Skip to content

Introduction Psychoanalysis and Mysticisrn

William B. Parsons

The Enigma of the Oceanic Feeling June 17, 1999 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195115086.003.0001 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Key points Argues that the literature on psychoanalysis and religion lacks sustained interdisciplinary dialogue concerning the relationship between psychoanalysis and mysticism.

Abstract

Abstract In his landmark biography of Freud, Ernest Jones observed that no single topic in the Freudian corpus, excepting that of sexuality, had evoked more interest than that of religion. Although Freud’s views on religion are complex, Jones had in mind the definitive and pejorative conception of religion delineated in The Future of an Illusion. There Freud, defining religion in terms of “the final form” taken by our present-clay “Christian civilization,” sought to undermine religious tenets by interpreting them with respect to childhood development and metapsychological concepts like projection, repression, and the unconscious. His trenchant analysis led to a long and fruitful debate among subsequent psychoanalysts, as well as between psychoanalysis and multiple disciplines within religious studies, concerning the nature and function of religion. The history of this ongoing conversation need not be repeated here, as it is substantial and has been well documented. What is noteworthy about this literature, however, is the dearth of any sustained interdisciplinary dialogue with respect to one of its central themes, the origin and development of the relation between psycho analysis and mysticism.