From the author: From the thesis “Features of the experience of choice in early adulthood” In his book “Life filled with meaning. Applied Logotherapy” Austrian A. Langle writes: I have not yet met a single person who would deny the fact that there is the possibility of choice in his life. Everyone is familiar with the situation when they need to make a decision and need to gather information to make the right choice. In professional activities, this experience is often acquired when it comes to thinking about what business relationships should be established, what goods to purchase, and whether this or that degree of risk is acceptable. Or, for example, some people can’t decide for a long time where to spend their vacation. And if something doesn’t satisfy them later, they blame themselves (if they made the decision themselves) or someone else (the one who made the decision for them) for not choosing a different option. Consequently, people still realize that they have or had other options and that no one forced them to make this choice. Therefore, we are talking, first of all, about the fact that each person constantly makes decisions regarding this or that situation, and not about how often we are deprived of freedom or have no choice. Man is not God or a wizard, he is free, but his freedom is human, not supernatural, and therefore limited by certain conditions, that is, freedom within certain boundaries. However, it would be a serious mistake not to recognize one’s freedom just because a person is not omnipotent, and to exclaim indignantly: “If I don’t have all the freedom, then I refuse its remnants!” Yes, a person is so free that he can make such a decision. But we need freedom that brings not despair, but the actual fulfillment of our plans. You may object: “Well, I already know that to a certain extent I am free in my daily affairs and sometimes I can make decisions for myself. Of course, I can choose where to spend my vacation, what to do on the weekend, who to meet and what to talk about... However, by Life I still understand something else. Well, why do I need freedom if I can’t do everything I want? Does this freedom have anything in common with my real life?” Many people think that they have a certain freedom only in something secondary, but in what, in fact, is life, they consider themselves limited by their upbringing and the fact that given to them from birth. Everything that has to do with their own life, in their opinion, happens on its own and develops according to its own laws. How do people explain their fundamental lack of freedom? It depends on their ideas about life. Alfried Langle distinguishes two types of people depending on their attitude to freedom of choice. Some people cannot give an exact answer to the question of why they are not free. Life for them is something confusing and meaningless, more a dream than a reality. Their ideas are so vague and far from reality that they spend their whole lives just waiting - waiting for “one day something will happen.” Not knowing what they want, they experience an unquenchable thirst for adventure and sensual experiences, and expect a fantastic turn of fate. But can real life be won in a lottery? He describes the second type of people identified by A. Lenglet as follows: these people have very specific ideas about “real life.” These are better conditions (a different profession, a different life partner, more money, etc.), better health, invulnerability in the face of various troubles, power, the ability to quickly and easily achieve what you want - in a word, these are ideas regarding the realization of desires and goals. goals in front of you. In the eyes of these people, their current existence is, at best (if they have not already lost heart) a temporary phenomenon, a preliminary step to the real life that they hope will someday come. In the meantime, they exist under the influence of the moment, and it doesn’t matter what they are doing now, becausetheir real life had not yet begun. Of course, it also happens: when the understanding comes that most of the allotted time has already been lived, a person fearfully asks himself: “How, is this all that life could offer me?!” Further, A. Langlet expands his idea: we are in the very In fact, we are not achieving something, we are not achieving something, we are constantly on the move, never feeling completely safe. We don't know what events may yet happen. Life is always open to change, and we are always waiting. What are people waiting for? - exclaims the author. And he answers his own question based on the previously stated typology: those who consider themselves unfree passively wait for life itself to fulfill their desires. Those who think they have a decisive influence on their lives wait for the right conditions to transform them. Life gives us the freedom to decide how to relate to it. Therefore, many people wait for the fulfillment of their desires, as if they want to finally receive a gift from life. Hidden in such an immature position is a child's desire to be provided for and fed by your parents. No fewer people consider the fulfillment of desires to be a legitimate requirement of life. In their minds, the fact that they were placed unbidden into this life gives them the right to demand the best conditions for themselves. (to avoid misunderstandings, the author emphasizes