This religious studies response paper raises and focuses particular points laid out in the instructional questions, which hopefully leads to thoughtful consideration of the larger narrative of relevant socio-historical context. The first half and four questions, by way of reminder, explores perhaps what must be understood by the author’s overall purpose in the text so read. The last half of eight questions, seeks to discuss the critical implications for contemporary society as so related.
#1. Freud states “For masses are lazy and unintelligent; they have no love for instinctual renunciation, and they are not to be convinced by argument of its inevitability;” (8)
So what did Freud mean by this? Nobody really knows. However the core juxtaposition of his point is that people do not wish to take the effort to think deeply about life. When he claims that the masses have not affections for instinctual renunciation, it seems like Freud is people have no self-control. So since basically the reason why the majority of the masses have no self-control, is because they usually succumb to their natural drives such as sex, food, or any kind of other pleasures such as taking drugs to make a person ease their mind. What the quote also means is that people are so lazy-minded that they will not even bother to try and engage in a convincing or logical argument – either to understand another’s point of view, or to express their own perspective about the situation. Freud is saying that the core of this idea is inevitable.
The second part of Freud’s statement is difficult to get a handle on, because one cannot really be sure what he meant by the term “instinctual renunciation.” If what he means by that is to renounce the ignorance involved, then the statement fits what he tried to convey in the book. Mankind’s struggle over nature, and organization of a so-called civilized society certainly has highlighted the fact that individuals try to meet the demands of civilization, but at the same time the larger ‘thrust’ of it – is constantly working against you. Basically, Freud is deeply thinking psycho-analytically about the importance of human destiny. And he tries to accomplish it without reliance upon religion.
#2. “Religion would thus be the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity; like the obsession neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex, out of relation to the father.” (55)
The common core of Freudian thought lays in this statement and basically means that he hated religion, and believed people were weak who embraced the fact that they needed supernatural help, to live better lives. Freud meant that the father role in the family represented the Father-God, as in the Bible. The weakness of the need to rely upon religion, in Freud’s sick understanding, meant that one was sexually drawn to the ‘father’ as a way of substituting (or confusing) a religious need for good mental health and survival of sanity. But he never clearly designated what he meant by ‘religion.’ Given the socio-historical context of his declaration, in the Victorian era, sexual expression was not as freely exposed as it is in today’s society. The modern world of digitalization constantly throws sexual images in your face, in an ever-irreverent and casual way. The manner is quite careless. Sex is thus cheapened and increasingly the message portrayed is one of meaninglessness. Freud might not have ever imagined the type of society we have today, how it has ‘evolved’ for better or worse – but mostly for the worse – because he felt that people should have a more mature view.
For Freud, relying upon what he knew as ‘religion’ seemed an infantile way to depend upon something outside oneself. In a way, it seems a bit twisted and hypocritical. He rightly understood the intense need to labor in an economy, and that in the end, our psychological reality is what counts most. Connecting the idea of ‘religion’ to an Oedipus “complex” of having an obsessional relation to one’s father stems from his analysis of the Biblical principle that God is the Father of all his spiritual Christian children (humans) in the universe. Freud did not receive the classic idea of Christianity. He criticizes the need or practice of ‘religion’ or faith in the Bible because he views it as based on the helplessness of humankind. And on page 75, he makes it clear that any seeming “psychical origin” of religious thought is (in his opinion) mere illusions, as “fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most insistent wishes of mankind.” In a way, it is understandable that Freud feels that way, because he never distinguished between ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ – therefore, focused on the idea that anyone who held to religious convictions must be crazy or deluded.
#3. Victor Frankl writes in his book Man’s Search for Meaning, that “The salvation of man is through love and in love” (37).
Frankl meant that nothing else matter. Love is supreme. Frankl meant that the idea of finding fulfillment, human beings as individuals must be love-centered. Frankl meant by this statement that one is not truly living, unless he or she has experienced a loving relationship with God, because human beings cannot save themselves. To support the significance, Frankl discusses how the Capos despised the regular prisoners, but they had sold-out to betray everything that was decent or honest. His idea that love matters, surrounds the individual with hope and a knowledge that resilience is part of the human ability to hope, and that hope is not stupid, but gives a person meaningful ways to make his or her life count.
