⚡ Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits

Wednesday, May 26, 2021 6:28:39 AM

Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits



You could go to somewhere private, Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits an employer's private gated parking lot that is accessible to Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits but not the public, and you could not get a DUI. In his Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits of Christianity Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits English trans. If you Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits out Bradstreet Vs Edwards any of his daily affirmations, this book gathers all of them into one short and charming collection. In group sessions Progression: The Progressive Era interact a great deal with others, and considerable data is generated about Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits patterns. It isn't. I shouldered my way in, what does a central processing unit do became transfixed as his fingers Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits over Xmosaic, the Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits Edgar Allan Poe Influences available Web browser in the world. Why Baseball Is Important critical inner voice is an internal dialogue, a harsh and judgmental way of talking to ourselves. To help Paul request some group The Human Condition Analysis to talk about himself. Right To Life Research Paper particular importance, he held, is the resolution of Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits Oedipus complex, which arises at the phallic stage, in which the male child forms a sexual attachment with the mother and comes Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits view the father as a hated Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits feared sexual rival.

10 small changes that will improve your life.

How was that tradeoff decided, who decided it and where is the justification? And you can start losing weight in your own home, on day 1. That's faster than even a single shot of vaccine, let alone two shots with a delay, plus boosters etc. So that's not a very satisfactory answer as to why some mandates for the greater good are acceptable and yet others are not. In this hypothetical scenario, the assumption is being made that the collection good is more important than individual liberty.

Another issue at play here in the US is that Americans are divided on where the line should be drawn between what can be allowed in the name of the collective good. I think it's quite obviously that the nation is very split on this. There isn't a constructive debate going on about the interplay between these two positions or a compromise. One side people mandating restrictions are trying to brute force mandates without interacting, constructively discussing and persuading the other side. By the way, sometimes I wish comments would not be deleted because I would have liked to reply to your reply to my reply, and ask what problem you have with what I said? I hope it is obvious I don't actually feel this way toward overweight people -- it's hateful, discriminatory, divisive, bullying, and it goes against everything I believe about freedom people should have to live their lives.

And yet being overweight is a detriment to health. And it places additional burden on the healthcare system. So I think it is a good analogy to use, if there was an equally effective one that was less shocking, I would gladly use that instead. See, I can see the "perfect" society where everything is done for "the greater good". Where the ruling class and their alleged experts hand down edicts by which we much live. Everything is mandated accordingly. And I can see how yes you might micro optimize this society by forcing people to take vaccines. And by forcing overweight people to lose weight. I don't deny that maybe some people could be "saved" if we had all these mandates. That is not the society I value or want to live in though.

And I think that's a very underhanded bullying argument to coerce people into giving up their freedom or having medical treatment they don't want, to suggest that they are responsible for killing others because of choices like this. Because there are hundreds of ways we could all change our choices and indirectly save people,it does not always mean we are responsible for them if we don't. I mean, you take it to the limit and you might well say elderly have passed their used by date, no longer contribute to the greater good, and are increasingly a burden on the healthcare system, so let's turf them out. Every hospital bed they selfishly take up is stealing the life of a sick child who could not be admitted due to the shortage.

Or that you are personally responsible for the death of anyone around the world who dies of hunger so long as you have not donated every last penny of your income beyond what you require to barely survive on in a tent. My position is that actually the most dangerous thing facing our society and our children and their children is authoritarianism and the unaccountable and unchecked expansion of power of the ruling class over our lives.

Unimaginably more dangerous than covid And I think mine is quite a reasonable position to take. So if someone can be bullied and told they are responsible for killing grandparents and responsible for continuing lockdowns for not wanting to take the vaccine then fine, and we can say with similar intellectual honesty that those bullies calling for mandates are responsible for the next Stalin. EDIT: And one last thing, it's not "those hateful others ", aka your fellow citizens, who are responsible for the breakdown of trust in authority and their "experts". It is entirely the fault of the ruling class. Their greed, lies, lust for power and willingness to divide has caused this. You really wonder why people might not have complete blind trust in the politicians, journalists and other self-proclaimed experts who told them we had to invade Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, we had to destroy Syria and Libya, etc.?

That it was for their best interest? Remember that? And then they stole their money and sent their sons and daughters away to die? And then they laughed all the way to the bank and did it again. Do you believe people are responsible for spreading STDs? If you had sex with a partner that was suffering from an STD but they either didn't get tested themselves or did not inform you of their STD, would you consider them irresponsible? If you would, then why not consider the same about the vaccine?

By any reasonable standard, just like you're not allowed to smoke indoors because it hurts others, you're not allowed to be indoors with a potentially lethal disease that can kill others. It's that simple. You can choose to not be indoors with others, or you can choose to take a vaccine to eliminate that risk. But it's not your right to choose to risk anyone else's life by being around them in a closed environment while potentially infected. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. Yes I think they would be responsible and even should be criminally liable in some circumstances e. I would also bear responsibility for my own actions of course.

Consider the same what? First of all, we aren't talking about going somewhere if you are sick or not, we are talking about going somewhere without being vaccinated. And I don't think that's a reasonable standard. Before , people weren't banned from society if they didn't have a flu vaccine for example. Nobody thought this was unreasonable despite the seasonal fl being potentially lethal disease that can kill others.

Some places, e. Now covid may be worse than the regular flu, but I think the numbers involved matter and so I don't just blindly agree it's reasonable that people should be banned from their work or public places if they haven't had it. Fear mongering aside, I don't think the evidence is there. KptMarchewa 23 days ago [—]. Doing reasonable measures to avoid that. Driving can result at death, but we allow people to drive under some speed limit, with a lot of rules on how to do it. You're not supposed to break them, and if you do, then you're at least fined. I think everyone would agree that reasonable measures should be taken, what we disagree on is what is reasonable. You don't "eliminate" that risk with a vaccine.

Nobody who produced the vaccine has ever claimed this. That is a frankly ridiculous and immoral attitude. If you refuse to make minor accomodations when presented with choices that can reduce the amount of risk you cause others, you ARE responsible. If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here. If you have "hundreds of ways" we can make minor changes to save the lives of others lives, please share them because that sounds likr really useful information.

I think communication is best done with honesty and politeness and without censorship. That does not mean we absolve people of the responsibility of theor choices The descent into authoritarianism is also a significant risk, but vaccine mandates are NOT that start of a slippery slope. They have been around for many decades and they haven't resulted in any slipping. If anything, getting people riled up about vaccines is a way to justify censorship and distract from the ever growing power of the surveillance state.

I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. I believe it is ridiculous and immoral to coerce and force people into medical treatment for a relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. To be sure it is worse than the flu, but this is not smallpox, the bullies and fearmongers making comparisons like that were simply lying and spreading misinformation. And if it was similar to smallpox, I think it would be quite clear and people would be far more inclined to get vaccinated. And I disagree with your idea of blame, as I said above the same argument can be made about overweight people and others. Maybe you are responsible for the death of starving children right now because you were browsing the internet instead of donating your time or money?

And it absolutely is authoritarianism because it is not about the virus or even the vaccine itself really. It is a totally politicized tool that authorities are using. That should have been clear when people were flip flopping between being skeptical of the "Trump" vaccine and calling border closures racist and refusing to acknowledge natural immunity and all that other nonsense.

