Frued And Lamettrie Essay, Research Paper
October 28, 1999
LAMETTRIE AND FREUD ESSAY
While science is responsible for creating fact-minded people, I disagree that “it has nothing to say to us.” Science is based on truths that are based on observations. If one believes in science, one does not necessarily renounce all other forms of thought. There have been many philosophers, not all famous, but philosophers none the less that believe in science yet still ponder man’s burning questions.
Science is known for matter of fact solutions to often-complex problems. Science can actually be a veil to one’s true nature. What I mean is that someone who questions life itself can often take satisfaction in an answer closely related to the one they seek. Science often can be a building block to philosophy. For instance if one seeks the meaning of life, knowledge of evolution may bring that person one step close to the answer he seeks.
Lamettrie and Freud brought up two very interesting but different points of view. Ironically arguments on both sides could be made for many of the statements in agreement. One statement that was made was “Man is a part of nature, not separate from it.” I personally agree with this statement, however I think society as a whole is in denial. I think that man sees himself as superior to nature and all of our building and industry is man creating it’s own nature. Man needs come to a tangible realization that we are nothing without nature. Man cannot survive without nature, but nature can thrive without man.
Science places a focus on the later. Science sees the apparent necessity of nature more clearly than the average man does. Another point they made is “Man lives for happiness or pleasure.” Scientifically speaking this is true. In nature all creatures live based on an apparent pleasure. You don’t see monkeys that are “work-aholics”, or birds that build their nests in the “cheapest tree”. Naturally speaking, man ultimately seeks pleasure.
The statement that god is infantile, or a neurotic coping method is as wrong as making the statement that one that does not believe in a god is immoral. To some religion is the foundation that their lives are built on. Our country was founded on the sole reason to have the ability to practice religion freely and without persecution. Our constitution itself had many religious ideals embedded in it. God is as much of a coping method as science.
Science does not have all the answers, and neither do philosophers. Yet in terms of science only producing fact minded people, I have to ask what is wrong with that. If one finds satisfaction I the knowledge of fact only, what is wrong with that? If one never ponders the meaning of life or asks why he is here, who are we to say he is wrong, or shallow or even naive. Once life’s burning questions are debated to death and thought for hours, is one really better off with twice as many questions and twice as much frustration?
After much pondering on both sides of the fence I am truly left on in the middle. Personally, I am inclined to the fact minded view, but I understand with the philosophical aspect as well. Everyone in the world has his or her own set of beliefs. If the religious philosopher must ponder the meaning of life, or the rocket scientist must complete an experiment to find something to be true, either way they are satisfied. It comes down to a sense of purpose. Regardless of a conscience purpose, everyone lives to do something, and that is all that needs to be agreed upon.