To start this blog post off with some words, I enjoyed the reading about Frankl very much. His analogy of the Holocaust prisoners being released was powerful. The title of the section was “Man’s Search for Meaning”, but did the prisoners find meaning after their release? The book stated that they slowly left the concentration camp and walked down the road, observing the land where they were held captive. Frankl said that they looked for freedom, even though they knew they were free, but they couldn’t grasp the idea of freedom. These prisoners were left with an existential crisis. Frankl says that the meaning comes later, when these once-prisoners have learned to look back on their experience. How could one even find meaning in something so evil? For Frankl, he believes the meaning is that they no longer fear anything because of the hell that they endured. I think trying to find meaning in your captivity is such an extreme example. It makes a lasting impression and strikes the heart of every person. Frankl also discusses his idea of tragic optimism. Tragic optimism is described as the optimism that is generated in a human even though that human knows that he or she will one day feel pain, guilt, and death. If we could be given the conscious choice of living or dying the instant that we are born, what would we do? Keep in mind that you are well aware of the suffering that accompanies humanity, the sickness, and death. Would we have the will power to say yes or no to life? Maybe it is better that we are not given that choice and that we have a default answer, which is to keep living. As Frankl said, by being optimistic we can reflect on our lives and find the benefits in our negative experiences and use those benefits to better ourselves.

On Monday, one of the questions asked was, “Is it possible to live your life with contradiction?” Let’s try a harder question: Is it possible to live your life without contradiction? I think contradiction will find its way into your life no matter what circumstance or position you are in. It seems like one of those things in life that are just bound to happen. There are probably two categories of contradictions: internal and external. Going with the latter, external contradictions are more observable than internal contradictions. One could provide many examples, like a person who regularly attends church and practices Christianity, but his practices stay in the church. Outside of the church he sins willfully and holds no respect for his religion. Maybe we are blind to our external contradictions sometimes. The blindness could be a self-defense move in order to protect us from the devastating reality that reality, in itself, is a contradiction. I don’t see life and death a contradiction, but rather an inevitable cycle shared among every living thing. However, I do find what we are capable of doing and what we could be capable of doing a contradiction. We are blessed, through evolution, with a complex brain capable of higher thinking. What makes this a contradiction is that we can think outside of the box—solve problems, invent formless ideas, create anything that we can possibly imagine—and yet we cannot act upon it every time. How cruel of a contradiction is this? Now for the second contradiction, the internal contradiction. I think internal contradictions are the ones that you believe with your heart/soul and mind. An example of this would be hearing a new piece of information that didn’t sit right with you. You tried to accept it, but deep inside you cannot accept it. It defies not just your logic, but it defies you morally. What if you were told you had to accept this information no matter what and that it was the absolute truth? Could this same situation happen if you are being preached at in a church?

What relation does temptation have to the human conscience? It was asked in class whether or not we become a slave to the temptation that we give in to. Supposing that the temptation harms us in the long run or brings negative consequences, we long for what we ultimately desire, casting aside the adversities that trail along. I guess if you want an example, one could be a heroin user whose ultimate goal is to blast off and reach new heights (get high). However, every time that—let’s call the heroin user Joseph—Joseph uses heroin it adds another coin to the pot of bad effects to his body: the insomnia, chills, heart palpitations, and sad feelings. Joseph has enough will to overcome the negative effects of heroin for the high. To outsiders, Joseph is wasting his life away, being a slave to his temptations. But what about Joseph’s opinion? Shouldn’t that be the only opinion that truly matters? Joseph probably would say, “No man, I’m not a slave to my temptations. You got any change?” If we were a slave to our temptations, it would mean that we do it against our own will, but here in Joseph’s case, it was his free will to shoot up. So the point I am trying to make is that if we really want something, it is from our free will that we choose to do so. We are not slaves to our temptations if we want them. Until the day that Joseph decides that he no longer wants to use heroin and continues to use heroin against his own will, Joseph is not a slave to his temptation. Thad made a similar situation a couple weeks ago. He talked about how even though he didn’t want to take out the trash, he took out the trash, which meant that he actually wanted to take out the trash. If he didn’t want to take out the trash, he would not have taken out the trash.

The presentation on Monday was on the philosopher Dostoevsky, which was the first time I’ve ever heard about him. In Notes From Underground, the protagonist claims that he is a sick and spiteful man. Spiteful because he acknowledges his pain and discomfort, and in return, does nothing about it. He does not accept treatment even though he has respect for medicine and science. His spite is not about getting even with the doctors or about holding a grudge, he simply refuses help out of spite. Some of the characteristics of the underground man, stated by the presenting group, are superstitious, spiteful, bitterness, and isolated. What causes a man or woman to feel this way? These traits can apply to anyone on their bad days, but with these four traits, it seems like there is a deeper issue. All humans desire what will be advantageous to them. Money, good health, family, and a profession are some common desires, but what overpowers all of these desires? The answer is the advantageous advantage. Even though reason and science tells us how to live and what to aspire towards, we humans are not perfect. We are not accustomed to living the perfect way no matter how hard we try. We will do what we think is our best advantage. Our best advantage is our free will. According to the underground man, if we try to live by the laws of nature and science, we lose our free will because everything already has an order to they way it works. So instead of the protagonist seeking medical attention for his diseased liver, he exercises his free will by saying, “No.” In my opinion, I can only half agree with the underground man’s views of life. I understand his view of free will. It puts you in the uttermost control of your life and your life’s direction. It is the power that doctors, lawyers, friends, and family don’t give you. Even if you know their best interests, deciding your own free will is top priority. But to what extent do you use your free will? Until death or until you can no longer bear what you are going through?

