Just What's A Canker Sore
9 years ago
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Tell me what you think about powerlessness. Is it something that just happens to us? Or is it something we allow to happen to us?
I think, once we reach a certain age, we allow it to happen to us. People cannot have power over us unless we given them that power. We are not controlled by external forces, we have the power over how we respond to anything in life. That is not to say that we are not strongly affected by outside sources, but we are not determined by them. We choose how much power we give to others.
While we may like to think that others can control us, that is not true. We have responsibility over who we are and what we do. Perhaps blaming others for our lives is simply a defense mechanism, and we really are responsible for how our lives have turned out.
Sure, we cannot control all the forces out there, but we can control how we respond to them. We are in control of who we are in the midst of our situations.
I'm a bit admirer of Viktor Frankl, who is an Austrian Psychiatrist who survived Nazi concentration camps. He wrote an amazing book called 'Man's search for meaning' if you're interested in the topic. Amazing, insightful and powerful book.
What I got from is that we can't control others/life, but we CAN control how we respond to that. We always have power over who we are.
Feel free to offer opinions, discussions, whatever.
9 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Too. Deep.
*goes and watches something on Channel 10* Ah, that's better.
I guess you might call this "The Bigger Man" philosophy, when life is being a prat it's up to you to "be the bigger man" and respond maturely. Or you might call it the "Lemonade" philosophy - "when life gives you lemons...". I can see a lot of validity in this viewpoint, it is very attractive and at times i am tempted to subscribe to it. I've not read any Viktor Frankl but it is enough to say that if he survived a concentration camp then this view has been put to a rigorous test.
With that said, i read this philosophy like this:
You are responsible/to blame for your own life. Whatever is happening or has happened is because of you or can be managed by your response. This is works if you are dealing with a natural disaster or large scale persecution but how does it go with something like rape? Spousal abuse? Addiction? Depression (especially depression) I understand we are supposed to be talking about our response to life but if you take a step back and look life's timeline you could rightly argue (from this point of view) that a person was abused by their spouse because of something they did, or that if they continue to stay in that situation then they are to blame for further abuse because they didn't leave. It doesn't take into account fear, addiction, loneliness, etc or it turns them into things that are supposedly "under our control" and can be turned off or ignored at will. We cannot always control how we respond (hypnosis is a great, if not a little irrelevant, example) and sometimes it is ok to say that something is "their fault". Yes some people hide behind pointing the finger to avoid responsibility but that doesn't mean we can say that all things within ourselves are within our immediate control.
Not everything I've just written is clear nor do i agree with all the inferences I'm making but i'm too lazy to change it. Instead let me leave you with these questions:
Does this do away with the "Battered wife" defense in court?
How does this work with emotional duress, torture and other such things?
From a Christian worldview does this mean sin is within our control? Can we manage it out of our lives?
What is the Holy Spirit's role in this? Are there changes within us only God can make?
Is this an illusion that at least some of this out-of-control-world is within our control?
How does this response relate to pride?
Please don't hear me saying that we attract bad things to us, I don't believe that. But we can control what we do with our experiences. We control who we are, not what happens to us.
Largely speaking of course.
Do we say - the rage is really under their control (and a part of them) and therefor they should get a grip (and so blame them)?
Do we say - the rage is not in their control (but still a part of them) but whether they get help is their choice and therefor they can't control all things about themselves only some (against Frankl's view)?
Or lastly do we say - the rage is not in their control and not a part of them but if they get help then they are responding rightly and so we appease Frankl's view without demonising anyone?
I think the middle option is the closest to correct (in this very imperfect example). The first one demonstrates what i see as an error in this view and the last i feel is a cop out that has the deck stacked to favour Frankl. After all if we take the last view we can easily say that Frankl is completely right and anything about ourselves that we can't control is just not our "true selves" which is why we can't control it.
I do tend to think that (in the absense of serious psychological and biological problems) that we at the very least have the choice to seek help if we cannot help ourselves.
Do those who must steal so they can eat (and thus survive) have much choice? I think about people in other countries who live in feudal type (or worse) conditions... what choices do they have?
Thanks for giving your 2 cents worth.