Unveiling an obvious why
"A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life." Viktor Frankl
In Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl advocates that it does not really matter what we expect from life but rather what life expects from us. According to him, we need 'to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct’. But what can be considered a right answer?
According to Frankl, as in a chess match, a good move is dependent on a particular ‘situation in the game’ and the ‘personality of one’s opponent’. Moreover, an answer which transcends oneself benefiting a vast population is often a good one.
In Frankl’s specific case, after having his career as psychiatrist interrupted by his imprisonment in a concentration camp during the Second World War, his response to transcend the situation he found himself in was to use that experience as input for a scientific work correlating psychotherapy and philosophy which would help other humans to live a more ethical and meaningful life. Thus, Frankl replied to the challenge that life posed him leveraging from his previous expertise and offering his response to something bigger than himself.
Like Frankl, one must look into his/her own upbringing, relationships’ network, significant life experiences, habits and skills in order to understand his/her ‘particular situation in the game’ but also go beyond this restricted view/story, stepping into his/her opponent shoes, clearly understanding the demands posed by life’s uncontrollable events, in order to provide a meaningful answer with broader benefits.
One may test the above in a conversation. As noted by Alan Watts, words are often more communicative between those who share similar experiences. This holds true because our speech carries the weight of our preferences, prejudices, projections, etc. Notwithstanding this restriction, if we truly listen to our interlocutor compassionately understanding his/her viewpoint against the background from which he/she comes from, we increase our chances to structure the language accordingly favoring the communication/exchange to happen. If we succeed, both (we and our interlocutor) gain by broadening our perspective in a subject.
In summary, one should neither feel entitled to get anything from life nor justify his/her response on the basis of the circumstances one finds himself/herself in. The freedom to choose an attitude/behavior is always available. Thus, one should take charge when actualizing one of the numerous potentialities presented. When condemning some of these possibilities to nonbeing, one should have clarity of the ‘footprint in the sands of time’ which will be left, ‘the monument of his/her existence’.
0 comments