This is both a review of the book "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl and a response to some of his ideas. Firstly, the book is definitely worth reading. For those unfamiliar with Viktor Frankl, he was a Jewish psychiatrist from Eastern Europe who was placed in a concentration camp during World War II. He suffered all the indignities of anyone in a concentration camp, without even being killed. And he used this experience to provide evidence for his therapy method, “Logotherapy,” a form of existential therapy. Many of you may already be familiar with this book, as it is often required reading in high school and many other courses. I only read this book recently. I first encountered Viktor Frankl's ideas when I took an undergraduate course called "Theories of Counseling." Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay This was a general overview of many of the greatest theories of therapy. Frankl has been mentioned as one of the main contributors to existential therapy. At the time, I wasn't really impressed by the ideas of existential theory and considered myself more of a cognitive-behavioral counselor. But although my approach is cognitive, I gathered from Frankl's story (presented briefly in the text we used) that some of his thinking was consistent with cognitive-behavioral theory. Frankl believed that although the Nazis could inflict great pain on him, take away his family and imprison him, they could not decide his fate. He had control over how he would act, react and behave. Whatever they did, he would decide his behavior and be responsible for it. This is a fundamental principle of existential therapy (as well as cognitive therapy). Existential theory proposes that the individual is empowered and responsible for his behavior. One of the goals of existential therapy is for the client to better understand themselves and what unconscious motivations contribute to decisions (especially those that are ultimately harmful) so that the individual can make informed decisions about how to be. There is an excellent story that Frankl tells in the book that highlights the importance of personal responsibility for actions. The story takes place when he and one of his peers are freed from the concentration camp and head towards the Allied forces. The peer was dragging Frankl through a field when he came across new crops. Frankl stopped, not wanting to trample the new crops. When he told his peer about it, he retorted: “Don’t say anything! And they haven't taken enough from us? My wife and child were gassed, not to mention everything else..." What I believe Frankl is saying here is that even if a grave injustice has been done to you, that is no excuse for acting out. the same way. Beyond that, if you decide to behave inappropriately, you are responsible for those actions. Frankl's goal here is not to judge the misdeeds of others, but rather to discuss how you can behave differently than you might want to. Its aim was also to help those who experienced the horrors of a concentration camp (or any other similar horror) overcome feelings of anger, resentment, bitterness and disillusionment. My intention is neither to shorten the book for you nor to explain the concepts of existential therapy, so I will move on here to my review and response to Frankl's book. First of all, I wantto reiterate that this book is an excellent read. For anyone unfamiliar with the atrocities of a concentration camp, the story of human triumph in the face of such atrocities is worth the read alone. It also provides guidelines to enable individuals to take responsibility for and give meaning to their lives. It provides a model for living above the influence of circumstances. There is so much good in this book that it is difficult to be the least bit critical. In fact, I'm not sure I'm being critical in my answer to the extent that I'm offering an alternative point of view or solution. Frankl spends much of the second half of the book examining suffering and its possible meaning. It also goes beyond what we can understand as its meaning, to a meaning we may never know (but a higher being might). He also states that “to suffer needlessly is more masochistic than heroic”. (p.113). His point throughout the book is that suffering doesn't have to be in vain, it always has meaning, you just have to assign meaning to it (considering of course that you are not suffering needlessly). There are many things in this book that relate to my philosophy of life. . I plan to add a new site soon (I'll keep my readers posted and announce its launch in a blog) dedicated to short pieces of information (rather than long blogs or articles) that will hopefully spark thought and discussion. And I've already tagged this book for several of these posts. But suffering is a subject on which I have mixed opinions. As I said above, Frankl devotes a large part of the second part of the book to this subject. And he provides wonderful arguments regarding this culture's transformation of suffering into pathology. I agree that those who have legitimate reasons to suffer should not be considered suffering from a pathology. I also agree that happiness is sold, presented as normal and probably overrepresented in the media. I also agree that those who are legitimately suffering may have reason to feel excluded when they are not happy as a result of these aforementioned depictions. Perhaps it is my affinity for the Buddhist doctrine that suffering can be overcome that leads to my disagreement with some of Frankl's thoughts on suffering. Perhaps it is my desire for everyone to find happiness in their lives that is at the root of my difficulties. Or maybe Frankl and I aren't as far apart as I thought on this point. In his book, Frankl provides numerous examples of legitimate suffering: both unimaginable (the concentration camp, a rabbi who lost his first wife and six children) and more common (a mother raising a disabled son, a losing husband his wife of many years, and others). I will never deny people their need to suffer for legitimate reasons. These are certainly terrible events that cause grief, require grieving, and need to be given the emotional fair share. There are two things that concern me. The first is that many suffer needlessly. It seems to me that many believe that martyrdom is a way of life. I have seen far too many people rejoice in being martyrs, even though they would never admit it. These people believe that they must sacrifice themselves for some reason. In short, they suffer needlessly (or for profit). The second concern is that those who suffer would benefit from recognizing that, to some extent, they choose to suffer. I'm not saying their situation wasn't forced on them (although one of my favorite quotes from EckertTolle is “Acceptance of what is…as if you chose it to be exactly as it is.” "). I'm saying that, to some extent, they choose that response. It's not necessarily unhealthy, in fact, it's often the healthiest choice. But my point is that it is a choice. When I say that Frankl and I may not be as far apart as I think, I'm referring to two things. The first is his recognition that suffering needlessly is not heroic. Perhaps my first concern is addressed in this acknowledgment. Frankl was obviously influenced by a time of immense suffering. He and many others (in fact many of those he addressed in his work) endured horrible suffering. It is true that many today endure horrible suffering. And I wouldn't want to minimize anyone's real suffering. But I still believe that much of today's suffering is unnecessary and could best be addressed through acceptance. The second reason why Frankl and I may not be as far apart as I might think is his existential view that everyone is responsible for their responses and behavior. Frankl made it clear throughout his book that individuals are responsible for their behavior, no matter what is imposed on them. If suffering is seen as a response or behavior, then the person is, to some extent, choosing to suffer. And that would solve my second concern. I would like to end this review with another quote from Eckert Tolle regarding suffering. I must admit that I am making these quotes second-hand, as I have not read his work beyond a few passages. The quote is: “Is suffering really necessary? Yes and no. If you hadn't suffered so much, there would be no depth in you as a human being, no humility, no compassion. You wouldn't be reading this now. Suffering breaks the shell of the ego, and then comes the moment when it has achieved its goal. Suffering is necessary until you realize it is unnecessary. » Ultimately, read the book. However, since you seem to ignore a great work like Viktor Frankl's, I doubt this will change your thinking. Thanks again. Ariful Hussain on July 31, 2014 at 11:11 p.m. didn't really understand Frankl's point of view. He describes how he was accompanied by one of his Jewish compatriots by Nazi prison guards. After talking with his friend, they both realize that each is thinking about his own wife. He realizes that even during such a difficult journey, immense beauty [and ultimately comfort] can come from imagining his loved ones and holding them close to his heart. All right ? but how on earth does any of this create meaning? At best, it is simply a form of illusion, probably momentary [before the prison guards start whipping you again], allowing you to focus on something other than your current suffering. This is a powerful technique. I appreciate that. I would have appreciated that that's how it was portrayed, rather than quasi-mystical gibberish about finding meaning in your life. This is not the case. It’s a way to relieve immense present pain and use the energy elsewhere. The point to note about the above story is surely that he had a loving wife in the first place who had to be imagined. What if he didn't? What about all those guys who don't have particularly meaningful social connections with others? What are they doing? Of course, they can try to find meaning [i.e. beauty] elsewhere. But if you don't bother to].