El Dogma de Cristo

by Erich Fromm

Segun Erich Fromm, el cristianismo surge como un importante movimiento historico-mesianico en el seno de las clases bajas del pueblo judio. Sin embargo, a partir del siglo II su composicion social se transforma y deja de ser la religion de los artesanos pobres y los esclavos para ganar adeptos entre las clases acomodadas del Imperio Romano. A partir de todo esto, el presente libro examina la conversion del cristianismo en religion del Estado y la gran transformacion jerarquica: la Iglesia. Asi, tomando como referencia historica el significado psicologico de la fe de los primeros cristianos, Fromm investiga pacientemente las relaciones entre la psicologia y la religion, e intenta comprender, no tanto a la gente sobre la base de un estudio del dogma, como el doma sobre la base de un estudio de la gente.

Genres: Psychology, Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Essays, Theology, Sociology

110 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1963

About the author

Erich Fromm, Ph.D. (Sociology, University of Heidelberg, 1922) was a German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was a German Jew who fled the Nazi regime and settled in the United States. He was one of the founders of The William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology in New York City and was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory.

Fromm explored the interaction between psychology and society, and held various professorships in psychology in the U.S. and Mexico in the mid-20th century.

Fromm's theory is a rather unique blend of Freud and Marx. Freud, of course, emphasized the unconscious, biological drives, repression, and so on. In other words, Freud postulated that our characters were determined by biology. Marx, on the other hand, saw people as determined by their society, and most especially by their economic systems.

Reviews

[hayatem · Rating 4 out of 5]

«تم تشكيل شخصية الإنسان وفقًا لمتطلبات العالم الذي بناه بيديه. في القرنين الثامن عشر والتاسع عشر ، أظهر الطابع الاجتماعي للطبقة الوسطى سمات استغلالية واكتناز قوي. تم تحديد هذه الشخصية من خلال الرغبة في استغلال الآخرين وحفظ أرباح الفرد لتحقيق المزيد من الأرباح منهم. في القرن العشرين ، أظهر توجه شخصية الإنسان سلبية كبيرة وتماهيًا مع قيم السوق. من المؤكد أن الإنسان المعاصر سلبي في معظم أوقات فراغه. إنه المستهلك الأبدي. "يتناول" الشراب والطعام والسجائر والمحاضرات والمشاهد والكتب والأفلام ؛ يتم استهلاكها جميعًا ، وابتلاعها. العالم هو أحد الأشياء الرائعة لشهيته: زجاجة كبيرة ، تفاحة كبيرة ، صدر كبير. لقد أصبح الإنسان الطفل الرضيع ، والمتوقع إلى الأبد ، وخائب الأمل إلى الأبد.»

وفقاً للأسلوبين النيتشوي والهيغلي، تشترك الذات في إحباطها الخاص لذاتها، وتحقق خضوعها الخاص، وترغب في أغلالها وتصنعها، وتنقلب بذلك على رغبة تُعرف- أو عُرفت- بأنها تخصها.

يكتب فروم عن الإنسان وبنيته الشخصية والنفسية، وما يتنازعة في الحياة من خطوب وشرر، بين الدين والحياة الاجتماعية بتكويناتها المعقدة والمتداخلة بالأيديولوجيات؛ يقول فروم : " لا يمكننا أن نفهم الناس عن طريق أفكارهم وآيديولوجياتهم؛ بل يمكننا أن نفهم الآيديولوجيات والأفكار فقط بتفهمنا لمن خلقوها وآمنوا بها. إن أردنا أن نقوم بذلك فعلينا أن نتجاوز علم النفس الفردي، ونقتحم حقلاً جديداً في علم النفس وهو التحليل النفسي الاجتماعي.
وبهذه الطريقة في التعامل مع الآيديولوجيات علينا أن ندرس الظروف الاقتصادية والاجتماعية للبشر الذين قبلوا هذه الآيديولوجيات، ونحاول أن نتعرف على ما قد أسميته لاحقاً بـ"الشخصية الاجتماعية".

تناول فروم عدة أفكار ومفاهيم، من بينها الإخضاع في مثاله المادي بوصفه مشكلاً للذوات.
تحكم المعايير تشكل الذات وتطوق مجال المخالطة الاجتماعية الملائم للعيش إلى الحد الذي تعمل فيه المعايير كظواهر نفسية تقيّد الرغبات وتنتجها.

[E. G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Preface to the Routledge Classics Edition
Preface

--The Dogma of Christ
--The Present Human Condition
--Sex and Character
--Psychoanalysis---Science or Party Line?
--The Revolutionary Character
--Medicine and the Ethical Problem of Modern Man
--On the Limitations and Dangers of Psychology
--The Prophetic Concept of Peace

Index

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this collection around the same time as reading You Shall Be As Gods, Fromm's constructive take on the Hebrew biblical tradition. I remember thinking, upon reading the headlining "The Dogma of Christ" essay, how reductive his psychological interpretation in it was compared to the expansivity of his liberal appropriation of rabbinic hermeneutics. Of course, what he was attacking was Catholic dogmatism and the authoritarianism of it, not giving a parallel take on the Christian biblical tradition, so the comparison wasn't fair.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays with ideas that I've mostly seen from him in other books like "Escape from Freedom," "The Art of Loving," and "The Forgotten Language." The titular essay was interesting, but something I had previously studied so not very compelling. He tracks how Christianity changed from a rebellious apocalyptic religion into a population control mechanism perpetuated by the religious elite. Probably the most interesting essays are "Sex and Character," which discusses the characterological differences between men and women stemming from their sexual differences, and "Psychoanalysis: Science or Party Line?" in which he discusses the internal petty politics that led to the breakup of Freud's supergroup of psychiatrists.

@pointblaek

[عماد العتيلي · Rating 4 out of 5]

‎‫‏‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

This was a very enjoyable read!
The analysis Fromm provided of the Messiah (Christ) is pretty interesting. What is important is that he went through the development of the Christ throughout history.

Fromm made the reader imagine the character as if it were a painting (in development). He took the reader’s hand and showed him, step by step, how the Christ was made!

I recommend this book! It is insightful and important.
It will change the way you think about many things!

[Warren Fournier · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a fascinating collection of essays! Erich Fromm analyzes and critiques from a psychoanalytic lens everything and everyone from the evolution of Christian dogma to modern society to Freud and psychoanalysis itself.

