Remember this little zinger:
“The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign
to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it
is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never
be able to rise above this view of life.”
So why does Freud regard the spiritual worldview as
childish? Do you agree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"Life becomes meaningful, only after one has found the correct partner and a fine job", Freud paraphrased.
Freud used cocaine in psychotherapy.
To quote myself "Wisdom is to the Fool Folly, while Folly is to the Wise, wisdom" and to quote God "To fear me is the beginning of wisdom, but to love me, the beginning of divinity".
Freud actually killed one of his patients with an overdose of cocaine.
"Kill one person and you're a murderer, kill a 100 people and you're a Statesman" and I might aid "Kill a patient with cocaine and you're like Freud.
I like Jungian Philosophy better, he had his daily joint and his dreams and visions.
The empirical research of the Irrational is the goal of all great philosophy, the means for that are Superego in Union with the Cosmic Spirit.
Freud might have been correct in the observance and analysis of oedipian neurosis, but he was not a Saint, not at all.
He and Jung had a big fight, because Freud's approach is exoteric while Jung's is esoteric.
Kierkegard (NSAS) calls it the "Thorn in the Flesh", the thorn every true philosopher feels in his heart, after failing to realise "Love of Wisdom".
Cocaine, being an Euphoric Stimulant is a tricky bastard, because it lasts only 45 minutes and leaves one wanting more.
It is when we are afraid to look deep within and take responsibility for our actions that the Devil (Id) rises into consciousness and then we loose control and do stupid things. Most people think of themselves as being the Superego, suppress the Id, and wonder why they end up having sex with their parents in a dream.
A long time after I became enlightened and disenlightened and enlightened again, my dad told me one very good truth "The goal is not to rid the self of the ego, but to have a healthy one"
I don't think any of that last comment had anything to do with the question.
As Freud puts it in an earlier passage, "the origin of the religious attitude can be traced back in clear outlines as the feeling of infantile helplessness." What he means by this and by the original quote is that someones 'sense' of religion originates in part from the infantile need for a fathers protection, which develops as people grow older into the same sort of need which is manifest through religion, yet equally 'infantile.' This is related to the oedipal complex where males are supposed to hate their dad, yet replace him later with this god figure.
Religion for Freud is also childlike in the sense that it corrects or ignores some aspects of the real world which is 'unbearable', and constructs a wish and introduces its delusions into reality.
I myself am sympathetic to Freud's claim about religion even if his claims about why it is infantile were not to hold up. I don't really want to get into why, because that'd take a long time, but let's just say I feel Freud's claims are sufficient enough.
I think Brendan puts across Freud's perspective well enough, so I will try to discuss some other views.
Before that, just a quick reply to friendly stranger: As with almost all other illicit drugs, cocaine's prohibition was brought on not by any scientific study, but by the social views du jour. As evidenced by its wide-spread use today as a local anesthetic for certain types of operation, at least some capacity of it has been proven safe by the scientific/medical community. Playing the cocaine card does nothing but invoke emotional, as opposed to rational, controversy.
One prominent view of spirituality or religiosity is that it is often used as a crutch for those unwilling to see the world as it is. The proponents of this view claim that those who indulge in religious dogma, especially of the Judeo-Christian faiths, are in some way using this "God" figure to shoulder the responsibilities of life. Every obstacle they meet is a "test", and every fortunate turn is a "blessing". When a loved one survives a life threatening illness, God has blessed them with His love. When a loved one passes from a life threatening illness, God is bringing them to His side.
Another view of spirituality/relgiosity is that people are afraid of what lies ahead. It's impossible to tell what awaits beyond the grave, if anything, so in their fear they grasp on to some glimmer of hope that appears before them.
What all these views have in common, along with Freud's, is that spirituality/religiosity is somehow linked with some form of weakness. Be it the need for security, safety, or freedom from the burdens of responsibility, religion provides a "service" to those who are not strong enough to face the world.
I don't agree with these views. I don't think that religiosity is related to any inherent weakness or deficiency in the person. Rather, I believe that it is an emotional response triggered by curiosity of the unexplained/unknown. The ancient pagan religions had gods for pretty much everything that they didn't explicitly understand. So this need to eliminate any unknown variables, such as why lightning appeared in the sky, was explained by, "Zeus throws lightning bolts down to the earth from the heavens."
Such is the case with the Judeo-Christian faiths as well. The unknown variables of death and of origin are explained by the various faiths, sating the human curiosity.
Freud thinks that religion is infantile and an illusion. I say not true. I believe Freud should have paid more attention to his friend Rolland's account of religion and its effect on the soul when Rolland describes it as an "oceanic" feeling in which the individual feels bonded or connected. This is true about some religion, and although it is difficult for some to embrace because of the subjective nature, it requires faith and a belief and then its's all good....mfrancis.