It's not the slippery slope because this is already authoritarianism. Telling people they can not go about their lives, they can't work or go to school, tracking and controlling where they go, who they meet, what business they do. It's already here. If mandates were such a non-issue, why was it just a few months ago the experts and politicians were all lying and denying there would be mandates? Are they just pathological liars who will lie about trivial things that don't matter? Or did they know the seriousness of the issue and decide to lie and mislead until the opinion polls looked better for them?

Neither option inspires a lot of trust in them. I messed up some numbers. A minor illness??? This is the worse illness that has affected the world since the Spanish flu. It's worse than AIDS, malaria, it even beat tuberculosis in terms of raw people killed in And this death toll was only kept somewhat in check because of the biggest social disruption and curbing of liberties since WW2. I remain hopeful that covid deaths won't reach those levels. Covid19 killed 1. If we can stop Covid19 with vaccinations, lockdwons, contact tracing, then hopefully it will not reach HIV levels of cumulative historical deaths.

But otherwise, it would reach the same death toll as HIV did in 40 years in about 12 years like I said relatively minor, comparison being to something like smallpox. And certainly compared with the unfounded fearmongering you've written here. But that's exactly what the death rates looked like in all regions that didn't impose lockdowns soon enough. The case of Lombardia is perfect - it's one of the richest regions on Earth, and while local hospitals were overwhelmed, it was surrounded by other rich regions that could accept patients. This is fear mongering. Oops, you're right - I completely messed up the numbers. No problem, hope I can help you sleep a little better tonight :. It's actually just around half of Covid but while Covid deaths are slowing, Malaria is steady.

Sure, because Covid has a vaccine that can actually be afforded by most of the population suffering from it. Malaria has been completely eliminated from all rich regions of the world, and it only festers in places that can't afford the vaccine. You honestly don't believe you are responsible for the knowable results of your own actions? The vaccines both reduce spread and reduce the risknof serious illnessm.

They do not eliminate that risk so choosing to remain unvaccinated bis choocing to increase the risk for both the vaccinated and the other unvaccinated people around you. As for the rest, please try reading what I actually wrote rather than making assumptions and arguing against partisan strawmen. Where did I advocate for vaccine mandates? Where did I advocate for continued lockdowns? Where did I call border closures racist? Where did I compare covid to smallpox? Natural Immunity does seem superior to vacination alone, but having both is even better. You seem to be projecting partisan talking points onto me to divert from the serious flaws in your moral philosophy and grasp of reality.

I don't see how you can conceivably believe that covid vacinations should be a choice but that the people making that choice are not responsible for the effects of that choice. Being responsible for the results is part of having choices. I mean, according to CDC's data, it is a very minor illness. As of right now, that would put total deaths from COVID at around 33K, that's over 18 months that we've started tracking.

Total deaths from car accidents, yearly, around 36K and rising quickly over the last two years. I've had it twice, 18 months apart. Yes, it was not nearly as bad as the flu, and definitely not as bad as the antibiotic resistant strep I had picked up at a hospital. I wasn't accusing you of those things, if that wasn't clear. And I used relatively minor in context which you deleted. And I know many people find it inconceivable that I have an anti authoritarian aversion to forced medical treatment, and that worries me for the future far more than covid.

I'm not expecting to change any minds, but I'll put forward my position now and again. I completely understand the other point of view, even if I believe a lot of people have arrived at it due to a campaign of fearmongering and politicization. I entirely understand why people are opposed to this. What I find inconceivable is that you believe that people who choose not to get vaccinated don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice. You seem fixed on thinking I am arguing something I am not. And yet you managed to cut it neatly away, what are the odds?

I don't say they don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice. I said that choice does not make a person responsible for the death of another who might have died because they couldn't get a bed for example. And accusing them of it is dishonest bullying. Countles choices we make every day directly and indirectly affect the world around us including others.

Choosing to go to the beach and drive your car, increasing traffic on the road and contributing to the chance of someone else being in a wreck and dying does not make you responsible for that. You could quite easily have chosen not to go to the beach though. You had no compelling need to go. It was a selfish choice to go. And that's all fine. I cut away the rest of the sentence because it didn't provide any modifier or qualifier that change the meaning or strength of your highly inaccurate claim. Take a look at how the sentence would read if you removed "relatively minor" from it?

Your overall point would remain intact. Point in fact, you haven't even tried to justify the "relatively minor" claim and instead complain about being taken out of context when that context is easily available to the reader. Were you tailgating, driving through residential streets, driving an unnecessarily large vehicle, did you let your elderly parent drive or were you texting while driving? Somehow your moral theory seems to end up excusing every possible contributory choice that increases the risks for others.

It is fine to make selfish choices, but you should make them with an attitude that minimizes the risks you place on others. If you don't want to get vaccinated, you should find ways to avoid indoor public spaces, maskless social gatherings and anything else you can do to manage those risks. Personally, I find ways to minimize driving and when I do drive, I drive carefully and slowly. I think driving is an activity we tend to be unreasonably callous about the risks of. I think society at large should place more responsibility on drivers for the risks they create.

You choose to drive drunk and are responsible. Sure, got it. You personally lie about an STD and are responsible. You convince someone else to not take a vaccine and you are responsible. Why does that responsibility fall one actor back? Why isn't the actor who refuses the vaccine the guilty party? If we can continue this line of thinking, when does it become OK to blame parents for the birth of murderers? It occurs to me that liquor companies convince people to drink via advertisement, same as car companies woo potential customers over.

And while not as legal as the under endeavors, the STD laden sexual partner certainly convinced their victims to continue. Why not mention the role of the 'convincers' here, too? In other words : I think 'moral truth' is kind of bullshit. More like "social truth". Just jumping in here to reply to this statement It's on them to weigh that advice with whatever other advice they are hearing. I do agree that people are responsible for consequences of driving drunk, or lying about the status of their STD testing. Food prep takes time. Even if we abandon looking at it as as a strictly energy in energy out situation, we probably still recognize that healthier foods take more time than unhealthy foods.

Eating healthier will not result in you losing weight if your caloric intake remains the same. Read an interesting piece here on HN that suggested weight had other, perhaps more important elements, and that consuming fewer calories while using fewer of them was the symptom of something else. In fact, that caloric deficit is the only way you lose weight. When you eat less, your body goes into starvation mode and burns fewer calories. And some bodies are extremely resistant to losing weight under any circumstances. Try doing the German prisoner of war diet for a year, and accurately track on a daily basis how many calories you eat, and how much weight you lose.

Then you can come back and tell us your anecdote of how you personally respond to reduction of calories in your diet. And we can put that drop into the ocean of knowledge. Starvation mode is only an issue when you're actually starving , like seriously undernourished for weeks. It's not a real thing for dieters who cut down by a few hundred calories per day. This is a whole load of misinformation. Please stop spreading this BS. That is a coping mechanism for the obese. It is simply not true. Dma54rhs 24 days ago [—]. The more I read about all the excuses obese throw out the more I realize they have so much in common with the anti vaxx do my research in on Facebook crowd.

The simple fact is they both put strain on hospital systems and with their ignorance are putting others in danger and risk of not getting the much needed hospital bed. There's a pretty compelling case to be made that obesity is caused by some environmental factor that is making people hungrier. What in the world is that website? Why in the world would I read a website with zero credentials trying to push new ideas in science?