that we are talking about claims and demands for life, and not about the legitimate demands of social, human justice.) Both those who passively wait and those who actively demand want to have something, afraid at the same time... to lose. The threat of loss accompanies them throughout their lives, and no matter how hard they try to prevent it, loss inevitably occurs, in extreme cases, on their deathbed. But there are also those (these people are not included in this typology of A. Langle) who choose the “existential path”: they are primarily concerned not with the opportunity to have more, but with the process itself; for them it is important at every moment to “perform as best as possible.” a symphony of your life on the musical instruments of reality.” Their expectation is not limited to the fulfillment of desires and satisfaction of needs, it is open to what is happening. Such people accept everything that life throws at them with calm interest; they are simply interested in how they will cope with the next challenge, what they can do in the given conditions. Further, the author notes that just as a house is built from bricks, our life is made up of many small decisions, right and wrong. The latest decisions are based on numerous layers of previous decisions, those that may have already been erased from memory. But nevertheless, they determine the opportunities that open up to us today, expanding or limiting them, and set the direction for subsequent decisions. If, for example, someone, out of pure curiosity or angry at the hardships of life, turns to alcohol or drugs, then for the first time he makes this decision quite freely. Over time, however, dependence and automatism develop, which increasingly narrow freedom. With the repeated repetition of certain actions - it does not matter whether a person has to answer for them or not, some life paths are laid out and become habitual, while other roads become overgrown. A. Langlet warns us: we should never forget that freedom has its own history. The psychotherapist suggests that people will be surprised or even frightened if you think how often in just one day, in just one single hour, you come into contact with your world and with yourself and how often you actually make decisions - spontaneously, without much thought. In fact, every minute contains different possibilities, among which we continuously choose until we settle on one. This is how we “make” our lives, each our own - after all, what we come into contact with and what we are doing now is precisely what our life represents at this minute, at this hour. And this hour will forever remain exactly the way we spent it, and will never change. The ability to choose according to your opinionLange, this is a gift and a requirement at the same time. Next, he speaks out about the dialogism of responsibility and freedom of choice. Opening up opportunities and space for a person to organize his life, she at the same time persistently demands decisions from him. Even in situations in which we are not inclined one way or the other, the decision is still made, namely: to choose nothing. Someday later a person will remember that situation with pride or, perhaps, with sadness, realizing that he was free to choose. Everything that a person has done and refused has been done by him - on his own initiative, at his own discretion, he chose one thing and rejected another - and he is responsible for his decisions. Wherever a person is free, he is responsible. Next, the author lists a number of excuses used by people not to make a choice. He divides them into those that boil down to conformism - or to totalitarianism. As for conformist excuses, in his opinion, many people justify themselves by saying that a) it was impossible to do otherwise: b) because today this is the order of things and you don’t want to look worse than others... c) that everyone does this, yes besides, burning) once is the same as never... Although such excuses can be heard from people of any age, in the therapist’s experience, the conformist position of “being like everyone else” is mainly characteristic of young people. There are also people who believe that behaving this way, and not otherwise, they are forced by certain forces. This is the second type of excuse, after conformist - the totalitarian type. In this case, a person yields to external or internal pressure that narrows his freedom of action. Depending on the circumstances, these may be: a) social conditions, b) political or economic situation, c) production necessity, d) the strength of one’s own desires and inclinations, which cannot be resisted, e) parental education. In this case, we are not talking about joining to someone else’s opinion in the absence of one’s own, but about the fact that a person feels subject to pressure and gives in to it. Of course, upbringing has - and should have an influence on a person. However, one's own independent life begins only when a person takes a conscious position regarding the influence that his upbringing has had on him, and decides whether he can say “yes” to what he was taught in childhood. The person is forced to make a decision in any case, and what method of avoiding freedom he will prefer - “conformist” (“everyone does it”) or “totalitarian” (“I was forced”) - is ultimately also his decision. Further, A. Langlet touches on the topic