Let's start with the eponymous essay. As a Christian, I always wondered why and how Christians had such seemingly antithetical dogma to their foundational beliefs, such as the Catholic mother goddess fixation on Mary. Fromm explains how this happened, taking us from the earliest days of a religion born of resentment towards their Roman oppressors by the poor and downtrodden to the religion of monarchs and the Roman bishop, by exploring historical and sociocultural context from a classical Freudian psychological perspective.

However, later in life, Fromm became skeptical of Freud and classical analysis, and this book contains essays from later in Fromm's career that sheds light on the problems of Freud's approach, not only to his patients, but towards his own colleagues, leading to a cult of psychoanalysis with its own dogma, its own religious adherents, and its own heretics. It is brilliantly persuasive, and contains important information about Freud that psychologists and psychiatrists need to keep in mind. But Fromm ultimately does not villianize Freud or his intentions. He respects what Freud ultimately accomplished, but also is mindful of the negative impact his thinking has had on the Western world due to his authoritarian weaponization of neuroses and his influence on postmodernism.

And speaking of the postmodern world, Fromm delivers a brilliant essay on how industrial society is evolving humans to become alienated from each other, to operate as machines in a physical and a psychological sense, and how this has made society pliable to control by global power authorities and leading to more deadly "human sacrifices" through war waged by impersonal technologies of mass destruction. This alienation is what he accounts for the rise in popularity of psychoanalysis in his day, and which I attribute to the amount of people on psychotropic drugs who proudly tell the world on their social media accounts about their autism, ADHD, and bipolar disorders today. This leads to one of Fromm's most poignant piece of advice for clinicians:

Psychologists, psychiatrists, and physicians all need to be cognizant of how they, in their attempts to help people, are not contributing to the problem. They must be mindful of their own feelings of alienation, of being trained by industrial society to see themselves and others as "things". Industrial society has developed at the expense of artisanship. The artisan works alone, crafting an entire product. In the industrial age, an entire crew of workers assembles a product, with no one worker having full knowledge of how to build the entire product. But the doctor still must work as an artisan. They cannot see a person as a machine that can be dissected to find out what is wrong. People should not be treated like a thing with a broken part that can be fixed by a pill. In other words, they must not be defined by their illness!

And yet that's exactly what we as clinicians and as patients are allowing to happen. In today's productivity-based medicine, a doctor with 35 patients on the schedule must of necessity treat patients like parts on an assembly-line. And we as patients are not even called "patients" anymore. The language has been changed to refer to us "consumers". Fromm said that living in an industrial society, where we work all day and then consume in our leisure is a meaningless existence. Progressives like to think that "we know better" now--we don't exploit the life energies of other people like in colonial days, and we don't believe in slavery. But what gets forgotten is that today humans need no longer fear being turned into slaves, but into robots.

I want to also say a few words about another of my favorite essays, which was on the revolutionary spirit. There is a big difference, Fromm says, between someone who questions the status quo and a "rebel". Someone with true revolutionary spirit isn't necessarily trying to gain any control for themselves. A revolutionary in a company is able to identify gaps in service, inefficiencies, and corporate behaviors inconsistent with the mission statement, and they won't just accept "well, this is how we always have done things" as an answer. Rather, a revolutionary will offer solutions; they are not interested in taking over the leadership of the company themselves. A rebel, on the other hand, is simply resentful of the current power structure and wants to destroy what they didn't make in order to shift power to themselves and like-minded people. Thus, the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror, to Robespierre, and to Napoleon. The rise of the Soviet Union from the execution of the Russian royal family led to Lenin, Stalin, and the authoritarianism of a Communist state. Africa, Cuba, Haiti, and South America have also had their share of messianic rebels who left nothing but ashes and tyranny for their countries. History is littered with charismatic rebels who fight against authority only to embrace authority.

This book really turned on some lights in my mind and filled in the gaps in my understanding as to how we've gotten where we are today. And he did it through very short and brutal essays that are clear and easy to understand even by those who don't have extensive backgrounds in psychoanalysis, history, religion, anthropology, or politics. He also somehow manages to keep his theories logically clean, avoiding attempts to persuade the reader with ideologies from the left or the right--which makes this a very dangerous book indeed!

Which brings me to my final point. If you are a Christian, or consider yourself situated on either side of the political spectrum, please do not assume that this book is attacking your religion or political values. But what it DOES do is give you a broader context to consider your beliefs. It's great to have ideas that you believe in, yet you must be open to the fact that you often don't know everything you think you know. So if your values align with a certain religious or political philosophy or movement or party or institution, then terrific. But make sure that the dogma of those institutions, the behaviors associated with that dogma, and the consequences of that dogma are actually in line with what you think the institution stands for. History and psychology repeatedly shows that original intentions get lost and perverted over time, or never were what they claimed to be in the first place. At some point, it was too late for the Germans to ask "are we the baddies?" during the rise of the Third Reich.

Beautifully and clearly written, this is one of the best critiques of Western civilization I've ever read, and will help give you guidance on how to be a more mindful and empathic human being in an age of blind consumerism and alienation. It is as valuable as anything you can learn in literature.

SCORE: 5 dogmas out of 5

["Nico" · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading Fromm is like dumpster diving knowing there's a gold Rolex at the bottom. You have to wade through old shit before you find immense treasure.

What I mean is that Fromm is inseparable from the discourse of his time, and also of his own status as a well-off cis-hetero guy. When reading Fromm, it is important to keep in mind what is being left out and what is being looked at that he is trying to describe. In particular, we must use this method when he is applying Freudian psychoanalysis, much of which being an attempt to communicate the importance placed on authority figures (the 'father').

Sex and Character is a cishet farce, but there is great value in Fromm's spiritualism for anyone living under Christian hegemony. It provides a language with which to translate liberation from the political to the religious. Christianity in its present form is intolerant, merciless, oppressive—but by channeling the revolutionary message of its founders, folks can be made to see what Jesus of Nazareth meant by 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand'. We cannot persuade this population through political language alone.

The social process behind religion is powerful, it is at minimum a social coping mechanism and process of popular education that is inseparable from hegemony. No attempt at liberation will succeed, Fromm argues, unless we address both the human and the spiritual.