There's not a single person or credentialed organization associated with the blog. This screams misinformation. No one ever likes my proposed tax on slower metabolism. You have a real incorrect view of obesity. Being obese does not mean excessive eating. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years The issue with being overweight is not so much the extra weight itself, but the fact that it is correlated with metabolic dysfunction. Metabolic dysfunction can be resolved in a matter of days to weeks by abstaining from high glycemic index foods and in general fixing modern-day malnutrition.

This is with a more aggressive regimen often described as a "ketogenic" diet, although the term is abused by people who don't understand that ketosis is more of a side-effect of a species-appropriate diet that allows for healthy fat burning, and not simply hitting macros. Again I stress that if public health officials had a clue the pandemic would have never happened, it was evident early on that this disease disproportionately affects the malnourished, people with poor blood glucose control, sedentary, and immune compromised. These all go together, although oftentimes the immune dysfunction is deliberately induced by pharmaceutical treatments to mitigate autoimmune disease.

Covid is contagious, obesity is not. Barrin92 24 days ago [—]. Yes it is, it just spreads memetically rather than a virally. When an individual gains weight, it dramatically increases the chances that their friends, siblings, and spouses will likewise gain weight. The closer two people are in a social network, the stronger the effect. Overweight friends tend to have other overweight friends, and are naturally more tolerant of it.

Pay close attention to social circles and try to figure out what the tolerance towards obesity is within groups of say, thin girls compared overweight ones and how that modulates their behavior. This is not limited to obesity of course, drug use, smoking in particular behaviour that is addictive essentially spreads through social circles like a disease. Try to model the opioid epidemic the word is chosen for a reason like one and you would surely find the exact same patterns. These are not geographically or demographically random processes, they're transmitted within communities. That's an extremely poor comparison on something that spreads from years of social ties to one second from a cough. I'm not sure how the rate of spread makes it a bad comparison.

Likewise, changing the behavior of parents in regards to their diet will have real downstream effects on the health of the entire family. I would instead say COVID is physically contagious, while obesity is psychologically and socially contagious. Moreover infection rates are greater after mass vaccination than before. I assume you are responding to someone else, not sure how your statement is relevant to what I've wrote. Could be something too it. Getting vaccinated doesn't prevent you from spreading covid.

It significantly reduces the chances of spreading it…. Same if no one was obese. Overweight people put disproportionate strain on the healthcare system. Also the government is actively promoting obesity by subsidizing cheap unhealthy food via agriculture subsidies like hfcs and soybeans. So while there are some who have actually spoken out against obesity like Michelle Obama, most are silent as the issue is kinda politically inconvenient for both parties on a macro scale. At what point can we blame people? Never, it seems. Government cannot and should not regulate every aspect of our lives. Wanna drink a bottle of whiskey and kill yourself? Individual responsibility. Wanna get fat slogging sugar all day without self control?

Individual responsibility seems to never be part of the conversation. Aside from DUI risk and passive smoking, most of these risks are specific to the person. This pandemic would be a blip if everyone was in shape. So yes, hospitals are getting gridlocked during this pandemic because of lifestyle diseases. You list them because you figure if people just took care of themselves it would all work out. The rest of us should think of life more like a game of Dungeons and Dragons: you start with a base set of stats that help you make saving throws against disease and such. Every year, your stats get worse, and they take away your advantage.

No matter how much exercise you do, or how well you are off, you will lose on those dice. More importantly, you will lose a lot. Covid is a difficult saving throw without assistance from medicine. Plenty of people get into much better shape in their 30s and 40s than they were as teens or twenties because they take it more seriously. There is obviously a yearly cost, but it's highly, highly variable how much that decline has to be, especially when you are younger. Sleep better, exercise more, eat mostly vegetables and your decline rate will stay close to 0 most years and may improve in some years. You will catch fewer diseases and be sick for less time when you do catch one.

Father time always wins, but you can play defense and make it a competitive match. Sorry for not writing a complete reply but you can't add those numbers like that. Fair enough, there is probably some overlap there. Okay, but they aren't and it's not. But doesn't a population's overall poor health contribute to the potential gridlock of the healthcare system? I mean, what is the percentage of non-accident emergencies in the system and has it increased with the overall decline in society's fitness? TheCoelacanth 24 days ago [—]. It probably adds some load, but it's a predictable amount spread out across decades, not a giant clump right now. It will consume more healthcare resources, but it's not going to overload the healthcare system and prevent other people from using it.

I can't catch obesity from being in the same room as That's not entirely accurate. Human behavior is effectively viral per any of the Jonah Berger books among others. What we see becomes the norm, a behavioral norm. Smoking has decreased because it has become "less fashionable. So while you might not catch obesity in the strict virus sense, if you're exposed enough, that exposure can and often does influence your behavior. Even though a large percentage of us adults are obese I don't consider it normalized since it'd a target of ridicule, there's a massive industry around losing weight, and I'm assuming if you ask most fat people if they want to be thin they would say yes. For fitness I do want to be fair and point out general health and muscle building are parts of that health industry.

What you're missing is It wasn't overnight. When you can be 20 to 30 lbs overweight When everyone sitting around your dinner table i. Yes, consciously they'd answer as you said. Of course. However, we're wired different subconsciously, and those signals and nudges are far more influential than most ppl realize. And again I'll default to Jonah Berger. He's the scientist. I'm only the messenger. More expensive.. Once that stops happening, I will care significantly less. My personal take is that insurance should progressively cover less of covid treatment of unvaccinated by choice- minors and immunocompromised being excluded from this policy patients until it is having a minimal impact on our healthcare system.

One of the issues with that argument is: If Biden's workplace vaccine mandate goes through, many of the remaining people who decide not to get vaccinated simply won't have insurance, given they'll also be out of a job. Instead of paying more into the system, they'll be paying less. They'll still end up in the hospital. Defaulting on the hospital bill doesn't seem unlikely for many in this situation. This is the biggest reason why this move by Biden is an idiotic gambit, relying on the hope that most of the holdouts are simply on the fence and need a manipulative push. He may be right, but the cost of being wrong could quite literally be large swaths of the US Healthcare System. What's more, we're seeing concerning numbers of healthcare workers leave the industry.

ICUs are not, generally, overfilled because they're out of physical beds; they're overfilled because they're out of people. No one in power is talking about this. Those nurses that left? You guessed it: many are trying out travel nursing. The rest are burnt-out. The crisis really is not in the unvaccinated; its in our healthcare system, and it was growing long before the pandemic. A fractionally small part of me actually believes what some in the really, really fringe-right are saying right now: the administration wants the healthcare system to fail, because its another crisis which can be pivoted into single-payer or even nationalized healthcare. Well, its their fear, but its conversely my hope, because at least that would mean the people in charge have a medium term strategy for what seems to be inevitable at this point.

A very large component of the "anti-vaxxer" crowd are medical staff who are now quitting in large numbers thanks to the mandate. Your beds are now going to be lowered. This is an important point. While the media love to paint all "anti-vaxxers" are rural republicans or Trump supports, this simply isn't true. There are many racial minority groups African Americans in particular who are vaccine hesitant.

There are healthcare workers in both rural and big cities of both political parties who are hesitant on the vaccines. Also the phrase "anti-vaxxers" is an intentional conflagration of two separate groups: the original pre-covid19 anti-vaxxers and anti-COVIDvaxxers. That sucks, but at least it's happening now and not with a disease that's even worse.

