Hello, and welcome to the Mr. Renaissance discussion forum. You can interact with others here and express your thoughts freely. If you came here in search of older entries prior to February 2006, they are archived here.
| Post New Topic Post A Reply | |
Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem |
printer friendly version next newest post |
| Author | Messages |
|
emmausway
Private First Class
Gender: Male
Location: Joplin, Mo. Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 16 |
     
 Posted Saturday, February 4, 2006 @ 11:42 AM
Eric, This new forum is going to be great, I think. If nothing more it is certainly colorful  Like you! Allow me to get to purpose of my post. I am writing a critique for an essay in my English 101 class. As you know, I am fairly new to the world I writing(and I love it). Of course I have always been a reader but this writing thing is new and exciting to me. I always want to get all that is possible from every assignment. The essay I chose to critique is Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem. I chose this essay partly for the challenge I feel that it is, stretching me a bit, and partly because I disagree so vehemently with it. I thought possibly you were familiar with Fromm, and possibly even written about this essay before; something archived. I realize we are very busy with our own worlds, but then there may be someone out there with some insight for me. Just in case I will paste the essay here. I am willing to read any and all opinion on this topic. Thank you, Eric for this forum and for the help you have been to me. God bless ~ carl Erich Fromm states that,”Human history began with an act of disobedience,” and my humble opinion is that it began with an act of love. Read more to feast your eyes on a banquet of Psychological mumbo jumbo. Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem Erich Fromm From 1932 to 1994 Erich Fromm wrote twenty-three books. Among these are The Art of Loving, The Crisis of Psychoanalysis, The Art of Being, and On Being Human. This article originally appeared in 1963. For centuries kings, priests, feudal lords, industrial bosses and parents have insisted that obedience is a virtue and that disobedience is a vice. In order to introduce another point of view, let us set against this position the following statement: human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be, terminated by an act of obedience. Human history was ushered in by an act of disobedience according to the Hebrew and Greek myths. Adam and Eve, living in the Garden of Eden, were part of nature; they were in harmony with it, yet did not transcend it. They were in nature as the fetus is in the womb of the mother. They were human, and at the same time not yet human. All this changed when they disobeyed an order. By breaking the ties with earth and mother, by cutting the umbilical cord, man emerged from a pre-human harmony and was able to take the first step into independence and freedom. The act of disobedience set Adam and Eve free and opened their eyes. They recognized each other as strangers and the world outside them as strange and even hostile. Their act of disobedience broke the primary bond with nature and made them individuals. “Original sin,” far from corrupting man, set him free; it was the beginning of history. Man had to leave the Garden of Eden in order to learn to rely on his own powers and to become fully human. The prophets, in their messianic concept, confirmed the idea that man had been right in disobeying; that he had not been corrupted by his “sin,” but freed from the fetters of pre-human harmony. For the prophets, history is the place where man becomes human; during its unfolding he develops his powers of reason and of love until he creates a new harmony between himself, his fellow man and nature. This new harmony is described as “the end of days,” that period of history in which there is peace between man and man, and between man and nature. It is a “new” paradise created by man himself, and one which he alone could create because he was forced to leave the “old” paradise as a result of his disobedience. Just as the Hebrew myth of Adam and Eve, so the Greek myth of Prometheus sees all of human civilization based on an act of disobedience. Prometheus, in stealing the fire from the gods, lays the foundation for the evolution of man. There would be no human history were it not for Prometheus’ “crime.” He, like Adam and Eve, is punished for his disobedience. But he does not repent and ask for forgiveness. On the contrary, he proudly says: “I would rather be chained to this rock than be the obedient servant of the gods.” Man has continued to evolve by acts of disobedience. Not only was his spiritual development possible only because there were men who dared to say no to the powers that be in the name of their conscience or their faith, but also his intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient—disobedient to authorities who tried to muzzle new thoughts and to the authority of long-established opinions which declared a change to be nonsense. If the capacity for disobedience constituted the beginning of human history, obedience might very well, as I have said, cause the end of human history. I am not speaking symbolically or poetically. There is the possibility, or even the probability, that the human race will destroy civilization and even all life upon earth within the next five to ten years. There is no rationality or sense in it. But the fact is that, while we are living technically in the Atomic Age, the majority of men—including most of those who are in power—still live emotionally in the Stone Age; that while our mathematics, astronomy, and the natural sciences are of the twentieth century, most of our ideas about politics, the state, and society lag far behind the age of science. If mankind commits suicide it will be because people will obey those who command them to push the deadly buttons; because they will obey the archaic passions of fear, hate, and greed; because they will obey obsolete clichés of State sovereignty and national honor. The Soviet leaders talk much about revolutions, and we in the “free world” talk much about freedom. Yet they and we discourage disobedience—in the Soviet Union explicitly and by force, in the free world implicitly and by the more subtle methods of persuasion. But I do not mean to say that all disobedience is a virtue and all obedience a vice. Such a view would ignore the dialectical relationship between obedience and disobedience. Whenever the principles which are obeyed and those which are disobeyed are irreconcilable, an act of obedience to one principle is necessarily an act of disobedience to its counterpart, and vice versa. Antigone is the classic example of this dichotomy. By obeying the inhuman laws of the State, Antigone necessarily would disobey the laws of humanity. By obeying the latter, she must disobey the former. All martyrs of religious faiths, of freedom and of science have had to disobey those who wanted to muzzle them in order to obey their own consciences, the laws of humanity and of reason. If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary); he acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle. However, in order to prevent a confusion of terms an important qualification must be made. Obedience to a person, institution or power (heteronomous obedience) is submission; it implies the abdication of my autonomy and the acceptance of a foreign will or judgment in place of my own. Obedience to my own reason or conviction (autonomous obedience) is not an act of submission but one of affirmation. My conviction and my judgment, if