Fear or Love Failed Events

We propose that we make decisions following our failed events based on two and only two major criteria – fear or love. In the Middle Ages, fear and love of a god played a major role in determining one’s happiness, morality, ethics and ultimately where one’s soul would end up following mortal existence. Existentialism is a natural connection for addressing the root of the fear/love dichotomy. In its purest form, existentialism assumes that we all exist to be completely free and therefore responsible for our actions. Through this responsibility we create meaning in our lives, contrary to many religions that impose qualities of life upon people (i.e., if you are good, then the gods will shine down on you; if you are bad, then a god shall smite you). The following section presents a connection between fear and love in an existential arena using notable philosophers, who have made connections on these two critical parameters. The father of existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855, philosopher and theologian) provided his thoughts on fear and love in his proposal to take a “leap of faith”. He questioned how a person would believe in God or act in love. Faith is the absence of evidence; it follows that faith is needed if one is to fully commit to either a god or love. He further postulated that in order to truly have faith, one must have doubt (this is another parallel to love and fear), as the doubt is the rational part of the pair (possibly fear is the analogous rational part of the love-fear pair). The doubt is needed to validate the faith. If one has no doubt, then one can say one ‘knows’ god or love, but not that one has faith. This is more than semantics. Whether we base our decisions on love or fear, both of these have their own variance of doubt. Doubt, like a failed event, is good, because it encourages its counterparts that we need to address failed events: self-reflection, self-regulation, social learning. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), was a nineteenth century German existential philosopher, whose ideology centered around the believe that “God is dead.” He believed one cannot posses love and fear simultaneously (these ideas were proposed long before to his mental breakdown, which has been attributed to everything from a stroke, to syphilis, to brain cancer and even his own philosophy on life). Nietzsche’s approach seems to support the need to select either fear or love on which to base our decisions. Although it is not explicit, the possibility of wavering between the two is plausible. Realizing that these two powerful emotive responses are at opposite ends of the spectrum (many believe that the opposite of love is hate; and of fear, safety), provides an insight for us to re-evaluate how we consider these issues in our processing of life’s events. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980, a French atheist and existentialist philosopher, novelist, and political activist) had a more subtle direction towards the love/fear paradigm, taking a rather non-emotive perspective. His view may be due to his solitary upbringing by his mother, Anne-Marie Schweitzer, cousin of Nobel prize laureate Albert Schweitzer. His political viewpoint was favorable to communism. He befriended Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, whom he later referred to as “the most complete human being of our age,” and he noted that “he lived his words, spoke his own actions and his story and the story of the world ran parallel.” This summary could lead us to view Guevara as a person who made his decisions based on the passion for freedom of all people in the world, not solely for a particular country or cause. Sartre does address fear in the tone of hate in his book Anti-Semite and Jew, explaining the causation of hate in the analysis of antisemitism. As opposed to Kierkegaard’s ‘leap of faith’, Sartre wrote on “bad faith”, which he envisioned as the battle between oppressive religion and a “way of being”, which is akin to a Zen-like existence. Paul Tillich (1886-1965, theologian, theistic existentialist and author of The Courage to Be (1952)), framed the question of fear and love in an existential perspective by associating the human existence with not only the discipline of philosophy, but the idea of ontology or the study of ‘being’. The philosophical portion of this equation develops the reaction side, or questions and the theological part, the product side or answers. However, he recognized the need for failure in that both of these parameters should be taken into full consideration, although they seldom are (his idea of “ultimate concern”). Thus, the conflict between simply ‘being’ and the Christian doctrine of dictating ‘being’ and roles becomes the existential dilemma. Selecting whether we determine our philosophy on ‘being’ based on love or fear is an essential ingredient governing the outcomes of our decisions. Carl Jung’s (1875-1961) essay, Symbols and the Interpretation of Dreams, explored the concept of the ‘collective unconscious’ turned into a fearful experience. While visiting Africa, he became fearful that he might ultimately lose control of himself under the influence of the tribal drums of African music. This experience was captured in Peter Gabriel’s song, Rhythm of the Heat, originally called Jung in Africa, from the Security album in 1982. “Self-conscious, uncertain I’m showered with the dust The spirit enter into me And I submit to trust.” (Gabriel, 1982) Jung’s realization of fear as a motivating, powerful decision-maker contrasts with the African people who choose to immerse themselves into the music, most likely out of love or at least love of the endemic culture behind the music. An interesting and serendipitous connection to this chapter is that Jung’s work focused on the importance of balance and harmony, although the Tao was not overtly cited in any of his work. He suggested that people may depend more on an analytical approach to love and fear, when they would be better served by finding a way to allow more spirituality into their lives. Therefore, his perspective on love and fear encouraged a holistic viewpoint, which challenges a person to become uncomfortable with her life, possibly embracing fear as a part of moving towards decisions based on love and making the connections between our conscious and unconscious. Another example of theorists’ and philosophers’ views of love and fear comes from the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha (563 BCE – 483 BCE) or “awakened one”. Buddha was known for his ability be peaceful in any type of situation and it was widely understood that he could not be instigated into losing his temper. One day, a person decided to determine whether Buddha’s tolerance was real. For many days, the person aggravated and bothered Buddha, however, even after many days, there was no change in Buddha’s temperament. So, the person upon giving up, asked Buddha, how can you maintain such peace? Buddha replied, “If someone offered you a gift, and you chose to not accept that gift, who would the gift belong to?” Of course the person replied that the gift would remain the property of the giver. “Exactly”, said Buddha. The question we can ask ourselves is “what type of gifts do we have to give and what gifts do we accept – those derived from love or fear?” And subsequently, which of those gifts typically lead to productive, healthy failed events, and which lead to less-than optimal events? Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) political philosopher, whose name is synonymous with doing anything and everything one can in pursuit of a goal, regardless of morals or whom is hurt, offers a unique belief on fear and love. In his philosophy, an attribute such as cruelty supports a natural order within a system and creates an environment of fear when needed. Ultimately, he asks, it is better to be loved or feared? He encourages that a moderation of love and fear is desirable, but for the most part, arriving at this equilibrium is typically much too challenging for success. If you are forced to select one, “it is much safer to be feared than loved.” Fear is more powerful due to its enduring effect, and remains intact within our schema. The intent here is not to endorse or rationalize a particular viewpoint between love and fear, but to share an easy choice, the choice of safety. Publicly most would say that love is the best choice, although when this dichotomy is closely and honestly examined, we see that fear is most likely the favored choice.