[Beatriz · Rating 5 out of 5]

"El conocimiento del hombre es posible sólo en el proceso de relacionarnos con él. Sólo si me relaciono con el hombre a quien quiero conocer, sólo en el proceso de relacionarnos con otro ser humano, podremos saber verdaderamente algo el uno del otro. El conocimiento esencial acerca de otro ser humano no puede ser explicado con pensamientos o palabras, así como no podemos explicarle a alguien qué gusto tiene el vino del Rin. (...) tampoco podremos agotar nunca la descripción de una personalidad, de un ser humano en su plena individualidad ; pero sí la podemos conocer en un acto de empatía; en un acto de experiencia total; en un acto de amor." Erich Fromm

[Stefany GG · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aunque los ensayos recopilados en este libro fueron escritos en la década de los 60s (parte de "El Dogma de Cristo"), muchos temas son aplicables para nuestra condición actual. El tomar este libro como referencia nos abre una perspectiva de la tendencia que se iba desarrollando desde hace tiempo en la visión del autor, y cómo mucha de ésta es verídica hoy en día siendo un tema para profundizar y entender mejor nuestra propia humanidad.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

El capítulo de "Sexo y Carácter" diría que es bastante valioso e interesante. Fromm es el típico que grita algo en público y cuando la gente se gira dice "Eh, quien ha dicho eso?", pero bueno, el análisis de ciertas angustias típicas de hombres y de mujeres derivadas de las diferencias biologico-sexuales parecen bastante acertadas si vas al Instagram de Llados y ves a sus incels hacer burpees.
Me parece un análisis más acertado que muchas de las cosas que se ven en Psicología Diferencial, pero ellos nunca lo sabrán porque filosofía, psicoanálisis y antropología pillan demasiado lejos de casa.

[JC · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book I read around Lent or Easter this year. I disagree with quite a number of things in this book, but I still remember it being an interesting read.

I recall reading some of the most interesting sections before trying to attend (as an invited guest) some covert communist gathering in some nondescript Toronto HQ hidden away in an industrial warehouse, struggling to find street parking. I recall Jesus being called a revolutionary as well as some interesting history of Jewish revolts and Messianism, a significant portion I was already familiar with from my own reading, and others I had not yet encountered:

“Full freedom and independence exist only when the individual thinks, feels, and decides for himself. He can do so authentically only when he has reached a productive relatedness to the world outside himself, which permits him to respond authentically. This concept of freedom and independence is to be found in the thought of the radical mystics, as well as in that of Marx. The most radical of the Christian mystics, Meister Eckhart, says: “What is my life? That which is moved from within by itself. That which is moved from without does not live.”5 Or, “. . . if a man derives or receives anything from out- side, it is wrong. One should not apprehend God nor consider Him outside oneself, but as our own and as what is in ourselves.”

Marx, in a similar, though non-theological vein, says:

“A being does not regard himself as independent unless he is his own master, and he is only his own master when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the favour of another considers himself a dependent being. But I live completely by another person’s favour when I owe to him not only the continuance of my life but also its creation; when he is its source. My life has necessarily such a cause outside itself, if it is not my own creation.

Or, as Marx said somewhere else:

“Man is independent only if he affirms his individuality as a total man in each of his relations to the world, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, willing, loving—in short, if he affirms and expresses all organs of his individuality.””

“Buddha, the Prophets, Jesus, Giordano Bruno, Meister Eckhart, Galileo, Marx and Engels, Einstein, Schweitzer, Russell—they are all revolutionary characters. In fact, you find the revolutionary character also in a man who is in none of these fields; in a man whose “yes” is “yes”, and whose “no” is “no”. He is the one who is capable of seeing reality, as the little boy did in Andersen’s fairy tale of the Emperor’s clothes: he saw that the Emperor was naked, and what he said was faithful to what he had seen.”

Some interesting history of Jewish revolts:

“It has been necessary to describe the opposition within Palestinian Judaism between the aristocracy, the middle classes and their intellectual leaders on the one hand, and the urban and rural proletariat on the other, in order to make clear the underlying causes of such political and religious revolutionary movements as early Christianity. A more extensive presentation of the differentiation among the extraordinarily variegated Pharisees is not necessary for the purpose of the present study and would lead us too far afield. The oppositions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within the Pharisaic group increased, as Roman oppression became heavier and the lowest classes more economically crushed and uprooted. To the same extent the lowest classes of society became the supporters of the national, social, and religious revolutionary movements.
These revolutionary aspirations of the masses found expression in two directions: political attempts at revolt and emancipation directed against their own aristocracy and the Romans, and in all sorts of religious-messianic movements. But there is by no means a sharp separation between these two streams moving toward liberation and salvation; often they flow into each other. The messianic movements themselves assumed partly practical and partly merely literary forms.

The most important movements of this sort may be briefly mentioned here.
Shortly before Herod’s death, that is, at a time when, in addition to Roman domination, the people suffered oppression at the hands of Jewish deputies serving under the Romans, there took place in Jerusalem, under the leadership of two Pharisaic scholars, a popular revolt, during which the Roman eagle at the entrance to the Temple was destroyed. The instigators were executed, and the chief plotters were burned alive. After Herod’s death a mob demonstrated before his successor, Archelaus, demanding the release of the political prisoners, the abolition of the market tax, and a reduction in the annual tribute. These

demands were not satisfied. A great popular demonstration in connexion with these events in the year 4 .. was suppressed with bloodshed, thousands of demonstrators being killed by the soldiers. Nevertheless, the movement became stronger. Popular revolt progressed. Seven weeks later in Jerusalem it mounted to new bloody revolts against Rome. In addition, the rural population was roused. In the old revolutionary centre, Galilee, there were many struggles with the Romans, and in Transjordan there was rioting. A former shepherd assembled voluntary troops and led a guerrilla war against the Romans.
This was the situation in the year 4 .. The Romans did not find it altogether easy to cope with the revolting masses. They crowned their victory by crucifying two thousand revolutionary prisoners.
For some years the country remained quiet. But shortly after the introduction in .. 6 of a direct Roman administration in the country, which began its activity with a popular census for tax purposes, there was a new revolutionary movement. Now begins a separation between the lower and the middle classes. Although ten years earlier the Pharisees had joined the revolt, there developed now a new split between the urban and the rural revolutionary masses on the one side and the Pharisees on the other. The urban and rural proletariat united in a new party, namely, the Zealots, while the middle class, under the leadership of the Pharisees, was prepared for reconciliation with the Romans. The more oppressive the Roman and the aristocratic Jewish yoke became, the greater the despair of the masses, and Zealotism won new followers. Up to the outbreak of the great revolt against the Romans there were constant clashes between the people and the administration. The occasions for revolutionary outbreaks were the frequent attempts of the Romans to put up a statue of Caesar or the Roman eagle in the Temple of Jerusalem. The indignation against these measures, which were rationalized on religious grounds, stemmed in reality from the

hatred of the masses for the emperor as leader and head of the ruling class oppressing them. The peculiar character of this hatred for the emperor becomes clearer if we remember that this was an epoch in which reverence for the Roman emperor was spreading widely throughout the empire and in which the emperor cult was about to become the dominant religion.

