herd Suffering, claiming that the former actually can allow one to achieve something life-affirming. [...]

[...] Here we begin to really mark the difference between Nietzsche and Freud: though both undoubtedly seek to understand the conditions of human suffering, and advocate such self-reflection and self-confrontation as necessary for any alleviation of suffering, Nietzsche goes further and extols even a type of suffering as what can actually raise the individual (and humanity only by extension) to a life-affirming existence, "for your true nature lies, not concealed deep within you, but immeasurably high above you" (Nietzsche, 129), an existence that offers more than simply the possibility for happiness via alleviating suffering. This Individual Suffering is worthy of a human being, and “only natures of iron[ ]are able to stand firm” (138) faced with it. For whoever takes it on is strong enough to understand that “a happy life is impossible: the highest that man can attain to is a heroic (153). The first type of Individual Suffering that Nietzsche speaks of involves what he calls “constitutional dangers,” like the desire of the suffering-individual to seek isolation. [...]