Affiliation:
1. School of Arts, Humanities, and Technology, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, USA
Abstract
This paper defends resilience in bereavement by way of responding to two prominent objections in the contemporary philosophical literature. Resilience in bereavement pertains to the ability to return to one’s functional and emotional baselines in a comparatively short period after the death of a loved one. Contrary to what Moller thinks, resilience is compatible with having a deep appreciation for the deceased loved one. Appealing to the example of Zhuangzi’s grieving of his wife, I argue that the agony of grief is assuaged as one comes to terms with one’s loss through a realization of the universality and inevitability of death. This can be so even as one continues to appreciate the significance of what one has lost. Also, contrary to Smuts’ view, resilience does not indicate a failure to care. Although the resilient is free from prolonged and intense grief, she could continue to care for the deceased by constructing a new relationship with her and contributing to this relationship in ways that are appropriate to it. This view is further corroborated by empirical bereavement research. According to the continuing bonds theory, healthy grief is resolved by establishing changed ties with the deceased rather than detaching ourselves from them.
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference45 articles.
1. Bonanno, G.A. (2009). The Other Side of Sadness, Basic Books.
2. Masten, A. (2014). Ordinary Magic: Resilience in Development, The Guilford Press.
3. Love and Death;Moller;J. Philos.,2007
4. Michael, C. (2015). Immortality and the Philosophy of Death, Rowman and Littlefield.
5. Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge University Press.