The more hopeless the struggle against Rome became on the political level, and the more the middle class withdrew and became disposed to compromise with Rome, the more radical the proletarian masses became, but the more revolutionary tendencies lost their political character and were transferred to the level of religious fantasies and messianic ideas. Thus a pseudo-messiah, Theudas, promised the masses he would lead them to the Jordan and repeat the miracle of Moses. The Jews would pass through the river with dry feet, but the pursuing Romans would drown. The Romans saw in these fantasies the expression of a dangerous revolutionary ferment; they killed the followers of this messiah and beheaded Theudas.”

Fromm is a democratic socialist and can be a bit sectarian about his politics too. There were a few points where he said something that I myself would not say in the way that he does, but I don’t think that makes the rest of the book any less valuable (but I do think it helps signal where some significant threads in the book lead back to, and helps clarify Fromm’s theoretical and political priorities, for better or for worse):

“There is another relevant aspect of our current situation. In this industrial system which, I believe, is growing more and more similar in the West and in the Soviet bloc, the individual is frightened to death by the power of the big bureaucracies, by the bigness of everything, the State, the industrial bureaucracy, and the trade union bureaucracy. He is not only frightened, he feels

himself utterly small. Who is the David who can say “No” to Goliath? Who is the little man who can say “No” to that which has become magnified in bigness and power a thousandfold, as compared to that which used to be authority only fifty or a hundred years ago? The individual is intimidated and glad to accept authority.”

“The Gospel concerned only with spiritual salvation led to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church; the French Revolution, with its concern exclusively with political reform, led to Robespierre and Napoleon; socialism, inasmuch as it was concerned only with economic change, led to Stalinism.” (the last statement seems like weird one to me)

“Applying the principle of simultaneous change to all spheres of life, we must think of the economic and political changes necessary in order to overcome the psychological fact of alienation. We must retain the technological advances of large-scale machine production and automation. But we must decentralize work and the state so as to give them human proportions, and must permit centralization only to the point necessary for the requirements of industry.” (This one was to some extent true, but Fromm does not really mention why a democratic socialist could overcome these issues any better than the Soviet Union could.)

“A Viennese psychiatrist who visited East Germany reports that psychiatrists there speak of a neurotic breakdown which they call “functionaries’ disease”. They refer to the disease which takes the form of neurotic breakdown in Communist functionaries who have been in the “service” for a long time. At a certain point there is something they cannot stand. We could collect a great deal of material in all countries and all cultures that illustrates the same principle, namely, that you cannot live inhumanly all your life without suffering severe reactions; just as you cannot constantly undernourish your body and not die eventually, though not immediately. I have given examples from Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany; but I do not mean to imply that we do not have similar problems in the United States.” (The Nazi/Stalinist comparison is very much channelling Arendt’s least valuable insights).

I will finish with this footnote to a study Fromm did with workers to determine if they had an ‘authoritarian’ or ‘democratic’ character structure (and somehow related it to whether they would fight Nazism, which actually seems like a bad take, because authoritarian communists were ardent fighters against Nazism in the end):

“he method used was to examine the individually formulated answers to an open-ended questionnaire, by interpreting their unintended, unconscious meaning, in distinction to the manifest answer. If a man, for instance, answered the question “Which men in history he admired most?” by saying “Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Marx, and Lenin,” we interpreted the answer as “authoritarian”, because the combination shows that he admired dictators and military leaders. If the answer was “Socrates, Pasteur, Kant, Marx, and Lenin”, we classified him as democratic because he admired benefactors of mankind and not people with power.”

Marx and Lenin, it seems to Fromm could be lionized in both camps. But honestly such a weird and probably terrible way to determine answers to the research questions he is asking (imo).

[Andres Borbon · Rating 5 out of 5]

El psicoanalista Erich Fromm analiza el dogma (el mito) de Cristo y explica los cambios que ha sufrido la doctrina a lo largo del tiempo. Tiene especial relevancia en este estudio el análisis del componente edípico del mito de Jesús y la (casi milagrosa) transformación de Dios: del padre punitivo y castrante original (judaico) se convierte en la madre generosa, cálida y nutritva (cristiana). Así, explica Fromm, la iglesia pasó de ser un instrumento revolucionario (que buscaba el derrocamiento del padre y exhibía la hostilidad edípica hacia la autoridad) a un instrumento de poder, a asumir el rol del agresor. Y la culpa del crimen contra Cristo se desplazó del padre (el poder político y económico) hacia la masa asesina e ignorante pero que, al mismo tiempo, era perdonada por el pecado cometido... mientras asumiera la penitencia: La fantasía del cielo y la redención como única forma posible de satisfacción para las pulsiones libidinales.

Me pareció muy interesante la discusión de las diversas interpretaciones gnósticas del mito de Jesús y sus correlatos con el constructo psicodinámico freudiano-frommiano. Y aunque Fromm no llega aquí a una conclusión definitiva, queda claro que la psicología colectiva de cada grupo humano determina las características particulares de su aproximación al cristianismo. En países oprimidos (como el judío del Jesús histórico) los ciudadanos más pobres manifiestan una elevada hostilidad hacia la figura de la autoridad opresora y castrante (el padre/el gobierno) y optan por dos caminos: El derrocamiento del padre (la revolución civil, el cambio social) o la sumisión mediante la identificación con el cristo doliente y la adopción de la madre (María-Guadalupe, etc.) como figura principal en la jerarquía canónica.

En casi todos los casos, la postergación de la felicidad (que Fromm define operativamente como la satisfacción de los apetitos libidinales y yóicos y de la evitación del dolor/el displacer) parece ser un elemento común. A cambio de esta postergación y del sufrimiento que implica, la iglesia (el dogma) ofrece (promete) la fantasía (el cielo, el infierno) como compensación... y el rito como distracción.

[Ostrava · Rating 5 out of 5]

I haven't read this edition of the book, rather, one that didn't have the eponymous essay, which is why I don't have an opinion on The Dogma of Christ. Neither did I read one chapter involving sex and gender (as I assumed it would be outdated, though maybe my assumptions were wrong and I'll have a reason to come back some time in the future). Other than that, I've read the rest of the essays assembled here.

I love Erich Fromm. He's one of the "intelectuals" I feel the most comfortable reading, I feel like I can trust his judgment, even though one can hardly ever agree on everything with someone else. Maybe it's due to the fact that I read him when I was a teenager, and most of his stuff is surprisingly accessible. Even when I turn my brain a bit off while reading him, he always has one or two sparks of brilliance to wake you right up. Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I haven't read some of his most famous works yet like "The Art of Loving", I'm sure I'll love it.

