|
Loading... Moses and Monotheism (1939)by Sigmund Freud (Author)
Even admirers of Freud tend to be pretty dismissive of the argument here, but I don't think it's so far-fetched... Until he gets to the stuff about genetic memories, which is pretty untenable. But say what you will about Freud, he's never dull. (  )1   amydross | Nov 10, 2012 |  This is a laugher. Freud argues that Moses was an Egyptian, not a Jew, and he ties this into his psychological theory of how monotheistic religions developed. His arguments are based on things like "Moses" being an Egyptian name (ignoring the fact that an Egyptian adopting a Jewish baby is pretty likely to give the baby an Egyptian name) and the sort-of congruence between Freud's version of the story with a particular myth framework. He fits facts to his theory, and where there are no facts, he just says that research would undoubtedly prove him correct. His psychological theory depends on all of humankind having experienced a primeval conflict with a father figure and having passed this down through the generations genetically (not through oral history). The book is interesting from a historical standpoint because of Freud's fame and influence, but if you're looking for a scientific/historical analysis of religion as a social phenomenon, this isn't a good choice. (  ) carlym | Jul 5, 2012 | An outstanding and audacious book. Not to many people have knowledge of this subject on Freud's writings. It is amazing to notice the author's courage exposing thesis where he attempt to prove or at least to demonstrate that Moses was an Egyptian and not a Jew. The argument of the existence of two Moses the one from Egypt and the other from Midia, a Medianite, is also surprising although in any way fanciful. In some bookstores this book is incorrectly classified in the psych area. This is truly a Bible history research, of course using an approach that places, in his words, religion phenomena as a model of neurotic symptoms of the individual. As I mentioned in other book comment, this kind of study always carries some dose of speculation. Freud was not an exception but without lost of plausibility. (  )2 mporto | Jan 21, 2012 | All work should be regarded as a continuation of previous studies of Freud. Probably the first struck by the readers of "Moses and Monotheism," so this is some heterodoxy or even eccentricity of its construction. But if Moses and Monotheism, and something is missing in the presentation of the material, it does not imply criticism of the content or the persuasiveness of the arguments. The skill with which the assumptions are brought under the psychological findings are likely to be convincing to an unbiased reader. Those who are familiar with psychoanalysis, personality, would be especially fascinated by the same sequence of stages of development, demonstrated by the national group. Source: http://www.freud-sigmund.com/ SigmundFreudPsy | Oct 12, 2011 | I believe this was Freuds last work, a subject with which it appeard he approached caustiously for fear of angering those who held diffent opinions about Moses. While I don't subscribe to the accuracy of the asertions made I did find the ideas explored by it quite intersting. I have enjoyed most of his works especially the ones where he did not feel the need to dispute Jung. KingDthe1st | Nov 10, 2009 | no reviews | add a review
References to this work on external resources.
|
 Google Books — Loading...Popular coversRatingAverage: (3.56)
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia in English (4)
1