A Comparative Study of Unity-Oriented Psychology and Existential Psychology: The Encounter of Innatist and Phenomenalist Meaning-Based Approaches

The existential psychology is based on phenomenological philosophy. In this approach, the world has no meaning and is futile. What makes man distinguished from other creatures is his freedom and ability to choose. Psychological assumptions in this approach include human freedom, death anxiety, and humanism. In contrast, the unity-oriented psychology approach maintains that human nature has a purposive existence with a unity-oriented meaning and intention, and has founded its psychological assumptions on the basis of a unity-oriented nature, as well as the motivation of love, attachment and immortality of mankind. In this approach, the universe is not futile and vain, has inherent meaning, and each person, with his own unique characteristics is the creator of the story and meaning of his life. The purpose of this research was to answer these questions: What is the ontological nature of human existence, his cognition, motivation, and purpose? How is the analysis process in the native approach of unity-oriented psychology? And, what are the conceptual differences between this approach and the existential approach with regard to these indices? Unity-oriented psychology does not see human as a disposed object thrown away into the universe, and accounts human nature and psychological motives as a derivation of his love, connection, and attachment to the universe of unity that gives life a divine meaning and purpose. Therefore, the psychological interventions of the phenomenalist approach have little success or justification in the innatist and religious societies.