Auspiciously, also Schweitzer (1960), in his ethics of Reverence for Life, offered a solution to his Humanist catuskoti. In essence, he stated that a priori a person’s radical liberty consisted in one’s ability to choose attitudes always freely. Therefore, grounded on an ethical decision, the person could not only embrace life, in defiance of the objective lack of meaning, it was further intrinsically forced to such a performance, for being the existential requirement for its constitution. In short, this is how Schweitzer (1960) defined the attitude of “tragic optimism” through which society was created (Martin, 2012). It was Frankl (2014) withal who transferred this conceptional scheme to an applicable methodological framework. Thoroughly, he construed the intrinsic existence of an internal inconsistency, as “conflict”
…show more content…
The theoretical foundation above, in line Frankl (2014), implied the arbitrariness of will, which necessarily opened up the possibility that some persons deliberately resolved the riddle by destroying life, consequently accepting self-destruction. Human badness should, therefore, be understood as a personal and individual task for self and world-transcendence. Following from this, where the personal will failed no political, therapeutic or didactic actions could reconcile, substitute immediate actions for the protection of life and property, or replace santions. As a logical conclusion, peace could never be taught but only learned. This objection aside, the author here assumed that a great number of human conflicts were caused by the ignorance of overcoming the “tragic triad”. The aim in here, was to offer a framework that allowed to develop a life-affirming orientation through self-guided learning for those cases in which the implied parties in conflict, at least in principle, wished to overcome their problems, be it with the goal of personal development or due to the impossibility to avoid their
The theoretical foundation above, in line Frankl (2014), implied the arbitrariness of will, which necessarily opened up the possibility that some persons deliberately resolved the riddle by destroying life, consequently accepting self-destruction. Human badness should, therefore, be understood as a personal and individual task for self and world-transcendence. Following from this, where the personal will failed no political, therapeutic or didactic actions could reconcile, substitute immediate actions for the protection of life and property, or replace santions. As a logical conclusion, peace could never be taught but only learned. This objection aside, the author here assumed that a great number of human conflicts were caused by the ignorance of overcoming the “tragic triad”. The aim in here, was to offer a framework that allowed to develop a life-affirming orientation through self-guided learning for those cases in which the implied parties in conflict, at least in principle, wished to overcome their problems, be it with the goal of personal development or due to the impossibility to avoid their