Freud and Nietzsche on Religion - Essay Example

Freud and Nietzsche on religion Freuds perspective about religion revolves around ego, identity and the unconscious. The concept of God gets encompassed within the identity. His proposal is that ego works with the reality principle and it constantly engages with the external objects through the pleasure principle. The boundaries of ego are not fixed. Eventually the ego starts to understand the difference between internal and external environment. This is the accomplishment of the reality principle. Despite this realization there are certain things that humans are unwilling to give up because they provide pleasure. Such things are not the products of the ego but of the objects that the ego is attached to. It also comes from certain pains that humans expel but apparently these are an essential and inseparable part of the ego. Freud’s discussion about the role of religion in the persons mental life for it gives his answer based on palliatives in life. These palliatives are necessary to deal with suffering. He goes into the detail of these placebos through three general measurements. Resolute and powerful deflections (scientific) that make the humans see the funny side of their sorrow. Secondly, a substituted satisfaction (artistic) that diminishes this sorrow. And finally, intoxicating substance (bodily) that makes humans insensitive to the torture. He adds to this notion that there are three main sources of suffering; the body, the external world and other human beings. Instead of falling into the habit of praying Freud gave nine scientific and psychological ways to deal with the suffering; 1) Isolation 2) Joining a human community 3) Intoxication through drugs 4) Meditative activity 5) Productive engagement of the bliss (innovation) 6) Enjoying art either by creating it or viewing it 7) Withdrawal from the world; turning into a hermit 8) Connecting with the external world through love (sex, romance etc.) 9) Enjoying the beauty; aesthetic pleasures The general idea of almost all religions is based on love; that God loves his creations. Freuds view about love also encompasses this religious perspective. He consider it idealistic, related to utopianism, and on obvious religious ideas. His objection is twofold; 1) a love that does not discriminate is a self-defeating idea 2) not every human is worthy of love. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is also critical of basic religious beliefs. But his perspective is a little different from Freud. He sees religion only as a way to empower and re-empower the weak at the expense of strong. He considers religions as an agonistic metaphor constructing vehicle. He thinks that religion and its beliefs are merely to provide peace of soul to the individual. But this peace might be only a radiation or wishful thinking of encompassing a beast within the religious sphere. Nietzsche believes that religion is only a system without true spirituality. It is often the confusion of cause and effect that leads people to religious beliefs. This is an inherent habit of humans to commit this error. People mistake that effect for the cause very often and this is the worse corruption of the reason. Every religious principle or morality is based on this error. More legislators, preachers and priests that the true culprits of this corruption. Almost every religious principle is based on reward and punishment system. The general formula of every religion is based on ‘do this and that, and refrain from this and that’. When you obey you will be happy but if you dont there is punishment waiting for you. Nietzsche considers this the original sin of the reason. Because this formula imprints a master in the human mind that triggers all the impulses. It is through this perspective (which is a perversion of reality) the human being connects with the external world. And people start believing that someones works you should be the effect of their happiness. Religious beliefs tell people that a society is destroyed when they indulge into luxury. Nietzsche believes that when people start degenerating physiologically then the society approaches destruction, and at this point the society starts indulging in the luxuries and license. He thinks that Christianity is perverted and limits the freedom. It can finds the spirit within do’s and donts. An example of this perverse perception is when a person gets ill people say that it is caused by certain disease. But it religious preacher would say that he got sick because he could not fight the disease due to a pre-existing impoverished life. Nietzsche goes on to explain the realm of morality and religion. In religious looks for imaginary causes or explanations for anything that cannot be explained. These are the disagreeable feelings and are produced by beings that are human’s enemies. In this category evil spirits and witches are at the top of the list. These creatures get aroused by an acceptable actions such as the feeling of seeing that cause a person if physiological discomfort. The truth is that a person always finds some reason to feel dissatisfied with the ones self. These feelings are produced as punishment for a payment for something that should not have been done. Or even something that should not have been desired. Any explanation of the opposite category of good agreeable feelings are attributed to someones trust in God. The consciousness of good deeds produces them. It is the good conscience or physiological state that at times appears like good digestion because it is very hard to separate the conscience and the physiological state from a psychological analysis. These feelings are instilled or triggered through faith, hope, obedience and other Christian values. The problem is that all of these are effects not the causes. But the beauty of the religious system is that it translates these feelings into religious terminologies. Freud thinks that religion is responsible for the human misery, Nietzsche agrees with this general notion. Freud has criticized the general concept of religion where death is only a transportation tool (deliverer), he thinks this idea is absurd and takes away the joy from life. He thinks that religion is as much responsible for human guilt as sexuality. The debate goes back to the identity and self that generates the feelings about a deity or heaven and hell. He thinks that civilization has to see you it selects in the face of religion. He also believes that religion goes through transgression, meaning the foundations are not fixed which gives the religious scholars the leverage to mold it to their needs. He thinks that universal love has higher value than religious preaching. Nietzsche agrees with Freud in his own way. He thinks that the life of saints as portrayed in religious stories is impossible the same way the restriction of will is impossible. Freud’s assessment