Comparing Sigmund Freud's Views On Eternity And Religion

451 Words1 Page

Sigmud Freud is a famous psychiatrist who studied the mental and behavioral changes of his patients. He develops methods through the analysis of his patients, basing conflicts off the dreams and fantasies they have. Unlike Freud, his friend Rolland believes due to his religious foundation, he is at one with the universe, or the “sensation of eternity”. Eternity means a time without an end, religions defines it to live forever. Rolland uses that as an outlet to at one with the universe. Skeptically Freud disagrees, he believes to be “oceanic” one must be at comfort of their pleasure. Freud reflects wryly on the views of Rolland and acknowledges religion as a playtime for pleasure. Plausible for Freud’s argument would be a baby. When an infant is born, instincts activate allowing the baby to know something just happened. Aware that he/she no longer lives in the mother, the baby still communicates through yells and comfort to receive the comfort and affection of mother. One comfort or pleasure can be the …show more content…

Once the thought of the food recurs periodically; hormones are raised. When you finally get the food that was once fantasized all intense hormones are released and and pleasure taken from is eating it. Freud seems to not refer as pleasure as pain but as distraction, can pleasure hurt us well maybe so. Freud’s account of our feeling of “self” is plausible. With Roland, he used religion to feel “self”, but not everyone will go the same experience with him. Freud was able to prove the Pleasure Principle is the outlet for many who attempt to “oceanic” through their comfort. Freud agrees the religion is a pleasure to an extent, he feels just like hobbies and comfort religion is nothing but a playtime pleasure. As Freud continues, he develops theories that helped elevate the term for what is means to be at one with the universe called

Open Document