1 Answer | Add Yours
I think that both thinkers differ in their conception of freedom in what they view as the motivations for freedom. For Mill, there is a belief that if individuals can remain free of coercion from social or political entities, the full realization of freedom will be evident. In On Liberty, Mill argues that freedom from this compulsion is where freedom's meaning lies. Mill believes that the individual exacting of their own notion of the good to ensure that their exercise of freedom does not come into conflict with that of another is where freedom's promise is most realized. For Mill, there is a rationality and reason-ability that is evident in what it means to be human. This is undercut by Freud, who believes the psychological motivation is what drives all human beings. In Freud's thinking, the idea of what it means to be human is a distinction that underlies the very nature of consciousness. Human beings are seen by Freud as acting on freedom, but being motivated by psychological forces. This means, that we, as human beings, are driven by subterranean impulses that compel us to do one thing over another. In some respects, the coercion of which Mill speaks is not external in Freud's understanding, but rather internal. In this sense, Freud and Mill differ in that both understand human beings motivations as fundamentally different, and in doing so, their view of freedom becomes different.
We’ve answered 319,864 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question