Ruth Stein Fundamentalism
Ruth Stein believes that fundamentalism is one’s personal “quest” to “violently transcend experiences” of one’s fear of eternal slumber (death) and how the existence of another human being serves as an “obstacle” that distances an individual further from their personal desires. She feels as though fundamentalism is being encapsulated in one’s own personal “comforting straight jacket.” Which I felt is a view that is rarely seen or heard of (at least it is nothing I have seen or heard of). As I was reading Stein’s article, one (when I say one I mean myself) could compare Stein’s unusual and thought provoking ideas as well as concepts to Sigmund Freud- in the sense that they both took a unique and stylistic approach to a very controversial yet
important topic (regarding religion). Rather both Freud and Stein approach this topic from a psychoanalytic point of view, which was created from the one of kind of mind- Sigmund Freud. Further in Stein’s article, Stein expresses how looking at religion through a psychoanalytic lens allows one to comprehend “’the’ war between good and evil” and how this can be seen as a “psychic confliction.” It can be seen this way between one’s internal sense of badness and how that part of ourselves (that we are not too proud of) seeks out and is in need of “goodness.” So we as people try to obtain this goodness through a deity or a god/ father like figure (that emulates this goodness that we so desperately seek). But David Miller feels as though (and I agree with) “the impossibility of such a function” is why we as humans in order for our finite brains to understand an infinite concept, is to personify it into a deity so we as people are able to have a sense of understanding and control over such a complex concept. Earlier in Stein’s article she explains this concept of “verticality” which expresses the “absolute distance between” “certainty and fundamentalistic knowledge” that composes the “verticalization of difference.” Which I feel is a very interesting and intriguing way of looking at it and is something I feel I would have never thought of in order to express the opposition between these two concepts. Overall, I felt as though Stein took an unorthodox approach to unique concepts and allowed her readers to see in the lens of Ruth Stein.
important topic (regarding religion). Rather both Freud and Stein approach this topic from a psychoanalytic point of view, which was created from the one of kind of mind- Sigmund Freud. Further in Stein’s article, Stein expresses how looking at religion through a psychoanalytic lens allows one to comprehend “’the’ war between good and evil” and how this can be seen as a “psychic confliction.” It can be seen this way between one’s internal sense of badness and how that part of ourselves (that we are not too proud of) seeks out and is in need of “goodness.” So we as people try to obtain this goodness through a deity or a god/ father like figure (that emulates this goodness that we so desperately seek). But David Miller feels as though (and I agree with) “the impossibility of such a function” is why we as humans in order for our finite brains to understand an infinite concept, is to personify it into a deity so we as people are able to have a sense of understanding and control over such a complex concept. Earlier in Stein’s article she explains this concept of “verticality” which expresses the “absolute distance between” “certainty and fundamentalistic knowledge” that composes the “verticalization of difference.” Which I feel is a very interesting and intriguing way of looking at it and is something I feel I would have never thought of in order to express the opposition between these two concepts. Overall, I felt as though Stein took an unorthodox approach to unique concepts and allowed her readers to see in the lens of Ruth Stein.