As with most of these types of anthologies, some essays here were great, others, not so much. But everything was of my liking. "The Present Human condition" is a brief, but particularly impressive text that's among my favorites by the author I've read so far.

[RosaDG · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading a book with this title, The CURRENT human condition, half a century later may seem like a simple exercise in melancholic reading, to find out what ideas the author had at the time he wrote it. But, leaving aside the fact that we must not forget the context in which the book was made, it is enriching to find that many of the reflections made at that specific moment, can well be applied to the current moment of this 21st century in which a couple of decades that we entered and yet they can still be applied perfectly. I refer to those that deal with problems such as the exploitation of the human being, consumerism or inequality, as well as those about the self-knowledge of the individuality of the human being, (the critical spirit or the revolutionary character, as the author calls it) , the problem of ethics in the modern world, the allusion to medical professionalism or the dangers of the drifts taken by psychoanalysis. Finally, highlight his mention of the concept of peace as harmony and well-being between human beings, between nations or man and nature, although it is not yet applied today. [I wanted to avoid all the mentions of "man or men" that I understand refer to the human being although there are some mentions of women that seem quite unfortunate]

Leer un libro con este título, La condición humana ACTUAL, medio siglo después puede parecer un simple ejercicio de lectura melancólica, para conocer qué ideas tenía el autor en el momento en que lo escribió. Pero, dejando aparte que no debemos olvidarnos del contexto en el que se realizó el libro, resulta enriquecedor encontramos con que muchas de las reflexiones realizadas en ése momento concreto, bien pueden aplicarse al momento actual de este siglo XXI en el que ya un par de décadas que entramos y sin embargo aún se pueden aplicar perfectamente. Me refiero a aquellas que tratan de los problemas como la explotación del ser humano, el consumismo o la desigualdad, así como aquellas sobre el autoconocimiento de la individualidad del ser humano, (el espíritu crítico o el carácter revolucionario, como el autor lo denomina), el problema de la ética en el mundo moderno, la alusión a la profesionalidad médica o los peligros de las derivas que tome el psicoanálisis. Finalmente destacar su mención al concepto de paz como armonía y bienestar entre los seres humanos, entre las naciones o el ser humano y la naturaleza, aunque aún no se vea aplicado en nuestros días.[He querido obviar todas las menciones al "hombre u hombres" que entiendo se refieren al ser humano aunque haya algunas menciones a la mujer que me parecen bastante desafortunadas]

[Cris Gómez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me ha gustado, se me olvida que en otros momentos de mi vida he leido mucha filosofia y lo disfrutaba mucho.
Resulta muy interesante que el libro sea de hsce 40 años y muchos de sus analisis, no solamente son aplicables ahora si no que son todavia mas ciertos.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN EARLY (1930) ESSAY OF FROMM'S, AND SEVERAL MUCH LATER ONES

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as 'Escape from Freedom,' 'Psychoanalysis and Religion,' 'The Art of Loving,' 'Beyond the Chains of Illusion,' 'The Revolution of Hope,' 'You Shall Be as Gods,' 'Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought,' etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1963 collection, "While most of the essays in this volume have been written during the last ten years, the longest paper, 'The Dogma of Christ,' first appeared in German in 1930... I myself was very hesitant to reissue this early example of my thought... First of all, it was written in a period when I was a strict Freudian... Furthermore, I one-sidedly stressed ... the social function of religion as a substitute for real satisfaction and as a means for social control... today I would emphasize the view... that the history of religion reflects the history of man's spiritual evolution... The main emphasis of this study is the analysis of the socioeconomic situation of the social groups which accepted and transmitted Christian teaching; it is only on the basis of this analysis that a psychoanalytic interpretation is attempted." (Pg. vii-ix)

He says in the title essay, "Our purpose here is to understand the change in certain contents of consciousness as expressed in the theological ideas as a result of a change in unconscious processes. Accordingly, just as we have done with regard to the methodological problem, we propose to deal briefly with the most important findings of psychoanalysis as they touch upon our question." (Pg. 10-11)

He adds, "The aim will be to understand dogma on the basis of a study of people, not people on the basis of a study of dogma. We shall attempt, therefore, first to describe the total situation of the social class from which the early Christian faith originated, and to understand the psychological meaning of this faith in terms of the total psychic situation of these people. We shall then show how different the mentality of the people was at a later period." (Pg. 21)

He observes that "We see thus that the concept of Jesus held by the early [Christian] community was that he was a man chosen by God and elevated by him as a 'messiah,' and later as 'Son of God.'" (Pg. 45) He adds, "The belief that a man is elevated to a god was an expression of the unconscious impulse of hostility to the father that was present in these masses... The early Christian adoptionist belief was born of the masses; it was an expression of their revolutionary tendencies... This explains why in such an extraordinarily rapid time it became the religion also of the oppressed pagan masses..." (Pg. 51)

But later, "The revolutionary situation which had prevailed until the second century had disappeared... the Middle Ages began to develop... The new Christianity came under the leadership of the ruling class. The new dogma of Jesus was created and formulated by this ruling group and its intellectual representatives, not by the masses. The decisive element was the change from the idea of man becoming God to that of God becoming man." (Pg. 65)

He concludes, "Catholicism signified the disguised return to the religion of the Great Mother who had been defeated by Yahweh. Only Protestantism turned back to the father-god. It stands at the beginning of a social epoch that permits an active attitude on the part of the masses in contrast to the passively infantile attitude of the Middle Ages." (Pg. 95)

Even though Fromm later changed his mind on some of these ideas, this is still a fascinating collection of his writings on religion, and is helpful to show how his thought evolved over time.

[AJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is profoundly Freudian in the concepts presented by Fromm. I didn’t believe he presented a compelling argument although it was interesting to read – quite possibly only because I am biased of his work! I disagree with his belief that the initial Christian population was filled with hope and hatred towards authority – regardless of the necessity for expanding his unconscious analysis involving the development of dogma. I found myself agreeing with his belief as to why the eschatological emphasis disappeared shortly after Jesus “flew to heaven.”

I would recommend reading several of the essays at the end of this book – particularly the essay involving Psychoanalysis. It provides a greater insight into Freud and the culture surrounding his closest friends. The pinnacle essay involved an analysis of the revolutionary character.

Excerpts:

“These are the identical feeling which, as a child, he had for his father, and it is understandable that he is as disposed to believe uncritically what is presented to him by the rulers as just and true, as in childhood he used to believe without criticism every statement made by his father. The figure of God forms a supplement to this situation; God is always the ally of the rulers.”

