Freud vs Kierkegaard: Future of Illusion vs Fear & Trembling (Coursework Sample)

Freud vs. Kierkegaard
Name
Institution
Freud vs. Kierkegaard
In his theory, Fear and Trembling, Soren Kierkegaard discusses a bible story of Abraham in Genesis. He explains of how Abraham was commanded by God to kill his son Isaac. Kierkegaard explains that today, people think they can start with faith and go further. He insists that no one can understand Abraham. He uses the story to show the difference between the tragic hero and the knight of faith. According to him, tragic hero expresses the ethical or universal while knight of faith expresses the religious. For him, faith needs passion, and this passion has to be learned. He asserts that religious is higher compared to ethical, and thus there is something higher to universal (Kierkegaard, 2013). He agrees with Hegel’s argument that universal is the human greatest aspiration, but also asserts that human may extend beyond the rational. In his work, The Future of Illusion, Sigmund Freud explains that every person has destructive instincts. He goes further and states that people use religious ideas to console themselves against nature forces. According to Freud, religious ideas are just illusions unlike science, which is the road to knowledge of reality outside ourselves. He compares religion to children neurosis. He explains that people believe in religion because those people who came before us believed in religion too, willingness to grasp realities of nature by a human mind, feelings of vulnerability, and oneness. For him, religion comes from vulnerability feelings one experiences at a small age, forcing one to use religion for protection. However, religion has attained its essence and needs to give way for truth (Freud, 2012). The paper compares Freud and Kierkegaard’s works, emphasizing more on why Freud has a better explanation of religion’s place in society.
The above scholars agree that religion exists in the society. They also agree that religion is complicated and proofing some of the religious beliefs is difficult. They both argue that something outside the line of awareness can write a script of peoples’ conscious thoughts and feelings. In this, I mean that they both agree that religion may shape how people feel or behave.
Sigmund Freud, however, has a better explanation of religion’s place in the society. He uses plain language compared to Kierkegaard who uses metaphor to explain his theory. His writing does not go deep into explaining the logical structure of his argument. His focus is more on war with Hegelianism. He fails to build a step-by-step kind of thinking. His argument of religious being higher than ethical shows that there is something higher to the universal, but the word “higher” is a paradox. He also leaves questions answered by saying that human extends beyond the rational. Freud explanation of religion is very elaborative. He starts by showing where religion originated, where he gives different explanations. For example, he says that religion originated from the need to grasp realiti...