authentically mine, are part of me. If I follow them rather than the judgment of others, I am being myself; hence the word obey can be applied only in a metaphorical sense and with a meaning which is fundamentally different from the one in the case of “heteronomous obedience.” But this distinction still needs two further qualifications, one with regard to the concept of conscience and the other with regard to the concept of authority. The word conscience is used to express two phenomena which are quite distinct from each other. One is the “authoritarian conscience” which is the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please and afraid of displeasing. This authoritarian conscience is what most people experience when they obey their conscience. It is also the conscience which Freud speaks of, and which he called “Super-Ego.” This Super-Ego represents the internalized commands and prohibitions of father, accepted by the son out of fear. Different from the authoritarian conscience is the “humanistic conscience”; this is the voice present in every human being and independent from external sanctions and rewards. Humanistic conscience is based on the fact that as human beings we have an intuitive knowledge of what is human and inhuman, what is conducive of life and what is destructive of life. This conscience serves our functioning as human beings. It is the voice which calls us back to ourselves, to our humanity. Authoritarian conscience (Super-Ego) is still obedience to a power outside of myself, even though this power has been internalized. Consciously I believe that I am following my conscience; in effect, however, I have swallowed the principles of power; just because of the illusion that humanistic conscience and Super-Ego are identical, internalized authority is so much more effective than the authority which is clearly experienced as not being part of me. Obedience to the “authoritarian conscience,” like all obedience to outside thoughts and power, tends to debilitate “humanistic conscience,” the ability to be and to judge oneself. The statement, on the other hand, that obedience to another person is ipso facto submission needs also to be qualified by distinguishing “irrational” from “rational” authority. An example of rational authority is to be found in the relationship between student and teacher; one of irrational authority in the relationship between slave and master. Both relationships are based on the fact that the authority of the person in command is accepted. Dynamically, however, they are of a different nature. The interests of the teacher and the student, in the ideal case, lie in the same direction. The teacher is satisfied if he succeeds in furthering the student; if he has failed to do so, the failure is his and the student’s. The slave owner, on the other hand, wants to exploit the slave as much as possible. The more he gets out of him the more satisfied he is. At the same time, the slave tries to defend as best he can his claims for a minimum of happiness. The interests of slave and master are antagonistic, because what is advantageous to the one is detrimental to the other. The superiority of the one over the other has a different function in each case; in the first it is the condition for the furtherance of the person subjected to the authority, and in the second it is the condition for his exploitation. Another distinction runs parallel to this: rational authority is rational because the authority, whether it is held by a teacher or a captain of a ship giving orders in an emergency, acts in the name of reason which, being universal, I can accept without submitting. Irrational authority has to use force or suggestion, because no one would let himself be exploited if he were free to prevent it. Why is man so prone to obey and why is it so difficult for him to disobey? As long as I am obedient to the power of the State, the Church, or public opinion, I feel safe and protected. In fact it makes little difference what power it is that I am obedient to. It is always an institution, or men, who use force in one form or another and who fraudulently claim omniscience and omnipotence. My obedience makes me part of the power I worship, and hence I feel strong. I can make no error, since it decides for me; I cannot be alone, because it watches over me; I cannot commit a sin, because it does not let me do so, and even if I do sin, the punishment is only the way of returning to the almighty power. In order to disobey, one must have the courage to be alone, to err and to sin. But courage is not enough. The capacity for courage depends on a person’s state of development. Only if a person has emerged from mother’s lap and father’s commands, only if he has emerged as a fully developed individual and thus has acquired the capacity to think and feel for himself, only then can he have the courage to say “no” to power, to disobey. A person can become free through acts of disobedience by learning to say no to power. But not only is the capacity for disobedience the condition for freedom; freedom is also the condition for disobedience. If I am afraid of freedom, I cannot dare to say “no,” I cannot have the courage to be disobedient. Indeed, freedom and the capacity for disobedience are inseparable; hence any social, political, and religious system which proclaims freedom, yet stamps out disobedience, cannot speak the truth. There is another reason why it is so difficult to dare to disobey, to say “no” to power. During most of human history obedience has been identified with virtue and disobedience with sin. The reason is simple: thus far throughout most of history a minority has ruled over the majority. This rule was made necessary by the fact that there was only enough of the good things of life for the few, and only the crumbs remained for the many. If the few wanted to enjoy the good things and, beyond that, to have the many serve them and work for them, one condition was necessary: the many had to learn obedience. To be sure, obedience can be established by sheer force. But this method has many disadvantages. It constitutes a constant threat that one day the many might have the means to overthrow the few by force; furthermore there are many kinds of work which cannot be done properly if nothing but fear is behind the obedience. Hence the obedience which is only rooted in the fear of force must be transformed into one rooted in man’s heart. Man must want and even need to obey, instead of only fearing to disobey. If this is to be achieved, power must assume the qualities of the All Good, of the All Wise; it must become All Knowing. If this happens, power can proclaim that disobedience is sin and obedience virtue; and once this has been proclaimed, the many can accept obedience because it is good and detest disobedience because it is bad, rather than to detest themselves for being cowards. From Luther to the nineteenth century one was concerned with overt and explicit authorities. Luther, the pope, the princes, wanted to uphold it; the middle class, the workers, the philosophers, tried to uproot it. The fight against authority in the State as well as in the family was often the very basis for the development of an independent and daring person. The fight against authority was inseparable from the intellectual mood which characterized the philosophers of the enlightenment and the scientists. This “critical mood” was one of faith in reason, and at the same time of doubt in everything which is said or thought, inasmuch as it is based on tradition, superstition, custom, power. The principles sapere aude and de omnibus est dubitandum—” dare to be wise” and “of all one must doubt”—were characteristic of the attitude which permitted and furthered the capacity to say “no.” The case of Adolf Eichmann is symbolic of our situation and has a significance far beyond the one which his accusers in the courtroom in Jerusalem were concerned with. Eichmann is a symbol of the organization man, of the alienated bureaucrat for whom men, women and children have become numbers. He is a symbol of all of us. We can see ourselves in Eichmann. But the most frightening thing about him is that after the entire story was told in terms of his own admissions, he was able in perfect good faith to plead his innocence. It is clear that if he were once more in the same situation he would do it again. And so would we—and so do we. The organization man has lost the capacity to disobey, he is not even aware of the fact that he obeys. At this point in history the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization. THE PRICE OF DISOBEDIENCE In one version of the story, Prometheus steals fire from the Gods and is punished by being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten out every day by an eagle. |