“What follows from all this? While consciously Freud was only a scientist and a therapist, unconsciously he was – and wanted to be – one of the great cultural-ethical leaders of the twentieth century. He wanted to conquer the world with his rationalistic-puritan dogma and to lead man to the only – and very limited – salvation he was capable of: the conquest of passion by intellect.”

“The revolutionary character is the one who is identified with humanity and therefore transcends the narrow limits of his own society, and who is able, because of this, to criticize his or any other society from the standpoint of reason and humanity.”

[safi kurdia · Rating 3 out of 5]

يشرح ايرش فروم في هذا الكتاب العديد من المفاهيم المهمة التي توضح الفكر والفلسفة التي وصل إليها الإنسان موضحاً أسبابها ونتائجها.
ينقسم الكتاب إلى عدة دراسات ومقالات تتحدث بشكل بشكل أساسي عن علم النفس والفروقات بين الجنسين ونشأة العقيدة المسيحية.
ومن وجهة نظري إن أهم ما ذكر في هذا الكتاب هو الدراسة المفصلة لأسباب الإختلاف الإجتماعي بين الذكور والإناث وربطها مع تفسير فرويد للعامل النفسي في تشكل المفاهيم الحالية لكل من الرجل والمرأة, وتوضيح تأثير الثقافات في نظرتنا نحو المرأة, ومجيباً عن السؤال الأكثر إلحاحاً: هل الإختلاف الاجتماعي بين الجنسين سببه بايلوجي أم ثقافي.
أيضاً يعطينا فروم تعريف وشرح أكثر من رائع للشخصية السلطوية والشخصية الثورية, مزيلاً بعض الأفكار المغلوطة عن مفهوم الثورة والشخصية الثورية.
الترجمة كانت رائعة جداً والشروحات الموضوعة في الحاشية غنية ومفيدة أيضاً.

[Melisa Marlen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro breve pero sustancioso. Fromm describe cómo los dogmas religiosos obedecen a la estructura social y cómo beneficia a las clases dominantes. Realiza un análisis histórico, sociológico y psicoanalítico del cristianismo temprano y el medieval, mostrando cómo es que pasó de ser una religión de revolucionarios inconformes a una creencia servicial al Estado. Lo recomiendo como introducción a los estudios religiosos, ya sea desde la sociología o el psicoanálisis.

[Alexis Calvo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Siempre me ha encantado la manera de narrar las carencias de la sociedad de Fromm. Sus estudios que siempre logran de alguna manera inbuir un enfoque filosófico, caractereologico, psicológico y sociológico sobre distintos tópicos del "porque de la sociedad" y sin duda alguna este libro no fue la excepción, además que sus conocimientos del psicoanálisis le acuñan un toque especial a sus estudios.

[Gibran · Rating 3 out of 5]

buneno. los capítulos más relevantes, a parte del prólogo, fueron "el sexo y el carácter" y "el carácter revolucionario".

[Milca Yulet · Rating 1 out of 5]

Solo le pude sacar jugo al primer capítulo. Segundo libro que leo del autor y último.

[Maria Paula · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente exposición de los problemas de la condición humana actual (se refiere al siglo XX pero funciona para las primeras décadas del siglo XXI. Realiza diferentes acercamientos que citaré con las ideas principales de los capítulos, pero todo converge en la pérdida del sentido de la existencia que trae la filosofía capitalista con sus ideales de producción y consumo.
-La condición humana actual: Evidentemente es una condición deplorable en términos de la filosofía, alienación del hombre y carencia de la capacidad de amar.
-Sexo y carácter: “ como consecuencia política de esta igualdad básica, que ningún hombre deberá ser usado como medio para los fines de otro hombre, ningún grupo usado como medio para los fines de otro grupo. Cada hombre es un universo para sí mismo, y es sólo su propia finalidad. Su meta es la realización de su ser, incluyendo aquellas mismísimas peculiaridades que son características de él y que lo hacen diferente de los demás.La igualdad es así la base para el desarrollo total de las diferencias, y su resultado es el desarrollo de la individualidad”
Las debilidades y principales diferencias entre hombre y mujer residen en la diferencia de sus roles sexuales.
- El carácter revolucionario: “ el hombre revolucionario es escéptico, pues sospecha que las ideologías encubren realidades indeseables. Es un hombre de fe, pues cree en aquello que existe potencialmente, aunque todavía no haya nacido. Puede decir no y ser desobediente precisamente porque puede decir si y obedecer a aquellos principios que son genuinamente propios.”
“ la persona completamente despierta en un mundo semi dormido, es precisamente el carácter revolucionario. Una vez que todos estén despiertos ya no habrá necesidad de profetas o caracteres revolucionarios: sólo habrá seres humanos plenamente desarrollados”
- El problema ético del hombre moderno: “ el hombre se vive a sí mismo y a los demás como cosas, como meros artículos de consumo. Siente la energía vital como un capital que debe ser invertido para que le dé ganancias; y si tiene utilidades se siente triunfante. Creamos máquinas que obran como hombres y producimos hombres hombres que obran como máquinas. la producción material se ha convertido en un fin en sí misma y en realidad no sabemos qué hacer con ella”
“ cuáles son, entonces, las demandas éticas de nuestros tiempos. En primer lugar, superar esa cuidad o para emplear una expresión técnica, esa reificación del hombre; superar el concepto de cosas referidas a nosotros mismos y a los demás; superar nuestra indiferencia, nuestra alineación de otras, de la naturaleza, de nosotros mismos. Segundo, alcanzar otra vez un nuevo sentido de yoidad, De ser propio, de una experiencia del yo soy, antes que se cura el sentimiento de autómata en el que tenemos la ilusión de qué yo pienso lo que pienso cuando en realidad yo no pienso para nada y soy como alguien que pone un disco pornográfico y cree que es él quien ejecuta la música del disco”
-Limitaciones y peligros de la psicología: “ el conocimiento psicológico puede ser una condición para lograr el conocimiento total en el acto de amor. Debo conocer a la otra persona y a mí mismo objetivamente para poder ver su realidad, o más bien, para poder superar las ilusiones, la imagen irracionalmente deformada que tengo de él. Si conozco un ser humano tal como es o si en verdad sé lo que no es, entonces podré conocerlo tal vez en su esencia última, mediante el acto de amor”
“ para poder desarrollarse y llegar a lo que es potencialmente como ser humano es menester que continúe naciendo; es decir, debe seguir disolviendo los lazos primarios que lo unen al suelo y la sangre. De un acto de separación debe pasar a otro. Debe renunciar a la certidumbre y las defensas, y dar el salto hacia el acto de compromiso, interés y amor. lo que ocurre frecuentemente en el tratamiento psicoanalítico es que entre terapeuta y paciente hay un acuerdo tácito, basado sobre el supuesto de que el psicoanálisis es un método con cuya ayuda se puede alcanzar la felicidad y la madurez, y el mismo tiempo, evitar el salto, el acto, el dolor de la separación”
- Concepto profético de paz: “ la idea profética de paz es parte de todo el concepto histórico y religioso de los profetas, que culmina con la idea que tienen del tiempo mesiánico; la paz entre hombre hombre y entre hombre y naturaleza es algo más que la ausencia de lucha; es el logro de una armonía y unión verdaderas, la experiencia de la expiación y redención, de ser uno con el mundo y dentro de uno mismo; es el fin de la alineación, el retorno del hombre a si mismo “