All the evil that is in the world cannot win over love. All the madness that the Bible refers to as ‘sin’ cannot win over the power of love. So Frankl keyed into the point that the positive emotions and sensibilities of love, experienced deeply in relationships, always have good outcomes because love is all that matters in the end. If you really think about it, probably the last thoughts a person will have before they die is about their loved ones. And the Bible says that love is as strong as death.
#4. Frankl states, “It said to me, ‘I am here – I am here – I am life, eternal life.” (69)
Frankl is saying that God spoke to his heart, and the pure voice of that higher power will direct you belief in its power to give life and spiritual strength in time of need. He meant that limitations though physical, do not have to limit the mind and soul. Imprisonment can be either physical, like in the case of being in a concentration camp, or in the case of contemporary life, being incarcerated in a modern prison. Many people today are imprisoned for non-violent crimes like smoking pot or stealing in the form of white-collar crimes, like writing bad checks. For whatever reason a person might land in jail, he or she still has a human soul, or what some may prefer to call it – a spirit. Other times a person might become very depressed in life because of a problem with their children, parents, or mate. In this case, one can feel so overwhelmingly powerless that sometimes they could sadly entertain the despair of committing suicide. But during times of great stress, when the human soul reaches out into the spiritual universe, or directly calls on the Creator God, the voice of Him will always speak to your heart.
The concept of being uplifted in times of dire need and trouble is precisely when the human heart or soul, can become still enough to listen to wisdom that stretches far beyond the lonesomeness of one’s being. In this way, Frankl it seems, is trying to communication what happened in that particular moment for him. We are not alone in this universe. We are spiritual beings, and like incredible antennae our hearts, souls, and minds can reach out into the blue beyond past the ether of the glorious skies, and call on a higher power. The higher power is God. And he will always be eternal, life, and presently there (or here) for a person who is desperately in need. There is only one who is eternal and has the power to give eternal life: and that is God.
So when the love of God reaches out and answers, you must always listen.
#5. Fromm argues that, “The right to express our thoughts, however, means something only if we are able to have thoughts of our own” (240)
Fromm meant that people have no right to express their thoughts if they are following like blind sheep, some robotic way of thinking. A common saying exists that says: No man is an island. The meaning announces that the significance of human life involves our relationships with others, and that there resides great promise in these relationships. When the historical Christ Jesus walked the Earth, and lived among ordinary humankind He was all about relationships. Even though it is impossible to get inside the head, or mental thought processes of what the author-philosopher Erich Fromm meant, it is possible to try and rationally think about what he said. Fromm continues to clarify his statement by adding “freedom from external authority is a lasting gain only if the inner psychological conditions are such that we are able to establish our own individuality.” In other words, it is important to think for oneself. In other words, the “right” to freedom of expression is significant if a person is bringing something of their own essence to the table, and approaching the conversation very critically.
With freedom comes responsibility. If someone neglects the basic principle found in this nugget of wisdom, he or she is doomed to a life of mental waste and wrong thinking for the rest of their lives. The best achievements in life only happen when you strive for the good, and resist evil, and try to contribute something worthwhile. When people miss the opportunity to think deeply and critically, they cheat themselves of a fuller experience. Fromm carries his idea forward by also talking about how one can lose themselves, and become like a robot, or “automaton” as he puts it, compulsively conforming – presumably to the authoritarian state – but that this kind of psychological state is isolating. In other words, if a person acts like that, he or she is cutting themselves off from their own internal feelings which should be shared in a relationship with others. We were not meant to be alone. The Bible is a good book for living. In it, God says that man was not designed to be alone, nor woman. Therefore, isolation is not good or healthy for the human spirit.
#6. Erich Fromm writes in his book Escape from Freedom that, “Christianity has made death unreal and tried to comfort the unhappy individual by promises of a life after death” (245).