So, Freud thinks religion is "infantile"...big whoop. It is his opinion, and opinions are not facts, no matter how aggresively they are argued. It doesn't change the fact that his arguement's origins are based on assumptions, and it certainly isn't any more valid an opinion than someone who holds religion in particularily high regard. I mean, regardless of how eloquently he argues his position, its still a leap of faith and therefore just as pointless as every other opinion, my own included of course.
My personal perspective on religion is this: logic can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God so we can not eliminate him as a possibility. However, I would further argue that the idea of God is pointless because there are some six billion different opinions on the existance of God and we can not give more merit to any one opinion over the others because the second we do, we are oppressing different ideas and we limit ourselves in what we can possibly come to know. Granted that we, as a species, know next to nothing about anything, it is absurd to limit ourselves to bias on anything.
That's just some food for thought. Now I'm off to watch House.
Cheery bye,
Matt M.
"Imposition of Law = Escalation of Chaos!"
Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson - The Illuminatus! Trilogy.
Matt, sorry for the late response, but you said:
"logic can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God so we can not eliminate him as a possibility."
I don't think you mean "logic", because "logic" can equate witches with wood and ducks (as per the Monty Python scene we saw). I THINK you mean empirical/scientific methods can't prove or disprove God.
I think that's a very meaningless answer. There are many things that the scientific method can't disprove, or at least is unable to disprove at the moment. Like the existence of mystical pink unicorns, or invisible blue fairies, or E.T., or Godzilla. There is nothing in "God" that makes him any different than any of these "creatures", other than the fact that more people believe in him despite the same lack of empirical evidence.
Eugene, I do not believe that my phrasing required correcting. To me, empirical observation and scientific discovery both fall under the heading of logic and reason. Because how can we associate the cause and effect relationship of science without the logic to find the link between the two?
Additionally, by using the term "logic," I also mean to imply that the methods of philosophical arguement can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. For example, I'm sure you remember Acquinas' "Being the which none greater can be imagined," arguement for the existance of God. There is no empirical observation offered here, only logic. If I'd stated my claim in the sense you seem to be suggesting, my position would not be as strong because I'd be open to attack from a whole other school of logic.
As for the meaninglessness of my answer, that was my point. That God is a meaningless figure who we've no way of pleasing. Or, we have so many differing opinions about how to please him/her/it/them that we'll never know, beyond *all* doubt, what we should do to please him/her/it/them short of God coming down and clearly explaining to us in a fashion that leaves no room for interpretation just what it is we're supposed to be doing.
Lets look at a simple example of what I mean. A current issue amongst most Western religions is the status of gays. Some faiths, have an unwavering stance that gays are an abomination before the eyes of God and should be killed if they are caught in the act. Others, neither approve, nor disprove of gays in a "don't ask don't tell" sort of policy. Others still say that gays have equal rights, including the right of marraige.
Now, based on these summaries I've just presented here, is gay okay? Or are they to be put to death? Bare in mind, that however you answer this question regarding God's will on earth it will find itself in contradiction with another faith which also preaches God's will on earth.
I am by no means suggesting that you should give up on your faiths, or even dismiss the idea of God. I am merely saying that because there are so many different opinions of God, we can not give preference to any one over another because not only does that limit what we might learn through examination of opposing possibilities, but we will also find ourselves oppressing differing opinions on the subject (history has provided me with more than enough evidence to support that claim, and if you folks really want, I can provide them, but they occur frequently enough that I feel I shouldn't have to during informal discussions).
Really, my whole position on religion can be summed up with this simple maxim:
"Live and let live."
Guten Abend,
Matt M.
"What if this whole crusade's
A charade
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood
On which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine."
Nine Inch Nails - The Hand that Feeds
Basically Freud thinks that believeing in religion is like a child listening to thier father and he thinks its sad that older respectable humans still think it is ok to follow some idea or "god" like a child following thier father or a slave following thier master with blind obedience based on some sort of feeling of love or reverence.... It is kind of similar to what many people who oppose religion think... marx called the opium of the masses....... just taking the good, amplifying it and putting ourselves under its mercy....... and since good cannot be scientifically proven and freud is a man of science it must have made little sense to him for someone to be in complete awe and service to religion... when looking at his argument in his book... religion seems completely opposed to our basic human extincts and desires... it is just another internally sociallized norm meant to go against the ego.. the superego is probably where people have the most thoghts about religion and by believing the ten commandments and other such things that religion preaches it just makes it easier for society to run smoothly so we can further supress our drives and instincts....... sublimation too..... dont you ever see the mafia men almost living at church or in prayer, the rappers with thier "thanks to god" speeches and big cross chains... or the priests that turn out to be child molesters??? the bigger the sense of guilt- the more religious??.... well i think freud would have something alltogether to stay about that last group....
Post a Comment