provide a better insight into the human condition that those of Immanuel Kant by

the standards of modern day? Immanuel Kant has theories that imply humans have

a particularly important role, creating a role in life. Sigmund Freud has theories which

broaden the level of complexion and allow for superior methods to use for more of

an accurate evaluation of a human/s. Kant is an insight into the human condition as

a whole, but by Freud being 'better' I mean that he represents a tool for discovering

parts of the human condition for more of a multi-cultural society which varies in

behaviour. Both points of view do not represent the basis of the theorists' full work.

I have only used parts of their work to argue. Each theorist has far too much to their

work for me to use in this limited essay, so instead I am using certain aspects, and

focussing on them as means of sufficient comparison, to argue my point based on the

human condition. The body of the essay is constructed with a theory, followed by

an explanation and an example. The comparisons both go into the human condition.

parental-like ‘supergos’ which can define the right from the wrong, I suppose an

irrational sense of guilt onto a person’s conscience, this can project itself in a ‘fierce’

Some topics in this essay:
Sigmund Freud, Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant, Freud Kant, According Kant, Morality Morality, Ten Commandments, Kant Seeing, Kant Kant, Konigsburg Prussia, human condition, immanuel kant, moral duty, sigmund freud, insight human condition, insight human, freud studied, childhood experiences, freud's theories, according kant, society kant, factors human condition, condition immanuel kant, sense moral obligations, provide insight human,