Christianity has not made death unreal. It has sustained a provisional way to pass through the decay of its dark and sinister shadows, and arrive on the other side of eternity as triumphant. Fromm has missed the point here. Certainly there is comfort in true Christian faith and belief in Jesus Christ as a real and true person, who really did rise from the grave. Death is the last enemy, so why would Christianity make it seem unreal? That would mean Christianity is a joke, or a trick. But death is no joke. And anyone who has ever lost a loved one to its unforgiving clutches can attest. The unhappy individual who has lost a beloved friend or relative to death, cannot be comforted. This idea would be cruel, inhuman, and unreasonable. The promises of “life” after death is only (and exclusively) offered to those who have a relationship with the Savior Christ Jesus. The Christian view is that the realm of the eternal, outside of time, is real. And that everyone will have to engage it, thereby giving an account to the way each has lived, and face the final judgment.
#7. Carl Jung writes in Psychology and Religion, that “People are afraid of becoming conscious of themselves. There might really be something behind the screen, one never knows” (14).
What Carl Jung meant by this statement is that the reason why people are unwilling to reflect on their inner selves, is because they are afraid of what they might find, and that it is worthwhile to think deeply. Jung is both insightful and correct. People are afraid. Anyone who says that they are not, or has never been is lying. A scary thought arises when one deeply, deeply considers that Hitler was a human being. Given the factor that he was a human being means that all of us garner the insalubrious seeds of dastardly inhumane behavior which he demonstrated, in his quest to commit genocide of certain groups of people. See the problem? People are afraid of becoming conscious of themselves, because to do so would demand an honest look at what is inside. Since nobody is perfect, introspection is difficult. But those who embrace looking within with courage and honest dignity can wholeheartedly agree with Carl Jung, realizing that yes – “there might really be something behind the screen” – and you have got to truly appreciate the way he leaves the concept open-ended.
Self-examination provides a way to gaze in one’s internal mirror in a plethora of meaningful ways. In the mind of this observer, psychology and religion – or – psychology and faith, need not be separate entities. Jung’s tone and attitude really strike a chord with many people because he does not act like he knows it all. The attitude Jung presents is one of a true scientist that is logically exploring the landscape of the human mind, and conscious drivers behind behaviors. One best guess why Jung viewed a conflict between religion and psychology, is that traditional Christianity in a contemporary understanding, does not acknowledge psychology as such. But that is a fallacy. Nevertheless, looking behind the screen gives people a chance to bravely assess the quality and veracity of their own truth.
#8. Carl Jung writes in Psychology and Religion, that “It is true that an overwhelming majority of educated people are fragmentary personalities and have a lot of substitutes instead of genuine goods” (52).
Jung meant that focusing on education and the outer world of material or supposedly intellectual gain, will not feed your soul. He meant that to rely upon education alone, most people do not enjoy full expression of what the human personality should be, and not just one-sided or using a single dimension in life. From a certain point of view Carl Jung is challenging his audience. Once again, Jung is always refreshing to read and consider since he never comes across as an arrogant know-it-all. Maybe what he means is that when people become educated (formally) sometimes the tendency and temptation is to think that there is nothing more to learn. Here is where the “fragmentary personalities” part comes in. So when educated people substitute their ‘book-knowledge’ for the realities of the ‘sense’ knowledge they are surrounded with daily – such as problems, fears, love, hate, and life in general – they somehow get stuck in replacement psychology. In other words, they get stuck by a substitution of a set perception of how they wish life to be, or how the false constructs that they created are real. Once again, Carl Jung is truly a pleasure to read in terms of the very credible ideas he has to share.
The term, “genuine goods” is an interesting one. Goods spoken of as a product, or products, of an economy really nails his point to the wall. The thing is, when Jung is referring to goods in this case it is about the elements that comprise living, thinking, and being. Sometimes if a person is extremely dedicated to what education has taught him or her, they get lost and forget the important things in life. While it is true that dedication to education is necessary to be competent in your field, or to get a job, these earthly demands of reality do not supersede a responsibility to one’s own soul. The Bible says, or rather asks: What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Jung’s empirical approach to psychology and the study of the mind as a natural science. Also in his book, Jung does something that Freud does not do. He tries to clearly explain his definition of religion in the first place. So at least he is honest in describing his thoughts that religion seizes control of “the human subject,” so right from the gate you know how to read what he is trying to explain. Also, Jung continues to characterize religion as a multi-faceted phenomenon that has dynamic qualities he does not entirely understand, deeming it a peculiar reality. I can respect this a lot more than Freud.
Works Cited
*{No sources per the client request; Response paper only}.