Vaccines are already required to attend schools, daycare, college, to immigrate to the US, for many existing federal jobs, to join the military, most jobs in the medical field. But all of these are required to attend school and in other situations, so it isn't needed. Drunk driving is a crime. Society doesn't tolerate it. We generally limit second hand smoke, banning smoking in restaurants and many other indoor buildings. Requiring vaccination to prevent the spread of infectious disease is analogous. No, it isn't. Requiring someone to submit to a medical procedure that injects something into their body is very different from restricting the circumstances in which they can do things like smoke or drink. Also, past vaccination campaigns such as smallpox, polio, measles have all been based on the expectation that mass vaccination would eradicate the disease and that expectation has been realized with several of those diseases.

You could go to somewhere private, like an employer's private gated parking lot that is accessible to employees but not the public, and you could not get a DUI. By the same token that it would be tyrannical for drunk driving to be a crime on private area of private property, it is quite tyrannical to enforce covid vaccines on facilities with employees voluntarily engaging in employment on private property. AnimalMuppet 24 days ago [—]. It's not a binary.

Sure, you should be able to take the risk if an adult and mentally competent, and maybe also fully informed. It's a free country or so they claim. But when your choices rack up huge medical bills that the rest of us have to pay, then your freedom to do what you want collides with our freedom to not have to pay for it. If you're free to spend my money, then I'm less free. But that isn't absolute, either. We let people drive, and emit carbon dioxide, and play loud music, all of which impose negative externalities on others. We even let people be obese and smoke, which impose financial costs on the rest of us. And yet, there's been a massive anti-smoking campaign over the last 10 or so years Societal costs is a slippery slope, or something like it.

As a society, we're trying to find a place to stand on it that isn't "no healthcare for you because you make stupid choices", and also isn't "here's the public's checkbook for you to make full use of to try to undo the consequences of your bad choices". There are no simple answers. And it's not just Covid. You are assuming that getting vaccinated is a burden, and then comparing it to challenges that many people take years, or longer, to overcome. That makes absolutely no sense. Getting vaccinated takes just a few minutes, and has no long term consequences for virtually everyone, and does not require ongoing effort of any kind.

In no way is getting vaccinated comparable to struggling with obesity, quitting cigarettes, or alcoholism. Sorry, but your comparisons are, frankly, bizarre. At times I was thinking checking myself into hospital to get support dealing with the fallout. Talking to a specialist who sees lots of people like me with not so standard immune systems she confirmed that my experience was not uncommon at all. I struggle to understand any concerns in the US - considering the general state of IDs and certificates - about treating one infection like one shot. It makes no medical and no proof sense. And however good and generally safe a shot is it is still a medical procedure and medical ethics apply.

The argument that one shot is enough sends the wrong message should be dwarfed by concerns what message is sent by ignoring globally recognized insights and medical ethics. It does have consequences in some, e. That's a very different number. If things continue as they are, then almost everyone will either get COVID or get vaccinated or both. Could you give me both of those numbers as a percentage, and then compare it to the risk of, oh, let's say driving a car miles in an urban area? We could choose to not sell pure sugar as food in grocery stores, cigarettes, alcohol, or firearms for that matter in the first place We already know there are health issues associated now with the mrna shots.

We could see a rash of issues show up in the next couple of years. Details and sources please. But that's not much consolation at the individual level if you are someone predisposed to anaphylaxis or thrombosis, which are potentially life threatening, in which case at the individual level the vaccine may look to not be worth the risks. Better screening tools could help identify individuals with these risks. I'm also not sure there are any mRNA vaccines for which we have to compare in humans that have been out few years and FDA approved. I have no reason to believe they are dangerous, but they are lacking any long term studies in humans on any large scale. We are also lacking evidence for what happens after booster shots are given repeatedly.

Or even in the cohort that has been infected and double vaccinated. We are participating in an open trial to find out. It's only rational to consider that there may be yet-unobserved risks. And the conservatives who are largely against mandated vaccines today also declared that initiative as government going too far. People living in conservative states are also far more obese than liberal ones California vs Texas, for example. Conservatives, at least, are being consistent. The social costs of forgoing the vaccine are unique in that they arrive all at once.

Smoking, drinking, obesity, etc. Hospitals are sized appropriately, more can be built if projections indicate more need, doctors can be trained, etc. So much so that resources become exhausted, and the costs compound from merely high to truly awful. Personal choice resulting in an impaired standard of care for unrelated people in need for unrelated reasons should probably be discouraged or proscribed. Once the risk of resource exhaustion is eliminated, a policy that's less than a full-court press for vaccination might be reasonable. But that risk is primarily determined by the size of the covid-naive population, which can only be reduced by vaccination or infection It has been debated to death and one of the thing we can't negotiate with is time so at some points some actions have to been taken, some things conceded.

We can keep on debating the benefits of smoking and individual freedom but we as a society our institutions have decided that smoking or not wearing shoes inside restaurants is not allowed. At some points our society decided that it wants everyone let's put aside the special immunodeficient, babies, etc. Now why should I be obliged to risk my health by going to restaurants, social events or work where I am taking the risk to get covid because other people are fine with the risk or are not fine but refuse to get the vaccines on the ground that it's not a health matter but a compliance to law matter for them. I know one? It's like smoking, don't blow it in my direction. People willing to participate in society without following the rules that society put in place to participate safely should not be allowed to join in without restrictions.

It's fine if they don't get the vaccines but it's not fine to put others at risk. We can debate the fairness aspect of this decision or the framework in which freedom and liberties are defined and understood but at some points reality force us to take a stance. There'll never be a perfect solution that reconcile everyone's visions of freedom. It's a resource vs demand at this point. Socialized healthcare systems already deal with this. For example being obese or a smoker will put you at the bottom of the list for organ transplant. Given how unvaccinated covid cases are filling up some ICUs, why shouldn't we prioritize ICU access against eligible unvaccinated people?

From risk management perspective obesity and pandemics have completely different risk characteristics. Pandemics are contagious and deaths can grow exponentially, leading to catastrophic outcomes. Obesity is constraint to individuals. On the other hand. No one really knows the long term effects for sure. So I understand the paranoia on two sides. You actually want to use as many different vaccines as possible so no single vaccine can exterminate your population.

I agree with this. We should probably mandate seasonal flu vaccines too. It does because you place disproportionate strain on the healthcare system, which limits its accessibility to others. For their own good and the good of the healthcare system. We probably should not mandate that or any other drug or medical treatment. Do you really believe that mandating people do a difficult, time consuming task for years is reasonably equivalent to mandating them to get two shots, which take about 5 minutes each? If no, then whatever the merits of your conclusion it certainly doesn't follow from the comparison made.

No, it takes no time to eat less it takes less time in fact , or stand on a scale once a week. In the weeks between the two shots are we ruling out boosters? So losing weight is actually much easier, less time consuming task than to get vaccinated. Then tell me, why are so many people still obese? I didn't say it was psychologically any easier than it is psychologically easy for someone who does not want to get a vaccine to be forced to take one. But the mechanism is perfectly simple and easy, easier than going out to get vaccines. So just mandate and force them not to eat as much, and ban them from civil society if they fail their weigh ins.

