Nicole Nelson's Archive

Carl Rogers was a very complex man who provided a lot of great insight into the psychology world. His work covers such a broad spectrum and speaks to so many topics that it is very hard to pin point exactly what stage his ideas align best with. I think when you take a look at Roger’s view on personality and the idea of an actualizing tendency his ideas align best with creation. He believes that humans are born with a innate drive toward self-actualization. Self-actualizaion is essentially the realization and or fulfillment of one’s full potential. So who gave these people there potential? Who gave humans the ability to realize that there is something they are “destined” for? There must be a creator. There has to be a higher power who appointed each individual with the ability to do certain things and to reach a certain level in their achievements. I believe that Roger’s ideas of self-actualization, and other’s similar ideas, all point towards an all powerful creator who is overseeing the whole process.

On the other hand, I think when we take a look at some of Roger’s other ideas about personality, we will see more of a correlation between the Fall. Rogers talks of how people have this internal desire and need for positive regard. People need to feel accepted, loved and desired by the people around them. But through a Christian perspective this is exactly what we are called not to do. We are told to look for our fulfillment through Christ and Christ alone. We are not called to be a part of the world, just in it. So as soon as humans begin to loo for fulfillment and acceptance from the people around them, that is when we fall. We become so focused on the positive regard from others that we lose sight of who we are meant to be. We lose sight of who Christ has created us to be because we are too concerned with pleasing others that we will change our attitudes to fit what is most acceptable. Carl Rogers has many great ideas that I think can be attributed to both the ideas of Creation and the Fall.

William McDougall brought about a new idea to psychology. The idea of purposive behavior, this type of behavior was different from reflexive behavior which many psychologists before him had been studying. This type of behavior focused on variety, spontaneity and improvement through practice. Essentially the type of behavior that McDougall was talking about is behavior that is very specifically thought out before it is produced. McDougall talks a lot about the importance of having a goal, and that there is something within every person that causes them to strive towards a goal, there is an internal drive that keeps them going. Because of this, I believe that McDougall’s ideas best align with Creation. He believes that people are capable of more than just mindless reactions, he believes that there is always a goal in behavior. If there is no creator, than there would be no reason for actions and behaviors that are purposefully thought out. So by saying that behaviors are thoughtful, intricate processes, McDougall supports the idea that a creator had to put these ideas within the human brain. Mcdougall then goes on to speak about the importance of instincts, he believes that instincts will interact in specific ways to cause motivation, in a very intricate process. There is no way that this intricate process could just arise, it was very specific and thought out by a creator who made man for a specific purpose. McDougall’s ideas about the intricacies of behavior and motivational tendencies truly lead one to believe that he is in support of an all mighty creator.

“Everything…begins as an undifferentiated whole.” (280) This is one of Herbert Spencer’s main ideas about life. He believes that everything; the human nervous system, society, thoughts, everything in this world started out as basically a massless blob of nothingness. Spencer is a strong supporter of evolution, and essentially during this time period you could not believe in both evolution and God. But I would dare to argue that Spencer unconsciously supports God, or at least a higher power. Because how can he say that all the complexities and differences of humans just arose from an evolutionary process. There has to be some sort of higher power that orchestrated the evolution at least, someone who started everything and got the ball rolling. Because of this idea I believe that Spencer’s psychology fits in with the idea of creation. As humans we are made up of “…complex nervous system…complex nervous systems allow us to make an accurate neurophysiological…recording of events in our environment…” (281) This time of complexity does not just arise from nature, there has to be some someone “pulling the strings.” Not only does Spencer believe that evolution exists, but he also believes that “evolution meant progress…evolution has a purpose.” (281) If this evolution is not directed by some higher power, than how can it have a directive purpose? It can’t. By trying to support his own ideas of evolution, and survival of the fittest, Spencer is actually supporting the idea that there is a God who exists, and who created each individual human being. He talks endlessly about the complexities of humans, the complexity of our brains, our nervous system, our bodies, and this complexity just cannot exist without a creator. Although Spencer does not openly and outright give any support to the ideas of creation by a God, I believe there is a heavy undertone to much of his research and ideologies that supports this idea.

