Alison's Archive

In both my previous philosophy class and this psychology class, I’ve always really gotten into the study of third-force psychology–more specifically, existential psychology. Many of my favorite philosophers–Viktor Frankl, Soren Kierkegaard, and others–were existentialists, and I really respect and admire the way they put so much effort into truly living life to the fullest. Frankl, for instance, was a Holocaust survivor, and the fact that he could go through such a tragedy and still find meaning and purpose in a world that was so cruel to him is very impressive. All of these philosophers were very interested in the idea of living life “authentically,” or living true to your ideals and personality despite the external pressures that the world throws your way.

I love this idea, and I think that if everyone lived authentically, in theory, the world would be a better place. However, with authenticity comes the idea of subjective truth. If everyone is deciding what is best or true for themselves, then there are going to be many different truths bouncing around. That may be ok, to a point, but it also means that people who are very committed to a less than admirable goal are also being authentic by being “true” to their devotion to the idea, whatever it may be. For example, does that mean Hitler, who was very devoted to his cause and really thought he was in the right, was living authentically? I don’t know, but it’s a scary thought.

One of the things that has always intrigued me about William James is his perspective on religion and spirituality. What I find particularly fascinating is the way he addresses how we handle our relationship with God when things go wrong in our lives. He posited that there are two kinds of Christians: the “healthy-minded” Christian and the “sick soul”. The healthy-minded Christian tends to view everything optimistically, and ignore the more difficult aspects of life completely. This attitude keeps these kind of Christians happy, but seems to be a rather dishonest way of sugar-coating spirituality and avoiding the tough stuff. The sick soul is the most interesting to me; James described this type of believer as one who grapples with the evils of life and takes on religion even if it causes distress. The sick soul doubts, is frustrated, struggles with God and faith, and yet sticks with it. I feel that although this is not the most pleasant way to deal with spirituality, it is the most realistic. Looking back at questions that great men like Augustine asked about how evil can exist in the world if God is in control, how else can we respond to the difficult issues that arise in life? Although I do not feel we should solely focus on the overwhelming evils in the world to the point where we get as depressed as James’ description of the sick soul, I do think that if we really want to try to make sense of the world instead of just ignoring what we don’t like, we need to struggle with our faith in the manner of the sick soul. I also think that this is a greater testament to others about our faith; the gritty, realistic perspective will ring a lot more true to others in the world struggling to answer the “why’s” of the world’s evils than the happy-go-lucky sugar-coated Christianity.

I must give credit to our very own Dr. Beck, as I started pondering this after reading what he had to say about James in his blog, Experimental Theology, which everyone should check out. He also makes some very interesting to Freud’s view of religion, which are worth looking at.

One of the philosophers that has always intrigued me most is David Hume. Although I don’t agree with all of his ideas, I do think he brought up some very interesting points, particularly concerning the “self”. All of us have some kind of conception of “self”; I would definitely say that I am defined by multiple constant traits that make me different from others. For example, my hate of mayonnaise, my love of Harry Potter, my interest in psychology, my Christianity–all of these are personal preferences or defining characteristics that I feel make up part of what I consider to be “me”. Hume throws us a bit of a curve ball with his idea that continuity of self is basically a joke, as he thinks that what we think of as ourselves at any given moment is really subject to that particular moment. He says that what we think of as a continuous identity is really just a collection of thoughts and perceptions specific to that time and place. He calls this bundle theory, because he says that each thing is just a bundle of properties, and without its properties it does not exist. One can see how this applies to the self–without its characteristics, which are subject to time and place, the self does not exist. This video breaks it down a little, in a slightly humorous and succinct way.
This idea blows my mind. I think I have unity of self–I still won’t like mayonnaise tomorrow, and I plan on hating it forever. But our likes and dislikes change all the time, so is that due to growth or change, or are we really just living moment to moment and stringing together those moments to force an idea of a unified self?
Hume was an atheist, but I am not. I think my reluctance to side with him rests with my Christian beliefs. I do think that God made us each unique individuals, and that there is more holding each of us together as those individuals than imagination stringing moments together. In the end, I think Hume’s position is rather hard to defend, but it is still kind of cool to think about, since we really are very subject to perceptions.

I’ve always loved Aristotle. I’ve read up on some of his work, in and out of a wonderful Intro to Philosophy class I took. What I particularly enjoy are his ideas on how crucial happiness is to life. He asserts that the search for happiness is the most important part of our lives; however, he does not mean “happiness” in a selfish or pleasure-seeking way. It’s more of a way of trying to accomplish a full life of fulfilled potential, and his term for it is “eudaimonia”.

What really interested me in his discussions of happiness was his reasoning about the central role of priorities. Aristotle posited that every goal or area in our lives tends to contribute to a greater one; in theory, all these goals contribute to our overall happiness. Happiness is the only thing that does not lend to anything else; we may do a lot of things in order to achieve happiness, but our intent in achieving happiness is happiness itself. What I take from this is that, if my goals lead to each other, and they all lead to my personal happiness, any unhappiness I encounter may be due either to a failed goal or to the fact that my goals are out of order.

Yes, I realize it’s a confusing set up, but hang with me here. The point is that priorities are crucial. This may not sound like news, but sometimes the things that seem like they should be high priority fail because other things need to come first. For instance, I may place occupational security high on the list, ahead of personal interests or or social life, but if I am not happily interested in my job, or it causes me to spend inadequate amounts of time with those I love, it does not matter how financially secure I am–my career will fail me.

At this point in my life, as I approach graduation in May, I am taking this to heart. I am focusing on reordering my goals to reflect the ends I really want to achieve, taking into account areas of my life that have been up to this point rather neglected.

I guess one thing that bothers me about Aristotle, though, is that he saw happiness as limited to this lifetime; there is no afterlife in his philosophy. However, I do feel that Christianity can be very easily embedded into his ideas. Certainly, the idea of disordered priorities applies in my spiritual walk; for a while now my prayer life has taken a back seat to graduate school applications, part-time jobs, relationships, and school work. How will any of those things make me happy if they do not reflect God’s will for my life? If I get things back in the right order and put God first, I’m much more likely to find joy in future endeavors.

Aristotle also brought up another intriguing idea–the “Golden Mean.” This involves doing and having everything in moderation, with no extremes and much control. I really do think he is on to something there, and I think it is an idea worth living by. I’ve attached a link relating this concept to StarWars, which sounds ridiculous but actually works.

Lastly, I just love this quote in relation to this subject: “Happiness is the settling of the soul into its most appropriate spot.”— Aristotle