Since the dawn of civilization man has improved his way of life considerably, and there are indeed so many changes in contemporary man that when he is compared to primitive man, the differences are evident. In view of these differences, one of the main things that comes to mind is the individuality that man has in his contemporary character as a human being.

It is this unique outlook of a personality that distinguishes each human being from another. However, the truth of this notion is also that human beings remain similar no matter how individualistic they try to become. They are all from the same species no matter what color, creed or ethnic origin they have. In this similar state they all continue to bear their inherent characteristics that primitive man had as well, and this is the reason why in contemporary times as well one may assert that no matter how individualistic man has become he still remains similar to his fellow beings as he was in primitive times.

In view of man’s primitive characteristics, man still demonstrates the most natural conflicts. Since the beginning of time, man has never known what it is to really known what it is to live in peace and harmony with fellow man. Immediately after discovering his ability to do things for himself he began to mark territories and fight for what could so easily be shared. Till today this continues, and in spite of the world having a great deal of resources that could so easily be shared, man continues to be selfish, pulling together in a tight unit whatever he can, leaving the rest to their own fate.

The solutions to such a problem was apparently proposed by the Communists who believed that sharing everything in a state for the common good would cure such selfishness. Undoubtedly, forcing individuals to give up their rights to private ownership may solve the problem, but it can never really make any human being give up his inherent nature of being selfish.

Aside from man’s inherent nature of being selfish, it is his inherent aggression that cannot be set apart from him. This is precisely the reason why Freud reflects on the teachings of Christ’s teachings on love. Christ emphasizes on loving thy neighbors in a manner that allows the feeling of brotherhood to grow; one man looking out for the good of another no matter what his origins are and what his standing may be. This is true love in Christian spirit (Gospel of Mathew).

Freud asserts that it is difficult for people to love each other the way that doctrines might assert. In view of the concept that Christ had spread, love thy neighbor as thy self, Freud finds that this is something that is fine in theory but not easily achievable because of the fact that man has inherent aggression towards fellow human beings. Moreover, this is highlighted in the most personal and familial relationships (Gospel of Mathew).

Freud would assert that if people cannot resolve differences within their own families how do they expect to love complete strangers. An example of this can be illustrated through Tillie Olsen’s story ‘I Stand Here Ironing’. This story is about a mother and daughter who have differences between them. It has been years since the mother and daughter have lived together, but she cannot get through her to her daughter (Emily) (Olsen, 1961).

Indeed, this is because of experiences with their family. Perhaps the daughter cannot bring herself to forgive her mother for whatever hardships she went through. The mother on the other serves as an individual who wants to make peace. In view of this paradox within a single family, Freud could illustrate how difficult it really is for one to love somebody and create a healthy relationship when the other part does not wish to extend a mutual hand (Olsen, 1961).

Towards the end of Olsen’s story, the reader encounters the mother hardly having much hope and tells school authorities that Emily will find her own way. This illustrates the ultimate end of a family relationship between just two people who are direct blood relatives, thus reinforcing Freud’s assertions regarding inherent aggression towards others.

The only way the mother could possibly work towards improving such a relationship is with a never-ending love. This would be difficult, but as Freud asserts regarding whole civilizations: “Civilization has to use its utmost efforts in order to set limits to man's aggressive instincts and to hold the manifestations of them in check by psychical reaction-formations” (Freud, 1930, 112).

This is the reason why Freud who is a grand supporter of the idea that man’s inherent aggressiveness instinct can never fade, agrees with “the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibited relations of love” (Freud, 1930, 112). He further asserts, “hence the restrictions upon sexual life, and hence too the ideal's commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself-a commandment which is really justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to the original nature of man” (Freud, 1930, 112).

In view of this, Freud accepts that it is difficult to love everyone, and it also may be an impossible task. Hence, there is need to oppose this inherent aggressiveness towards others, and the best means for civilization “to set limits to man's aggressive instincts (Freud, 1930, 112).

One finds it indeed difficult to disagree with Freud. Though he may have radical views, his views regarding the effort to curtain hostilities in the human race are legitimate. This is because history stands as evidence, and it shows everyone what humanity is and how aggression has always been a part of human nature. In order to curtail this, setting limits on human action is important, whether they are in the form of law or religion or anything else.