The ebb and flow of life consists of freedom and fate, or what is and is not in our control.
We are subject to forces beyond our control. In addition, we are ignorant of the purpose of those forces to which we are subject. Can we be free despite our constrictions?
Consider what Viktor Frankl and Carl Rogers say:
Frankl’s interest in this issue arises from the question of the meaning of life. He questions whether it is at all possible to ask about the meaning of the whole, since the purpose of existence is beyond our comprehension.
We can imagine the existence of a “super-world” but this world is beyond our grasp. We are in a comparable position to animals, who cannot understand the superior world of man.
Nonetheless, we can reach out toward this super-world in religion.
Frankl expresses human experience thusly: “As we see it, an analogous relationship between the realm of human freedom and a realm superior to man is quite imaginable, so that man is endowed with free will in spite of the plans Providence may have for him – just as a domestic animal lives by its instincts even at the same time that it serves man. For man makes use of the very instincts of the animal for his own needs.” (The Doctor and the Soul, p. 32)
In contrast to the philosophical formulation of Frankl, Rogers approaches freedom versus determinism from a phenomenological standpoint. He has witnessed his clients as growing in their freedom, and he wants to understand the process they’ve gone through.
“For some time I have been perplexed over the living paradox which exists in psychotherapy between freedom and determinism. In the therapeutic relationship some of the most compelling subjective experiences are those in which the client feels within himself the power of naked choice. He is free – to become himself or to hide behind a façade; to move forward or to retrogress; to behave in ways which are destructive of self and others, or in ways which are enhancing; quite literally free to live or die, in both the physiological and psychological meaning of those terms. Yet as we enter this field of psychotherapy with objective research methods, we are, like any other scientist, committed to a complete determinism. From this point of view every thought, feeling, and action of the client is determined by what preceded it. There can be no such thing as freedom…”
“This dilemma can be seen in a fresh perspective, however, when we consider it in terms of the definition I have given of the fully functioning person. We could say that in the optimum of therapy the person rightfully experiences the most complete and absolute freedom. He wills or chooses to follow the course of action which is the most economical vector in relationship to all the internal and external stimuli, because it is that behavior which will be most deeply satisfying. But this is the same course of action which from another vantage point may be said to be determined by all the factors in the existential situation. Let us contrast this with the picture of the person who is defensively organized. He wills or chooses to follow a given course of action, but finds that he cannot behave in the fashion that he chooses. He is determined by the factors in the existential situation, but these factors include his defensiveness, his denial or distortion of some of the relevant data. Hence it is certain that his behavior will be less than fully satisfying. His behavior is determined, but he is not free to make an effective choice. The fully functioning person, on the other hand, not only experiences, but utilizes, the most absolute freedom when he spontaneously, freely, and voluntarily chooses and wills that which is also absolutely determined.” (On Becoming a Person, Carl Rogers, pp. 192-193)
What immediately comes to mind for me when reading Rogers’ last sentence is: “Make God’s will like your will, so that God will make His will like your will.” (Avot 2:4) This statement expresses not a philosophy or a phenomenological observation of an individual who has become fully functioning, but rather an imperative to be a fully functioning individual.
In a way, the comparison is not fair. Frankl is talking about freedom despite what happens to you, while Rogers is talking about freedom despite psychologically determined behavior.
However, the freedom we have to access is the same freedom, whether we are overriding external or internal deterministic forces.
The main difference between Frankl and Rogers is their context. For Rogers we use our freedom to the utmost when we allow all that is determined for us to simply be, and within that context choose what is most “satisfying.”
Within the context of what is meaningful, what is “satisfying” is not the issue. Our intrinsic freedom links us to a reality that is beyond the scope of our freedom. The “plans Providence may have for him” are beyond the scope of man’s limited awareness, yet man is free to serve God “just as the animal…serves man.”