You just blanket said it was 'easier'. You pick one definition when it suits you - it's textbook bad faith argumentation. It was a response to the insinuation that the vaccine is blanket easier. Mechanically, losing weight is strictly easier. Psychologically you really can't say one way or the other and thinking you know people's mindset to say one is easier than the other is bad faith argumentation. So, whether or not one is easy. That's what it all hinges on? Very flimsy. So it hinges on how different the psychological difficulties of accepting vaccination vs.

Given how many vaccinations people already accept vs. The thing is: people that are overweight but try to lose weight will nevertheless struggle. But certainly from how they talk people resisting vaccination are not trying to overcome their own limitations; i. While there's a hypothetical world imaginable where the two would be equally difficult, it seems hell of a lot more plausible that the issue isn't a psychological hangup, it's conscious intent. But if this is about people choosing to impose costs on others, then it's totally reasonable to force the issue or otherwise ensure that those making those choices bear the burden of the consequences - rather than innocent bystanders. Insofar as people have real hangups, rather than making poor but conscious choices - sure, it sounds reasonable to help them - and that actually happens!

People with fears of needles and the like can get extra help to get through the difficult for them ordeal, and perfectly fair. Yes, this is entirely about people choosing to impinge on others, and I don't see how it's been established that a weight loss mandate is fundamentally different than a vaccine mandate, except in the handwaving around details that really don't seem to be central to the issue.

And I think people are taking the idea of forced medical treatments far too lightly. Any argumentation amounts to handwaving if you squint just right. The argument brought forth by various people is clear: it's more difficult because it involves effort much more consistently, for a much longer period of time. You don't have to appreciate the argument; of course. As to objecting to forced medical treatments: while that discussion is relevant to the appropriateness of an almost mandated vaccination campaign; it's not related to how difficult it is to diet vs.

The fact that you bring it up makes it look like you've made up your mind on vaccine mandates and aren't considering various arguments on their merits to support a conclusion on mandates but rather the reverse: that you're picking and choosing arguments based on whether or not they support your pre-conceived notion. Now, that doesn't really bother me, but it does make me curious: why do you oppose vaccine mandates? And why this mandate but not others we've had for decades? I oppose forced medical procedures as a default position because it represents the ultimate violation of a person by the state, and has had a long and dark history of abuse and atrocities.

So what about other vaccine mandates, then - are those equally problematic? That's ridiculous. Hospitals fill up on a regular basis, now and before Covid. If we have more need for beds, we build more beds. We don't take away personal freedom. It even makes the news with patients in lying in corridors and such. This year it wasn't different at all. If you care about healthcare costs, think about all those antivaxx idiots who end up on oxygen and ventilator before finally kicking the bucket. Way more money than obesity! Japan does this and has a 3.

It is a slippery slope fallacy. You only have to look back through the history of vaccines and see. We have had vaccine mandates before and guess what? No dictatorship installed. It's easy to point at democracies all over the world. Also no one says bring in the police, just make it so that if you want a job then get the vax or bring in a reason from your doctor that says you can't take it because of some medical condition. TulliusCicero 24 days ago [—]. Overweight people can't transmit their overweightness to me through a virus or bacterium that they breathe into the air. If they could, then yeah, we'd probably have some kind of legal mandate on it. Just like we have a bunch of restrictions on smoking now, because indeed, that's something that you push into the air.

The general rule is that your rights stop where others begin. Most issues of health are purely personal, but infectious diseases are not. Because they're infectious. They can fill up hospital beds though, that might not be available for you when you need one! That's true, and certainly I'm in favor of national policies to encourage people to be healthy and fit. That said, getting vaccinated is about a thousand times easier than staying in shape. It's free and quick to get over with, whereas fitness requires sustained effort indefinitely. It's reasonable to treat people's choice to refuse something easy different from people either refusing or struggling with something difficult.

The other important distinction is that we're not gonna suddenly have a shock of people coming down with obesity and flash flooding the hospitals. The country getting bigger is not a good thing, but as a gradual thing it can be managed much more easily. I don't think it's whether the beds are filled up, I sure many injuries are carelessness, it's how easy is it to avoid it.

Losing weight is insanely hard getting a shot or two is easy. In fact if you had some kid who was speeding, got into a crash, and is now taking up a bed I'd argue that self control for young adults in related to reckless behavior is much more difficult to stop than not getting a vaccine. In the same vein, they can also increase insurance costs for everyone. Most obese parents have obese children.

TulliusCicero 23 days ago [—]. Yes, due to genetics and habits passed on. That's not the same thing as an infectious disease. XorNot 24 days ago [—]. Overweight people already have their costs internalized: that's what your insurance rates are. This is also actually tremendously fair, because if you're fat but don't suffer any lifestyle illnesses, then your insurance rates are low - you are actually able to support your mass. But once those conditions start ticking up, so do your insurance rates. The US basically leads the way on addressing the social externalities of obesity as they relate to the healthcare system. Obesity tends to kill people before they get old enough to incur real costs in medical care.

It's like cigarette smoking, it actually saves the healthcare system money and resources because smoking tends to kill people before they get very old. And your chance of catching COVID from an unvaccinated person is, apparently no real studies to prove or disprove yet that I know of not very different from a vaccinated person. No matter how obese someone is, I'm not going to catch their obesity by breathing the same air as them. Your drinking is regulated. When you step into a car drunk, you are putting others at risk and it stops being your problem and starts being society's problem.

The same is true here. You are stepping into society on a state of health that presents risks to everyone around you. You are the one making this claim. Back it up with some evidence. Your admitting this, why even bring up your points if you know they dont matter? There's no reason to argue this point. That policy hurts farmers, so it's not viable for a different reason. Because of unvaccinated people many of us face significantly worse hospital care right now. OrvalWintermute 24 days ago [—]. I challenge you to provide proof of this statement outside a politically slanted source.

Overweight and obesity were risk factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. That's just from the summary, there are many more details based on publicly available data and I'd suggest you read the full report. It's not the only one out there on this subject, not by a long chalk. Almost 3 in 4 U. Nearly half of people have prediabetes or diabetes. So we have to deal with that. Only old age rates as a higher risk factor. The report itself goes into much greater detail, is very readable and interesting, and I highly recommend it. I'd challenge you to provide a source - for any statement - that is unambiguously free from political slant. Here you go, take your pick of any of dozens of studies.

Literally Whataboutism. No it's not. It's saying that we tolerate huge social costs elsewhere, so why is this one too large to bear? Well if you look at smoking, we did quite similar things. We let people smoke, it's not forbidden, but don't try to smoke within a restaurant, an indoor space, a flight, etc. Because that's where your secondary smoke can start impacting other people. But smoke at home as much as you want! Sounds familiar?

COVID is contagious, its a systematic problem, not an individual one. In tribal groups the incest taboo was usually associated with the totem animal with which the group identified and after which it was named. This identification led to a ban on the killing or the consumption of the flesh of the totem animal and on other restrictions on the range of permissible behaviors and, in particular, it led to the practice of exogamy, the prohibition of sexual relations between members of the totem group. Such prohibitions, Freud believed, are extremely important as they constitute the origins of human morality, and he offered a reconstruction of the genesis of totem religions in human culture in terms which are at once forensically psychoanalytical and rather egregiously speculative.