[Yulia · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A manera de resumen, cuando digo «carácter revolucionario» no me refiero a un concepto conductal sino a un concepto dinámico. Uno no es un «revolucionario» en este sentido caracterológico porque profiera frases revolucionarias o porque participe en una revolución. En este sentido es revolucionario el hombre que se haya emancipado de los lazos de sangre y suelo, de su madre y su padre, de fidelidades especiales al Estado, clase, raza, partido o religión. El carácter revolucionario es un humanista en el sentido en que siente en sí mismo a toda la humanidad, y en que nada humano le es ajeno. Ama y respeta la vida. Es un escéptico y un hombre de fe.
Es escéptico, pues sospecha que las ideologías encubren realidades indeseables. Es un hombre de fe, pues cree en aquello que existe potencialmente, aunque todavía no haya nacido. Puede decir «no» y ser desobediente precisamente porque puede decir «sí» y obedecer a aquellos principios que le son genuinamente propios. No está semidormido sino plenamente despierto ante las realidades personales y sociales que lo rodean. Es independiente; lo que es lo debe a su propio esfuerzo; es libre y no es sirviente de nadie.
Este resumen puede sugerir que lo que acabo de describir es bienestar y salud mental antes que el concepto de un carácter revolucionario. No hay duda de que la descripción hecha corresponde a la de una persona sana, viva, cuerda. Mi afirmación es que la persona sana en un mundo insano, el ser humano plenamente desarrollado en un mundo tullido, la persona completamente despierta en un mundo semidormido, es precisamente el carácter revolucionario. Una vez que todo estén despiertos ya no habrá necesidad de profetas o caracteres revolucionarios: sólo habrá seres humanos plenamente desarrollados."
(Fragmento sacado del capítulo IV. El carácter revolucionario.)

[OSCAR · Rating 2 out of 5]

Erich Fromm resulta ser todavía un pensador problemático, primero porque en su época fue polémico, por sus ocurrencias filosocialistas, y segundo, porque sus tesis ahora se muestran precipitadas e infundadas. Sin embargo, cabe admitir que sus ocurrencias no dejan de gozar de cierto atractivo, que permite abrir futuras investigaciones sobre el hecho religioso.

Fromm, después de distinguir entre los estudios de psicología individual y psicología social, se propuso investigar qué contexto y qué elementos psicológicos y culturales compartieron los primeros cristianos. Para esa labor, hizo un estudio histórico, que reveló que el caldo de cultivo de movimientos mesiánicos fue la provincia de Judea. Un sitio donde surgió Juan el Bautista, Bar Kojva y Jesús de Nazareth. El autor, más psicólogo que historiador, expresó que el cristianismo fue atractivo para las capas bajas de la población de Judea porque expresaba las tesis adopcionistas, de que jesús era un hombre que destronaba a Dios y se constituía como él. Este mensaje revolucionario fue sumamente atractivo para su época y explicó, a juicio del psicoanalista, las razones de su aplastante éxito primero entre los menesterosos judíos y después en la ralea del imperio romano. +

El cambio en la religión cristiana, producto al parecer de la integración de nuevos cristianos provenientes de capas superiores de la sociedad, procedió a neutralizar su mensaje liberador y conllevó la constitución de una lógica sacrificial donde el Hijo, coeterno al Padre, se sacrificaba por los ingratos humanos rebeldes y por lo tanto mostraba lo contrario del mensaje emancipador del Cristo adoptado por Dios. Comenzaba así el periodo sombrío de la iglesia constantinopolitana.

El libro destila un odio tanto a la religión como a la autoridad (Fromm dirá injustificada), que realmente se antoja el texto algo anacrónico, chapado a la antigua. Sin embargo, si se está versado en psicoanálisis, no dejará de rezumar cierto encanto.

[أسماء · Rating 3 out of 5]

لي قصّة تروى مع كل كتاب أقرؤه لإريك فروم، حتى لو لم يكن الكتاب ككل محبب لديّ. ستكون لدي، بلا شك، أفكار جديدة أعشقها وأعيش بها. ربما ليست جديدة تمامًا، لكنها مكتوبة أمامي لأول مرة، بعدما عشت بها لا شعوريًا لمدة من الزمن.
متحيّزة له قليلًا أو أكثر... لأنه يكتب نيابةً عنّي، ويعلّمني
ينتقد العالم، يحلله مثل سياسيّ غاضب.. ثم ينهي كلامه بشاعرية كأنه بوذي قضى حياته بعيدًا عن مجتمعه ، بسلام مع خيالاته الخاصة

لم أشبع بعد من كلماته، أتمنى ألا تنتهي الأحاديث والسهر مع صوت المنطق الهادئ أبدا

الكتاب عبارة عن 9 أجزاء
مقدمة المؤلف رسالة يبتدأ بها إريك أحاديثه ما قارئيه قبل الولوج بعالمه
(الوضع البشري المعاصر) ملاحظات إريك العامة لوضع البشر في عالمنا الرأسمالي وشكله في ظل هذا النظام الاقتصادي
(الجنس والشخصية) احاديث إريك مع اساتذته مثل فرويد وغيره عن الفروقات بين المرأة والرجل وتأثير الجنس على شخصياتهم وبنائها المجتمعي
(الطب والمشكلى الأخلاقية للإنسان المعاصر) يشرح مجددا معنى الأخلاق في المجتمع ويسائل كل المفاهيم التي تعتبر بديهية بدءًا من الإنفاق وحتى عبادة الله.
(الشخصية الثورية) من الأجزاء المفضلة لدي .. الأستاذ يشرح لنا ما معنى أن تكون ثوريًا بحقّ ويعطينا تعريفات هذا المصطلح وأشكاله
(التحليل النفسي.. علم أم سياسة حزبية) لم أفهم منه شيء
(العقيدة) دارَ في نواحي تاريخ الدين المسيحي.. وجدت فيه تشابها مع ما يحدث في ديني الإسلامي. أحببت وضوحه وعدم انحيازه وحريته في التعبير عن رأيه في المسلّمات العقائدية لدى المسيح
(عن حدود ومخاطر علم النفس) معرفة الذات.. هل تكفي؟ تشييء الذات والآخرين.. هل تؤدي بك للمعرفة؟
(المفهوم النبوي للسلام) هنا فهمت عقيدة إريك، وعرفت لِما أحبّه.