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Saturday, February 4, 2006 @ 02:01 PM
One thing I really like about this new forum layout is that I can actually see so much of what I’m typing, and at the same time see all of the post to which I’m responding. Carl, I enjoyed reading this. I have always been fascinated by psychology and philosophy. I think that as far as whether human history began with an act of disobedience or one of love, I would say that you might want to peek at Eric’s last two posts as fishtree on xanga - I can never get links done right, so I’ll give you the address: http://www.xanga.com/fishtree One thing I thought as I read your opinion about love vs disobedience was what is brought out in those articles: things are not always what they seem. In light of that, I would say that we do well not to throw the baby out with the bath and consider all psychology “mumbo jumbo” nor all we hear in the pulpit as “truth.” There is truth in all these things, and our job, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is to let Him sort it out for us. One thing that strikes me right off is this statement Fromm makes: ”Man had to leave the Garden of Eden in order to learn to rely on his own powers and to become fully human. ” Note his reference to “man’s own powers.” In a sense, this strikes me as true. Certainly God is not out to corrupt us in order to humanize us. So, if Fromm is saying that all we see around us is the result of the evolution of humanization, then I see what he’s saying but I don’t see it in the positive light he seems to see it. I think, in reading further, that Fromm himself seems to place God and man in the category of “master/slave” and therefore sees God’s authority as arbitrary and irrational, something we must rebel against if we are to be more than simply mindless robots with no recourse but to obey. This has been the sentiment, I believe, of many Christians who have grown up through the centuries in rigid religious environments where obedience, as Fromm points out, was the virtue of the day - the attitude of “do as I say, not as I do” and the fear of parents that somehow if they failed to produce children who grew up to be “acceptable” in the site of the local church community, it reflected more on them as parents (liable to God and man alike for their failure) than the children themselves. This sort of paradigm, indeed, could use an overhaul. I do agree with Fromm when he says the following: “If mankind commits suicide it will be because people will obey those who command them to push the deadly buttons; because they will obey the archaic passions of fear, hate, and greed; because they will obey obsolete clichés of State sovereignty and national honor.” There was another very good post on xanga today by wildernesschild: http://www.xanga.com/wildernesschild He makes a very good point when he says: “We seem to believe that there are good men out there including ourselves. And that if we play our cards right we will take over the world - and this would be to everyone’s benefit. Dare another man to try and we will oppose him to the bitter end. Even when under the guise of the “good of all people” it is really that we might lay hold of the mantle of power. This is why history is written from so many different angles and everyone of them is self-serving - even our own. America has this kind of mentality almost sense its conception.” You see, we all do this. You, me, politicians, psychologists, theologists. We want to believe and prove we are right and others are wrong. So much of the “rebellion” against religion has been from a sense of oppression. I believe personally that it is because for too long we have seen God as someone He is not, but someone He was portrayed to be because of man’s selfish desire for power over other men and justification of himself. As to whether or not the fall of man was obedience or love, I would say that there is likely some of both in there. But the bottom line is that we very likely don’t know all the story. But it doesn’t hurt to read what others think and go to God with it and ask Him what He thinks of what is written. A very wise man once prayed that God would lead him to see the truth in whatever was presented to him, and to show him what was in it that was based on error. This, I think, is a very good approach in all that comes our way. Good luck and God bless in your endeavors. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1248 |
Posted Monday, February 6, 2006 @ 10:11 AM
“Erich Fromm states that,”Human history began with an act of disobedience,” and my humble opinion is that it began with an act of love.” I suppose the conflict between you and Fromm stems from your differing interpretation of the phrase “beginning of human history.” I’m not sure (correct me if I’m wrong), but you are defining it as the “beginning of creation itself”, which certainly began with an act of love. However, if, like Fromm, you believe that human history began when man ate the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then it certainly did begin with an act of disobedience. I tend to agree with Fromm’s interpretation. There wasn’t much “history being made” in the Garden of Eden, was there? It was a timeless existence, without conflict of any kind. I’m so glad that you are reading things that make you uncomfortable. We all should do that more. |
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Monday, February 6, 2006 @ 11:34 AM
Good point, Sara. I hadn’t thought of that. |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 809 |
Posted Monday, February 6, 2006 @ 03:35 PM