The primal social state of our pre-human ancestors, he argued, closely following J. In this account, the psycho-sexual dynamic operating within the group led to the violent rebellion of the sons, their murder of the father and their consumption of his flesh Atkinson , chapters I-III; Freud , The identification of the totem animal with the father arose out of a displacement of the deep sense of guilt generated by the murder, while simultaneously being an attempt at reconciliation and a retrospective renunciation of the crime by creating a taboo around the killing of the totem. Such a view, of course, presupposes the validity of the essentially Lamarckian idea that traits acquired by individuals, including psychological traits such a memory, can be inherited and thus passed through the generations.

This was a controversial notion to which Freud, who never fully accepted the Darwinian account of evolution through natural selection, steadfastly adhered throughout his life, in the face of scientific criticism. The counterpart to the primary taboo against killing or eating the totem animal, Freud pointed out, is the annual totem feast, in which that very prohibition is solemnly and ritualistically violated by the tribal community, and he followed the Orientalist William Robertson Smith — in linking such totem feasts with the rituals of sacrifice in developed religions.

The father is thus represented twice in primitive sacrifice, as god and as totem animal, the totem being the first form taken by the father substitute and the god a later one in which the father reassumes his human identity. The dynamic which operates in totem religions, Freud argued, is sustained by and underpins the evolution of religion into its modern forms, where the need for communal sacrifice to expiate an original sin should also be understood in terms of parricide guilt. In time Freud came to consider that the account which he had given in Totem and Taboo did not fully address the issue of the origins of developed religion, the human needs which religion is designed to meet and, consequently, the psychological motivations underpinning religious belief.

He turned to these questions in his The Future of an Illusion ; reprinted and Civilization and its Discontents ; reprinted In the two works he represented the structures of civilization, which permit men to live in mutually beneficial communal relationships, as emerging only as a consequence of the imposition of restrictive processes on individual human instinct. In order for civilization to emerge, limiting regulations must be created to frustrate the satisfaction of destructive libidinal drives, examples of which are those directed towards incest, cannibalism and murder.

For Freud, the principal task of civilization is thus to defend us against nature, for without it we would be entirely exposed to natural forces which have almost unlimited power to destroy us. Extending his account of repression from individual to group psychology, Freud contended that, with the refinement of culture, the external coercive measures inhibiting the instincts become largely internalized. Professional work, Freud argued, is one area in which such substitutions take place, while the aesthetic appreciation of art is another significant one; for art, though it is inaccessible to all but a privileged few, serves to reconcile human beings to the individual sacrifices that have been made for the sake of civilization.

However, the effects of art, even on those who appreciate it, are transient, with experience demonstrating that they are insufficiently strong to reconcile us to misery and loss. For that effect, in particular for the achievement of consolation for the suffering and tribulations of life, religious ideas become invoked; these ideas, he held, consequentially become of the greatest importance to a culture in terms of the range of substitute satisfactions which they provide.

Since religious ideas thus address the most fundamental problems of existence, they are regarded as the most precious assets civilization has to offer, and the religious worldview, which Freud acknowledged as possessing incomparable consistency and coherence, makes the claim that it alone can answer the question of the meaning of life. For Freud, then, the cultural and social importance of religion resides both in reconciling men to the limitations which membership of the community places upon them and in mitigating their sense of powerlessness in the face of a recalcitrant and ever-threatening nature. It is in this sense, he argued, that the father-son relationship so crucial to psychoanalysis demands the projection of a deity configured as an all-powerful, benevolent father figure.

In declaring such ideas illusory Freud did not initially seek to suggest or imply that they are thereby necessarily false; an illusory belief he defined simply as one which is motivated in part by wish-fulfillment, which in itself implied nothing about its relation to reality. He gives the example of a middle-class girl who believes that a prince will marry her; such a belief is clearly inspired by a wish-fantasy and is unlikely to prove justified, but such marriages do occasionally happen.

Given that religion has, as Freud acknowledged, made very significant contributions to the development of civilization, and that religious beliefs are not strictly refutable, the question arises as to why he came to consider that religious beliefs are delusional and that a turning away from religion is both desirable and inevitable in advanced social groupings. He took this as confirming his belief that religion is akin to a universal obsessional neurosis generated by an unresolved father complex and is situated on an evolutionary trajectory which can only lead to its general abandonment in favor of science. We may call this education to reality. Need I confess to you that the sole purpose of my book is to point out the necessity for this forward step?

In Civilization Freud mentions that he had sent a copy of The Future of an Illusion to an admired friend, subsequently identified as the French novelist and social critic Romain Rolland. On the other hand, he was confronted with the obvious problem that feelings are notoriously difficult to deal with in a scientific manner. Additionally—and perhaps more importantly—Freud admitted to being unable to discover the oceanic feeling in himself, though he was not disposed on that ground to deny the occurrence of it in others.

In that connection, he offered an account of the oceanic feeling as being a revival of an infantile experience associated with the narcissistic union between mother and child, in which the awareness of an ego or self as differentiated from the mother and world at large has yet to emerge in the child. In that sense, he contended, it would be implausible to take it as the foundational source of religion, since only a feeling which is an expression of a strong need could function as a motivational drive. The oceanic feeling, he conceded, may have become connected with religion later on, but he insisted that it is the experience of infantile helplessness and the longing for the father occasioned by it which is the original source from which religion derives Freud , A very significant body of literature has since grown up around the idea that religion might have emerged genetically, and derive its dynamic energy, as Rolland suggested, from mystical feelings of oneness with the universe in which fear and anxiety are transcended and time and space are eclipsed.

In , while exiled in Britain and suffering from the throat cancer which was to lead to his death, Freud published his final and most controversial work, Moses and Monotheism. Written over a period of many years and sub-divided into discrete segments, two of which were published independently in the periodical Imago in , the book has an inelegant structure.

The many repetitions that it contains, coupled with the initial strangeness of the arguments advanced, persuaded some that it was the product of a man whose intellectual powers had fallen into serious decline. However, in more recent times the book has become recognized as one of the most important in the Freudian canon, offering an innovative contribution to the understanding of the nature of religious truth and of the role played by tradition in religious thought. Accordingly, at this late juncture in his life and with the threat of fascist antisemitism looming over Europe, he turned his attention once more to the religion of his forefathers, constructing an alternative narrative to the orthodox Biblical one on the origins of Judaism and the emergence from it of Christianity.

Developing a thesis partly suggested by work of the protestant theologian Ernst Sellin — in , Freud argued that the historical Moses was not born Jewish but was rather an aristocratic Egyptian who functioned as a senior official or priest to the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV. The latter had introduced revolutionary changes to almost all aspects of Egyptian culture in the 14 th century B. More significantly, he had also introduced a strict new universal monotheistic religion to Egypt, the religion of the god Aton or Aten, in the process outlawing as idolatrous the veneration of the traditional Egyptian polytheistic deities, including the then dominant religion of Amun-Ra, removing all references to the possibility of an afterlife and prohibiting the creation of graven images.

He had also proscribed all forms of magic and sorcery, closed all the temples and suppressed established religious practice, thereby undermining the social status and political power of the Amun priests. Thus, when the Pharaoh died in B. In the process he converted them to an even more spiritualized, rigorous and demanding form of monotheism, which involved the Egyptian custom of circumcision, a symbolic act of submission to the Divine Will. In the Freudian narrative the onerous demands of the new religion ultimately led his followers to rebel and to kill Moses, an effective repetition of the original father murder outlined in Totem and Taboo , after which they turned to the cult of the volcano god Yahweh.