of the lack of means that can help us in decision making. In his opinion, this has become a special problem, a spiritual disaster of our time. Viktor Frankl describes it succinctly and precisely: “Unlike an animal, instincts do not dictate to a person what he needs to do. And, unlike the people of yesterday, traditions no longer tell modern man what he is obliged to do. Without knowing what he needs and not knowing what he should, a person truly does not know what he, in fact, wants. What follows from this? Or he only wants what others do, and this is conformity. Or vice versa: he does only what others want from him, and then we have totalitarianism." Finding himself alone with his freedom without internal guidelines for making decisions, a person experiences anxiety and fear, because he falls into the power of blind chance, becomes a pawn in the hands of circumstances. He becomes completely dependent on the unpredictable dictates of the moment, feels abandoned to the mercy of fate. Some people, notes A. Lenglet, in a situation where there are no guidelines for making decisions, they grab onto the illusion of freedom, believing that they will be truly free if they start doing “everything” whatever they want." But, not having his own guidelines and therefore not knowing what he really wants, such a person also finds himself entirely at the mercy of external circumstances or his own internal impulses beyond his control. He decides to do something withoutfor any reason and is constantly waiting for what His Majesty Chance will throw at him. Anyone who strives only for what comes to his mind under the influence of an impulse, in fact, rejects his freedom simply in order to get rid of it. Next, we present the development of Alfried Lange regarding the technique of making the right decisions. This is preceded by two stages.1 . Receiving the information. It is necessary to know the state of affairs, imagine what the decision is being made and what choices exist in a given situation.2. Determining the subjective significance of information. Each opportunity is analyzed and weighed in terms of its importance and value. These steps provide a realistic orientation to the circumstances as a prerequisite for decision making. When making decisions, a person can also focus on religious values, philosophical systems, ideologies, and group opinions. If fear, fanaticism or extravagance are not involved in following them, then here, too, decision-making is still preceded by the stages of obtaining information and determining its significance. So, before making a decision, you need to imagine possible options. According to the founder of the third Viennese school of psychotherapy, in each specific situation only one path is the best for a person. There is a hierarchy of values ​​in both the positive and negative spheres. Costs, unforeseen consequences, shadow sides, hidden dangers that must be taken into account can be expressed in very different degrees. Free existence involves comparing various circumstances, determining their meaning and value, separating the best from the good, the harmless from the harmful. Thanks to such discrimination, from among the many possibilities, the only chance available at a given moment in time begins to emerge, crystallize, as a result of which the decision often becomes self-evident. By using this unique chance, choosing this opportunity over all others and making a decision based on it, a person makes his life more complete. By choosing one opportunity, highlighting it among others, he makes this opportunity “special.” By doing this, analyzing and weighing, a person can navigate any situation and find a reasonable and internally appropriate direction for the next stage of life. The author emphasizes how important it is to “get the best” out of a situation. The reality that surrounds us is waiting to be processed and “improved” by our actions. Next, A. Langlet touches on the dangers that freedom of choice and two opposite options for an ineffective response to such a situation pose. On the one hand, this is an existential vacuum, and on the other hand, it is helplessness when it comes to making a decision. So, due to freedom, understood as the absence of responsibilities, a person can experience feelings of loss, internal emptiness, an existential vacuum, and as a result cling to an ersatz form of freedom. Now we discover a different kind of danger: a person can become confused among the abundance of interests and opportunities and therefore become helpless. He is faced with the painful problem of choice, he must make a decision. Can a person have too much freedom when he has to choose from many interesting and favorable opportunities? In contrast to the state of internal emptiness and lack of interests, here the situation is completely different - there is no trace of an existential vacuum, life becomes rich and saturated. Human freedom itself has remained the same, but the intensity and fullness of life are completely different. Now we would like to point out the “human factor” in decision-making, as Alfried Langle considers it. Making a decision depends on the person who makes it. Not all people see the opportunities available to the same extent. The same reality is perceived and assessed differently by two people with different life experiences; in addition, people differ in their