of Kants moral philosophy Immanuel Kants view of philosophy is based on Greek ideas. He supported their system of dividing philosophy into three distinct sciences; physics, ethics and logic. He supported this because he found it the best suited distinctions of things. And the only improvement he could think of was adding principles to it. These principles would satisfy any critic about its completeness. The subdivisions could also be better justified. His distinction of philosophy into experience and purity was the basis for his views on morality. Pure philosophy or the definite objects of understanding was termed metaphysics. A priori, independent of experience. Metaphysics also has two classes; metaphysics of nature and of morality. It also means that physics must also contain an empirical as well as rational part. Ethics are based on similar grounds but the empirical part here deserves a special name of practical anthropology. Morality would only deal with the rational part. Immanuel Kant limits the moral philosophy within the condition of utmost necessity. For instance is it not the utmost necessity of creating a pure thing based only on empirical evidence that belongs to anthropology? If any philosophy supports this question it must come from the idea of duty and moral laws. There is hardly any denying that when a law has moral force it should also carry an absolute necessity with it. For instance the moral obligation of telling the truth is not only applicable to men. Any rational being must also observe it. In simpler words for any moral law to be applicable as an obligation it should not be based on the necessities of men or only applicable to the human life. Moral law should be universal it should be based as a premise of pure reason. If there is certain empirical base for this law it cannot be called moral law because it would be dependent on experience (experience of the mans life). Hence morality or more laws are separate from practical knowledge which is dependent on evidence or empirical rationality. Moral philosophy only depends on the pure part. It is as if an authority imposes these laws on the man. It does not borrow anything from the mans life itself, it is something divine. It is also true that these laws need validation and judgment to some degree of experience. After all they need to pass the test of application; whether they apply for the desired effect or not. It can be concluded that Immanuel Kant believed that a divine authority or God is the guarantor of moral behavior. The link between moral behavior and conscience is crucial in understanding Immanuel Kants philosophy. Sigmund Freud is not recognized for his philosophy. He was a man of science who based his theories about human development in terms of sexual desires. He believed that the unconscious mind of the person holds repressed feelings. These feelings are usually sexual or aggressive in nature but there are times when these repressed feelings express themselves through dreams. This strange conflict in a persons mind is the main source of neurosis. He suggests psychoanalytic treatment for bringing these unconscious wishes and repressed desires to the consciousness. Hence, he believed that the feeling or energy that people recognize as the conscience is only a product of the subconscious of the unconscious mind. It also suggests that Immanuel Kant philosophy about moral duty is also based on the unconscious mind and social engineering. The moral responsibility of the person comes from the ‘super ego’. This inner thermostat of good and bad behavior feels good for doing good deeds and feels bad on ‘sins’. Sigmund Freud believed that religion is nothing but mass delusion a neurosis of obsessive nature. This indicates that Sigmund Freud believed that Emanuel Kant’s philosophy of morality was nothing but an effect of his nurturing. It was his subconscious that was influenced by his upbringing by his parents. The parallels between Freud and Kant’s teachings are remarkable; Kant’s understanding competes with Freudian ego and Freud admits it in the sense that he refers to Kant many times in his work. It is as if he has given a parallel alternative to Kant’s understanding and his philosophy. There are certain inherent problems with Immanuel Kants moral philosophy. If the obligation of morality or moral principles are imposed by the divine than how does this morality is not universal? Cultures have so much influence on defining what is right and wrong. A society allows cannibalism while another culture would consider it wrong or morally unjust, making the question of morality highly subjective. An individual growing up in a society that promotes or allows cannibalism would consider it right to eat human flesh. On the contrary, the social environment that brings up people on the notion that cannibalism is wrong would be repulsed by this idea. In both these cases it is the conscience that determines the judgment of right and wrong. The conscience is based on education, nurturing, self-interests, needs and desires, and the individual does not have absolute control on any of these. Another loophole in the philosophy of morality is conflict. Often times the same moral philosophy would not be applicable simultaneously satisfying each and every category. For instance a moral obligation would require a person to love his wife and his children. But if the state calls him to serve in the military and participate in an ongoing war then it is also a moral obligation to defend the homeland. Immanuel Kant’s principles of morality would be stronger if each individual had the same structure of conscience. Every individual having exactly the same idea about the right and wrong would have made the debate much easier to settle with Immanuel Kant overruling all objections of Sigmund Freud. But that is not the case. Which is why Freud considers religion an illusion based on wishful thinking. Sigmund Freuds fundamental criticism to morality and religion is based on his own method of analysis and interpretation. He is a man of experimentation and observation. Anything that cannot be established through experience or observation does not hold much importance for Freud. What others like Immanuel Kant consider conscience or moral judgment is simply a component of the self for Freud. Super ego, ego and ID make up the self. It is usually the super ego that makes people confuse spirituality with social nurturing. Immanuel Kant believed that the concept of morality should be imposed by a divine deity or God. Freud on the other hand believes that this religious belief only serves a psychological purpose. It makes people comfortable when there is discomfort in the environment. People can attribute reasons they cannot explain to supernatural. And the comforting thing is that the gods can be appeased through good deeds that control these supernatural phenomena. Read More