我想，這個爭議，在于 Rollo May，讀到的存在主義，存有哲學，是有名的愁眉苦臉的那種，意思是說，他沒有讀到，嘲諷調侃愁眉苦臉的那種，意思是說，他讀到的是悲劇，沒有讀到悲喜劇，意思是說，可惜他不認識豬哥亮，反之，Carl Rogers，從植物學到，陽光和光合作用的重要，所謂提供生長的條件 （conditions for one to be one)，Carl Rogers 沒有學到的是絕望，意思是說，沒有絕望過的希望，讓人遺惑何以希望，
The debate between Rollo May and Carl Rogers is a significant moment in the history of humanistic psychology, as it highlighted key differences in their approaches to understanding human nature, particularly around the themes of the "dark side" of humanity.
### Context of the Debate:
Rollo May and Carl Rogers were both prominent figures in humanistic psychology, but their perspectives differed significantly. Carl Rogers is best known for his development of client-centered therapy and his emphasis on the innate goodness of people and their drive towards self-actualization. He believed that given the right conditions—such as empathy, unconditional positive regard, and congruence—people would naturally grow towards their fullest potential.
Rollo May, on the other hand, was more existential in his approach. He emphasized the complexities of human experience, including the darker aspects like anxiety, guilt, and the potential for evil. May was influenced by existentialist philosophers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre, and he believed that confronting these darker aspects of existence was crucial for personal growth and authenticity.
### The Debate:
During their debate, Rollo May criticized Carl Rogers for what he saw as an overly optimistic view of human nature. May argued that Rogers' approach tended to overlook or minimize the darker, more destructive aspects of humanity. He believed that Rogers' focus on positive potential did not fully account for the human capacity for evil, aggression, and other negative emotions.
May emphasized that human beings are not only driven by the pursuit of self-actualization and positive growth but are also capable of destructive behaviors and deep existential struggles. He argued that these aspects are just as important in understanding the human condition and that psychological theory and therapy must address them to be truly effective.
### Rogers' Response:
Carl Rogers, in response, acknowledged that he had perhaps not emphasized the darker aspects of humanity as much as May would have liked. However, Rogers did not dismiss the existence of these darker traits. Instead, he argued that his approach was not about denying the darker side of human nature but about creating conditions under which the positive, growth-oriented aspects could flourish.
Rogers believed that when people feel understood, accepted, and valued, they are more likely to confront and integrate their darker aspects, leading to greater psychological health and growth. He maintained that the core of his approach was about facilitating a process where individuals could come to terms with all aspects of themselves, including the darker ones.
### Outcome and Significance:
The debate between May and Rogers highlighted the tension between two important perspectives in psychology: the optimistic, growth-oriented view and the more existential, nuanced view that acknowledges the darker, more complex aspects of human nature. This debate remains relevant in discussions of humanistic and existential psychology, as it underscores the need to balance an understanding of both the positive potential and the darker realities of the human experience.
In essence, while May pushed for a more comprehensive acknowledgment of the darker aspects of human nature, Rogers held that his therapeutic approach implicitly addressed these issues by focusing on the conditions necessary for healthy personal growth. The debate did not result in a resolution but rather illuminated the differing emphases within humanistic psychology, contributing to a richer understanding of human nature and the complexities of therapeutic practice.
