Nothing

[Snoopy]

There's a period of time when newborn babies aren't aware that they are a separate body from the mother. They wish for something like comfort or food, squirm and grunt a bit, and it magically arrives. This is how we all started out. There's a part of us that's angrily indignant at having lost that ability, that magical, sort of oceanic state of oneness with mom. But we are also driven to abandon the mother and set out to define ourselves on our own terms as individuals. So there is this paradoxical dual urge to both surrender self and merge utterly with the Whole, and ruthlessly individuate in order to become "self born" as it were. Religion, as a vehicle, excels at interfacing that paradox.

Chris

Interesting post, as ever. Religion is indeed, I believe, the means to address the relationship between the many and the unity.

But does the original urge to remain as one with the mother equate to the unity of all that is? If not, what is the cause of this urge?

And what is the cause of the urge to become self-born?

Answers on a postcard...

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

you been reading freud and sartre recently? great OP!

That would make an excellent thread!! Religion in relation to Freudian and Sarteian Phillosophy

 

[path_of_one]

From what I understand, Freud argued that religion is essentially a mild neurosis stemming from our need for parental comfort and control.

One of the problems with his idea was that children are often quite spiritual and interested in the supernatural. Since they already have parental comfort and control, it's unlikely that is the root cause of religion.

Then again, I am biased. Freud is not taken very seriously by many anthropologists. His sample was too non-random, too limited, to speak to the whole human condition. He asked a lot of interesting questions, but his methodology for answering them was faulty.

 

[Snoopy]

Then again, I am biased. Freud is not taken very seriously by many anthropologists. He asked a lot of interesting questions, but his methodology for answering them was faulty.

As part of my psychology degree Freud was covered within an historical overview and then basically dismissed as we got onto the course proper. He did indeed ask a lot of interesting questions, but his answer seemed to usually be "penis envy."

Still, probably helps pay a lot of Freudian therapists' bills, especially in the US (or is that just me watching too many Woody Allen films?)

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

From what I understand, Freud argued that religion is essentially a mild neurosis stemming from our need for parental comfort and control.

One of the problems with his idea was that children are often quite spiritual and interested in the supernatural. Since they already have parental comfort and control, it's unlikely that is the root cause of religion.

Then again, I am biased. Freud is not taken very seriously by many anthropologists. His sample was too non-random, too limited, to speak to the whole human condition. He asked a lot of interesting questions, but his methodology for answering them was faulty.

I am in more or less total agreement with that view with the proviso that he struck some nails squarely on the head.

 

[Tao_Equus]

As part of my psychology degree Freud was covered within an historical overview and then basically dismissed as we got onto the course proper. He did indeed ask a lot of interesting questions, but his answer seemed to usually be "penis envy."



s.

lol, he may not be "usually" right, but he is right often enough.

 

[Nick_A]

lol, he may not be "usually" right, but he is right often enough.

He did ask a basic question that has me confused as well. It has been said that sometimes asking the right questin is better than an answer. Freud asked:

"Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not been able to answer... the great question that has never been answered: what does a woman want?"

 

[Tao_Equus]

He did ask a basic question that has me confused as well. It has been said that sometimes asking the right questin is better than an answer. Freud asked:

Thats easy. Chocolate of course.

 

[Snoopy]

lol, he may not be "usually" right, but he is right often enough.

Please don't take my levity as dissing the dude. Although William James was also examined as part of the historical perspective and I think I found him to be a more interesting philosopher on the workings of the human mind.

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Please don't take my levity as dissing the dude. Although William James was also examined as part of the historical perspective and I think I found him to be a more interesting philosopher on the workings of the human mind.

s.

I never thought you were dissing for a moment !

I know he was one of the James brothers but beyond that I have to plead ignorance.

 

[nativeastral]

Please don't take my levity as dissing the dude. Although William James was also examined as part of the historical perspective and I think I found him to be a more interesting philosopher on the workings of the human mind.

s.

True but different continent, culture, context ...the unconscious mind! people didnt want to believe that one; sartre argued with freuds theory of the 'censor' straddling the two realms [ie FS conscience??] - it appeared to offer a solution to the problem of self-deception, sartres 'bad faith', lying to oneself [even ones whole modus operendi of ones life] yes obviously affirming it too since one was still living it. One reason why freud replaced the censor with the id/ego, but for sartre too many psychic agencies involved to explain the phenomenon ['sketch for the theory of emotions'].

Even with eminent men with objective intent for scientific hypotheses it pays to look at their background [ie what was their mother and father like?]
to get more of a gist on why they thought the way they thought. freud sartre and james no exception.

