3 0 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 7 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 2 1 4 The Original Theories of Depth Psychology The emphasis on psychosomatic unity and unconscious sources of mental processes was already placed by Aristotle, Augustine, and later Thomas Aquinas. However, psychology as the science of a meeting of the conscious and unconscious in the human mind, in modern times, was described by Carl Gustav Carus in his work Psyche (1848; “das Unbewusste ist das Göttliche”), building on the psychology of ideas by Johann Friedrich Herbart and preparing the theoretical basis for Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis. Freud deals with the analysis of religion and faith in God in several works (Totem and Taboo from 1913, The Future of an Illusion from 1927, or Moses and Monotheism from 1939). He seeks to prove that religion is merely a manifestation of “compulsive neurosis” and a collection of illusions that represent the repressed, unfulfilled childhood desires of a defenseless man who commit themselves to powerful protection. According to him, the religious phenomenon can therefore be reduced to an infantile phenomenon, originating from the Oedipus complex. The divine is a projection of crowded-out desires or repressed fears. The cause of all manifestations of psyche is the incestuous sexual desire, which manifests itself through regressions or sublimations as a substitute: art, science, psychosis and especially religion. This assumption, on which the criticism of religious beliefs was based, had to be abandoned in the light of empirical data by Carl Gustav Jung and later by Freud himself. It has been shown that the denial of the truth value of religious claims (see The Future of an Illusion) is wishful thinking of Freud himself rather than the result of psychoanalytic research. Freud strived for meta-psychological theories; however, he left the field of empirical science to supplement it with limited metaphysical prejudices. Jung initially accepted this view of Freud, but gradually took a diametrically opposing position. But even Jung cannot be said to have reached a final attitude toward the transcendent and metaphysical validity of religious expressions. He strictly adhered to empirical nature of psychology, which did not allow him to take a similar speculative leap [5]. While for Freud religion is a symptom of disease, for Jung, the root of all psychological diseases is the absence of religion. In 1932, he wrote: “It is safe to say that everyone of them [my patients] fell ill because he had lost what the living religions of every age had given to their followers, and none of them was really healed who did not regain his religious outlook.” (Jung in White 1953, 47). Contradictory evaluations of religion by Freud and Jung are logical consequences of differences in the interpretation of psychological data. Jung rejected Freud’s theory of sexuality as the dominant psychological factor and replaced it with a more compendious abstract conception of the absolute, unspecified energy. Therethrough, he predestined psychology to cooperate with religion. In ideas of his patients, he recognized universal symbols of humanity for creative and undifferentiated deity. However, he himself perceived specific deities rather as a fantasy concretization of the mentioned energy, instead of concluding that this energy, manifested in various manifestations, expresses an innate desire (Lat. naturale desiderium) for the Sacred. In doing so, he wanted to avoid accusations of proceeding to metaphysics. Alfred Adler diverted the focus of psychotherapy from exploring the causes to exploring the goals of mental processes. His position changed from looking back to looking to the future. Thus, religion can also be understood not from the perspective of a regressive substitute for forbidden incest (Freud), but as a patulous fruit of psychic energy. Inspired by Adler’s teleologically guided psychology, Jung explains various religious rituals (setting fire, immersion in water, ceremonial purification, etc.) as symbols of the original inner rebirth, personality transformation of an individual (as opposed to Freud’s theory of masked imitations of sexual intercourse). Religion is a noble system in which libido is gradually spiritualized. Behind individual manifestations of creative sexual libido (energy) there is a universal, creative, and renewing Spirit that is not a fantastic substitute for libido, but rather libido is a special manifestation and symbol of the Spirit. God is not a projection of the physical father, but rather the father is the first infantile substitute for God. The physical father is a little god rather than God being the great father. Even tough Jung avoids taking a metaphysical stand as much as possible, it can be hardly denied that by the assumption of “undifferentiated libido” (energy) it is possible to explain
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=