Hello Carl, In many ways, Fromm is following the party line of psychologists writing during the 50s and 60s, or there about. I just returned a book written mby Edward Edinger entitled Ego and Archetype; additionally, I was scanning work from Jung’s book Man and His Symbols. Ironically, Dr. Baumlin ended up using neither of these texts for his course examining literature that in some way involves aging and what it means to become elderly: apparently his students found the writing somewhat archaic and difficult to follow—I would further add from my own experience that they may have questioned its validity and considered it irrelevant. One thing I find difficult about much of the psychological writing from this time period is the way it tends to dogmatically categorize what I believe is essentially subjective experience into a single universal interpretation. It is one thing, for example, to say that all people have dreams. We would probably say that this statement was true with very few exceptions and if we were being charitable in our reading, we would forgive the handful of exceptions we might be able to generate. By contrast, if we said that all persons who dreamt of apples were struggling with temptation of some sort (symbolic of the Adamic fruit), most of us would put the brakes on hard and come to a screeching halt: “Now wait just a minute! You are claiming that all people who dream of apples are struggling with temptation? Perhaps some such persons are struggling with temptation; perhaps in some instances apples do form part of Jung’s theoretical collective unconscious that holds for humanity universally and therefore often do refer to temptation. However, dreaming of apples is a subjective experience and more recent research verifies that though a symbol may often mean a given thing (being open-minded in accepting the possibility), dreams are a very personal language. It may be that I dreamt of apples, not because I was being tempted in any way but merely that they remind me of my Grandmother’s orchard and I am feeling homesick.” Now then, Sara brings out that the disagreement that you share with Fromm as to whether human history began with an act of love or of disobedience may be how you define “human history” and what constitutes it. Many disagreements between persons are of this nature and come from a sort of impression in our thought because we have not clearly established the totality of the premises to which we refer. For example, you and I may both have dined out at Red Lobster. You argue that the food was awful; I argue that it is very good. Now of course that may all be a matter of opinion. But let us assume, for the sake of our example, that some food is ever and always good to everybody without qualification and other food is likewise ever and always bad to everybody without qualification. And let us further say that the food at Red Lobster is of this sort: that no matter who ate there, their opinions would be exactly the same as to whether the food was good or bad. Yet how can this be, then, that you said their food was awful and I said it was very good if all persons everywhere will find the food Red Lobster serves either good if it is good or bad if it is bad? It is because we failed to mention that you ordered crab legs and shrimp topping—food that in our silly example is always experienced as bad by all persons—whereas I ordered lobster served in a sauce made from red wine—food that in our example is always experienced as delicious by all persons everywhere. Thus, you and I stand outside and argue back and forth, back and forth, but neither of us has taken into consideration the actual menu that was served us. Had we taken the menu into account, our differences would be resolved and you would say, “Eric’s experience at Red Lobster was naturally pleasant because he ordered lobster served in sauce made from red wine whereas mine was naturally horrid because I ordered crab legs and shrimp topping.” It strikes me that in this way, we need to find out exactly what men like Fromm are trying to say, first in their own language and then translated back into the language to which we are most accustomed. Fromm is probably not very interested in knowing whether Adam and Eve really existed nor is he probably very concerned whether God happens to exist or not either: at least these are not his primary considerations. Fromm is a psychologist, which means he is interested in the individual and his formation. Fromm is speaking about the development of the human psyche, which he assumes cannot have developed in any other way than through an act of initial disobedience, assuming that the creation account in the book of Genesis at least has symbolic meaning. We know that he is probably not giving it literal meaning in any historical sense because he also brings up the myth of Prometheus as being equivalent in meaning and it is doubtful that he believes the Greek myth to be objective historical truth. (He may, but if so, he would be an exception to the typical 20th century Westerner and not the norm.) Now then, what are these rules that we are disobeying in his essay? Remember, he is not concerned with the Genesis account being historically true or of saying anything objective about God. We may read into this that he does not believe in God; we might even be correct if we did, but this is beyond the scope of what is written and that is all that we have to work with. So the story of Adam and Eve is simply an allegory for human development just as is the myth of Prometheus. In both cases there was an act of disobedience against some kind of higher authority or power, in the case of Adam and Eve symbolized by God, and in the case of Prometheus symbolized by Zeus. It is much harder to make a case for human development from the myth of Prometheus than it is from the story of Adam and Eve because it is Prometheus, not humanity, who is disobeying Zeus. Because of Prometheus’ disobedience in giving man fire, man was furthered in his development. But it was not man who directly disobeyed and thus the analogy does not seem to hold as tightly, a criticism we might fairly level against Fromm. However, in the case of Adam and Even—and this account seems to be more central to Fromm’s thesis—Adam and Eve apparently did benefit in some way from their own disobedience: they learned the difference between good and evil. Fromm appears to simply take it for granted that this newly acquired knowledge is a good thing and that it was essential for the formation of man. The most that we can really say is that psychologically speaking, humanity as we know it today does in fact know the difference between good and evil and if there was ever a point at which humanity did not know this difference, it was necessary for this knowledge to be acquired before humanity as we know it today emerged. Thus, if we refer to Adam and Eve, human history began with an act of disobedience, because prior to that act, there were creatures but we could not fairly call them men because they lacked the cognitive faculty of discernment. If we are to triumph the condition in which we find man and say that this knowledge between good and evil was positive then we can go on to suggest that all forms of forbidden knowledge are hindrances to our development. But we do not necessarily have to take it that far even. Think for a moment about parenting children, something in which you have firsthand experience. In David Denby’s article “Buried alive: Our children and the avalanche of crud” published in the July 15, 1996, edition of The New Yorker, Denby speaks about parenting as involving the child’s controlled loss of innocence. It is not that we wish children to remain forever innocent, but rather that we wish their awareness of the “real world” to unfold according to a sensible timetable over which we, as parents, have control. John does not want his seven-year-old daughter Jenny to forever be naive about human sexuality; rather he hopes that in the future she will find a faithful and loving husband and enjoy human sexuality to its fullest extent, likely involving children of her own. However, at seven years of age, John probably does not want his daughter to understand all the particulars involved in human sexuality because she is not yet ready for that loss of innocence. All knowledge involves a trade-off, and that trade-off involves a loss of innocence. This much appears to be what we would get out of Fromm with a charitable reading in which we give him the benefit of the doubt and look for things that most of us would affirm. The problem that we often face reading such writing, however, is