Log in

View Full Version : Rollo May



A.R.Amistad
16th May 2010, 02:39
I think I have found yet another hero to add to my long list. This is great:

Wiki

May was influenced by American humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism), and interested in reconciling existential psychology with other philosophies, especially Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud)'s.
May considered Otto Rank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Rank) (1884-1939) to be the most important precursor of existential therapy. Shortly before his death, May wrote the foreword to Robert Kramer's edited collection of Rank’s American lectures. “I have long considered Otto Rank to be the great unacknowledged genius in Freud’s circle,” wrote May (Rank, 1996, p. xi).
May used some traditional existential terms in a slightly different fashion than others, and he invented new words for traditional existentialist concepts. Destiny, for example, could be "thrownness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness)" combined with "fallenness"— the part of our lives that is determined for us, for the purpose of creating our lives. He also used the word "courage" to signify resisting anxiety.
He defined certain "stages" of development:


Innocence – the pre-egoic, pre-self-conscious stage of the infant.

An innocent is only doing what he or she must do. However, an innocent does have a degree of will in the sense of a drive to fulfill needs.


Rebellion – the rebellious person wants freedom, but does not yet have a good understanding of the responsibility that goes with it.



Decision – The person is in a transition stage in their life such that they need to be more independent from their parents and settle into the "ordinary stage". In this stage they must decide what to do with their life, and fulfilling rebellious needs from the rebellious stage.



Ordinary – the normal adult ego learned responsibility, but finds it too demanding, and so seeks refuge in conformity and traditional values.



Creative – the authentic adult, the existential stage, self-actualizing and transcending simple egocentrism.

These are not "stages" in the traditional sense. A child may certainly be innocent, ordinary or creative at times; an adult may be rebellious. The only association with certain ages is in terms of importance: rebelliousness is more important for a two year old or a teenager.
May perceived the sexual mores of the 1960s and 1970s, as well as commercialization of sex and pornography, as having influenced society such that people believed that love and sex are no longer associated directly. According to May, emotion has become separated from reason, making it acceptable socially to seek sexual relationships and avoid the natural drive to relate to another person and create new life. May believed that sexual freedom can cause modern society to neglect more important psychological developments. May suggests that the only way to remedy the cynical ideas that characterize our times is to rediscover the importance of caring for another, which May describes as the opposite of apathy.
His first book, The Meaning of Anxiety, was based on his doctoral dissertation, which in turn was based on his reading of the 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard). His definition of anxiety is "the apprehension cued off by a threat to some value which the individual holds essential to his existence as a self" (1967, p. 72). He also quotes Kierkegaard: "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom". In 1956, he edited the book Existence with Ernest Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernest_Angel&action=edit&redlink=1) and Henri Ellenberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Ellenberger). Existence helped introduce existential psychology to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo_May

Anyone else a fan or like what they see?

A.R.Amistad
18th May 2010, 00:57
In addition, May theorized that the human consciousness exists in three worlds: Unwelt, Mitwelt, Eigenwelt.

Unwelt, (literally "environment-world") is the world of 'natural urges, drives, the unconscious. This can be described s the mterial world. May asserts that we as individuals are subjects in the Unwelt nd we re subject to its natural laws.

Mitwelt, (literally, "with-world") The Mitwelt is the social world. It is in the Mitwelt that we interct with society and forge meaningful relationships with other people.

Eigenwelt, (literally, "own-world") is the world of self-reflection. It is the consciousness of how things affect you and your emotions. It is the point in which one is in touch with the self.

Marxism has explained to us correctly the worlds of Umwelt and Mitwelt. In fact, historical materialism shows how the two world are connected with each other. This is why I assert 1. that Marxism and Existentialism are more than compatible and why Marxism is not completely a philosophy, or at least not one that somebody can apply to everything. It is the Eigenwelt that Marxism does not adress. And let me have it known that I do not at all think this is a drawback of Marxism. I find that most philosophies that try to adress the Eigenwelt are largely pretentious or esoteric. May asserts tht we are connected to all of these worlds equally, and correct mastery and understanding of these worlds are key to being an authentic (or "creative") individual, which of course requires labor, which the bourgeois undoubtedly knows nothing about.