But the memory of the Egyptian Moses remained a powerful latent force until, several generations later, a second Moses, the son-in-law of the Midianite priest Jethro, shaped the development of Judaism by integrating the monotheism of his predecessor with the worship of Yahweh. While Freud evidently retained his view of religion as the analogue of an obsessional neurosis, this account now contained the recognition that, as such, its effects are not necessarily pathological, but, on the contrary, can also be socially and culturally beneficial in a marked way. In his view, the Judaic ethic was one which demanded restrictions on the gratification of certain instincts as being incompatible with its spiritualised view of human nature and dignity, in a manner paralleling that in which the totem laws had imposed the rule of exogamy within the totem clan.

Such restrictions, he argued, enabled Jewish culture to flourish and to take on its unique character. In this account, the murder of Moses was thus the initial event which provoked a sense of guilt that in turn shaped the ethical content of Judaic monotheism. To recognize, through this form of psycho analysis, the genesis of the ethical system in the guilt arising from a nefarious historical deed is, he suggested, to free oneself from its obsessive features while simultaneously accepting its entirely human origins.

But such a recognition does not entail an abandonment of the core value system, as there is a sense, as Freud acknowledged to be true in his own case, in which that ethical heritage cannot be repudiated once it is acquired. The answer, they suggest, could be offered by him in Moses and Monotheism only in terms of what he saw as essential to Judaism itself, a rigorous, spiritually intellectualized life ethic, centering on the virtues of truth and justice, derived from the man Moses, its human creator, through the work and influence of the prophets compare Whitebook , However, he held that the advent of Christianity was in some respects a step back from monotheism and a reversion to a covert form of polytheism, with the panoply of saints standing as a surrogate for the lesser gods of pagan antiquity.

The Jewish people, Freud pointed out, have a self-confidence which springs from the idea of being chosen by God from amongst the peoples of the world, an idea which derives strength from the related notion of participation in the reality of a supreme Deity. But the tenet of the Judaic religion which historically has had perhaps the most significant effect of all, he contended, has been the prohibition, derived from the religion of Aton, of graven images as idolatrous. In that sense, he ultimately recognized that the very science of mind which he had pioneered and with which he sought to expose the Oedipal nature of religion was itself a cultural product of the Judaic religious impulse.

The responses to it, in turn, occupy a very wide spectrum, from enthusiastic affirmation to condemnatory repudiation. A representative sample of these would include the following. Further, the progressivist evolutionary paradigm championed by Freud, with its projection of a universal linear cultural development from the primitive to the civilized, is largely rejected by contemporary ethnologists and social anthropologists, in particular those influenced by the work of Franz Boas — Popper did so on the grounds that the terms in which psychoanalytic theory is couched make it unfalsifiable in principle and thus unscientific.

This latter stratagem, with some variations, has subsequently been adopted by a number of other commentators who seek a mechanism to validate the Freudian cultural narrative in the face of its undeniable ethnological shortcomings compare, for example, Paul, On such a view, the deficiencies presented by the Freudian narrative are read as being hermeneutic rather than scientific, open to further articulation and refinement through a more nuanced and balanced interpretation of the symbolic structure of religious discourse. By contrast, he insisted on seeing psychoanalysis precisely as a testable theory, but one which is based upon clinical reports from therapeutic practice rather than rigorous experimentally-derived evidence.

They cannot therefore properly be regarded as providing confirmatory evidence for the theory, while contemporary psychoanalysis has not met the objection that successful therapy operates as a placebo. The latter is now largely rejected by contemporary science, in particular the manner in which Freudians have adopted it to model the social evolution of human beings analogically with the psychological development of children. The entire enterprise of accounting for the origins of religion as an evolutionary trajectory from polytheism to monotheism has been challenged by the work of the ethnologist Father Wilhelm Schmidt — , whose multi-volume Der Ursprung der Gottesidee The Origin of the Idea of God ; — is a wide-ranging study of primitive religion.

Schmidt, who was influenced by Boas and his followers, was accordingly critical of evolutionist accounts of religious development, contending that they frequently lack solid grounding in the historical and anthropological evidence, and was dismissive on those grounds of the totemic theory propagated by Freud. Freud feared for a possible suppression of psychoanalysis in Vienna in the mids by the ruling Catholic authorities, with whom Schmidt had considerable influence.

That fear, combined with hope—which proved unfortunately ill-grounded—that those authorities might function as a bulwark against the threat of Nazism, persuaded Freud to defer publication of the full text of Moses and Monotheism until after he had taken up residence in England see Freud , Prefatory Notes to Part , a fact which itself had a considerably negative effect on the literary coherence of the work. In The Elementary Forms Durkheim set himself the task of analyzing religion empirically as a social phenomenon, holding that such a treatment alone can reveal its true nature. For Durkheim, the social dimension of human life is primary; human individuality itself is largely determined by, and is a function of, social interaction and organization.

This was a point missed by Freud, who, we have seen, sought to deal with the social dimension of religion by an extension of psychoanalytical principles from individual to group psychology. Such facts exist at the level of society as a whole and arise from social relationships and human associations, and include law, morality, contractual relationships and, perhaps most importantly, religion.

He saw the connection between religious beliefs and practices as a necessary one; for him, religious experience is rooted more in the actions associated with rites than it is in reflective thought. Traditional accounts of religion have tended to treat religious beliefs as essentially hypothetical or quasi-scientific in nature—an approach clearly evident in Freud—which almost inevitably raises skeptical doubts about their validity, whereas Durkheim saw that what is important to the believer is the normative dimension of faith.

This often leads the participants into a state of psychological excitement resembling delirium, in which they come to feel transported into a higher level of existence where they make direct contact with the sacred object. Participation in such rituals has the effect of affirming and strengthening the collective identity of the group and must be renewed periodically in order to consolidate that identity. Given that it is a foundational postulate of sociology that no human institution rests upon an error or a lie, he declared it unscientific to suggest that systems of ideas of such complexity as religions could be delusory or be the product of illusion, as Freud was to do.

If it is impossible for religious belief, considered as a set of representations relating to the sacred, to be erroneous in its own social right, error can and does emerge, he argued, in the interpretation of what those representations mean , even within the framework of a particular culture. This point regarding the socially-imposed nature of the meanings associated with collective representations can perhaps be most clearly illustrated by reference to now-defunct cultures and religions. For example, while we readily recognize that the Moai, the deeply impressive monolithic statues of Easter Island, unquestionably had a particular political, aesthetic and religious significance for the Rapa Nui people who created them, the meaning of that symbolism largely escapes us—archeological and anthropological reconstruction aside—as we view them from a perspective external to that culture.

Durkheim contended that in a religious context, the sacred object, which is indeed greater than the individual, is nothing more or less than the power o f society itself which, in order to be represented symbolically at all, has be objectified through a process of projection. Unlike Freud, Durkheim also sought to provide an account of religion which achieves full scientific probity while simultaneously doing justice to the richness of the actual lived experiences of believers. Notwithstanding that, however, it seems clear that in the final analysis his anti-skeptical stratagem works satisfactorily only on its own, scientific terms; a believer could scarcely derive comfort from a view which legitimates his belief-system qua sociological fact while implying that the personal God of worship which is its intentional object is, in reality, nothing other than society personified.

