Absolutely beautiful piece, Rob. I would argue with Frankl that we get to "choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances". Sure, we are free to consider the possibilities that we know about. But actually exercising something you never mastered, or never had modelled for you, or didn't even realise is an option, or was simply not in your nature (a nature you didn't choose) is another matter entirely. Perhaps Frankl was gifted his ability to exercise a positive and enduring mindset by his upbringing. Perhaps he should count that as a privilege to set against the suffering he experienced. Perhaps he already does. Perhaps others looked at Frankl and simply couldn't do what he did. Perhaps!
So where is that skill coming from if it's not something you absorbed, combined, learned, created, blended from an existing and limited pot? Where is the spark of originality coming from given the contextual nature of all information, experience and belief?
Perhaps ill go back to Frankl - everyone has the ability to ultimately chose, one’s attitude, the ability to pause before action. Just because it’s really hard doesn’t mean it’s not possible. If this weren’t the case then we all could claim no responsibility for anything. I believe this is part of the fabric of being a human being. Accessible to everyone.
The distinction between our positions is this: everything you are, and everything you are capable of becoming, is shaped by the accumulated complexity of your experience so far. It is not a simple equation of "I learned this, therefore I am that." You think there is a mysterious extra component of "self" that works independently from experience and biology - I don't know how that could be.
Yes, personal decisions matter. But some people who would have liked to adopt Frankl's strategy were unable to. So what made Frankl capable of applying it when others weren't? If it were simply a matter of choice, everyone in comparable circumstances would have made the same choice. They didn't, or couldn't, which means something else was doing work. Frankl had inherited a resilience, built from his life prior to the camps, and possibly a physiology that processed cortisol and other stress hormones differently, allowing him to apply his approach with unusual effectiveness.
Personal responsibility and free will are not binary. Personal victories are not isolated strokes of pure genius. They are the product of complex, layered influences. And personal failures are not simply the result of bad decisions made in a vacuum. They reflect your life so far, emotionally, educationally, and physically.
The disagreement, I think, comes down to that extra element of 'self.' And I'm genuinely open to it. I just don't know what it is.
Maybe said in another way - Do you believe whether there is anything in a human being that can rise above oneself, even slightly. If human beings were simply the product of accumulated experience, then knowledge should reliably produce behaviour. Yet one of the most obvious facts about being human is that it doesn't.
New knowledge DOES bring about behaviour, but the relationship is complex. Some react by shrugging their shoulders because they don't care, others act reasonable upon the new information and change, some deny it out of utility or loyalty to their preconceptions. And a spectrum of a million possibilities in-between. When I think about my own behaviours, I can often compile a set of life experiences that I think contributed to them being as they are.
I still wonder what behaviours or choices you think could be made free of the advantages and disadvantages of your life experiences?
Yes, many others had also been gifted skills through kindness, neglect, training or experience that prepared them better for the horrors of the concentration camps. And many died or failed to thrive after through an inability to apply such skills. I'm not taking will entirely out the equation, but simply repeating that people make choices from a limited pool of choices.
I’d venture to say that all perhaps’s went out the window in the holocaust. No matter who you were, what you mastered, nothing could prepare a person for that.
Absolutely beautiful piece, Rob. I would argue with Frankl that we get to "choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances". Sure, we are free to consider the possibilities that we know about. But actually exercising something you never mastered, or never had modelled for you, or didn't even realise is an option, or was simply not in your nature (a nature you didn't choose) is another matter entirely. Perhaps Frankl was gifted his ability to exercise a positive and enduring mindset by his upbringing. Perhaps he should count that as a privilege to set against the suffering he experienced. Perhaps he already does. Perhaps others looked at Frankl and simply couldn't do what he did. Perhaps!
Here's my piece on freewill: https://mediumqualitythinker.substack.com/p/we-do-not-have-free-will?r=47jm5f&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Not everything is a gift
So where is that skill coming from if it's not something you absorbed, combined, learned, created, blended from an existing and limited pot? Where is the spark of originality coming from given the contextual nature of all information, experience and belief?
Perhaps ill go back to Frankl - everyone has the ability to ultimately chose, one’s attitude, the ability to pause before action. Just because it’s really hard doesn’t mean it’s not possible. If this weren’t the case then we all could claim no responsibility for anything. I believe this is part of the fabric of being a human being. Accessible to everyone.
The distinction between our positions is this: everything you are, and everything you are capable of becoming, is shaped by the accumulated complexity of your experience so far. It is not a simple equation of "I learned this, therefore I am that." You think there is a mysterious extra component of "self" that works independently from experience and biology - I don't know how that could be.
Yes, personal decisions matter. But some people who would have liked to adopt Frankl's strategy were unable to. So what made Frankl capable of applying it when others weren't? If it were simply a matter of choice, everyone in comparable circumstances would have made the same choice. They didn't, or couldn't, which means something else was doing work. Frankl had inherited a resilience, built from his life prior to the camps, and possibly a physiology that processed cortisol and other stress hormones differently, allowing him to apply his approach with unusual effectiveness.
Personal responsibility and free will are not binary. Personal victories are not isolated strokes of pure genius. They are the product of complex, layered influences. And personal failures are not simply the result of bad decisions made in a vacuum. They reflect your life so far, emotionally, educationally, and physically.
The disagreement, I think, comes down to that extra element of 'self.' And I'm genuinely open to it. I just don't know what it is.
MQT ;)
Maybe said in another way - Do you believe whether there is anything in a human being that can rise above oneself, even slightly. If human beings were simply the product of accumulated experience, then knowledge should reliably produce behaviour. Yet one of the most obvious facts about being human is that it doesn't.
New knowledge DOES bring about behaviour, but the relationship is complex. Some react by shrugging their shoulders because they don't care, others act reasonable upon the new information and change, some deny it out of utility or loyalty to their preconceptions. And a spectrum of a million possibilities in-between. When I think about my own behaviours, I can often compile a set of life experiences that I think contributed to them being as they are.
I still wonder what behaviours or choices you think could be made free of the advantages and disadvantages of your life experiences?
I’d still leave room for the ability to make a choice that defies anything you’ve been gifted or experienced.
Wouldn't that simply be the skill of combining and adapthing existing skills? Another gift in itself?
Many others did too.
Yes, many others had also been gifted skills through kindness, neglect, training or experience that prepared them better for the horrors of the concentration camps. And many died or failed to thrive after through an inability to apply such skills. I'm not taking will entirely out the equation, but simply repeating that people make choices from a limited pool of choices.
I’d venture to say that all perhaps’s went out the window in the holocaust. No matter who you were, what you mastered, nothing could prepare a person for that.
And yet Frankl had a strategy that allowed him to survive where others fell.