I know of many Christians who dislike Sigmund Freud and are disgusted of his theories on human personality, namely his controversial theory on psychosexual development. However despite that I do appreciate Freud's theory on the ego, superego and id because somehow I find it interesting to see that it sheds some light on my faith as a Christian.Allow me to give you a crash course on Freud's theory. According to Freud our mind is made up of the ego, superego and id. The ego is the largely concious part of our mind, the superego is the largely unconconcious and the id is in the unconcious. The id is like a child: pleasure-seeking and totally selfish. The superego however is like the judge and it wants us to be moral in our actions and induces guilt when we break moral codes. And the ego is the mediator between the id and superego; sort of like a middleman who negotiates and makes a compromise between the two. These three distinct components of the mind is crucial and we cannot have one without the other because they work together as a whole.
So what has this got to do with my faith?
For starters I find it fascinating that in Genesis the Bible mentions that "God (editor's note: who is Trinitarian in nature) created man in his own image" and that we ourselves possess an inner trinity (i.e. the id, ego and superego) which is inseperable and has distinct "persons" within, just like the Holy Trinity! Of course, ours is no where as united and perfect as the Holy Trinity and I attribute the cause of the disunity and conflict between the id, ego and superego to our fallen nature.
I have a few questions running through my mind and I would like to share it with all of you. :) Could it be that the superego is the law God has put in our minds and has written in our hearts? And the id is the consequence of our fallen nature? What about the ego? Could the ego be "the willing spirit" which Jesus mentioned in Matthew 26? And "the flesh be another word for the id?
Ahh... I love psychology. :D
8 comments:
Interesting analysis. Personally, I find most of Freud's theories rubbish, except perhaps his defense mechanisms. Mainly because his theories about our unconscious, especially, are unfalsifiable. Can't prove whether they're right or wrong. It's like someone trying to prove or disprove my saying that aliens visited me last night, and there's no alibi. Rather impossible to prove whether I'm telling the truth or lying.
RK Boo: Careful there. :) Similarly, there is no proof regarding things of faith, such as the existence of God; which is both impossible to prove or falsified.
IMHO a theory that we are unable to prove cannot be dismiss hastely just because we don't have the means to prove it.
cant believe you can see the link there in matthew 26... anyway, i dont like freud...and i never like psychology...
All scientific theories are potentially falsifiable. If it is not, then then it is not scientific. That would place Freud's theories, at minimum, squarely in the category of faith/superstition. Freud likened himself to some of the greatest scientists in history, so he undoubtedly wanted his theories to be regarded as scientific. Unfortunately, Freud faked most of his 'data' and observations of his patients (most notably of Anna O). His 'theory' of the ego, superego and id is irretrievably intertwined with the idea of repressed sexuality, the sexual desire of a boy for his mother, and widespread sexual abuse within the family. He was also virulently anti Catholic though he did some dabbling with the occult:
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/churpsyc/freud.html
Adrian K
Jerine: haha. I am trying to see God in all things :)
Adrian K: Hey, long time no see! :D Matthew 5:45 says that God sends rain to the just and the unjust. It may be true that Freud is anti-Catholic, however God might have used Freud to shed some facets of truth for the sake of many others. :)
Interesting as Su-Lyn has said, however the principle of falsifiability could be applied in Freud's case as he was an active advocate of using scientific methods himself. Nothing wrong with the analysis but I agree with Su Lyn, many of his theories per se are rubbish as it is reductionistic and deterministic. Having said that, we could draw parellels and lessons from it, as what you have done here =)
Hmm... Somewhat make sense to me. Good thoughts.
Post a Comment