According to it, our so-called civilization itself is to blame for a great part of our misery, and we should be much happier if we were to give it up and go back to primitive conditions. When we start to consider this possibility, we come across a point of view which is so amazing that we will pause over it.

To be sure, when we consider how unsuccessful our efforts to safeguard against suffering in this particular have proved, the suspicion dawns upon us that a bit of unconquerable nature lurks concealed behind this difficulty as well- in the shape of our own mental constitution. We prefer not to regard it as one at all we cannot see why the systems we have ourselves created should not rather ensure protection and well-being for us all. To the third, the social source of our distresses, we take up a different attitude. If we cannot abolish all suffering, yet a great deal of it we can, and can mitigate more the experience of several thousand years has convinced us of this. The effect of this recognition is in no way disheartening on the contrary, it points out the direction for our efforts. We shall never completely subdue nature our body, too, is an organism, itself a part of nature, and will always contain the seeds of dissolution, with its limited power of adaptation and achievement. In regard to the first two, our judgment cannot hesitate: it forces us to recognize these sources of suffering and to submit to the inevitable. We gave the answer before, when we cited the three sources of human sufferings, namely, the superior force of nature, the disposition to decay of our bodies, and the inadequacy of our methods of regulating human relations in the family, the community, and the state. Nor does the prospect of discovering anything new seem much greater if we go on with the problem of why it is so hard for mankind to be happy. OUR discussion of happiness has so far not taught us much that is not already common knowledge.

Freud culture and its discontents