psychology. dennis darland wrote a quick 'observation' (his word, not mine) on the psychology of guilt. he speaks of guilt from a social point of view. from the point of view that guilt is some sort of social creation. he speaks of religion and guilt. this is true. with religion comes a lot of guilt. since religion is a type of societal manifestation, this part of guilt makes sense. we become ingraned with these notions of our beliefs that they being to 'take over' our feelings, our actions if you will.
but what about the person that has no religion. or doesn't rely on a 'higher' power to lead them. isn't someone able to feel guilt without these societal forces?
my answer would be yes. of course people are able to feel guilt without these influences being pressed upon them. this then is just a person feeling a greater responsibility than himself. a person who understands that others are affected by their own actions. my actions have consequences, past what i may feel. this feeling of guilt goes beyond myself, but rather to 'others' also. and it becomes more than just 'what other people will think of me', but rather a 'caring' of other people. russell spoke of this...a morality that moves beyond yourself.
[shalom...]
16.7.07
guilt and...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I had to read his "quick thought" and your post over a couple times before responding. He's not dismissing other causes of guilt, societal or otherwise. He's focusing on religion as the cause of guilt over perfectly natural things. In his example, it's sex. I think his mistake is in focusing on, or even mentioning, religious guilt. I mean you could derive the same thoughts or conclusions he reaches if you looked at sex from a secular point of view. Instead of looking at religious inspired sexual repression, look at society's attitude towards male virgins and Darland's comments could be equally applied...
...or not.
Post a Comment