the questions it raises about God. It seems to present God not in the light of a loving parent who plans for the gradual loss of innocence as His children grow and develop, but rather as a deceiver who wishes them to stay in perpetual adolescence. The serpent thus becomes the ultimate savior and redeemer and is in fact seen as such in many psychological writings as well as the teachings of Gnosticism and many of the modern-day “mystery religions” of which we shall say no more here, save that they deem “Lucifer” as the torchbearer and ultimate bringer of light. Lucifer in this sense, of course, is not seen as the devil or Satan in typically Christian cosmology (and thus a tempter, deceiver, liar, cheat, and murderer), but rather as being at worst a necessary evil (and thereby good) or at best the truly wise one who knew what it would take for humanity to reach full bloom and had the courage to act upon it. Perhaps he simply got a bad rap from the patriarchal religions: it appears in this sense that it is he who is the unsung Prometheus who stole the fire from Zeus. How we fall down on this argument ultimately amounts to how we answer the question of what is good and proper. We would all say that growth involves change: that much seems hard to refute. But the question can also be asked, “Is all change good? Does all change lead to growth?” Fromm makes some distinction here, or appears to do so, by suggesting that some adherence to authority may be wise if it is a rational authority (the implication seeming to be that much authority is neither wise nor rational). To the degree that we determine an authority to be unwise and irrational, we could probably all agree that following that authority—obeying—is likewise unwise and irrational. In fact, we are put on a much more even playing field if we all agree that it is wise to obey authority that is wise and is in fact at the time of commanding acting wisely and that it is unwise to obey authority that is unwise and is acting unwisely when expressing a given command. We likewise all probably agree that it is rational and sane to obey authority that is not only rational and sane but at that moment acting rationally and sanely and that it conversely is irrational to obey authority that is irrational and insane and acting thus at the moment. The problem seems to be in deciding which authorities are in fact wise and rational and acting accordingly. Let’s put this together. If we all agree on the idea that it is wise to follow the wise and unwise to follow the unwise in principle, we may still disagree in particular. In other words, I may say that it is wise to obey John because he is wise. You may say, by contrast, that it is unwise to obey John because he is unwise. We do not disagree that it is wise to obey wise persons and unwise to obey unwise persons. We simply disagree over the particular instance that John is wise (or unwise). We do not disagree in principle, only in particular. We need to say one last thing before we conclude. We are assuming that what is wise will lead to our growth and that what is unwise will not. What is wise, we are assuming, is wise on every level. Now perhaps Fromm would say that (a) John is wise according to a utilitarian sense but (b) unwise in an individual sense: that is, what he tells us to do would be for the greatest good of the greatest number but would be stunting to our own psychological development as an individual. Then it would be a question of which was more important: to set ourselves aside in the interest of the greatest number or to set aside the greatest number in the interest of our own personal development. But assuming that John is wise (or unwise) in both the utilitarian sense as well as the individual sense, then our argument mainly centers around the character of John. If we believe that John is wise in both senses, we would be foolish not to obey him. If we believe that John is unwise in both sense, we would be foolish to obey. Our argument, then, is not about being wise to follow the wise and foolish to follow the foolish but only about whether John is in fact one or the other. So too, what Fromm says about God and about authority figures in general is open to interpretation. We can agree with him in principle and yet deny the charges he makes against particulars. I hope this helps. I fear it may be somewhat confusing (my mother claims that philosophy is impossible because it travels in circles), but I think if you puzzle out what I have written here, you may have a better means of uncovering your own thoughts about the article. If you like, I have given you a hermeneutic—an interpretive tool—but I haven’t said much about what I believe one way or another nor have I tried to influence you toward one opinion or another. The reason may be as simple as your saying Red Lobster is awful while I say it is great: we could very well disagree and yet in the end come down on the same side of truth.  God bless, Eric |
|
emmausway
Private First Class
Gender: Male
Location: Joplin, Mo. Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 16 |
Posted Monday, February 6, 2006 @ 11:28 PM
Wow! That was one heck of a ride. I really enjoyed it, can we do that again  ? Eric, in all sincerity, I deeply appreciate you going to such lengths in explaining things to me. I am not sure that I even understood what I just read, but it was nevertheless, quite stimulating. I plan to chew on it and if the Lord wills some reason will come. As I have now gone back, since reading your post, and read some of Fromm’s essay I am beginning to see it in a different light. Aarg! Now what am I to do? I think I will need to look deeper and find a different approach than that which I previously had decided to take. As you touched on in your post,”all knowledge involves a trade-off.” Now that I am seeing things in somewhat a different light, the work I had previously done is more inferior then it was before I “knew better.” In my Eco class they would call this “Opportunity Costs.” This is not to insinuate that I understand what Fromm is saying, just that I am not seeing things the same as I was. I guess it is back to the drawing board for me. The problem is that time is of the essence! Nevertheless, thank you for your insights. I better think, think think…. and at some point do some writing. carl |
|
emmausway
Private First Class
Gender: Male
Location: Joplin, Mo. Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 16 |
Posted Monday, February 6, 2006 @ 11:31 PM
I wanted to say to Karen and Sara that I appreciate your posts and am thankful that you would take the time to respond, and even read my post. So thank you |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 809 |
Posted Monday, February 6, 2006 @ 11:53 PM
Hello Carl, I would not throw out everything you have written on account of what you have read here. We are our own worst critics and I am certain that what you have written is not as inferior as you appear to think it is. As for my own estimation, keep in mind how many hundreds of hours I have spent inside the philosophy classroom where our focus is arguments: how to make them, word them, analyze them, stack them one against another, turn them inside out and outside in, test them for validity, refute them, support them, etc. etc. If you like that kind of thing, take a few courses in philosophy and see if it is “for” you. Like training in martial arts, one does not become a Ninja overnight. Lots of luck in your classes and go easy on yourself. I believe in you: everything that I have seen come from your fingers shows uncommon potential—I do not use those words lightly—and you will be amazed at what another year or two of classes will effect if you persist and do not lose your vision. God bless, Eric |
