The Secular Trinity

[Pauliesonne]

Now, the first time I heard the phrase, it was by David Starkey - and the trinity were;

Charles Darwin
Siigmund Freud
Karl Marx

....and then I heard Mark Steele say it as;

Charles Darwin
Sigmund Freud
Copernicus

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I understand Darwin and Copernicus but I haven't the slightest clue why Marx and Frued would be there?

Can someone help with this querie?

BTW - Does anybody here know a girl called Emmeline McVeigh?

 

[Kopji]

I note that the secular trinity is never referred to as:

Albert Einstein
Bertrand Russell
& Benjamin Franklin

or

Thomas Jefferson
Rabindranath Tagore
&
Sun Yat-sen

or
Susan B Anthony
Hellen Keller
&
Marie Curie

I suppose that those combinations are less likely to make whatever derogatory points need to be made by assigning labels. Clever labels are a way of either adding power to [an idea] or detracting from it. Labels are rarely needed to simply understand or accept something as it is, IMHO.

 

[KelvinG]

Larry, Curly and Moe?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Freud would probably be included because he is credited with the birth of psychology. The others studied the outside universe. He studied the workings of the mind. The only alternative, in his era, to understanding the workings of the human mind was to understand it morally, religiously, or philosophically. He was revolutionary because he applied scientific principles to a study that was previously thought to be beyond the reach of science.

 

[Mercutio]

Freud would probably be included because he is credited with the birth of psychology.

Not by psychologists. That would be either James or Wundt (or both). Freud founded psychoanalysis, which is an entirely different thing.

The others studied the outside universe. He studied the workings of the mind. The only alternative, in his era, to understanding the workings of the human mind was to understand it morally, religiously, or philosophically. He was revolutionary because he applied scientific principles to a study that was previously thought to be beyond the reach of science.

Or pseudoscientific principles, if you wish. (Terrence Hines' book, "Pseudoscience and the Paranormal" argues strongly that Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience--I am told that the more recent edition throws many more schools of psychotherapy into the mix along with Freud's.)

Freud is typically credited with Darwin and Copernicus, as follows: We used to think we were at the center of the universe...then Copernicus came along. Suddenly, we are just a small part, and the rest does not revolve around us. Well, at least we were still god's special creation, different from and better than the beasts...until Darwin came along. We are animals, just like the rest. Well, at least we are rational, thinking, conscious creatures...until Freud came along. We are motivated by things we are unaware of, hidden urges and processes based on aggressive and sexual needs, at odds with civilization itself.

I have also seen, instead of Freud, either Pavlov or Skinner put in the third place, for demonstrating that instead of our view of ourselves as rational, thinking, conscious creatures, we learn the same way rats and pigeons do. Our behavior is determined by our environment; we are slaves to it, not masters of it. I prefer this to Freud, simply because Pavlov and Skinner have experimental evidence on their side.

 

[grayman]

I find it interesting that there is no true secular trinity. The giants of science and philosophy are many, and can not be packaged into a top three. Any attempt to make it so would be an arbitrary list based on personal opinion.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not by psychologists. That would be either James or Wundt (or both). Freud founded psychoanalysis, which is an entirely different thing.

Which is why I worded it as I did.

Or pseudoscientific principles, if you wish. (Terrence Hines' book, "Pseudoscience and the Paranormal" argues strongly that Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience--I am told that the more recent edition throws many more schools of psychotherapy into the mix along with Freud's.)

I suggest that when it comes to judging historical contributions to knowledge, it's not the accuracy that matters so much. Aristotle may have been completely wrong on so much of science, but it was the fact that he was making the attempt that gave subsequent generations something to work with. By today's standards, Descartes and Newton, to name two, seem incredibly naive in places. Very likely two hundred years from now people will be amazed at how sloppy Einstein was.