[Maša Bratuša · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is actually not one book but a religion trilogy - and it's fantastic.

the first part connects the psychosocial conditions with the theological variants and it's the one i personally enjoyed the most. i have never before read something so rational when it comes to religious dogma. if you've ever had doubts about the nature of god and christ, this is the part for you.

the second part is also very informative, as it deals with the purposes and intentions of religious belief. a really nice overview of its functions, the history of dilemmas and contradictions, and a beautiful ode to humanity. in short; don't be cynical, be kind and don't create gods out of earthly things.

the third part is in my opinion the most poorly written, it has also been written a decade earlier, but fromm said in the introduction that he would change nothing. to be fair, there aren't any catastrophical miscarriages of reason, but fromm displays a very naive understanding of metaphysics and a naive fascination with renaissance humanism. take this part with a grain of salt, in my opinion.

but overall, it leaves a mark, absolutely worth the read, one of my all time favourites. 10/10.

(this edition might have eight pages missing in part three, there is a pdf available to make up for what's missing)

[Hosein · Rating 3 out of 5]

تصمیم داشتم کتاب " گریز از آزادی " نوشته ( اریک فروم ) را بخوانم، به کتاب فروشی رفتم، اما کتاب مورد نظر مرا نداشت و همین یک کتاب را از این مولف داشت و به نظرم رسید جهت آشنایی با نوشته ها و اندیشه ی این نویسنده این کتاب را از فروشنده که آدم منصفی هم می باشد، بخرم و با توجه به اینکه قیمت کتاب هم مانند سایر اقلام، قیمتی لحظه ای و افزایشی دارد، قیمت این جلد کتاب با توان مالی من تقریباً همخوانی داشت، البته تصمیم داشتم کتاب های کتابخانه شخصی ام را حداقل قبل از خرید هر کتاب جدید دیگری، دوباره بخوانم اما ...

اما قسمت هایی از کتاب:

... مذهب وظیفه ی بازداری هرگونه استقلال روانی توده ها را بر عهده می گیرد. وظیفه مذهب رام سازی توده ها از نظر فکری و تبدیل آن ها به کودکان اجتماعی مقبول و سر به راه برای مقامات و قدرتمندان است. مذهب یک کارکرد اساسی دیگر نیز دارد: توده ها را تا آن میزان ارضا می کند که زندگی برایشان قابل تحمل باشد، به صرافتِ ایجاد دگرگونی در موقعیت خود نیافتند و از حالت فرزندان مطیع و خاکسار به فرزندانی آشوبگر تبدیل نگردند.
کوتاه آن که مذهب دارای کارکردی سه گانه است: برای همه بشریت به مثابه تسکین دهنده آلام و رنجهای زندگی است. برای غالب افراد چونان مشوقی برای پذیرش موقعیت طبقاتی آنهاست و برای اقلیت مسلط، پناهگاهی است که آن ها را از گزند کسانی که زیر ستمشان هستند، دور می دارد.

[عبدالرحمن عقاب · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتب "ايريش فروم" من النوع الثقيل معرفيا. قلّما تدخل كتاباً له فتخرج منه بلا أفق جديد، وإطلالة أعلى.
هذا كتاب مقالات مجموعة.
جاء فيها مقال ناقش فيه بؤس الإنسان المعاصر، إنسان المؤسسات مقنّن الذوق والاحتياج، المغترب عن أفعاله، المنحني أمام ما يصنع، الخاضع لما يخلق.
وفي الكتاب ثمّة مقال ترى فيه تجلّي قدرة فروم في التحليل النفسي، والتقاط دقائق الملاحظات السلوكية والانفعالية. هذا مقال عن الفرق النفسي في الرابط الجنسي بين الذكر والأنثى. وعن دور الجنس في المراهقة والانفصال عن الأبوين. وهذا مقال كاشف ذكيٌّ عميق الاستبصار.
وفي الكتاب مقال مهم جداً عن الشخصية الثورية، واختلافها عن الشخصية المتمردة. وسخافة ربطها بالانفعال السلوكي أثناء أحداث الثورات. ولعلّ هذا المقال هام جداً لقراءة بعض الظواهر المحيرة التي تبعت الربيع العربي المُجهض.
وفي الكتاب طرح عظيم نافع؛ عن قراءة العقائد من خلال دراسة أتباعها، لا العكس!
أي أن تفهم العقيدة أو الأيدولوجيا من خلال فهمك لمن ابتدعها واعتنقها.
وإن كان كلام الكاتب نابع من افتراضه أنّ الأديان اختراع بشري، فإني لا أتابعه في ذلك. ولكني أطوّر فكرته مؤمنا بأنّ "التدين" و"المذاهب" والآراء في سياق الأديان الإلهية هي من مثال حيّ واقعي يصلح مداراً لفكرته، ومادة لأسلوب بحثه الذي قصره على الديانة المسيحية.
وهذه أهم مقالات الكتاب وأطولها.

[Bruce Clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very accessible series of articles by philosopher/psychotherapist Erich Fromm. The first and longest article entitled, "The Dogma of Christ," was written in 1930 when Fromm was just starting his careers in psychoanalysis and writing. It is a Freudian interpretation of the change in early Christian thinking concerning Jesus's message and character from the first century to the fourth century AD. From, "The kingdom of God is at hand;" to "Our reward is not in this life but the next." From the adoptionist view that Jesus lived his life as a man and was raised up (adopted) by God at Jesus's death; to the Nicean homoousion describing Jesus as "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father. Fromm claims that the change in dogma was brought about by the change in peoples' economic, social, and political circumstances: the people changed then the dogma: the dogma did not change the people. Interesting stuff.

The other articles were written in the 1950's and 1960 and deal with psychology, ethics, and man's contemporary situation, no more dogma.