In his view it serves psychological functions for individuals helping them cope with emotional stress that would undermine social solidarity. He argues that death is the main reason for religious beliefs and identifies two types of situations: where the outcome is important but uncontrollable and thus uncertain and at times of life crises events such as birth, death etc. religion helps to minimise disruption.
Another argument Freud makes is how religion is an attempt to fill in the gaps where civilization and the pursuit of life cannot make individuals happy. "The urge to rectify the shortcomings of civilization which made themselves painfully felt" is fulfilled by religion. (Freud,
Rousseau believed that to uplift ourselves out of the state of nature, man must partake in the course of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The contrast between Rousseau’s concepts and those of the liberals of his time, originated with different understandings and interpretations of the state of nature. Classical liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes defined the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always an existent. He
Man being in the state of nature causes tyranny and in the end does cause some inequality among men, whether or not it changes the moral code of society is the bigger question. Although Rousseau does not believe that inequality exists in the state of nature he wrote a whole essay answering the question of where does man originate from and is he equal in the state of nature?
Love exists in the short story “The Bear Came Over the Mountain” by Alice Munro and in the short story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” by Raymond Carver. in Munro’s short story the plot is that of a mentally ill wife, Fiona, who falls in love with another patient while her husband still tries to hang on to their old love. Her husband eventually wants to have an affair with the wife of the man his wife is having an affair with. Their love changed because of their circumstances due to ill health. Carver’s story discusses the different definitions of love due to the type and quality of relationships; everyone has a different definition. Love also exists all over the world within different environments and cultures. The concept of love depends upon the environment in which it inhabits. Love is dependent on the life of the people in love and it also depends on their current environment. Nature and nurture are also huge factors into the development and process of love. What nature and nurture mean is whether it is due to how the person lives and acts along with their personality compared to whether it’s all in their genetics beforehand. Love is more on the nurture side instead of the nature side of human experience.
Freud mainly focuses on human nature and questions the desire, ideas ,and beliefs that shape a human, he then further analyses them. We see in his literature, Civilization and its Disconnect, that he questions religion and the belief in God. He himself does not believe in God, but wants to know why many people follow and trust something that they cannot see. He also questions the concept of human relationships. Knowing that a two person relationship and interaction is inevitable and that it is a part of life, but he does not know if a third relationship, and further on, is necessary. Regardless, human relationships are a part of society, and one of causes of civilizations, which Freud defines as “the whole some of achievement and the regulations which distinguish our lives” (Freud). With one of the achievements
Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative
This research paper will compare and contrast two of the most influencial psychologists who helped shape the way we understand the development of the human mind; Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson. The paper will focus on the similarities and differences between Freud’s Psycho-sexual theory, and Erikson’s psychosocial theory. Freud was one of the very first influencial psychologists who changed the way we study humans. Erikson recognized Freud’s contributions, and although he felt Freud misjudged some important dimensions of human development, he was still influenced by Freud, which caused some similarities in their theories.
The Bible is a sacred text that has guided men and women in life to stay on this path of goodness and selflessness. According to Freud the Bible may be the cause of civilization’s unhappiness. Mankind’s freedom has been stifled because of the restrain society has put on our “primal nature”. Anything that goes against the structure the Bible has made in society has been repelled and ignored because it is no longer something that can be thought of as real or taken seriously. Freud believes that the happiness we cannot attain is due to the freedoms we lack. This belief of lacking in freedom is not correct based on the Bible’s chapters. Mans inability to be happy or remain happy is due to his or her need of having something to prove. This
In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.
Freud feels like sexual love is most important and the only real type of love. I know my love for my father is true and unconditional. This type of love may be different from sexual love, but it is still love. I honestly wish Freud would take a better look at his definition of love because love does not have a simple textbook definition. Love has many different aspects and feelings involved.
Religion emerges from the human susceptibility for protection and use it as a tool for liberation from the bitter realities and perplexities of the world. “Religious ideas are teachings and pronouncements about facts and states of external (or internal) reality that convey something one has not discovered for oneself and which assert the right to be believed” (Freud 88). We must object to religious claims because there is no proof to substantiate them and merely ideas we follow for generations. Religious ideas are beyond the control of reasoning, as if we don’t validate our beliefs and behave that our beliefs have a substantial basis of support. Religious ideas are teachings, not the thought that
The state of nature can be characterized as the state before civil society, before government where all men agreed to enter into a social contract. Locke and Rousseau both believed that men were not savages as some might believe. The state of nature was in some cases even better than what we have become today. In fact, both Locke and Rousseau believed that in the state of nature all men had natural rights and followed natural God given or inherent laws that signified the freedom of men from tyranny.
Although Freud argues that these religious values should not be accepted due to the absence of proof; people find interest in the information, connection to ones beliefs and answers to otherwise indefinable questions through religion. The three claims made to support religious foundation are: beliefs practiced and shared by ancestors, possession of proofs and it is socially forbidden to raise questions regarding evidence supporting religious ideas (p. 33). Freud is quick to rebut these claims with three reasons to be suspicious. He begins by denouncing the ancestors who passed down these religious doctrines as being too ignorant to trust. He then condemns the proofs as impossible to judge for any truth as a result of being “full of contradictions, revisions and falsifications” (p. 33). He finally stated that the third claim was the most suspicious of all, pronouncing that openly reproaching the question of authenticity was a clear declaration of society’s insecurity with the religious doctrines. Freud fails to understand how religion has the ability to assume such great influence over civilization without any unequivocal evidence supporting its ideas. His rebuttal successfully casts a sense of foolishness and absurdity on the inadequate and irrational claims. The claims themselves seem to be grasping for any semi-valid idea or at least an idea which proves difficult to question. Although society thinks they are showing respect and good