Husserl took the original idea of phenomenology and put his own unique spin on it. He brought in some ideas of original essences of mental processes, believing that each mental process had a basic essence, which it derived from. I think the only possible alignment that can be made with Husserl is to creation. But even then I do not think he makes any sort of blatantly obvious connections. He doesn’t make any mention of a higher power, or a belief that someone created man, but through his ideas about consciousness and mental processes I believe he shows a part of his belief that he might not even been aware he is presenting. I like the line in which it states; “…mental acts are directed at something outside themselves.” I have no idea what Husserl meant by this statement, but I take it as our mental acts, thoughts, feelings emotions, etc. are meant for something more than to just be introspective and closed off. They are meant to be expressive, and fully of ups and downs. Our mental acts are directed at something outside of themselves because they were derived from something outside of themselves. We were created fully and wholly by an all-powerful God, and because of this our mental activities are seeking him out. This may seem a far stretch, but than Husserl goes on to speak more on the idea of essences. And I think this is where the idea of creation can really be seen. Husserl believed that every mental process had an essence, but he doesn’t give an idea of where these essences may have originated from. This could be because he has no idea, or it could be because he is afraid to admit that maybe some higher power ultimately created these essences within us, giving us the ability to process things for ourselves, but ultimately being the creator of everything. Husserl goes as far as to say, that without knowing the essences of things such as perception, memory and feeling; there is no reason to perform experiments. This could mean that, without fully understanding what our Creator had planned in creating us, we cannot fully understand all our own mental processes. Because God created us, only he fully comprehends our mental essences, and thus we are nothing without his hand of creation. And finally, Husserl believed that these mental images were a way in “…which humans experience themselves, other humans, and the world.” I think this could be expanded to say; how they experience the world and how they relate to their creator.

Francesco Petrarch’s writing marks the beginning of the Renaissance (pg. 94). This period of time was characterized by extreme individualism, very personalized religion, increased interest in the past and Anti-Aristotelianism (pg. 94). I believe that because of this focus on God, and religion and having such an individualized and personal relationship with God, that much of Francesco’s ideologies and beliefs fit into the category of Restoration or New Creation. It could even be argued that he fits into the category of original creation.
Petrarch states: “by actualizing the potential God has given to us, we can change the world for the better” (pg. 94). So although humans may have in the past created chaos and destruction in this world they still have a chance to fix what they have done and create a new world in which there can be peace and harmony. Petrarch believed in “freeing the human spirit from the confines of medieval traditions…” (pg.94). Again supporting the idea that although humans have messed up in the past, and spent to much time drawing away from God, they still have a chance for restoration and redemption. Petrarch also believed that “God wanted humans to use their vast capabilities, not inhibit them” (pg. 94). With this statement I believe that he supports the idea of creation. He supports the idea that God created man ultimately for good, he created man to do good things in this world and to make something of himself. Not to tear the world apart and fight against all of God’s creation. I think looking at Petrarch’s Renaissance influence is also important for understanding some of his beliefs. Because this time period so supported a personal religion, people were becoming more aware of who God could be in their lives. I believe many people at this point were repenting of their sins and looking for a relationship with a God who loves them instead of looking to be part of a church that tells them what they can and cannot do, in this way I think again Petrarch supports the idea of Restoration. I think it is interesting that Petrarch did not necessarily contribute anything new to the philosophical world, but he challenged religion and philosophy enough that it made people think a different way. It made people more aware of who they were meant to be, and who Christ created them to be, so in this way they sought restoration of their nation and of their world.

I think in reference to redemption Plato has a lot of interesting ideas that coincide. Plato believes that knowledge is the only way to discover the truth. To him nothing can be discovered or understood unless full knowledge of the subject is obtained. So in the process of redemption we are attempting to fix and repair everything that has been lost or mangled by the fall. And if we are to take this perspective and say that the lost thing or things are knowledge and the understanding of truth; part of the redemption and restoration process must be re-attaining this all. So in order for humans to begin the healing and to reach the restoration process we must seek to gain a better understanding of what is going on around us and how all the functions and intricate details of the world affect our own functioning. Plato furthermore supports the ideas of redemption and restoration with his theory that everything has a perfect form. If we as humans are to reach a state of full restoration than we must be able to discover the true form of ourselves. Plato argues that the trees we see are nothing but a slight trace of the ultimate, perfect form of this tree. So it can be assumed that we as humans are only a mere trace of the pure and ultimate human form, which we know as God or Jesus. So in order for humans to begin the redemption and restorative process we must focus on attaining knowledge that will help us become closer in resemblance to this perfect human specimen, Jesus. But when considering this, we also know that it is impossible to be God or Jesus, because He is perfect and good which humans can never be. So it could be argued that although the redemption process is possible, we as humans can strive for truth by educating ourselves. But we can never reach full restoration because no matter how hard we study or how knowledgeable we become there will always be something separating us from Christ. This could possibly be related to Plato’s allegory of the cave. The cave is where we have been placed after the fall, everything is in shadows, we are chained and we are unable to see who we ourselves truly are. Eventually, one or two of us reach a level of self-introspection that we have become aware enough of our brokenness that we are able to free ourselves from the fog. But it is a long, extensive process. Since we have been in the dark for so long. We fight to restore our thoughts and beliefs. But we are unable to save our friends. They are only able to save themselves through the same process of self-actualization.