Hit The North
18th May 2010, 17:41
May asserts tht we are connected to all of these worlds equally, and correct mastery and understanding of these worlds are key to being an authentic (or "creative") individual, which of course requires labor, which the bourgeois undoubtedly knows nothing about. So what happens if the Unwelt and the Mitwelt conflict with each other? In other words, what if my social roles conflict with my natural urges and what, then, is the implication for my Eigenwelt? Moreover, how do we disentangle these three dimensions from each other? How do I tell my natural urges from my socially constructed wants? Meanwhile, when I'm reflecting on my self, is it my social self or my natural self I'm reflecting on?

Meridian
18th May 2010, 17:44
How is this anything besides fiction? Perhaps these are fancy theories (even though they seem to be nothing new), but what gives us any reason to believe what Rollo May claims is correct?

A.R.Amistad
19th May 2010, 00:06
So what happens if the Unwelt and the Mitwelt conflict with each other? In other words, what if my social roles conflict with my natural urges and what, then, is the implication for my Eigenwelt? Moreover, how do we disentangle these three dimensions from each other? How do I tell my natural urges from my socially constructed wants? Meanwhile, when I'm reflecting on my self, is it my social self or my natural self I'm reflecting on?

I'd need a more concrete example, but how can you say that only your natural urges define your social status? This Freudian idea should have been buried a long time ago. Our instincts are so repressed that we hardly rely upon them at all. Our only real instincts are to eat, sleep, our libido and bodily functions.

A.R.Amistad
19th May 2010, 00:06
How is this anything besides fiction? Perhaps these are fancy theories (even though they seem to be nothing new), but what gives us any reason to believe what Rollo May claims is correct?


Could you start by explaining how this is fiction?

Hit The North
19th May 2010, 01:39
I'd need a more concrete example, but how can you say that only your natural urges define your social status? This Freudian idea should have been buried a long time ago. Our instincts are so repressed that we hardly rely upon them at all. Our only real instincts are to eat, sleep, our libido and bodily functions.

I haven't claimed that natural urges define social status. Where did that come from?

A.R.Amistad
19th May 2010, 18:37
I haven't claimed that natural urges define social status. Where did that come from?
I don't understand your argument. Where is it said that the two worlds have to be harmonious?

Hit The North
19th May 2010, 22:08
I don't understand your argument. Where is it said that the two worlds have to be harmonious?

I don't have an argument, only the questions I have levelled at you as the resident advocate of Rollo May's ideas.

Nietzsche's Ghost
22nd May 2010, 05:59
I checked out Psychology and the Human Dilemma the other day from the university library. I'm enjoying it so far. Interesting thoughts on the school system.

A.R.Amistad
23rd May 2010, 01:35
So what happens if the Unwelt and the Mitwelt conflict with each other? In other words, what if my social roles conflict with my natural urges and what, then, is the implication for my Eigenwelt? Moreover, how do we disentangle these three dimensions from each other? How do I tell my natural urges from my socially constructed wants? Meanwhile, when I'm reflecting on my self, is it my social self or my natural self I'm reflecting on?

I don't think there is a simple answer, nor is there supposed to be. Like I said, I've just come to read it and I find it to be a great take on psychology and philosophy.

Meridian
24th May 2010, 01:39
Could you start by explaining how this is fiction?
I did not mean that it was fiction specifically, I wondered why we should believe in what is presented here as it does not contain any arguments or research to back it up. Based on the Wiki you quoted it seems Rollo May invents a lot of new words, theories and definitions, but this is something everybody could do.

In short, what makes this not-bullshit?

A.R.Amistad
24th May 2010, 01:51
I did not mean that it was fiction specifically, I wondered why we should believe in what is presented here as it does not contain any arguments or research to back it up. Based on the Wiki you quoted it seems Rollo May invents a lot of new words, theories and definitions, but this is something everybody could do.

In short, what makes this not-bullshit?

Well, I don't want to degenerate into the "all philosophy is bullshit" copout, if you will, but his ideas were influenced heavily by Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Adler. Not saying this makes one a genius but he wasn't a mere daydreamer. Also, I see no problem with being an original thinker.

LimitedIdeology
24th May 2010, 05:19
If you are interested in May, you should look into Paul Tillich. Tillich was a theologian who May adopted many of his theories of anxiety and angst from, and who was a student of Tillich's at Union Theological Seminary.