3 Answers

  1. Yes, of course, sexual desire, the desire for power, and hunger are the driving motives of human behavior, although they are not all exhausted. Freud wrote well about the first, Adler wrote well about the second (however, according to Adler, a person is driven by a dialetic combination of two forces: the need for power and superiority over others and the need for belonging, communication with others), and as for the third, it is appropriate to recall Maslow's pyramid of needs.�

    According to Maslow, people have a certain hierarchy of needs – starting from the basic ones related to survival, and ending with the most elevated ones, such as the need for self-realization. Moreover, according to Maslow, these needs are updated gradually, as needs are met. That is, as long as you are constantly busy trying not to starve to death, you are unlikely to think about the needs of a higher level.

    An indirect conclusion from this, by the way, is that if you need to control large groups of people, it is best to keep them on the edge of survival, otherwise they may have some higher-level needs that you will again have to meet. It is much easier, on the contrary, to bring people to a half-dead state, when they will not be able to resist. A similar strategy is being successfully implemented in countries like North Korea. The challenge for civil society, therefore, is to prevent this from happening.

    Of course, it should be borne in mind that there are exceptions to Maslow's concept. We know, for example, of ascetics who deliberately refuse to satisfy the needs of a lower order in order to satisfy the needs of a higher order. There are also many stories from concentration camps, Soviet and Nazi, when people preserved their human dignity precisely because they preserved higher-order values: someone continued to study science or art, someone clung to religion or ideology.

    But such exceptions do not mean that Maslow failed to grasp some important patterns of social processes.

  2. Yes, but these are only negative motives of the human side, which is born under its own specific conditions. I can't answer this question better than Erich Fromm. I advise you to read his books, in particular: “Healthy Society” “Anatomy of human Destructiveness”and” The Art of Being”. As for me, the best author on human nature, the place of man in modern society, as well as excellent reflections on the topic of capitalism, socialism, communism and a perfect society, since these factors are the direct causes that give rise to the motives of human behavior.
    And here are some of his works::
    “Fromm came to the conclusion that the driving forces of the development of personality are two congenital �unconscious �needs �are �in a state of antagonism: �need �in �rooting �and �need �in customization. If the need for “rooting” forces a person to strive for society, to relate to its other members, to strive for a common system of guidelines, ideals and beliefs, then the need for individualization, on the contrary, pushes to isolation from others, to freedom from the pressure and demands of society. These two needs are the cause of internal contradictions, a conflict of motives in a person who always tries in vain to somehow connect these opposite tendencies in his life. From Fromm's point of view, the desire to reconcile these needs is not only an engine of individual development, but also of society as a whole, which also tries to balance these aspirations. Individualization develops at the expense of rootedness, which a person begins to yearn for, trying to escape from the newfound freedom. This escape from freedom,which is characteristic of a society where all strangers, is evident not only in the desire to obtain reliable operation, but also in the identification, �say, a political figure, �which �promises �reliability, �stability �and rootedness. This desire to escape from freedom, which is too difficult for a person, explained Fromm and the arrival of fascism, which he witnessed in the 30s in Germany. Socialism also deprives people of their individuality, giving them in exchange a stereotyped way of life, thinking and worldview. “The only feeling that Fromm believes helps a person reconcile these two opposing needs is love,” in the broadest sense of the word. In the quest for individualization, people usually seek freedom from others, from the obligations and dogmas that define their life in society. The desire for freedom from everyone and at any cost does not give a person the opportunity to think about why he needs this freedom. Therefore, when he finds it, he does not know what to do with it, and he has a desire to exchange it again for rootedness. At the same time, there is another freedom, “freedom for”, that is, the freedom we need to carry out our intentions. Such freedom does not require liberation from all ties, but only from those that interfere with the implementation of the plan. Therefore, the acquisition of such freedom and individuality does not burden a person, but, on the contrary, is accepted by him with joy. It is this kind of freedom, the freedom to live with your loved ones, that is born in love. It gives both the satisfaction and the need for individualization, and �needs �in �rootedness �brings �their �and harmonizes the life of a man, his personality and relationship with the world.” http://www.hr-portal.ru/article/efromm-gumanisticheskiy-psihoanaliz

  3. A person has two main driving motives – the desire to influence and the desire to have fun.

    Influence, as I think, is a cornerstone concept for a person, in general, it is difficult to say what it does not define. In fact, all a person wants in life is to influence.�

    Other desires are subservient to influence and pleasure

Leave a Reply