23 March 2024
Thinkers cited as foundational to existentialism are Socrates, Aristotle, and Kierkegaard all of whom were united by a concern with meaning, one of the concepts central to existentialism (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2014). Other fundaments include freedom, life, death, anxiety and choice. More precisely, anxiety was thought to sit between the choice of life and the recognition of the certainty of death. Within this already complex matrix, existentialists ask that we be our authentic selves (thereby ratifying the existence of self) despite the nauseating pain that ensues—their word—they were not without a touch of the dramatic.
Central to the existential themes, is the relation between I and thou, a concept associated with Martin Buber (1958/2000). Buber’s intent, as a religious existentialist, was to differentiate the treatment afforded to relationships of I-Thou versus I-It. Essentially, one ought be with other presences, not treat them as objects for one’s own ends (Audi, 1998). That differentiation, between being with another versus using another invokes the idea of boundaries.* And to invoke some bathos we’ll look at the hula-hoop.
The hula-hoop is a metaphor for a Stoic version of boundaries. It is used by SMART Recovery, in the Family + Friends groups. The idea is that each of us can control what is within an imaginary hula-hoop floating around our bodies. If we picture all people with a hula-hoop, the idea is that if you’re in another’s hula-hoop, you’re violating their boundaries and messing about in places you don’t belong.
This arose, above, in the discussion of AFMs (affected family members) knowing what was right for their addicted spouses, children, siblings… Knowing, or the confidence to believe you know, is one thing, and permissible, but acting to impose your knowledge on another’s life and actions is not cool. To impose your view of the world on another, to act in their interest without their consent, is to reject their agency—arguably the essence of a human being and of true humanity itself.
To get along, to live and let live, to practice tolerance, is to act in your own best interest while respecting that others—even (or maybe especially) those others in full blown addiction—will look after their own best interests. And in the case of full-blown addiction, I am not denying that you are witnessing slow, torturous suicide, I am saying that ethically and effectively, that is the price of real freedom and respect for the agency of all other persons.
If I violate the freedom of another, it adversely affects my sense of rightness and balance as I have taken on greater agency than any individual ought or effectively can. This is effectively and ethically wrong because imposing your will on another denies that person’s humanity—in terms of the I and thou, you just told yourself—and the other—that you (I) have more metaphysical importance than her (thou). Metaphysically, in terms of beings on this Earth, that cannot be true if—and this is crucial—freedom of movement, thought, conscience, and existence is your goal. To act in ignorance of another’s rights is to take a first step into the realm of totalitarianism. Think Putin and Navalny.
As part of this journey toward attributes of the soul, it is important to recognize ideas resistant to, or in opposition to, those put forward herein. That list is long and strong but shall be confined to Descartes (1596-1650) and Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976) the former having worked as a scientist, mathematician, and metaphysician with the latter being a philosopher of mind, a subset of metaphysics and epistemology.
Descartes carried out what is usually characterized as a thought experiment in which he progressively denied his ability to prove the existence of almost everything around him at the time of that speculation. What he arrived at was an inability to deny his own consciousness which gave rise to one of the most famous aphorisms in philosophy, I think, therefore I am, Lafleur (1976, p. 21). (As stated elsewhere, non-dualists may prefer the inversion: I am, therefore I’ll think (Rand, 1957)).
The primary result of Descartes’ supremely well-received thought experiment was dualism, a metaphysical stance pitting mind and body against one another in distinct categories and reducing the self to a difficult to pinpoint subset of the mind, banished from the sinful body, per Christianity. Ryle attacked Descartes’ dualism but on grounds not supportive of holistic selfhood. Ryle’s contention was that the modes of data transfer, within mind and body, are distinct enough to preclude the wholeness of the self. Many of the thinkers I am reading (self-selected) oppose Ryle’s argument re-integrating the self into a unified whole.
To be continued next week.
Dan Chalykoff is a Registered Psychotherapist (Qualifying). He works at CMHA-Hamilton and Healing Pathways Counselling, Oakville, where his focus is clients with addiction, trauma, burnout, and major life changes. He writes to increase (and share) his own evolving understanding of ideas. Since 2017, he has facilitated two voluntary weekly group meetings of SMART Recovery. Please email him (danchalykoff@hotmail.com) to be added to or removed from the Bcc’d emailing list.
Definitions
Boundary “n. a psychological demarcation that protects the integrity of an individual or group or that helps the person or group set realistic limits on participation in a relationship or activity” (American Psychological Association, 2024).
References
Audi, R. (Ed.) (1998). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Lafleur, L. J. (1976). René Descartes’ Discourse on Method. The Library of Liberal Arts.
Rand, A. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. A Signet Book, New American Library.
Seligman, L. & Reichenberg, L. W. (2014). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: Systems, strategies, and skills. Pearson Education Inc.
Comments