 

[lunamoth]

There's a period of time when newborn babies aren't aware that they are a separate body from the mother. They wish for something like comfort or food, squirm and grunt a bit, and it magically arrives. This is how we all started out. There's a part of us that's angrily indignant at having lost that ability, that magical, sort of oceanic state of oneness with mom. But we are also driven to abandon the mother and set out to define ourselves on our own terms as individuals. So there is this paradoxical dual urge to both surrender self and merge utterly with the Whole, and ruthlessly individuate in order to become "self born" as it were. Religion, as a vehicle, excels at interfacing that paradox.

Chris

Perhaps. But that also suggests that everything we think and believe is actually just rationalization stemming from subconscious and uncontrollable psychological drives, including the belief in uncontrollable psychological drives.

 

[Francis king]

What if there's no greater purpose to life?

-then we should rejoice, CCS!!

We are the masters of our own destinies, the captains of our own ships... there is no omnipotent being to rage against, no cruel deities to blame for our errors and misdeeds...

this is a fabulous and liberating concept- we are, we exist, the "I" is supreme, the ego and the individual will is all!

do what thou will and it shall be the whole of the law!!!

As for the ultimate meaningless of existence- speak for yourself! My existence on this planet has been very meaningful indeed. I have saved lives, soothed troubled souls, inspired, annoyed and aroused others as I have seen fit and I have't even started yet...

I am God... the world is my creation... everything I see is mine to see...

I have no heroes. I have brothers. Me and the kindred spirits, our collective of deluded warriors, doing battle against the darkness, the oblivion, granting transcendence and immortality to many who, without us, would have nothing...

Are we figments of the imagination? Perhaps, yet if we should touch the mind of man enough to inspire him to raise his head and stand tall and proud and face the sun, then perhaps we do exist after all...

 

[citizenzen]

Francis king,

Wow. That's quite the manifesto.

It's not that i disagree,

I just would have said it a little less forcibly.

Look at me... I've gone all soft in my old age.

 

[Paladin]

Francis king,

Wow. That's quite the manifesto.

It's not that i disagree,

I just would have said it a little less forcibly.

Look at me... I've gone all soft in my old age.

I dunno, I think Francis waxes poetic!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What if there's no greater purpose to life?

-then we should rejoice, CCS!!

We are the masters of our own destinies, the captains of our own ships... there is no omnipotent being to rage against, no cruel deities to blame for our errors and misdeeds...

this is a fabulous and liberating concept- we are, we exist, the "I" is supreme, the ego and the individual will is all!

do what thou will and it shall be the whole of the law!!!

As for the ultimate meaningless of existence- speak for yourself! My existence on this planet has been very meaningful indeed. I have saved lives, soothed troubled souls, inspired, annoyed and aroused others as I have seen fit and I have't even started yet...

I am God... the world is my creation... everything I see is mine to see...

I have no heroes. I have brothers. Me and the kindred spirits, our collective of deluded warriors, doing battle against the darkness, the oblivion, granting transcendence and immortality to many who, without us, would have nothing...

Are we figments of the imagination? Perhaps, yet if we should touch the mind of man enough to inspire him to raise his head and stand tall and proud and face the sun, then perhaps we do exist after all...

Nice, Francis!

Chris

 

[Hermano Luis]

What if there's no greater purpose to life?
Chris

I would still make the effort to live with Understanding, Love, and Compassion.

Hermano Luis

 

[Tao_Equus]

What if there's no greater purpose to life?

-then we should rejoice, CCS!!

We are the masters of our own destinies, the captains of our own ships... there is no omnipotent being to rage against, no cruel deities to blame for our errors and misdeeds...

this is a fabulous and liberating concept- we are, we exist, the "I" is supreme, the ego and the individual will is all!

do what thou will and it shall be the whole of the law!!!

As for the ultimate meaningless of existence- speak for yourself! My existence on this planet has been very meaningful indeed. I have saved lives, soothed troubled souls, inspired, annoyed and aroused others as I have seen fit and I have't even started yet...

I am God... the world is my creation... everything I see is mine to see...

I have no heroes. I have brothers. Me and the kindred spirits, our collective of deluded warriors, doing battle against the darkness, the oblivion, granting transcendence and immortality to many who, without us, would have nothing...

Are we figments of the imagination? Perhaps, yet if we should touch the mind of man enough to inspire him to raise his head and stand tall and proud and face the sun, then perhaps we do exist after all...

!! Great post !! (Would have repped you but this damned rep system only seems to let me rep someone about once a year)