This raises the whole question of the intellectual plausibility of the projection theory of religion. The question is a complex one, a fact which Freud scarcely acknowledges in his works. As we have seen, the theory, which has a number of related but distinct forms, arose in modernity as a response to the anthropomorphic nature of the attributes which the conceptualization of a personal God in many of the great world religions seems to necessitate. Belief in God, and the complex patterns of behavior and of rituals associated with that belief, he argued, arise essentially out of the deep psychological need for a Cosmic father.

However, it has been pointed out that such a view underestimates the logical gulf that exists between wishes and beliefs; the former may on occasion be a necessary condition for the latter, but are rarely a sufficient one: an athlete may wish to triumph in an event with every fibre of his being, but that will not necessarily generate a belief that he can do so, much less the delusion that he has done so. Thus, even if it is true that there is a universal wish for a Cosmic father, it is implausible to suggest that such a wish is a sufficient condition for religious belief and the complex practices and value systems associated with it Kai-man Kwan Further, as Alvin Plantinga — argues, in the absence of compelling empirical evidence to support the view that such a universal wish exists, Freud was left with no option but to contend that such wishes are equally universally repressed into the unconscious, a move which opens his theory to the accusation of being empirically untestable Plantinga , It is to be noted too that concerns about anthropomorphisms in religious language are in no way restricted to religious skeptics: apophatic or negative theology, for example, grew out of recognition of the logical difficulties implicit in attempts to express the nature of the divine in language.

It is also important to note that some proponents of the projection theory, such as Spinoza and possibly Xenophanes, saw the projection theory as invalidating only those forms of religious belief which are anthropotheistic in nature. Thus projectionism, so far from being hostile to all forms of religious belief and practice, is in fact consistent with themes relating to the avoidance of idolatry long central to the Abrahamic religions in particular, as evidenced in the proscription on naming God in Judaism and in aniconism, the prohibition of figurative representations of the Divine in the early Orthodox Church, in Calvinism and also in Islam Thornton, It is thus perfectly consistent to accept projectionism as an account of religious concept formation without thereby repudiating religious belief.

Indeed, the logical compatibility of projectionism with religious belief has led some contemporary religious thinkers to go so far as to embrace projectionism as a condition of a reflective religious commitment. This argument is closely paralleled by a suggestion from Plantinga that wish-fulfillment as a mechanism could have arisen out of a divinely created human constitution. For while it may not, in general, be the function of wish-fulfillment to produce true belief, that in itself does not rule out the possibility, Plantinga contends—at least for those who believe in God—that humans have been so constituted by the creator to have a deeply-felt need and wish to believe in him.

Whatever level of plausibility may be assigned to these views, it is in any case clear that the projection theory is also reflective of the difficulties which certain forms of religious discourse generate: the characterization of God as possessing attributes such as Love and Wisdom, however qualified such attributions may be, seems invariably to invite the kind of challenge that is found in Feuerbach, Freud and even in Durkheim. In that sense, the projection theory highlights deep theological and philosophical issues relating to the nature and meaning of religious language. One of the more promising approaches to this issue is that suggested by the work of of Wittgenstein, who, in his Philosophical Investigations , propounded his language-game theory of meaning, which argued that the meaning of any term is determined by its actual use in a living language-system.

An application of this to religious discourse implies that the latter cannot be understood in isolation from the broad web of cultural practices, beliefs and concerns in which it is imbedded and from which it derives its meaning. This suggests that concerns that skeptical conclusions necessarily follow from our use of human-being predicates in speaking about the Divine are misguided; such concerns gain credence only when accompanied by the deeply pervasive, but uncritical, philosophical assumption—clearly evident in Freud—that the attributions of anthropomorphic predicates to God are to be understood exclusively as factual descriptions of a particular kind, an assumption which is at the very least gratuitous.

Are eyebrows going to be talked of, in connection with the Eye of God? The occurrence of anthropomorphisms in religious discourse, then, does not in itself necessitate the acceptance of anthropotheistic conclusions. Not alone did it contest the orthodox Biblical narrative of the role of Moses in the history of Judaism, it did so at a time when the Jews of Europe were threatened with complete annihilation. Though Moses is almost certainly an Egyptian name, the evidence that Moses was an Egyptian is not conclusive and it has also been suggested that his life was not in fact contemporaneous with that of Amenhotep IV Banks , In a thinker as complex as Freud, these approaches can neither be taken as exhaustive nor as entirely mutually exclusive, as significant textual evidence can be invoked for all three.

What seems evident, at any rate, is that Freud was seeking, at that critical point in Jewish history, to affirm his cultural and intellectual indebtedness to the ethical basis of the religion of his forefathers while simultaneously seeking to demonstrate that the validity of that ethic is not contingent upon the Biblical and theological accretions traditionally associated with it. On such a reading, the question of the accuracy of the historical detail in the Freudian narrative becomes as peripheral as it is—on a non-literal interpretation—to that of the Biblical one. Stephen Thornton Email: stephen. Sigmund Freud: Religion This article explores attempts by Sigmund Freud to provide a naturalistic account of religion enhanced by insights and theoretical constructs derived from the discipline of psychoanalysis which he had pioneered.

Lamarckian vs. In part, the verse ran: Son who is dear to me, Shelomoh. Religion and Civilization In time Freud came to consider that the account which he had given in Totem and Taboo did not fully address the issue of the origins of developed religion, the human needs which religion is designed to meet and, consequently, the psychological motivations underpinning religious belief.

The Moses Narrative: The Origins of Judaic Monotheism In , while exiled in Britain and suffering from the throat cancer which was to lead to his death, Freud published his final and most controversial work, Moses and Monotheism. Myth or Science? The Primordial Religion: Polytheism or Monotheism? The Projection Theory of Religion This raises the whole question of the intellectual plausibility of the projection theory of religion. In a similar vein, Jan Assmann sees Freud as continuing the more general task, initiated by Baruch Spinoza — , of combating monotheism and undoing the negative values, such as intolerance, religious hatred and the configuration of alternative religions as idolatrous, generated by the absolute conception of truth which monotheistic religions seem to require.

Finally, there is the semi-autobiographical approach, largely taken in this article, which sees the text as primarily concerned with the long-standing problem for Freud of resolving his personal father complex. References and Further Reading a. References Alter, R. University of Washington Press. Assmann, J. Banks, R. Religious Studies , vol. Berke, J. London: Karnac Books. Bernstein, R. Freud and the Legacy of Moses. Cambridge: University Press. Boehlich, W. Harvard University Press. Brentano, F. Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint trans.

Rancurello, D. Terrell and L. London: Routledge. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Darwin, C. Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Princeton University Press. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life trans. Karen Fields. New York: Free Press. Feuerbach, L. The Essence of Christianity , 2nd edition trans. George Eliot. Frazer, J. The Golden Bough.

New York: Dover Publications. Freud, S. The Psychopathology of Everyday Life trans.

That's an extremely Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits comparison on something that spreads from years of social ties to one second from a cough. Several policy and market-based solutions have been promoted to The Prioress In The Canterbury Tales the loss of employment and Personal Narrative: Changing My Internalized Eating Habits forecast by technologists and economists. The Internet first appeared long after I had received my Ph. Human beings for God.

Current Viewers: