Murphy's law went wrong because it could be wrong. ok so the original post is a bit like saying religion is natural? I think I can see why someone might think that. Religion uses a lot of psychological defenses, like denial and tunnel vision, etc. However so do people. This is a bit hypothetical, but perhaps it would be easy to conclude that people resort to religion when actually they are resorting to psychological defenses. They could be identified as the same because we associate the defenses with religion. that however doesn't mean that because defenses are there, that they have a root in religious value.
And on Freud: It might not be the most popular belief but I do like Freud. That doesn't mean I agree with him on a lot of things. I think he may have been right or at least on the right track on some things though. For example, I think on the pleasure principle he had some good insight. However to say that people are selfish by nature is a bit tricky because there is a general stigma that says that selfishness is generally bad. I don't think this is particularly the kind of selfish definition that fits this. To explain I'll evaluate what I mean by selfish as applied to the pleasure principle: generally we wish for people to succeed and fulfill their role in society as best as they can. Humanistically we would like them to have a happy and prosperous like. Or to rethink this in other words, we'd like then to be selfish like the rest of us while conforming happily to social norms. on the contrary imagine a selfless world. No one wold ever take a job promotion because we would want the other person to have it. money and goods would have little to no value because we would only want to use them to help others. Ironically in being selfless and trying to give we expect the other person to take what is given. we expect selfishness. If we didn't have it society would come to a halt. If we never had it nothing would be the way it is now. Selfishness can be bad but only if it is more that social norms will allow. otherwise it is expected of others. Something we can respect about Freud as well is that he had the nerve to talk about sexuality in the Victorian area. when we look at ITR (Instant Trauma Reduction) which is commonly used in humanism to relieve post-traumatic stress, one of the things we use to get to the next point is slips of the tongue, which is initially a Freudian idea. On that same note the idea in ITR of lowering the persons resistance level to bring out latent content is also used and its also a Freudian idea. Yes hydrodynamics has branched and changed in many ways and you could argue that id doesn't sand on its own very much. However that's not a reason to under-credit the value that we obtained and still use from it.
And on Freud: It might not be the most popular belief but I do like Freud. That doesn't mean I agree with him on a lot of things. I think he may have been right or at least on the right track on some things though. For example, I think on the pleasure principle he had some good insight. However to say that people are selfish by nature is a bit tricky because there is a general stigma that says that selfishness is generally bad. I don't think this is particularly the kind of selfish definition that fits this. To explain I'll evaluate what I mean by selfish as applied to the pleasure principle: generally we wish for people to succeed and fulfill their role in society as best as they can. Humanistically we would like them to have a happy and prosperous like. Or to rethink this in other words, we'd like then to be selfish like the rest of us while conforming happily to social norms. on the contrary imagine a selfless world. No one wold ever take a job promotion because we would want the other person to have it. money and goods would have little to no value because we would only want to use them to help others. Ironically in being selfless and trying to give we expect the other person to take what is given. we expect selfishness. If we didn't have it society would come to a halt. If we never had it nothing would be the way it is now. Selfishness can be bad but only if it is more that social norms will allow. otherwise it is expected of others. Something we can respect about Freud as well is that he had the nerve to talk about sexuality in the Victorian area. when we look at ITR (Instant Trauma Reduction) which is commonly used in humanism to relieve post-traumatic stress, one of the things we use to get to the next point is slips of the tongue, which is initially a Freudian idea. On that same note the idea in ITR of lowering the persons resistance level to bring out latent content is also used and its also a Freudian idea. Yes hydrodynamics has branched and changed in many ways and you could argue that id doesn't sand on its own very much. However that's not a reason to under-credit the value that we obtained and still use from it.
Jesus said he would come back soon. So over 2000 years isn’t long enough to call his bluff? Of course that’s assuming he existed.