Nietzsche splits people into two basic types: those with a master morality and those with a slave morality. Both types of morality can be found within the same, one person. So, which one prevails? I think by default we associate with the slave morality. We can only adapt the master morality in time, feeding ourselves with power. In this case, Nietzsche says that the master morality is to seek happiness. It just so happens that the type of happiness Nietzsche talks about is power. Power, happiness, and “the good” are almost synonymous. Therefore, the master morality seeks happiness in power and, in return, this is the good for the person. One trait of the master morality is that he or she despises the opposite opinion of “the good” (i.e. “the bad”). This states that a person with a master morality despises a person with a slave morality for many reasons. People with a slave morality are like sheep; they follow the group, don’t think for themselves, and they are cowards. Nietzsche says that people with a slave morality, the common people, are liars. To take this one step further, I think that the lie they tell is to themselves. They don’t know what they strive for in life and are clouded in judgment of what is right and wrong, good and bad. (Just another reason for people with a master morality to loath those with a slave morality.) They seek judgment, assurance from others, whereas the master is the one who gives the judgment. He is one step, more than one step, ahead of the slave. One statement that really stuck with me was, “…the noble human being, too, helps the unfortunate, but not, or almost not, from pity, but prompted more by an urge begotten by excess of power.” A person with the master morality sees himself as better, and knows himself as better. The master is happy for everything that the slave is not and gloats in the glory.

Today’s discussion was about Nietzsche, who has to be one of my favorite philosophers. The excerpt discussed was taken out of The Gay Science, where a madman runs into a marketplace and exclaims that God is dead and we have killed him. What a statement huh? We humans have destroyed, mutilated, and defamed the story, idea, and representation of God. God! Kierkegaard shares his disgust on how we have strayed away from God and Christianity, and here Nietzsche is, telling us that we are to blame. The madman plays an important role in this story. He has come to a realization, one that the atheists and churchgoers have failed to see and accept. What does “God is dead” imply? No longer is there a higher authority? There is no one to look up to? What will happen to the world if there is no longer a God? Are we doomed or do we as a society benefit from this statement? I believe that by removing God, there is a shift in responsibility. More importance is placed on the individual, and this is what Nietzsche wanted. A huge change like this can only make us transcend ourselves, see what we are capable of doing. Morality is a matter of perception now, not what “society tells us is morally right or wrong”. We take matters into our own hands since the responsibility and morality equilibrium is shifted towards us. This process of transcending your previous self ties in to Nietzsche’s overman. Humanity today is not the overman. We cannot be the overman because of our beliefs today. We are limited. Society has placed boundaries on what we are capable of accomplishing. View us humans as a bridge that leads to the overman. A bridge leads you from one point to another. I think the first point, for Nietzsche, is that we have accepted and realized that God is dead. Religion is dead, it’s over and done. It’s no longer here. As time progresses, we can change modern thinking. We can change the physical and theoretical limitations that we have placed on ourselves. Once we have removed those limitations and are in a constant state of transcending ourselves, we have reached the point across the bridge. The main purpose for us humans is to lead ourselves across the bridge, to point ourselves in a direction in which we have ultimate power and responsibility.

On Monday my group presented Kierkegaard’s “Truth is Subjectivity”. Kierkegaard’s main focus was achieving passionate commitment with God. Since God is a subject and not an object, we can only think of him in a subjective way. This subjectivity is what Kierkegaard was talking about; taking a leap of faith. We touched on subjective truth and objective uncertainty, but I don’t think that it was discussed enough, or the link between them wasn’t discussed. To find passion, or subjective truth, objective uncertainty is necessary. Being unsure of the objective truth sparks desire to question it. If you search for the truth passionately, you come to a personal choice on the matter. This choice is yours alone and it is the subjective truth. Based on the question, “How should I live,” the Kierkegaardian answer would be: live your life by what drives you passionately, and utilize that passion to search for the answers that give meaning to you. A question to consider is in what sense is believing in God necessarily irrational? Believing in God without passion is irrational. This is probably a typical Christian who attends church every Sunday morning at 9 am, never reads through his bible, holds onto his faith loosely, and does not spread the message of God. This is just as bad as believing in God based solely on objective facts. Being in the same routine, not having that connection with God is like being a mechanical robot, emotionless with no inwardness. It might not be a bad thing in the eyes of that person, but they are robbing themselves of the close connection of God. The purpose of passionately seeking the truth of God is to put one at ease with the world and with their mind. It can be seen as seeking nirvana in God. Nirvana will never be reached, but it is the approach that matters.