|
jimmish
Private
Gender: Male
Location: Michigan Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1 |
Posted Tuesday, February 7, 2006 @ 09:49 PM
Carl, Eric, and others…Great topic and discussion! Thanks, all for injecting your insights! You’ve stimulated a lot of thoughts, but it’s late, I’m tired, and so I’m going to follw my own “wise” inclinations, and submit to my cellular-level call to repose.  blessingzzzzzzzz….Jim |
|
Carl's friend
Private
Gender: Male
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 6 |
Posted Tuesday, February 7, 2006 @ 10:41 PM
If I were a Buddhist, I would believe that Fromm might have been a snake in a previous life. So Fromm, things are better now that we have partaken of the fruit. Adam is blaming Eve and Eve is blaming Fromm and now to make things better we will have kids, Cain and Abel and guess what one kills the other and gets banished. It sounds almost like something on TV. Can we now invent the “science” of sociology, or how about a TV show, Crime Scene investigation-East of Eden. Is sarcasm ever good? |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1248 |
Posted Wednesday, February 8, 2006 @ 11:53 AM
Hey Carl’s friend…If you were a Buddhist….I mean, the real kind, who practices meditation, detachment, and lovingkindness, you wouldn’t be sarcastic. And you wouldn’t make judgments about snakes, either. They ain’t so bad….just slither around and protect themselves when provoked. They are a lot more trustworthy than human beings because they, at least, are predictable. Actually, to be quite honest, I don’t know if I would like to live in that “pre-expulsion from Eden era”. I mean…life, here and now, is difficult, but it’s at least interesting. I guess “reason” makes it so, eh? I hope Heaven isn’t like Eden. If it is…and I get there…I’m going to be pretty miserable…unless God performs some kind of spiritual lobotomy on me. |
|
Carl's friend
Private
Gender: Male
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 6 |
Posted Wednesday, February 8, 2006 @ 01:39 PM
It just occurred to me that I should have said Hindu. I need to probably know a little more about comparative religions. As I remember, it is the Hindu religion that believes in reincarnation. Maybe it was supposed to be that I made that mistake, since I am thinking that when the Buddhist is meditating, isn’t that person trying to reach a state of nirvana (or I am I confused again?)? If we could just place that person in the garden of Eden or heaven would that person think he had arrived? Also I was just reading about the return of the commune in my AARP magazine (the one with Goldie Hawn) on it. It was very interesting. I am thinking that heaven is a community in the best sense. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1248 |
Posted Wednesday, February 8, 2006 @ 06:49 PM
Buddhism is to Hinduism as Christianity is to Judaism. I think that both religions believe in Reincarnation, although I’m not sure if Buddha himself did, because he wasn’t big into metaphysical speculation. He wanted his disciples to confine themselves to this world…primarily to understand the reasons for suffering and work for its mitigation. However, since he was born a Hindu, I assume he believed in Reincarnation. Meditation is a discipline Buddhists (and many others) use to liberate themselves from delusion and thereby put an end to both ignorance and craving….the two primary causes of suffering. Nirvana isn’t a place. It’s a radical change in consciousness. When you are enlightened, Heaven is wherever you happen to be. At least that’s my understanding. I’m not much of an authority on Buddhism, but I’ve always been intrigued by it. I always thought of Buddha as the greatest psychologist in history. If Heaven is, as you say, “a community in the best sense”, then I’d like a few Buddhists there with me. |
|
emmausway
Private First Class
Gender: Male
Location: Joplin, Mo. Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 16 |
Posted Wednesday, February 8, 2006 @ 10:56 PM
I finally finished my critique of, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” I haven’t a clue what will be thought of it. One thing is sure, it was a fantastic experience for me. I think this essay stretched me considerably and I think that is always healthy. I want you all to know, this forum proved to be quite helpful in getting my thoughts liquid, and moving. I would still be interested in your opinions. Thanks again, and read on. carl My critque: Obedience: A Response to Love “You may be an ambassador to England or France, You may like to gamble, you might like to dance, You may be the heavyweight champion of the world, You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.” In 1979 these familiar words were crooned across the American airwaves by Bob Dylan. In contrast, John Lennon, another countercultural pop-star, singing his parody to Dylan’s song, brazenly droned these familiar words, “You gotta serve yourself ain’t nobody gonna do it for you you gotta serve yourself ain’t nobody gonna do it for you yeah, you may believe in devils and you may believe in laws but Christ, you gonna have to serve yourself and that’s all there is to it.” Psychoanalysts and philosopher, Erich Fromm received his PH.D. in Sociology from the University of Heidelberg in 1922. He spent much of his life lecturing and writing. His theories contained a rather distinctive combination of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. Erich Fromm, in his essay entitled, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” suggests that it is in disobedience that true and lasting freedom originates and subsists. Borrowing from the writings of the Bible, Fromm uses the story of Adam and Eve to explain man’s liberation from his pre-human existence. He explains symbolically that when Adam disobeyed and took the forbidden fruit from the, “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” he completely evolved from his pre-human (animal) state. Fromm contends,” By breaking the ties with earth and mother, by cutting the umbilical cord, man emerged from a prehuman harmony and was able to take the first step into independence and freedom.” In his essay he goes on to explain the tension and contradictory elements he sees between obedience and disobedience. Furthermore, he claims that the first human sin did not bring corruption to man, but set man on some type of concourse to freedom, and that on this liberating path of “Original Sin” that he would learn to depend on his own power and that is the very element that would make man completely human. In contrast, I am thankful that I do not have to depend on my own influence to redeem me, and that there is a power greater than myself waiting and willing to create in me an expression of love. Erich Fromm believed that, “human history began with an act of disobedience.” Instead, I claim that human history was set in motion by a generous and gracious act of love, and that the sensible response to such amazing love is obedience. As we look closer into Fromm’s essay we see clearly a wariness for the future of mankind. He, facing the fear of impending human annihilation, expresses his concern that, in this atomic age, someone following the wrong principal and leading could,” push the button,” that would bring about the destruction of all civilization. Would it not go to reason, as we plant our feet deep into the communication age, with terrorist obviously becoming an unvarying threat to the western world, if we are to fear, shouldn’t we be more concerned with an act of disobedience (disobedience to the western world i.e.)? As an example of this destructive obedience and what Fromm calls the, “Organizational man,” he cites Adolph Eichmann as a symbol; a man that would do the most heinous crimes and all in the name of, “obedience.” I contend that Adolph Eichmann was going to follow someone and that he chose the wrong leader. It goes to reason that if we follow wicked and perverse men and adopt as our own their beliefs, we too will act in congruent manner. Eichmann served one of the wickedest tyrants this world has ever known, Adolph Hitler. If Eichmann swore his allegiance to a murderous dictator wouldn’t it follow that he too would act as a murderer? As history proves, Adolph Eichmann was sentenced to death and hanged at Ramleh Prison, May 31, 1962 for war crimes and his involvement in the Nazi death camps. Fromm claims that Adolph Eichmann was able, “in good faith,” to claim complete innocence at his trial. The fact that Eichmann was able to claim his innocence is what Fromm suggest is so alarming. My question is how does Erich Fromm know the heart of another man, whether he claimed his innocence, “in good faith?” It only goes to reason if Eichmann, or any other man for that matter, was face to face with death upon the gallows, wouldn’t that man attempt with every fiber of his being, to emulate his innocence? Fromm divides authority in to two separate categories, rational and irrational. An illustration of rational authority would be the relationship between the student and the teacher; on the other hand, irrational authority would be understood by the association of master and slave. When he correlates the student and teacher, he claims the authority rational because they both seek a common goal; conversely, the master and slave is an arrangement of exploitation, where the slave is unjustly demoralized. Isn’t it true that we, as Bob Dylan sang, are all going to serve somebody, or something? Furthermore, wouldn’t it go to reason that some men are meant to be slaves and some meant to be masters? I suggest that some men find solace in slavery and in serving their master they are serving their God. Sadly, Fromm would disagree with this concept and likely go on to refute it. Fromm claims that it is out of weakness that one would desire to please and obey the internalized influence of the conscience. He has called this inner conviction, “authoritarian conscience.” Freud called this voice the “Super-Ego,” I call it the “Spirit of God.” I propose that this inner voice is the heart of our creator wooing us to communion, and when we repudiate the call and seek our own desire we are faced with inner-conflict. Moreover, when inner-conflict has its voracious and greed-stricken way within our hearts it is great destroyer. It is my humble opinion that man, in his sinful state, has been separated from his loving creator. For thousands of years men have argued the reality of God and the rationale of this world in which we live. And Mr. Fromm, if he were here, I believe he too would argue the validity of creation and the reality of a loving creator. I am compelled to believe that we have a place in the heart of the God of the universe. Furthermore, I am constrained to trust that he, as our father, embraces an active role in the day to day details of our lives. Fromm states that it takes courage to disobey; I claim that true courage holds in the ability to submit to authority and to trust in him whom deserves our trust. God has without doubt, confirmed his existence in the reality of creation, nor has he hidden himself from us. Furthermore, the expression of his love is clear in the wonders and blessings of life. I purport that there isn’t any authority on earth but that which God has positioned and allowed, and that he uses those in leadership for his purpose. With all this said, where is it that we stand in the grand scheme of authority? More than often, we, like John Lennon, want to serve ourselves. Not unlike a child, we will kick and scream, fight and contend; only hoping to get our way. Allow me to ask, when has pretension or bravado ever satisfied a hurting soul? Like Erich Fromm, an option is to rely on the power of man; shedding the guilt and shame that clings to us through our pre-human bond with nature. In my opinion, to trust in the power of the flesh seems to be risky, dangerous, and even foolish. As for this alleged pre-human existence, I, frankly, do not believe in it. What I do believe is that we were created by a loving and caring God and his love for us is seen in immeasurable expression. Remember the final two stanzas of Mary Had a Little Lamb? The children asked, “Why does the lamb love Mary so;” the teacher did reply, “Because Mary loves the lamb you know.” The same with us, why would we want to obey the authority placed within our lives? Could it be that a loving and caring father, who only has our best interest in mind, has positioned these governing authorities that surround us? If I am to refrain from disobedience and chose to take hold of obedience, I believe it will be out of my response to love. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1248 |
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2006 @ 10:20 AM
Does “truth” have to be an “all or nothing” description of Reality? Can’t John Lennon AND Bob Dylan be desribing differing aspects of the world, both of which are equally valid from different perspectives and/or levels of awareness? Aren’t they, like all human beings, doing their best to “see through a glass darkly”? And more importantly…Can’t they both be right? A large part of Lennon’s life was devoted to warning us about the horrors that have been committed in the name of God and religion. If you don’t see the validity of his argument, you haven’t been watching the news lately. Dylan is warning us about the dangers inherent in living a life without God and religion. If you don’t see the validity of his argument, you haven’t been watching the news lately. |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 809 |
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2006 @ 03:12 PM
Hello again, My main comment, Carl, would be to make a suggestion regarding the form or structure of your paper. Let me cull two paragraphs as specimens. You write: Quote: Psychoanalysts and philosopher, Erich Fromm received his PH.D. in Sociology from the University of Heidelberg in 1922. He spent much of his life lecturing and writing. His theories contained a rather distinctive combination of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. Erich Fromm, in his essay entitled, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” suggests that it is in disobedience that true and lasting freedom originates and subsists. Borrowing from the writings of the Bible, Fromm uses the story of Adam and Eve to explain man’s liberation from his pre-human existence. He explains symbolically that when Adam disobeyed and took the forbidden fruit from the, “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” he completely evolved from his pre-human (animal) state. Fromm contends,” By breaking the ties with earth and mother, by cutting the umbilical cord, man emerged from a prehuman harmony and was able to take the first step into independence and freedom.” In his essay he goes on to explain the tension and contradictory elements he sees between obedience and disobedience. This paragraph is solid exposition and presents a very objective-sounding tone. You introduce Fromm, give his credentials, provide insight into his influences, narrow your focus down to the particular essay upon which you will be writing, and summarize briefly something of his essay. Now let us contrast that with the next paragraph, paying particular attention to the dark orange sentences: Quote: Furthermore, he claims that the first human sin did not bring corruption to man, but set man on some type of concourse to freedom, and that on this liberating path of “Original Sin” that he would learn to depend on his own power and that is the very element that would make man completely human. [In contrast, I am thankful that I do not have to depend on my own influence to redeem me, and that there is a power greater than myself waiting and willing to create in me an expression of love.] Erich Fromm believed that, “human history began with an act of disobedience.” Instead, I claim that human history was set in motion by a generous and gracious act of love, and that the sensible response to such amazing love is obedience.] There is nothing technically wrong with what you have written here. You state Fromm’s views, then negate them with your own. My suggestion to you for future papers, however, is to patiently hold out on stating your own views for approximately the first two thirds of the piece. There may be instances in which this rule of thumb can and ought to be broken, but as a general guideline it gives greater continuity to the piece if you spend the first section of your paper in summarization and then organize and collect all your own reflections and reactions together in the latter half. It also communicates a greater sense of credibility, because in the first part you are clearly indicating: “Yes, I understand this author’s position and these are his (or her) arguments, served full strength and treated as respectfully as I would want my own treated.” Then after this first part, you would turn around and say, in effect: “That being said, however….” and proceed to sort out your own thoughts in an organized and succinct fashion and as much as you can provide supporting reasons why you believe as you do. So then, to summarize: if you very consciously divide your paper into two parts, spending the first section introducing the author, presenting his or her credentials, identifying the piece, and then laying out its main points (as you have very well done in the first paragraph above), and then, once all that has been done, reserve the second half for your own well-formulated thoughts, your paper will be tighter and more cohesive and will likely earn you a higher grade. Beyond these considerations, writing a paper according to this kind of guideline should also help you learn, for as surprising as it is to non-authors, writing can be a means of “thinking out loud” and we can learn a great deal by writing. By disciplining yourself to simply re-present the groundwork in the first section and bite your tongue concerning your own personal thoughts, then you not only end up with a tighter presentation, but even your very thoughts themselves will be tighter. You are, in effect, training yourself to think more objectively and systematically and that is probably one of the single biggest things that a university education strives to teach you. A king may have many able-bodied and willing men at his disposal, but if he does not know how to organize them well into an army, their effectiveness will be compromised accordingly. They may still win great victories, but likely more casualties are incurred and more men are needed than is truly necessary. In the same way, clear thinking has much to do with careful housecleaning: putting each thing in its place where it is convenient and easy to find. It always takes a bit longer to wash the plate after you eat from it, to return the book to the shelf, and to hang the coat in the closet, but if you make it a point to cultivate these habits your house stays clean as if by magic. By contrast, if you let the plates pile, heap one book on top of another, and drape your coat over any old chair, not only does the place look more cluttered but you begin to have difficulty finding things—and even more so the guests who come by to visit.  I hope you have found these comments helpful. God bless, Eric |
|
emmausway
Private First Class
Gender: Male
Location: Joplin, Mo. Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 16 |
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2006 @ 10:10 PM
First, I want to thank Sara and “My Friend” for being so amusing. As for me watching the news? I am guilty. I try to catch the front page of the paper a couple times a week and listen to a couple radio talk shows, but as for being up to date with the news, I am sadly negligent. One thing is for sure, I never watch the news. I just do not see the point in watching television, if that is what you are talking about. As for your response to my quoting Lennon and Dylan, I am often too black and white, this I agree with. Sometimes I believe that we are supposed to be on or off, white or black, all to the left or all to the right. Nevertheless, I frequently am too much one way, good point. As for Fromm, I probably did a poor job of saying all that I really had hoped. As we could see, based on Eric’s comments, I seemed to have left the ink strewed about like the proverbial coat over the chair. After studying Fromm’s essay and getting inside his head, so to speak, I have a respect for him. Although I do not necessarily agree with his humanistic veiw point, he was a profound thinker. Secondly, I would like to thank you Eric for being so helpful and generous with your time, and your forum. You are difinitely making a difference when it comes to my writing. Actually, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to express my gratitude. I know I have a long way to go to get to the place I want to be; the exciting thing is that I am so looking forward to the journey. I know the destination must be splendid, but from my vantage point, I think I better take pleasure in the process. Too all of you, Good Night!
|
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 809 |
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2006 @ 10:23 PM
I wouldn’t say that you left your coat draped on the chair (and you should come over to my apartment sometime if you want to see a first-class hypocrite): rather, I wished to show you what I believed a bit of panelling here would add or what a tablecloth there might offer in the way of warmth and home décor. In other words, I trampled with my dirty boots into your clean house and said, “Nice place. Now let’s redecorate things a bit.” |
|
emmausway
Private First Class
Gender: Male
Location: Joplin, Mo. Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 16 |
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2006 @ 10:55 PM
Eric, No need to minimize what you were saying, I agree. Isn’t it by large about groweth? The way I seem to grow the best is under scrutiny and that scrutiny is often uncomfortable. Got to get out of my comfort zone. Your letter thisweek, Waxing Long and Argumentatively, is profound and thought provoking. I still have a bit to read, but it has been gripping. I have often said that even if God did not exist I would be much better in the end to live as if he did. carl |
| Welcome to Monsieur Renaissance : le forum de discussion, Guest! | |
| Login | |
| In order to make full use of the abilities of this forum, you are required to register as a member. Registration is free, and allows you to post replies and customize your experience on the forum, changing its look and functionality. Register now! | |
|
There are currently 0 members and 6 guests on the forum. The most users ever online at one time was 70 on 03-29-2009 08:16 AM | |
Home | About | Newsletter | Forum | Misc. | Contact | Search | Links | Random Page
.:| get up to date: newsletter :. 1&1 .: discussion forum: participate |:.
