Maybe I was so quick to support this because I have already experienced a very painful even in my life, and it took me a long time to heal from this experience. Though it is nothing that could be compared to the Holocaust, it did cause hours of self-reflection and numerous questions about society and tis values. While I would never wish my experience on anyone, it is only because of it that I am able to be the person I am today. It was difficult to take the pain and transform it into something good, to make my life benefit positively from something that awful, but I did it. That is something that I love about existentialism: so many of its facts are difficult to accomplish because they depend solely on the self, but once you truly achieve something on your own, you feel inspired to do more because it is in your power to handle it. It is the same thing with taking responsibility for your actions and not making up excuses to look better in front of someone else - if you did something stupid, don't blame it on the alcohol if you were drunk. Just admit to what you did and move on.
I definitely agree with Frankl's idea of "tragic optimism" in terms of 1.) pain and 3.) death and find it inspiring that a man who experienced the Holocaust, an unfathomably painful experience, still has faith in himself and in life to make it meaningful. When you consider everything this man went through, it puts a lot in perspective, and what is irritating are those people who are so caught up in their petty experiences, i.e. break-ups or bad grades. Some people can't get over themselves to try and make something meaningful out of any experience, and it is these people who would be the "they" in society.
Yet, I'm not so sure what Frankl meant by 2.) guilt. Maybe the thought that the guilt caused from a lie would lead you to stop lying and then you would consequently lead a better and more meaningful life. However, I feel like a lot of people do not feel guilty when they do something bad - it is only after they get caught do they feel guilty. That concept of guilt kind of throws everything off because it shows that people won't try and transform this experience until they are caught, and what if they are never caught? So what do you guys think Frankl meant by guilt? And if you are never caught doing anything bad like lying, but you do it everyday, are you still guilty?
3 comments:
I definitely agree. Frankl experienced an extremely tragic event, and came out with a greater appreciation for life. I think the guilt was in reference to feeling guilty that he survived, unlike many others. And I can definitely relate in the trgic event department. In fact, just recently, I underwent a life-altering tragedy that completely made me rethink my entire life and what I want to do. So kudos.
I'm truly sorry for both of y'all's painful experiences, and though I can't say that I share in any great tragedy in my life, I would agree that, sure, pain, guilt, and death can be transforming forces that produce meaning in one's life.
What I would contend, though, (and this might have been mentioned in class when I was zoning out) is that there exists a threshold at which the pain and guilt inflict so much agony on the individual that no meaning can be gleaned from any further experiences. I recall a mention of a "Muselman" (I imagine a recipient of a "Dementor's Kiss") who everyone shies away from because s/he has been so condemned that s/he no longer actually lives. If such a person were to exist, would s/he not be an example of someone who can no longer live by the "Tragic Optimism" Frankl proposes?
This idea of excessive discomfort in life depriving me of my ability to create meaning for myself has been plaguing me for a while now. I want to be a Yay-sayer, but what if terrible circumstances strip me of my life-affirming abilities and I can only shake my head no?
You definitely bring up an interesting question at the end. After thinking about it, I'm not sure if I really know the answer either. I do agree that people seem to not feel guilty about things such as lying until they are caught. Could Frankl have been referring more to feelings of regret about not doing something as opposed to guilt after an action? For instance, when you opt out of taking a good risk because of fear, you ultimately regret it and hopefully learn from the situation and take advantage of the opportunity the next time it arises. Maybe Frankl had more of this type of guilt in mind.
Post a Comment