|
Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 16, 2014 17:54:36 GMT
Yeah, the three terms in the topic title are not often seen together in a sentence. The link between them is that Freud thought that it was Paul who came up with original sin. Quite strange, as original sin was an innovation by Augustine. The causes that Freud posits really up the queerness to eleven, but what interests me is that he somehow connects original sin with Paul.
So does anybody know whether it was more common early in the twentieth century to ascribe the idea of original sin to Paul or whether is it a typically Freudian slip from sanity after all?
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Sept 17, 2014 0:16:47 GMT
Quite strange, as original sin was an innovation by Augustine. What do you mean by original sin? You obviously think the doctrine of Tertullian doesn't qualify, and neither does that of Origen. I have not read Freud on original sin, but many people understand the idea of original sin somewhat broadly. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 17, 2014 14:41:20 GMT
What do you mean by original sin? You obviously think the doctrine of Tertullian doesn't qualify, and neither does that of Origen. I have not read Freud on original sin, but many people understand the idea of original sin somewhat broadly. Peter. Yes, I had a rather specific concept in mind. Basically a formulation of original sin as imputing both a corrupted nature and collective guilt. Now that you say it, I checked what Freud said (I got the anecdote from somewhere else) and his concept of original sin seems... quite aberrant. Adam and Eve for instance play no role in it and it isn't entirely clear to me whether he considered Paul to view it as a collective guilt (the source said he did). This is what Freud writes in Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion, page 155: And on page 157: The guilt awareness is said to be felt by humanity. It doesn't per se imply a collective form of guilt.
|
|