Humans and Transcendence

Viktor Frankl wrote, Dostoevsky said once, There is still one thing that I dread: not to be worthy of my wo(e)s. These words often came to my mind after I became acquainted with those martyrs whose behaviors in camp, whose suffering and death, bore witness to the point that the last inner emancipation merchantmannot be los. It is this spiritual immunity-which cannot be taken away-that makes life purposeful and purposeful (Frankl 33). When we ask, What does it mean to be charitable? We are tossed into an historic discourse that takes the faculty of origin and the endless search for cheer as points of departure for delineate a human being.\nPhilosophers including Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche apiece(prenominal) addressed these questions, and despite their precise differences seemed to arrive at a similar conclusion: that the commentary of humanness involves the will to reason. Viktor Frankl seems to run these various propositions into an inbred brass based on intern al and conscientious liberty. For Frankl, spiritual freedom itself defines a meaningful life. This includes the index to find solace in the remembrance of the past deep down the presence of ungodly conditions, and an deathless belief in the situation of love. Yet for the purposes of this paper, a human is defined by the mightiness to will individual felicitousness by means of the avenue of reason, in whatever way it manifests for each person based on their clean-living values.\nIn seat for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant formulates that individual freedom can be attained through moral law which is accustomed over to humans a priori through reason. Acting in accordance with the supreme moral principle is freeing because it releases individuals from the causes of emotion which are not predicated on free will. By lovable with and celebrating Kants concept of ought-ness, freedom is illuminated in every(prenominal) instance. For our lives are not persistent by individual or momentary external circumstances, ...