Scan barcode
A review by danielad
Psychoanalysis and Religion by Erich Fromm
2.0
In this short text, Fromm distinguishes between authoritarian and humanistic religious feelings. He states that authoritarian religious impulses are bad while humanistic feelings are good. The former places God beyond humanity as its master and guide while the latter centres around the idea that man can either correct God or can become a kind of God. The psychoanalyst, Fromm argues, ought to help her/his patients by directing them towards more humanistic impulses. Only then, Fromm claims, will humanity become free and just.
The main failing of Fromm's text is obvious: where does he get the idea that humanistic feelings are superior to authoritarian ones? Far from accepting religions as competing worldviews, he subordinates all religious feelings to his own (Marxist?) moral standard. His attempt to remain neutral fails completely (as do all other attempts to remain neutral). In the end, Fromm devalues the differences between religions and their distinct claims to legitimacy by failing to recognize them as fundamentally competing positions (please realize that my own view is also far from neutral). At the very least, Fromm could have acknowledged the impossibility of neutrality.
Finally, I find Fromm's optimism nauseous. To suppose, only five years after WWII, that humanity can eventually become just and free . . . for anyone who thinks this is possible, just read uncensored YouTube comments or the comments on articles at cbc.ca (or nearly every other website for that matter). Left to itself and with a veil of anonymity, humanity tends towards the vile and arrogant.
The main failing of Fromm's text is obvious: where does he get the idea that humanistic feelings are superior to authoritarian ones? Far from accepting religions as competing worldviews, he subordinates all religious feelings to his own (Marxist?) moral standard. His attempt to remain neutral fails completely (as do all other attempts to remain neutral). In the end, Fromm devalues the differences between religions and their distinct claims to legitimacy by failing to recognize them as fundamentally competing positions (please realize that my own view is also far from neutral). At the very least, Fromm could have acknowledged the impossibility of neutrality.
Finally, I find Fromm's optimism nauseous. To suppose, only five years after WWII, that humanity can eventually become just and free . . . for anyone who thinks this is possible, just read uncensored YouTube comments or the comments on articles at cbc.ca (or nearly every other website for that matter). Left to itself and with a veil of anonymity, humanity tends towards the vile and arrogant.