Kobasa and Maddi (as cited in Corsini, 1977) conceptualize life as a “series of decisions” made by an individual. Existentialism, as a philosophical approach, seems to me to be quite individualistic in nature. Existentialists believe that “their lives and the meaning therein are of their own making and that the architect of the good life is future-oriented-decision making” (Wong, 2012).
Similarly, the role of imagination in the creation of meaning is likewise individualistic in nature, but could also hold true of an organizational collective. The ability or inability to imagine alternative possibilities and outcomes to situations and decisions directly correlates to an individual’s ability to make rational decisions. It stands to reason that an individual is more imaginative than others would have the ability to foresee a greater number of solutions to a particular problem. However, it is also reasonable that an overactive imagination could lead to either a poorly formed decision or simply paralysis by analysis where no decision is ever made.
Many psychologists view existentialism as a divergence from Freudianism where beliefs, emotional states, and physical engagements in the here and now are often expressed as unresolved past conflicts.
I however, find it difficult to separate the tenants of Freudianism from those of existentialism. It seems to me that many authors, psychologists, and philosophers would have you “take sides” with respect to which theory best represents reality. However, as I understand it, this would mean that existential decision making is purely reactionary and that past experience has not sway over individual choice. Instead, decisions are shaped by future goals, and how one interprets the best path to their achievement.
Hardiness, the aptitude to withstand challenging circumstances, varies from person to person depending on the events that have shaped them along their path through life. According to Maddi, Khoshaba, & Pammenter (1999), hardy people tend to choose future-oriented decision making vice choosing repetitive historical-based decision making. “Hardiness [is] a set of attitudes or beliefs about yourself in interaction with the world around you that provide the courage and motivation to do the hard work of turning stressful changes from potential disasters into opportunities” (1999).
The motion picture God on Trial (Redhead, Rodgers, Mensah, & Emmony, 2008) was an exploration in the variance of human sensemaking. The film took into account individual perceptions of reality and levels of hardiness.
Each character struggled with his own rationalization of why God would allow the atrocities of the holocaust to have occurred. Some believed that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people. Some cited passages from the Torah such as the captivity in Babylon and the Roman occupation, and believed that “suffering is part of God’s plan […] bad things have happened before” (Redhead, Rodgers, Mensah, 2008). Some believed that God was testing their faith. Some believed they were being punished for their sins; and some believed that to question God’s motives at all was blasphemy.
The character, Ezra displayed hardiness in the face of adversity when he spoke of having to remove his mother’s jewelry after she had been killed by the Nazis. He kept his faith and persevered. Another example of hardiness could be found in the blockhouse leader who, though not a Jew, aided the Nazi effort by keeping order in the blockhouse in order to survive.
In the end, the Jews found God guilty of breach of contract citing biblical history and verse to make sense of their situation.
This scene highlighted what is arguably the more telling paradox at the heart of the God-and-suffering issue. For perhaps the harder question is not the philosophical or logical one of how to reconcile a God of love with a suffering world, but rather the existential or personal question of why so many people persist with faith despite their own experience of suffering. (Thacker, 2008)
Cited
Corsini, R. J. (1977). Current personality theories. Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Maddi, S., Khoshaba, D., & Pammenter, A. (1999). The hardy organization: Success by turning change to advantage. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(2), 117-124.
Redhead, M., Rodgers, J., Mensah, A. (Producers), & Emmony, A. d. (Director). (2008). God on trial [Motion picture]. United Kingdom: Hat Trick Productions.
Thacker, J. (2008). God on Trial. bethinking.org. Retrieved July 7, 2014, from http://www.bethinking.org/suffering/god-on-trial
Wong, P. T. (2012). The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment