What do you think?
Rate this book
The Will to Meaning: Foundations and Applications of Logotherapy
From the author of Man's Search for Meaning, one of the most influential works of psychiatric literature since Freud."Perhaps the most significant thinker since Freud and Adler," said The American Journal of Psychiatry about Europe's leading existential psychologist, the founder of logotherapy.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
About the author
Viktor E. Frankl
192 books6,793 followersViktor Emil Frankl M.D., Ph.D., was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist as well as a Holocaust survivor. Frankl was the founder of logotherapy, which is a form of Existential Analysis, the "Third Viennese School" of psychotherapy.
His book Man's Search for Meaning (first published under a different title in 1959: From Death-Camp to Existentialism. Originally published in 1946 as Ein Psycholog erlebt das Konzentrationslager) chronicles his experiences as a concentration camp inmate and describes his psychotherapeutic method of finding meaning in all forms of existence, even the most sordid ones, and thus a reason to continue living. He was one of the key figures in existential therapy.
Associated Names:
Viktors E. Frankls
Виктор Франкл (Russian)
His book Man's Search for Meaning (first published under a different title in 1959: From Death-Camp to Existentialism. Originally published in 1946 as Ein Psycholog erlebt das Konzentrationslager) chronicles his experiences as a concentration camp inmate and describes his psychotherapeutic method of finding meaning in all forms of existence, even the most sordid ones, and thus a reason to continue living. He was one of the key figures in existential therapy.
Associated Names:
Viktors E. Frankls
Виктор Франкл (Russian)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews
December 29, 2010
As one of my colleagues first suggested, Viktor Frankl's writings are actually philosophical even though he was a psychiatrist and neurologist by profession. While this book is clearly not a textbook on applied logotherapy, it does provide a good theoretical framework for logotherapy and is worth reading for that alone. It is less autobiographical than Man's Search for Meaning and may disappoint some who are looking for emotional impact. However, for those who are looking to deepen their understanding of Frankl's concept of meaning it's a must read. Personally, I found the distinction between being and meaning on pages 51 and 52 and the concept of 'dimensional ontology' on pages 22 to 30 particularly valuable.
Also, Frankl is a man who clearly understands his place in psychology (Freud - will to pleasure, Adler - will to power, Frankl - will to meaning). Frankl's comparison of his work to that of Freud, Adler, and others helped put the development of psychology as a discipline in perspective.
In defence of Frankl, readers who see his as self-promotion are underestimating the momentous undertaking of bringing to bear a more humanizing approach to psychotherapy. I assert that Frankl knew that logotherapy would never become part of the psychology establishment.
Also, Frankl is a man who clearly understands his place in psychology (Freud - will to pleasure, Adler - will to power, Frankl - will to meaning). Frankl's comparison of his work to that of Freud, Adler, and others helped put the development of psychology as a discipline in perspective.
In defence of Frankl, readers who see his as self-promotion are underestimating the momentous undertaking of bringing to bear a more humanizing approach to psychotherapy. I assert that Frankl knew that logotherapy would never become part of the psychology establishment.
January 6, 2009
I finished reading Viktor Frankl's book "Man's Search for Meaning", and then started looking for more of his books to read. This books is EXCELLENT and I would recommend it for reading after "Man's Search for Meaning". I am already starting on a 2nd reading.
This book is more of an indepth explanation of Frankl's approach to psychology called "Logotherapy". The book is made up of a set of lectures given at SMU in 1966 by way of introduction and explanation of Logotherapy.
Logotherapy is based on the following three concepts --1. freedom of will, 2. will to meaning, and 3. meaning of life. Frankl believes that "life holds a meaning for each and every individual, and even more, it retains this meaning literally to his last breath. The psychiatrist can show his patient that life never ceases to have a meaning. To be sure, he cannot show his patient WHAT the meaning is, but he may well show him that THERE IS a meaning, and that life retains it; that it remains meaningful, under any conditions. As logotherapy teaches, even the tragic and negative aspects of life, such as unavoidable suffering, can be turned into a human achievement by the attitude which a man adopts toward his predicament. In contrast to most of the existentialist schools of thought, logotherapy is in no way pessimistic; but it is realistic in that it faces the tragic triad of human existence: pain, death, and guilt. Logotherapy may justly be called optimistic, because it shows the patient how to transform despair into triumph."
This book is excellent because it DOES face reality, and shows you that your attitude towards your circumstances can transform suffering into a hopeful achievement. Frankl's experiences in the Nazi concentration camps lends such an incredible validity to his observations, and each chapter builds on his wisdom.
This book is more of an indepth explanation of Frankl's approach to psychology called "Logotherapy". The book is made up of a set of lectures given at SMU in 1966 by way of introduction and explanation of Logotherapy.
Logotherapy is based on the following three concepts --1. freedom of will, 2. will to meaning, and 3. meaning of life. Frankl believes that "life holds a meaning for each and every individual, and even more, it retains this meaning literally to his last breath. The psychiatrist can show his patient that life never ceases to have a meaning. To be sure, he cannot show his patient WHAT the meaning is, but he may well show him that THERE IS a meaning, and that life retains it; that it remains meaningful, under any conditions. As logotherapy teaches, even the tragic and negative aspects of life, such as unavoidable suffering, can be turned into a human achievement by the attitude which a man adopts toward his predicament. In contrast to most of the existentialist schools of thought, logotherapy is in no way pessimistic; but it is realistic in that it faces the tragic triad of human existence: pain, death, and guilt. Logotherapy may justly be called optimistic, because it shows the patient how to transform despair into triumph."
This book is excellent because it DOES face reality, and shows you that your attitude towards your circumstances can transform suffering into a hopeful achievement. Frankl's experiences in the Nazi concentration camps lends such an incredible validity to his observations, and each chapter builds on his wisdom.
March 30, 2021
This is a more in-depth discussion of logotherapy and contains many moving case studies. Frankl was an amazing man, with a forgiving, humane nature. We could all do worse than attempt to emulate his lifelong example.
September 5, 2020
فرانکل تو این کتاب قصد داره به توضیح معنا درمانی بپردازه و مفاهیم مهم این نظریه رو توضیح بده.
این کتاب آشنایی کلی خوبی در مورد این رویکرد میده اما چندان ذهنیتی در مورد شیوه درمان ایجاد نمیکنه. فرانکل تو کتاب نوشتن، داستانپرداز و فیلسوف خوبیه ولی به عنوان یه روانشناس به نظرم چندان خوب عمل نکرده. در واقع خیلی ذهنی و درهم همه چیز رو توضیح داده بود.
در مجموع بد نبود.
--------------------
یادگاری از کتاب:
مفهومی که معنا درمانی از انسان ارائه میدهد بر سه پایه استوار است: آزادی اراده، معناجویی و معنای زندگی.
...
لذت هرگز هدف تلاشهای انسان نیست، بلکه اثر و یا دقیقتر بگویم اثر جنبی دستیابی به هدف است.
...
خودشکوفایی نیز مانند سعادت پیامد یافتن معنای زندگی است.
...
انسان هر چه هست به علت هدفی است که برای خود مشخص کرده است.
...
آلبرت انیشتین میگوید: «انسانی که زندگیاش را بیمعنا میپندارد، نه فقط غمگین است، بلکه زیستن هم برایش دشوار میشود.»
...
هیلل که دو هزار سال قبل زندگی میکرد گفته است، «اگر من این کار را نکنم، چه کسی آن را انجام خواهد داد؟ و اگر هم اکنون این کار را نکنم، چه زمانی باید بکنم؟ اما اگر قرار باشد کاری را فقط به خاطر خودم انجام دهم، من چیستم؟»
...
در مواردی که معناجویی بینتیجه میماند، لذتطلبی نه تنها منشأ معناجویی بلکه جایگزین آن نیز میشود.
این کتاب آشنایی کلی خوبی در مورد این رویکرد میده اما چندان ذهنیتی در مورد شیوه درمان ایجاد نمیکنه. فرانکل تو کتاب نوشتن، داستانپرداز و فیلسوف خوبیه ولی به عنوان یه روانشناس به نظرم چندان خوب عمل نکرده. در واقع خیلی ذهنی و درهم همه چیز رو توضیح داده بود.
در مجموع بد نبود.
--------------------
یادگاری از کتاب:
مفهومی که معنا درمانی از انسان ارائه میدهد بر سه پایه استوار است: آزادی اراده، معناجویی و معنای زندگی.
...
لذت هرگز هدف تلاشهای انسان نیست، بلکه اثر و یا دقیقتر بگویم اثر جنبی دستیابی به هدف است.
...
خودشکوفایی نیز مانند سعادت پیامد یافتن معنای زندگی است.
...
انسان هر چه هست به علت هدفی است که برای خود مشخص کرده است.
...
آلبرت انیشتین میگوید: «انسانی که زندگیاش را بیمعنا میپندارد، نه فقط غمگین است، بلکه زیستن هم برایش دشوار میشود.»
...
هیلل که دو هزار سال قبل زندگی میکرد گفته است، «اگر من این کار را نکنم، چه کسی آن را انجام خواهد داد؟ و اگر هم اکنون این کار را نکنم، چه زمانی باید بکنم؟ اما اگر قرار باشد کاری را فقط به خاطر خودم انجام دهم، من چیستم؟»
...
در مواردی که معناجویی بینتیجه میماند، لذتطلبی نه تنها منشأ معناجویی بلکه جایگزین آن نیز میشود.
December 20, 2016
بغض النظر إذا كنت أختلف مع كل ما جاء في هذا الكتاب، أو أتفق، ومع وجود تلك الثغرات في منطقه، إلا أن الطرح جاء شبه مكرر، ورتيب شيئاً ما، ولا يختلف في النقاط الأساسية عن كتابه
"الإنسان يبحث عن معنى".
2.5
نجمتان ونصف .. لنفس العبارات التي شدت انتباهي وجاءت بنمط مشابه في كتابه الآخر :)
"الإنسان يبحث عن معنى".
2.5
نجمتان ونصف .. لنفس العبارات التي شدت انتباهي وجاءت بنمط مشابه في كتابه الآخر :)
March 9, 2016
كان رائع في بداياته خصوصاً جزئية أطوار أو أبعاد الانسان.. ثم أصبح تكرار لكتابه الآخر الانسان يبحث عن المعنى..
August 16, 2011
During my Psychology 202 class, I had to write a review of a psychology-related textbook as an essay. (It may have been an extra credit assignment, I don't quite remember; but honestly, for me "extra credit" is just another required assignment.) Here's that essay:
The Will to Meaning
Many advances in science and medicine—and particularly the medical sciences of the mind—come not as a fully formed revolution, but as a synthesis of prior thought, which transcends the boundaries of those thoughts and produces a revolutionary step. Such a situation can be seen in the work of Viktor E. Frankl, the famous Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist, in his “logotherapy” school of thought. The differences between his approach and prior approaches—particularly the Freudian will to pleasure (a.k.a. “pleasure principle”) and the Adlerian will to power (appropriated from Nietzsche)—are quite subtle to those who have never heard of them, and this is very likely the reason why he spends the first half of “The Will to Meaning: Foundations and Applications of Logotherapy” explaining the precise philosophical framework which underlies his school.
Frankl draws on a multitude of sources, including the semi-geometric metaphors of “dimensional anthropology,” religious teaching, personal experience, and direct reference from peer-reviewed journals, to help us understand precisely what he means by having a will, the result of that will (the titular “will to meaning”), and those things with which the human will must contend in the search for meaning. Time and again, he stresses that the vast majority of psychological theory and therapy has been focused on reifying the individual—on the reductionist idea of humans as nothing more than machines trying to reach equilibrium, of mental disorder as being a kind of fault that must be repaired—a focus and interpretation he believes is counter to the purpose of therapy, that is, healing. Instead, he suggests that we humanize psychology, that we treat patients with human dignity and respect, as beings with will and intention (although these be disordered), rather than as mere things acted upon by environment or training.
From there, he shifts his focus to the place which meaning has in the “spirit” of man—not in the “spirituality” of man, which he leaves to the prerogative of the patient, but the “essence” of man in the philosophical sense, that which makes us human. Frankl puts fort that not only is the search for meaning the primary goal of life, but that the typically stated goals by prior psychotherapy schools are merely the by-products of this search: the “pleasure principle” is the effect of achieving meaning, and the “will to power” is one method by which meaning is achieved. Trying to make these by-products into the ultimate goal merely frustrates the patient and compounds the error, hence why someone who is highly successful (in the author’s examples, a businessman or a playboy) can still experience pathological despair in the midst of fulfilling the will to power or will to pleasure, while a prisoner on death row can experience fulfillment in the midst of objective failure as far as power and pleasure are concerned. The combination of excessive reductionism and grasping after effects when one should be seeking causes has created fertile ground for what Frankl considers the major psychological issue of our time: the incredible expansion of the “existential vacuum,” a void without meanings to fall back on, an expansion perpetuated and accelerated by the nature of the modern global zeitgeist, in both East and West.
Having established that these neuroses can exist—that a frustration of “spirit,” of meaning, a.k.a. noogenic disorder can be a pathological condition in its own right in comparison to physiochemical (“somatogenic”) and mental/emotional (“psychogenic”)—he proceeds to discussing when and how it is appropriate to apply logotherapy. At the very outset, he establishes that there are different therapies for different disorders with good reason—logotherapy is not a “silver bullet,” though it can serve a therapeutic purpose in its native dimension (noogenic disorders) as well as in other dimensions. Two techniques are central to the logotherapeutic process: “paradoxical intention,” or intending to cause the problematic effect and thereby causing its opposite, and “dereflection,” or ceasing to look inward at the self and thereby look outward at the world. These two techniques can be used separately or in concert to defuse a number of psychogenic disorders, particularly phobias, addictions, and obsessive-compulsive-type behavior, especially when used alongside other treatment methods for possible cofactors (e.g. thyroid issues inducing a tendency to agoraphobia).
Overall, my thoughts on the book were deep and varied. Firstly, the initial section about framing logotherapy, meaning-therapy, struck me (perhaps ironically) as “nothing new.” I’ve read theories very much in the same vein by an author who never had any training in psychiatry, psychology, neurology, or indeed any major medical or scientific study—a professor of languages named C. S. Lewis. Ideas like how seeking pleasure is a self-defeating effort because pleasure is a byproduct, not an aim, or the unique human position of being worthy of feeling guilt and responsible for handling that feeling, occur more than once in Lewis’ thought. Of course, it was both helpful and refreshing to hear these thoughts from someone with a very different background, someone genuinely trained to heal disorders of the mind, but all through the first section I had a nagging feeling that Frankl was merely replicating the thought of another. (I am absolutely certain that both Frankl and Lewis came to their ideas independently, but the feeling existed despite this.) In either event, I could at least feel a resonance with the general goal and intent of Frankl’s work.
Fortunately, other aspects of his initial discussion were much more useful to me, such as his notes and figures relating to “dimensional anthropology.” Giving these ideas the weight of images assisted me in turning words to concepts, which has been difficult for me in some areas of philosophy. I also greatly enjoyed the opposition to the “reductionist” efforts in psychology, psychiatry, and other sciences. My experience has been that many scientists overzealously pursue their areas of expertise—not that zealous pursuit of knowledge is a problem. It is more a matter that, as Frankl says, “We are living in the age of specialists, and this takes its toll. I would define a specialist as a man who no longer sees the forest of truth for the trees of facts,” (page 20, emphasis in original). Seeing this issue clearly and honestly laid out in specific terms, not to judge but instead to provide insight in dealing with issues of the modern day, I felt very heartened and personally appreciated.
In the second section, where the actual application of logotherapy is discussed, I could not help but laugh at some of the anecdotes. Cognitively, I understand the gravity of the issues presented—compulsive gambling and agoraphobia, for example, are anything but trivial issues—but the actual use of things like the technique of paradoxical intention produced a laugh (which may in fact have been his intent). For example, one patient at Frankl’s clinic, suffering from agoraphobia, feared he’d collapse in the street if he left his house—his therapist then told him, "Tell yourself that yesterday you had two heart attacks, and today you have time to get three--it's still early in the morning. Tell yourself that you will have a nice, fat coronary, and a stroke to boot." Through this paradoxical intent, he was able to overcome his fear of fear, and then the fear itself. As a whole, the second section was equally as enjoyable and educational as the first, but in a more personal way, whereas the first was more theoretical and philosophic. I definitely think I’ve profited from the reading, and will work to apply Frankl’s recommendations to my own life and to those around me who may need help.
Now, that being said--this was an essay written for a class, so it's probably not the best review possible. The important thing here is that I definitely felt that Frankl had something very important to say--something that has been said by others before him--and that his credentials give us another good reason to listen to what these people have said.
The Will to Meaning
Many advances in science and medicine—and particularly the medical sciences of the mind—come not as a fully formed revolution, but as a synthesis of prior thought, which transcends the boundaries of those thoughts and produces a revolutionary step. Such a situation can be seen in the work of Viktor E. Frankl, the famous Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist, in his “logotherapy” school of thought. The differences between his approach and prior approaches—particularly the Freudian will to pleasure (a.k.a. “pleasure principle”) and the Adlerian will to power (appropriated from Nietzsche)—are quite subtle to those who have never heard of them, and this is very likely the reason why he spends the first half of “The Will to Meaning: Foundations and Applications of Logotherapy” explaining the precise philosophical framework which underlies his school.
Frankl draws on a multitude of sources, including the semi-geometric metaphors of “dimensional anthropology,” religious teaching, personal experience, and direct reference from peer-reviewed journals, to help us understand precisely what he means by having a will, the result of that will (the titular “will to meaning”), and those things with which the human will must contend in the search for meaning. Time and again, he stresses that the vast majority of psychological theory and therapy has been focused on reifying the individual—on the reductionist idea of humans as nothing more than machines trying to reach equilibrium, of mental disorder as being a kind of fault that must be repaired—a focus and interpretation he believes is counter to the purpose of therapy, that is, healing. Instead, he suggests that we humanize psychology, that we treat patients with human dignity and respect, as beings with will and intention (although these be disordered), rather than as mere things acted upon by environment or training.
From there, he shifts his focus to the place which meaning has in the “spirit” of man—not in the “spirituality” of man, which he leaves to the prerogative of the patient, but the “essence” of man in the philosophical sense, that which makes us human. Frankl puts fort that not only is the search for meaning the primary goal of life, but that the typically stated goals by prior psychotherapy schools are merely the by-products of this search: the “pleasure principle” is the effect of achieving meaning, and the “will to power” is one method by which meaning is achieved. Trying to make these by-products into the ultimate goal merely frustrates the patient and compounds the error, hence why someone who is highly successful (in the author’s examples, a businessman or a playboy) can still experience pathological despair in the midst of fulfilling the will to power or will to pleasure, while a prisoner on death row can experience fulfillment in the midst of objective failure as far as power and pleasure are concerned. The combination of excessive reductionism and grasping after effects when one should be seeking causes has created fertile ground for what Frankl considers the major psychological issue of our time: the incredible expansion of the “existential vacuum,” a void without meanings to fall back on, an expansion perpetuated and accelerated by the nature of the modern global zeitgeist, in both East and West.
Having established that these neuroses can exist—that a frustration of “spirit,” of meaning, a.k.a. noogenic disorder can be a pathological condition in its own right in comparison to physiochemical (“somatogenic”) and mental/emotional (“psychogenic”)—he proceeds to discussing when and how it is appropriate to apply logotherapy. At the very outset, he establishes that there are different therapies for different disorders with good reason—logotherapy is not a “silver bullet,” though it can serve a therapeutic purpose in its native dimension (noogenic disorders) as well as in other dimensions. Two techniques are central to the logotherapeutic process: “paradoxical intention,” or intending to cause the problematic effect and thereby causing its opposite, and “dereflection,” or ceasing to look inward at the self and thereby look outward at the world. These two techniques can be used separately or in concert to defuse a number of psychogenic disorders, particularly phobias, addictions, and obsessive-compulsive-type behavior, especially when used alongside other treatment methods for possible cofactors (e.g. thyroid issues inducing a tendency to agoraphobia).
Overall, my thoughts on the book were deep and varied. Firstly, the initial section about framing logotherapy, meaning-therapy, struck me (perhaps ironically) as “nothing new.” I’ve read theories very much in the same vein by an author who never had any training in psychiatry, psychology, neurology, or indeed any major medical or scientific study—a professor of languages named C. S. Lewis. Ideas like how seeking pleasure is a self-defeating effort because pleasure is a byproduct, not an aim, or the unique human position of being worthy of feeling guilt and responsible for handling that feeling, occur more than once in Lewis’ thought. Of course, it was both helpful and refreshing to hear these thoughts from someone with a very different background, someone genuinely trained to heal disorders of the mind, but all through the first section I had a nagging feeling that Frankl was merely replicating the thought of another. (I am absolutely certain that both Frankl and Lewis came to their ideas independently, but the feeling existed despite this.) In either event, I could at least feel a resonance with the general goal and intent of Frankl’s work.
Fortunately, other aspects of his initial discussion were much more useful to me, such as his notes and figures relating to “dimensional anthropology.” Giving these ideas the weight of images assisted me in turning words to concepts, which has been difficult for me in some areas of philosophy. I also greatly enjoyed the opposition to the “reductionist” efforts in psychology, psychiatry, and other sciences. My experience has been that many scientists overzealously pursue their areas of expertise—not that zealous pursuit of knowledge is a problem. It is more a matter that, as Frankl says, “We are living in the age of specialists, and this takes its toll. I would define a specialist as a man who no longer sees the forest of truth for the trees of facts,” (page 20, emphasis in original). Seeing this issue clearly and honestly laid out in specific terms, not to judge but instead to provide insight in dealing with issues of the modern day, I felt very heartened and personally appreciated.
In the second section, where the actual application of logotherapy is discussed, I could not help but laugh at some of the anecdotes. Cognitively, I understand the gravity of the issues presented—compulsive gambling and agoraphobia, for example, are anything but trivial issues—but the actual use of things like the technique of paradoxical intention produced a laugh (which may in fact have been his intent). For example, one patient at Frankl’s clinic, suffering from agoraphobia, feared he’d collapse in the street if he left his house—his therapist then told him, "Tell yourself that yesterday you had two heart attacks, and today you have time to get three--it's still early in the morning. Tell yourself that you will have a nice, fat coronary, and a stroke to boot." Through this paradoxical intent, he was able to overcome his fear of fear, and then the fear itself. As a whole, the second section was equally as enjoyable and educational as the first, but in a more personal way, whereas the first was more theoretical and philosophic. I definitely think I’ve profited from the reading, and will work to apply Frankl’s recommendations to my own life and to those around me who may need help.
Now, that being said--this was an essay written for a class, so it's probably not the best review possible. The important thing here is that I definitely felt that Frankl had something very important to say--something that has been said by others before him--and that his credentials give us another good reason to listen to what these people have said.
November 14, 2018
The first book I read for Viktor Frankl was Man's Search for Meaning. This is the second book and I highly recommend it. I really got interested in reading the rest of his books. The book is a little bit difficult to understand because of his philosophical approach. I can summarize the book as follows:
Logotherapy “is the treatment of the patient’s attitude toward his unchangeable fate.” It is based on three pillars:
The First Pillar: The Freedom of Will
“Man’s freedom is no freedom from conditions, but rather freedom to take a stand on whatever conditions might confront him.” The freedom of will includes:
1. Self-detachment from even the worst conditions (choosing his attitude toward conditions) or from himself (choosing his attitude toward his somatic/psychic phenomena) and therefore becomes conscious of himself. He judges and evaluates his deeds in moral and ethical terms.
2. Self-transcendence by love and being conscious and therefore is able to seize a meaning in any situation.
With these two qualities, man raises from somatic dimension or psychic dimension into a higher one - noetic dimension (spiritual dimension, even though Frankl did not like to use this term).
The Second Pillar: The Will to Meaning
The will to meaning can be defined “as the basic striving of man to find and fulfill meaning and purpose.”
“The homeostasis principle does not yield a sufficient ground on which to explain the human behavior” such as “the creativity of man, which is oriented toward values and meaning.” That’s why human behavior is not driven by the will to meaning; man is pulled, not pushed toward meaning. And that is why “meaning fulfillment always implies decision-making.”
Frankl does not nullify Freudian psychoanalysis or Adlerian psychology, who neglected the humanness of man in a reductionist way. Reductionism is disregarding and ignoring “the humanness of phenomena, by making them into mere epiphenomena.” Reductionism can interpret love as a sublimation of sex. But, “only to the extent to which an I is lovingly directed to a Thou-only to this extent is the ego also capable of integrating the id, of integrating sexuality into the personality.”
Reductionism is caused by making “overgeneralized statements on the grounds of limited findings.” And by so doing, a person “no longer sees the forest of truth for the trees of facts.”
Frankl solved the conflict by an approach he called dimensional anthropology and ontology. This approach explains how one thing is seen in the view of a different dimension might contradict one another, but at the same time this contradiction does not contradict the oneness of the thing. As Frankl sees, the will to pleasure and the will to power are mere derivatives of the primary concern, the will to meaning.
1. This is because “pleasure, rather being an end of man’s striving, is actually the effect of meaning fulfillment. If there is a reason for happiness, happiness ensues … that is why one need not pursue happiness, one need not care for it once there is a reason for it.” But what if there was no reason for happiness? A man “provides himself with a cause whose effect is pleasure,” like alcohol or money. And power, rather than being an end in itself, is actually the means to an end.” However, “only if one’s original concern with meaning fulfillment is frustrated is one either content with power or intent on pleasure.”
2. The pleasure principle is self-defeating because “the more one aims at pleasure, the more his aim is missed.” The status drive also “proves to be self-defeating, insofar as a person who displays and exhibits his status drive will sooner or later be dismissed as a status seeker.”
“Only if one’s original concern with meaning fulfillment is frustrated is one either content with power or intent on pleasure.” And “the hyper intention of pleasure might be traced to the frustration of another, more basic, concern.” This holds for self-actualization as well, which is an effect of fulfillment of meaning.
“Man does not care for pleasure and happiness as such but rather for that which causes these effects. This is most noticeable in the case of unhappiness.”
Frankl agrees with the saying that “the Freudian pleasure principle is the guiding principle of the small child, the Adlerian power principle is that of the adolescent, and the will to meaning is the guiding principle of the mature adult” because “in the earliest stages of development there is no indication of a will to meaning.”
The Third Pillar: The Meaning of Life
Logotherapy does not give meaning and purpose! “Meaning must be found but cannot be given, least of all by the doctor.” There are three groups of meaning and values:
1. Creative values: “what [man] gives to the world in terms of his creations.”
2. Experiential values: “what [man] takes from the world in terms of encounters and experiences.”
3. Attitudinal values: “the stand [man] takes to his predicament in case he must face a fate which he cannot change.”
“This is why life never ceases to hold a meaning, for even a person who is deprived of both creative and experiential values is still challenged by a meaning to fulfill, that is, by the meaning inherent in the right, in an upright way of suffering.”
Before knowing how to apply logotherapy, we need to understand existential vacuum (inner void) which is caused by two reasons:
1. In contrast to an animal, no drives and instincts tell man what he must do.
2. In contrast to former times, no conventions, traditions and values tell man what he should do.
Existential vacuum has danger consequences as William Irwin Thompson said “… if [people] find that their lives are reduced to the mere existence of chairs and tables, they commit suicide.” So “education must not confine itself to, and content itself with, transmitting traditions and knowledge, but rather it must refine man’s capacity to find those unique meanings which are not affected by the crumbling of universal values.” “The wane of traditions affects only the universal values but not unique meanings.” However, “values cannot be taught; values must be lived.”
Existential vacuum should not be misinterpreted as a pathological phenomenon or neurosis and hence “the difference between existential despair and emotional disease disappears. One cannot distinguish between spiritual distress and mental disease.”
Based on the self-detachment and self-transcendence, the logotherapeutic techniques are:
1. Dereflection: “In logotherapy hyperreflection is counteracted by dereflection.”
2. Paradoxical intention.
“The patient is encouraged to do, or wish to happen, the very things he fears.” By so doing, the intention of a phobic individual (avoiding situations which arouse anxiety) is inverted. “The pathogenic fear is replaced by a paradoxical wish.”
“Paradoxical intention should always be formulated in as humorous a manner as possible” because “humor allows man to create perspective, to put distance between himself and whatever may confront him. By the same token, humor allows man to detach himself from himself and thereby to attain the fullest possible control over himself.” However, there are two drawbacks to this technique:
1. It is a short-term procedure
2. It might not work with all patients, as some of them are “feeble-minded to understand the meaning of paradoxical intention” and the humor used in it.
December 15, 2016
إرادة المعنى – فيكتور فرانكل
هذا الكتاب هو عبارة عن سلسلة من المحاضرات التي ألقاها فرانكل عام 1966 وقد جمعت ونشرت في شكل كتاب لأول مرة عام 1988. يتكون هذا الكتاب من جزءين؛ الاول هو أسس العلاج بالمعنى.. والثاني هو تطبيقات العلاج بالمعنى.
يعيد فرانكل في ا��جزء الأول ما سبق له أن قام بشرحه على أكمل وجه في كتابه "الإنسان يبحث عن المعنى" فيشرح المباديء الأساسية التي يبنى عليها العلاج بالمعنى وهي: حرية الإرادة، إرادة المعنى، معنى الحياة. ولن أخوض في هذه المفاهيم لأننا سبق أن تحدثنا عنها على هامش قراءتنا لكتابه المذكور أعلاه. تغلب على هذا الجزء النظرية والتعاريف والمفاهيم وكذلك فقد كان الأسلوب أشبه بالتقريرية، ولذلك، لم يخلُ من الملل. صحيح، أنه خلا من جزئية مذكرات فرانكل في معسكرات الإعتقال النازية إلا أن الأسلوب كان جامداً.. وبمكنني القول بكل أمانة عن أفضلية أسلوب فروم عن فرانكل..
بدأت الأمور تدخل حيز التطبيق العملي في الجزء الثاني وقد تجلى لنا ذلك بإيقاف الإمعان بالتفكير وعلم النفس العكسي.. وأمثلة عن حالات يصبح فيه المرضى بحال أفضل مع إستيعابهم للمعنى من حياتهم. والأهم هنا، هو أن فرانكل يقر لنا بأن من يعاني من الإحباط الوجودي أو الفراغ الوجودي ليس مريضاً بالمعني العلمي للمرض. وهو بذلك يخالف فرويد مرة أخرى. بل إن فرانكل يقر بأن العلاج بالمعنى من الممكن أن يوعز إلى شخص غير مختص بالطب بشكل عام كي يمارس هذا العلاج لمن يحتاجه. وهنا، يكمن سؤال مهم: إذا كان المحبط وجودياً أو من يعاني من الفراغ الوجودي هو شخص غير مريض، فماذا يكون إذن ؟ ونجد فرانكل هنا يجيبنا بأن الفراغ الوجودي هو حالة طبيعية جداً بين البشر.. وهي ما يجعل من العلاج بالمعنى حاجة روحية وليس بالعلاج النفسي. وهذا في ذات الوقت، المدخل للإنتقاد الموجه للعلاج بالمعنى أنه فلسفة أكثر منه علاجاً نفسياً. وهذا صحيح إلى حد ما. فالسيد فرانكل مهتم بالجانب الروحي للإنسان أكثر منه للجانب النفسي. ولكن، حين نعود إلى الهدف الأساسي من الطب نجده: التحسين من نوعية حياة المريض. ولربما لو استبدلنا كلمة مريض بالإنسان لأصبح العلاج بالمعنى هو من صلب أهداف الطب. فالتحسين من الحالة الروحية للإنسان ينعكس إيجابياً على الحالة النفسية له. كما أن السيد فرانكل أكد لنا وفي أكثر من موقع بأن العلاج بالمعنى ليس بالضرورة أن يكون فعالاً مع كل الحالات كما أنه قد لا يكفي وحده. لكنه استراتيجية تستحق أن تؤخذ بعين الإعتبار في الكثير من الحالات، سواء لمن يعانون فعلاً من بعض أشكال الأمراض النفسية أو الفراغ الوجودي.
من البديهي أن ما سبق سيقودنا إلى أن العلاج بالمعنى قد يكون شكلاً من الأشكال الدينية لمعالجة المشاكل النفسية. ولهذا السبب نجد السيد فرانكل يضع فصلاً كاملاً في المقارنة بين اللاهوت والعلاج بالمعنى. وهو يفرّق بينهما ويقر بأن العلاج بالمعنى يجب أن يكون متوفراً للمؤمن والملحد في ذات الوقت وبشكل متساوي. فالمعنى ليس بالضرورة أن يكون له جذوراً دينية. صحيح أن استدلالات فرانكل كثيراً ما تكون بإثبات وجود الله.. وتوجيه الإنتقادات للشكل الملحد من الوجودية والمتمثل بسارتر وحديثه عن وجودية كيركيغارد المؤمنة بل واستشهاده ببعض مقولات كيركيغارد إلا أنه في نهاية المطاف يقر بأهمية توافر العلاج بالمعنى للملحد والمؤمن على حد سواء.
كخلاصة، يمكننا القول بأن الجزء الثاني من هذا الكتاب هو مكمل لما قرأناه من كتاب الإنسان يبحث عن المعنى.. ولربما تكون في الجزء الأول فائدة بإعادة شرح المفاهيم التي بني عليها العلاج بالمعنى.. إلا أنه لم يخلُ من الملل.. بشكل عام، أجد أن العلاج بالمعنى هو استراتيجية مثيرة حقاً للإهتمام. ولا بأس بالمرة من هذا الكتاب في تقديم هذا العلاج إلى القاريء.
هذا الكتاب هو عبارة عن سلسلة من المحاضرات التي ألقاها فرانكل عام 1966 وقد جمعت ونشرت في شكل كتاب لأول مرة عام 1988. يتكون هذا الكتاب من جزءين؛ الاول هو أسس العلاج بالمعنى.. والثاني هو تطبيقات العلاج بالمعنى.
يعيد فرانكل في ا��جزء الأول ما سبق له أن قام بشرحه على أكمل وجه في كتابه "الإنسان يبحث عن المعنى" فيشرح المباديء الأساسية التي يبنى عليها العلاج بالمعنى وهي: حرية الإرادة، إرادة المعنى، معنى الحياة. ولن أخوض في هذه المفاهيم لأننا سبق أن تحدثنا عنها على هامش قراءتنا لكتابه المذكور أعلاه. تغلب على هذا الجزء النظرية والتعاريف والمفاهيم وكذلك فقد كان الأسلوب أشبه بالتقريرية، ولذلك، لم يخلُ من الملل. صحيح، أنه خلا من جزئية مذكرات فرانكل في معسكرات الإعتقال النازية إلا أن الأسلوب كان جامداً.. وبمكنني القول بكل أمانة عن أفضلية أسلوب فروم عن فرانكل..
بدأت الأمور تدخل حيز التطبيق العملي في الجزء الثاني وقد تجلى لنا ذلك بإيقاف الإمعان بالتفكير وعلم النفس العكسي.. وأمثلة عن حالات يصبح فيه المرضى بحال أفضل مع إستيعابهم للمعنى من حياتهم. والأهم هنا، هو أن فرانكل يقر لنا بأن من يعاني من الإحباط الوجودي أو الفراغ الوجودي ليس مريضاً بالمعني العلمي للمرض. وهو بذلك يخالف فرويد مرة أخرى. بل إن فرانكل يقر بأن العلاج بالمعنى من الممكن أن يوعز إلى شخص غير مختص بالطب بشكل عام كي يمارس هذا العلاج لمن يحتاجه. وهنا، يكمن سؤال مهم: إذا كان المحبط وجودياً أو من يعاني من الفراغ الوجودي هو شخص غير مريض، فماذا يكون إذن ؟ ونجد فرانكل هنا يجيبنا بأن الفراغ الوجودي هو حالة طبيعية جداً بين البشر.. وهي ما يجعل من العلاج بالمعنى حاجة روحية وليس بالعلاج النفسي. وهذا في ذات الوقت، المدخل للإنتقاد الموجه للعلاج بالمعنى أنه فلسفة أكثر منه علاجاً نفسياً. وهذا صحيح إلى حد ما. فالسيد فرانكل مهتم بالجانب الروحي للإنسان أكثر منه للجانب النفسي. ولكن، حين نعود إلى الهدف الأساسي من الطب نجده: التحسين من نوعية حياة المريض. ولربما لو استبدلنا كلمة مريض بالإنسان لأصبح العلاج بالمعنى هو من صلب أهداف الطب. فالتحسين من الحالة الروحية للإنسان ينعكس إيجابياً على الحالة النفسية له. كما أن السيد فرانكل أكد لنا وفي أكثر من موقع بأن العلاج بالمعنى ليس بالضرورة أن يكون فعالاً مع كل الحالات كما أنه قد لا يكفي وحده. لكنه استراتيجية تستحق أن تؤخذ بعين الإعتبار في الكثير من الحالات، سواء لمن يعانون فعلاً من بعض أشكال الأمراض النفسية أو الفراغ الوجودي.
من البديهي أن ما سبق سيقودنا إلى أن العلاج بالمعنى قد يكون شكلاً من الأشكال الدينية لمعالجة المشاكل النفسية. ولهذا السبب نجد السيد فرانكل يضع فصلاً كاملاً في المقارنة بين اللاهوت والعلاج بالمعنى. وهو يفرّق بينهما ويقر بأن العلاج بالمعنى يجب أن يكون متوفراً للمؤمن والملحد في ذات الوقت وبشكل متساوي. فالمعنى ليس بالضرورة أن يكون له جذوراً دينية. صحيح أن استدلالات فرانكل كثيراً ما تكون بإثبات وجود الله.. وتوجيه الإنتقادات للشكل الملحد من الوجودية والمتمثل بسارتر وحديثه عن وجودية كيركيغارد المؤمنة بل واستشهاده ببعض مقولات كيركيغارد إلا أنه في نهاية المطاف يقر بأهمية توافر العلاج بالمعنى للملحد والمؤمن على حد سواء.
كخلاصة، يمكننا القول بأن الجزء الثاني من هذا الكتاب هو مكمل لما قرأناه من كتاب الإنسان يبحث عن المعنى.. ولربما تكون في الجزء الأول فائدة بإعادة شرح المفاهيم التي بني عليها العلاج بالمعنى.. إلا أنه لم يخلُ من الملل.. بشكل عام، أجد أن العلاج بالمعنى هو استراتيجية مثيرة حقاً للإهتمام. ولا بأس بالمرة من هذا الكتاب في تقديم هذا العلاج إلى القاريء.
November 30, 2020
این کتاب رو خیلی اتفاقی در حالی که دنبال کتابهای دکتر یالوم بودم، پیدا کردم. دکتر ویکتور فرانکل اشارههایی به تجربهی قبلیش که به اردوگاه کار اجباری تو آشویتس فرستاده شد، کرده. من کتاب «انسان در جستوجوی معنای زندگی» رو نخوندم البته.
دکتر فرانکل موسس مکتب جدیدی توی روانشناسی به نام «معنادرمانی»ه.
در مورد واژهی معنا توی زندگی صحبت کرده و اینکه معنا یافتنیه یا ابداع کردنی. تعدادی از نظرات رو در این مورد نقد کرده و صحبتهایی از روانشناسی آدلر و فروید و نظریاتشون کرده که فکر میکنم نیازه حداقل بعضی اصطلاحات رو گوگل کرد.
علاوه بر اونها، خیلی به روانرنجوری (neurosis) روانزاد و بدنزاد و نئوژنیک پرداخته و از اسکیزوفرنی و افسردگی هم مثالهایی واقعی زده.
اواخر کتاب کِیسهایی رو وارد کتاب کرده که باهاشون مصاحبه کرده یا مثلن به درمانشون پرداخته.
قسمت جالبش برای من، ارتباط مذهب و معناست؛ که آدمها فارغ از داشتن مذهب، توی معنای زندگی به مشکل میخورن و ارتباط مستقیمی بین این دو نیست.
همینطور از خودکشی گفته، که دلایل افراد و منطقشون برای این کار چیه و ما چه رویکردی باید داشته باشیم، از کار پزشک و رواندرمانگر برای کمک به افرادی که بیماریهای روانشناختی دارن و مشکل اصلیشون به نداشتن معنایی در زندگی برمیگرده.
در نهایت بخشی که بیشتر فکر من رو مشغول کرد، حرفهاش در مورد رنج کشیدن بود؛ که این رنج کشیدن برای چیه و چیکار کنیم و پاسخی برای این هم�� رنج هست یا نه. خودش اذعان کرده جواب کامل و قطعی وجود نداره، اما تلاشهای زیادی کرده تا آدمها بتونن دیدی به زندگی پیدا کنن که به معنای زندگی دست پیدا کنن.
من از طریق دکتر یالوم یکم با روانشناسی اگزیستانسیالیستی آشنا شدم و بر این باور بودم که زندگی معنی نداره و هر آدمی خودش معنی رو خلق میکنه، در صورتیکه توی کتاب به کرات گفته که معنی رو باید پیدا کرد، و نمیشه ساختش. لزومی هم نداره کسی حتمن معنیای برای زندگیش بخواد، اما کسی که در پی معنیه، باید صبور باشه.
میتونم بگم که کتاب سنگینی نیست، اما نیاز به تفکر داره و ساده نمیشه ازش گذشت.
به جز قسمتهایی که به نظر معنا رو زیادی به الهیات و خدا ربط داده بود، میتونم بگم فعلن جواب موقتی قابل قبولیه برام و برای من مفید بود.
دکتر فرانکل موسس مکتب جدیدی توی روانشناسی به نام «معنادرمانی»ه.
در مورد واژهی معنا توی زندگی صحبت کرده و اینکه معنا یافتنیه یا ابداع کردنی. تعدادی از نظرات رو در این مورد نقد کرده و صحبتهایی از روانشناسی آدلر و فروید و نظریاتشون کرده که فکر میکنم نیازه حداقل بعضی اصطلاحات رو گوگل کرد.
علاوه بر اونها، خیلی به روانرنجوری (neurosis) روانزاد و بدنزاد و نئوژنیک پرداخته و از اسکیزوفرنی و افسردگی هم مثالهایی واقعی زده.
اواخر کتاب کِیسهایی رو وارد کتاب کرده که باهاشون مصاحبه کرده یا مثلن به درمانشون پرداخته.
قسمت جالبش برای من، ارتباط مذهب و معناست؛ که آدمها فارغ از داشتن مذهب، توی معنای زندگی به مشکل میخورن و ارتباط مستقیمی بین این دو نیست.
همینطور از خودکشی گفته، که دلایل افراد و منطقشون برای این کار چیه و ما چه رویکردی باید داشته باشیم، از کار پزشک و رواندرمانگر برای کمک به افرادی که بیماریهای روانشناختی دارن و مشکل اصلیشون به نداشتن معنایی در زندگی برمیگرده.
در نهایت بخشی که بیشتر فکر من رو مشغول کرد، حرفهاش در مورد رنج کشیدن بود؛ که این رنج کشیدن برای چیه و چیکار کنیم و پاسخی برای این هم�� رنج هست یا نه. خودش اذعان کرده جواب کامل و قطعی وجود نداره، اما تلاشهای زیادی کرده تا آدمها بتونن دیدی به زندگی پیدا کنن که به معنای زندگی دست پیدا کنن.
من از طریق دکتر یالوم یکم با روانشناسی اگزیستانسیالیستی آشنا شدم و بر این باور بودم که زندگی معنی نداره و هر آدمی خودش معنی رو خلق میکنه، در صورتیکه توی کتاب به کرات گفته که معنی رو باید پیدا کرد، و نمیشه ساختش. لزومی هم نداره کسی حتمن معنیای برای زندگیش بخواد، اما کسی که در پی معنیه، باید صبور باشه.
میتونم بگم که کتاب سنگینی نیست، اما نیاز به تفکر داره و ساده نمیشه ازش گذشت.
به جز قسمتهایی که به نظر معنا رو زیادی به الهیات و خدا ربط داده بود، میتونم بگم فعلن جواب موقتی قابل قبولیه برام و برای من مفید بود.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 9, 2019
It's possible I lack the necessary reference points to read this properly, as I found it ironically devoid of any meaningful content. I think I was expecting something which felt more like a textbook, but what I got was more like Man's search for meaning part two. Arguably, Frankl does describe the foundations and the applications of Logotherapy, but this is like being given a sandwich of just two pieces of bread, with the meat, salad, and sauce of theory, instruction, and framework missing. Instead it is all longwinded statements of assumptions and personal experiences. Reading it feels rather like when you ask someone a simple question and get half their life story in response.
At one point Frankl recounts a dialogue with a patient, in which it seems to me that the only concrete advice he gives the patient is to read the existentialists! All that follows is a circular mess of "you say you are suffering from lack of meaning, try to see that suffering itself as being meaningful."
There is mention of over-rumination, of meta-anxiety, and of anticipation of negative outcomes. None of these seem to be to be meaning-related issues.
I gave up reading mid-way through the "Logotherapuetic techniques" chapter and switched to an online summary, it doesn't sound like I would have enjoyed the remainder any more than what I read.
Frankl's defence to my line of criticisms would I suppose be: "Despite the fact that I have repeatedly made this clear, logotherapy is accused, time and again, of 'giving meaning and purpose.' Nobody accuses Freudian psychoanalysis, which is concerned with the patient’s sexual life, of providing him with girls. No one accuses Adlerian psychology, which is concerned with the patient’s social life, of providing him with jobs. Why is it, then, that logotherapy, which is concerned with the patient’s existential aspirations and frustrations, is charged with 'giving meanings'?"
The closest thing to a prescription I saw was: "Avoiding suffering as much as possible is desirable. But what about inescapable suffering? Logotherapy teaches that pain must be avoided as long as it is possible to avoid it. But as soon as a painful fate cannot be changed, it not only must be accepted but may be transmuted into something meaningful, into an achievement."
On the state of the modern world: "Today we live in an age of crumbling and vanishing traditions. Thus, instead of new values being created by finding unique meanings, the reverse happens. Universal values are on the wane. That is why ever more people are caught in a feeling of aimlessness and emptiness or, as I am used to calling it, an existential vacuum. However, even if all universal values disappeared, life would remain meaningful, since the unique meanings remain untouched by the loss of traditions. To be sure, if man is to find meanings even in an era without values, he has to be equipped with the full capacity of conscience. It therefore stands to reason that in an age such as ours, that is to say, in an age of the existential vacuum, the foremost task of education, instead of being satisfied with transmitting traditions and knowledge, is to refine that capacity which allows man to find unique meanings. Today education cannot afford to proceed along the lines of tradition, but must elicit the ability to make independent and authentic decisions. In an age in which the Ten Commandments seem to lose their unconditional validity, man must learn more than ever to listen to the ten thousand commandments arising from the ten thousand unique situations of which his life consists. And as to these commandments, he is referred to, and must rely on, his conscience. A lively and vivid conscience is also the only thing that enables man to resist the effects of the existential vacuum, namely, conformism and totalitarianism."
At one point Frankl recounts a dialogue with a patient, in which it seems to me that the only concrete advice he gives the patient is to read the existentialists! All that follows is a circular mess of "you say you are suffering from lack of meaning, try to see that suffering itself as being meaningful."
There is mention of over-rumination, of meta-anxiety, and of anticipation of negative outcomes. None of these seem to be to be meaning-related issues.
I gave up reading mid-way through the "Logotherapuetic techniques" chapter and switched to an online summary, it doesn't sound like I would have enjoyed the remainder any more than what I read.
Frankl's defence to my line of criticisms would I suppose be: "Despite the fact that I have repeatedly made this clear, logotherapy is accused, time and again, of 'giving meaning and purpose.' Nobody accuses Freudian psychoanalysis, which is concerned with the patient’s sexual life, of providing him with girls. No one accuses Adlerian psychology, which is concerned with the patient’s social life, of providing him with jobs. Why is it, then, that logotherapy, which is concerned with the patient’s existential aspirations and frustrations, is charged with 'giving meanings'?"
The closest thing to a prescription I saw was: "Avoiding suffering as much as possible is desirable. But what about inescapable suffering? Logotherapy teaches that pain must be avoided as long as it is possible to avoid it. But as soon as a painful fate cannot be changed, it not only must be accepted but may be transmuted into something meaningful, into an achievement."
On the state of the modern world: "Today we live in an age of crumbling and vanishing traditions. Thus, instead of new values being created by finding unique meanings, the reverse happens. Universal values are on the wane. That is why ever more people are caught in a feeling of aimlessness and emptiness or, as I am used to calling it, an existential vacuum. However, even if all universal values disappeared, life would remain meaningful, since the unique meanings remain untouched by the loss of traditions. To be sure, if man is to find meanings even in an era without values, he has to be equipped with the full capacity of conscience. It therefore stands to reason that in an age such as ours, that is to say, in an age of the existential vacuum, the foremost task of education, instead of being satisfied with transmitting traditions and knowledge, is to refine that capacity which allows man to find unique meanings. Today education cannot afford to proceed along the lines of tradition, but must elicit the ability to make independent and authentic decisions. In an age in which the Ten Commandments seem to lose their unconditional validity, man must learn more than ever to listen to the ten thousand commandments arising from the ten thousand unique situations of which his life consists. And as to these commandments, he is referred to, and must rely on, his conscience. A lively and vivid conscience is also the only thing that enables man to resist the effects of the existential vacuum, namely, conformism and totalitarianism."
May 24, 2010
After Freud, this is such a refreshing and sensible look at psychology! Frankl's theories embrace the hopes and aspirations all humans are born with.
April 9, 2021
Victor Frankl’ın psikoterapinin bir çeşidi olan ve günümüzde bir çok terapi çeşidi ile uygulanan Logoterapinin hangi temeller üzerine kurulduğunu ve başlıca tekniklerini açıkladığı eseri. İstenç özgürlüğü, anlam istenci ve yaşamın anlamı şeklinde açıkladığı kavramlar; yazarın tanımıyla noojenik yani varoluşsal nevrozların çözümü olarak sunulsa da teolojik bir zeminde yazılmış olması bunu güçleştiriyor. Nihilizmin antitezi olduğunu iddia eden satırlar da ise bir nihilistin buna kolayca savunma geliştireceği aşikar. Ama mutlaka okur kendinden bir şeyler bulacaktır. Varoluşçuluğun temelinden yola çıkarak anlam yerine konulan haz ve güç ( mevkii, para) istencinin karşılığında kaybedilen gerçekliğin tanımı açısından bile okunmalı.
October 19, 2020
Detailed review pending. But overall it was more than an introduction to logotherapy. I wished I had got all of the content in the book but it is more like a text book on psychotherapy rather than a non fiction. But I am planning to come to this book again after reading Man's Search for Meaning. Although, it was a nice segue into a bit of psychology reading and took me a while to read this short book getting myself familiar with jargons on the way.
February 9, 2022
Un livre poignant
February 26, 2017
So good, Frankl does it again.
Just as I was getting frustrated by a contemporary book on evolutionary psychology that treats the human brain as nothing but a computer, Frankl comes to the rescue: "...in a certain sense the statement is valid: man is a computer. However, at the same time he also is infinitely more than a computer. The statement is erroneous only insofar as man is defined as 'nothing but' a computer." What I also found fascinating is his concept of "dimensional ontology," where he uses a three-dimensional cup as projected onto lower dimensions: it would look like a rectangle on one surface and a circle on another. In the same way, when human nature is projected onto the lower dimensions of one discipline, say psychology, it will not give the right picture of the whole and also may contradict with another projection. Similarly, a sphere, a cone, and a cylinder can all project onto the ground (lower dimensions) as circles, and so the caveat: even if something looks the same from one vantage point, the reality might be completely different.
Two super small quibbles: As excellent this book is, it is riddled with quotations from other authors—evincing his erudition but also makes the reading experience a little bumpy. Also, I felt the author's afterward at the end of the book didn't add much.
Overall though, this book convinced me I should go read all of his books.
Just as I was getting frustrated by a contemporary book on evolutionary psychology that treats the human brain as nothing but a computer, Frankl comes to the rescue: "...in a certain sense the statement is valid: man is a computer. However, at the same time he also is infinitely more than a computer. The statement is erroneous only insofar as man is defined as 'nothing but' a computer." What I also found fascinating is his concept of "dimensional ontology," where he uses a three-dimensional cup as projected onto lower dimensions: it would look like a rectangle on one surface and a circle on another. In the same way, when human nature is projected onto the lower dimensions of one discipline, say psychology, it will not give the right picture of the whole and also may contradict with another projection. Similarly, a sphere, a cone, and a cylinder can all project onto the ground (lower dimensions) as circles, and so the caveat: even if something looks the same from one vantage point, the reality might be completely different.
Two super small quibbles: As excellent this book is, it is riddled with quotations from other authors—evincing his erudition but also makes the reading experience a little bumpy. Also, I felt the author's afterward at the end of the book didn't add much.
Overall though, this book convinced me I should go read all of his books.
June 24, 2021
"The concept of a will to meaning as the basic motivation of man is a slap in the face of all the current motivation theories, which are still based on the homeostasis principle, regarding man as a being who is just out to satisfy drives and instincts, to gratify needs, and all this just in order to maintain or restore an inner equilibrium, a state without tensions. And all the fellow-beings he seems to love, and all the causes he seems to serve, are seen as mere tools serving him to get rid of the tensions aroused by the drives and the instincts and the needs as soon, and as long, as they are not satisfied or gratified. Yet man is neither a being who is just abreacting his instincts, nor a being who is just reacting to stimuli, but he is a being who is acting into a world, a “being-in-the-world” […] and the world wherein he is, is a world replete with other beings and those meanings toward which he is transcending himself."
February 12, 2016
A bit heavy on jargon and academic references (most of which are outdated now), I recommend this book only for those who are really interested in logotherapy. For most, it's better to start with Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning," which gives a nice overview of logotherapy in lay terms.
August 12, 2018
Meaningful. A re-re-re-re-read!
October 9, 2021
In Man's Search for Meaning Viktor Frankl discussed his experiences at Auschwitz and what it took to survive there and elsewhere. In Will to Meaning Frankl talked less about his own experience and more generally about logotherapy, his therapeutic approach to helping others rediscover meaning.
[W]hen my own death seemed imminent, I asked myself what my life had been for. Nothing was left which would survive me. No child of my own. Not even a spiritual child such as the manuscript. But after wrestling with my despair for hours, shivering from typhus fever, I finally asked myself what sort of meaning could depend on whether or not a manuscript of mine is printed. I would not give a damn for it. But if there is meaning, it is unconditional meaning, and neither suffering nor dying can detract from it. (p. 120)
Frankl's approach to meaning is much broader than that of the cognitive and cognitive-behavioral psychologists (e.g., Beck and Ellis). Rather than individual, situational meanings or beliefs (e.g., "THIS is terrible"), Frankl focused on the Meaning of Life. Frankl believed that things don't cause us to be happy, but the ability to find meaningfulness and purpose in our life leads to happiness (wellbeing).
Figure 3 from Will to Meaning
Logotherapists do not pretend to know what that meaning is. Meaning must be found rather than given – although there are things we can do to help others discover it (e.g., paradoxical intention, dereflection). Although Frankl does not use the word "reframe," much of his work depends on offering a different perspective of a situation. For example, he described practitioners telling the Parable of the Mustard Seed to a person who felt uniquely burdened by suffering – and learned that "suffering was a law common to mankind" (p. 89),
Frankl argued that logotherapy is an optimistic therapy, that there is no tragic event that could not be transformed by the stand with which we approach it – if we have the courage to approach it with wisdom and compassion. Of course, it takes courage. He argued that we are "responsible for what to do, whom to love, and how to suffer" (p. 52) – that we must make choices about what we stand for and how we choose to live.
Living with meaning does not depend on intelligence. Frankl argued that a meaningful life is not limited to those who are well-educated, nor does education guarantee obtaining a sense of meaning. I would guess that he'd argue that meaning depends more on the ability to reflect, willingness to distance enough from a situation to recognize choices, and the courage to take those choices available.
Frankl was not a believer, but he did acknowledge that religion was one path to discovering meaning: "It is the patient who has to decide whether he interprets responsibleness in terms of being responsible to humanity, society, conscience, or God. It is up to him to decide to what, to whom, and for what he is responsible" (pp. 110).
Frankl's views of meaning are inspiring and have been hugely influential, but they are also vague. More recent descriptions have created a stronger framework for meaning, but Frankl remains a great storyteller and an important paradigm shifter.
[W]hen my own death seemed imminent, I asked myself what my life had been for. Nothing was left which would survive me. No child of my own. Not even a spiritual child such as the manuscript. But after wrestling with my despair for hours, shivering from typhus fever, I finally asked myself what sort of meaning could depend on whether or not a manuscript of mine is printed. I would not give a damn for it. But if there is meaning, it is unconditional meaning, and neither suffering nor dying can detract from it. (p. 120)
Frankl's approach to meaning is much broader than that of the cognitive and cognitive-behavioral psychologists (e.g., Beck and Ellis). Rather than individual, situational meanings or beliefs (e.g., "THIS is terrible"), Frankl focused on the Meaning of Life. Frankl believed that things don't cause us to be happy, but the ability to find meaningfulness and purpose in our life leads to happiness (wellbeing).
Figure 3 from Will to Meaning
Logotherapists do not pretend to know what that meaning is. Meaning must be found rather than given – although there are things we can do to help others discover it (e.g., paradoxical intention, dereflection). Although Frankl does not use the word "reframe," much of his work depends on offering a different perspective of a situation. For example, he described practitioners telling the Parable of the Mustard Seed to a person who felt uniquely burdened by suffering – and learned that "suffering was a law common to mankind" (p. 89),
Frankl argued that logotherapy is an optimistic therapy, that there is no tragic event that could not be transformed by the stand with which we approach it – if we have the courage to approach it with wisdom and compassion. Of course, it takes courage. He argued that we are "responsible for what to do, whom to love, and how to suffer" (p. 52) – that we must make choices about what we stand for and how we choose to live.
Living with meaning does not depend on intelligence. Frankl argued that a meaningful life is not limited to those who are well-educated, nor does education guarantee obtaining a sense of meaning. I would guess that he'd argue that meaning depends more on the ability to reflect, willingness to distance enough from a situation to recognize choices, and the courage to take those choices available.
Frankl was not a believer, but he did acknowledge that religion was one path to discovering meaning: "It is the patient who has to decide whether he interprets responsibleness in terms of being responsible to humanity, society, conscience, or God. It is up to him to decide to what, to whom, and for what he is responsible" (pp. 110).
Frankl's views of meaning are inspiring and have been hugely influential, but they are also vague. More recent descriptions have created a stronger framework for meaning, but Frankl remains a great storyteller and an important paradigm shifter.
August 14, 2022
Pe finalul lui Iulie am citit 📚 «Voința de sens» a lui Viktor Frankl, în care autorul explică în detaliu logoterapia, a cărei abordare implică voința de sens - principiu ce îl ghidează pe omul matur, comparând-o cu celelalte două școli vieneze de psihanaliză: a lui Freud, cu principiul plăcerii - principiul conducător al copilului mic - și Adler cu principiul puterii - principiu ce revine perioadei adolescentine.
*** @costinro on Instagram ***
Cartea nu se adresează doar profesioniștilor ci și publicului larg, public interesat de a se juca pe treptele 4 și 5 ale piramidei lui Maslow. E plină de filosofie, abordează numeroase concepte atât din psihologie dar și filosofie și religie, și nu exclude nici din această carte (cum s-ar putea altfel la Frankl?) iubirea. Am să revin pe tema asta, deoarece la Frankl am găsit cea mai sănătoasă înțelegere a conceptului.
Iar comboul recomandat de mine face lumină în jurul acestei moșteniri.
Nu doar că v-o recomand, îmi vine să v-o cumpăr eu :), dar profit de ocazie pentru a vă recomanda din nou o carte pe care am terminat-o pe final de mai, chiar de ziua mea: 📚 «Dumnezeul neștiut – Psihoterapie și religie». Știu că lumea recomandă 📚 «Omul în căutarea sensului vieții», doar că o face datorită poveștii autorului din lagărele naziste. Impresionantă, într-adevăr, dar mai impresionantă mi se pare moștenirea pe care ne-a lăsat-o Viktor Frankl.
*** @costinro on Instagram ***
Cartea nu se adresează doar profesioniștilor ci și publicului larg, public interesat de a se juca pe treptele 4 și 5 ale piramidei lui Maslow. E plină de filosofie, abordează numeroase concepte atât din psihologie dar și filosofie și religie, și nu exclude nici din această carte (cum s-ar putea altfel la Frankl?) iubirea. Am să revin pe tema asta, deoarece la Frankl am găsit cea mai sănătoasă înțelegere a conceptului.
Iar comboul recomandat de mine face lumină în jurul acestei moșteniri.
Nu doar că v-o recomand, îmi vine să v-o cumpăr eu :), dar profit de ocazie pentru a vă recomanda din nou o carte pe care am terminat-o pe final de mai, chiar de ziua mea: 📚 «Dumnezeul neștiut – Psihoterapie și religie». Știu că lumea recomandă 📚 «Omul în căutarea sensului vieții», doar că o face datorită poveștii autorului din lagărele naziste. Impresionantă, într-adevăr, dar mai impresionantă mi se pare moștenirea pe care ne-a lăsat-o Viktor Frankl.
October 14, 2018
جميل
جميل❤
جميل❤
January 27, 2017
ينتقل بك المؤلف ما بين مفهوم المعنى من منظورات عدة
الى تقسيمات للقيم اطلاقا من المفهوم بحسب ما يعطيه وما يأخذه وما الموقف الذي يتخذه ثم ينتقل بك
الى مفهوم الفراغ الوجودي واسبابه
ثم الى فنيات العلاج بالمعنى وتطبقاته
كتاب مهما تحدثت عنه يبقى ما تقوله رؤوس اقلام وتحتاج الى دفتر وقلم للتلخيص وترتيب الافكار ..
الى تقسيمات للقيم اطلاقا من المفهوم بحسب ما يعطيه وما يأخذه وما الموقف الذي يتخذه ثم ينتقل بك
الى مفهوم الفراغ الوجودي واسبابه
ثم الى فنيات العلاج بالمعنى وتطبقاته
كتاب مهما تحدثت عنه يبقى ما تقوله رؤوس اقلام وتحتاج الى دفتر وقلم للتلخيص وترتيب الافكار ..
March 20, 2020
The first 98 pages of the book were excellent, but the remainder of the book were mostly Frankl essentially saying [paraphrasing] "It's not my place as a Logotherapist to preach, though I use religion as a tool to reach my religious patients, but you should believe in a higher power...blah blah blah;" there are some useful secular tidbits in that second half, but the majority of the second half of the book belongs in the same place where intellectually dishonest literature belongs, a place for people who gave up and committed "philosophical suicide." Which is funny, because he recommends the writings of Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus shorty before he starts proselytizing; he also mistakenly refers to them as Nihilists, rather than an Existentialist and an Absurdist, respectively.
As for the first 98 pages that were excellent, he first spends some time on helping you to perceive your behavior from a perspective where you may not normally view yourself, referring to it as guilt or using humor [as humour often highlights truths, through "self-detachment," of which people choose to ignore or are willfully ignorant]. These tools then allows you to become conscious of where you need to change your behavior, habits [reject yourself], and question your values so that you can begin to transcend into what you want to be and do what you want to do; these ideas mesh well with Camus and Sartre. Frankl also warns against reductionist thinking, i.e. a human is like a fleshy computer, therefore a human is only a computer, only a particular kind of cog, replaceable; this meshes well with Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man," which is essentially a Manifesto against "strictly rational thinking/behavior" because being rational often leads to a drab, "cog like" life, where you play it safe and "play your allotted part" until you eventually find yourself on your deathbed, and realize you never lived when you "played it safe," and now it is too late to live, you were just somebody's obedient cog or toy, time to die, lights out, forever. "Playing it safe" is the most dangerous thing you can do, we all know there is birth, life, then death; we get to choose the life part [mostly...Foucault...], but if you play it safe and live it like there is no inevitable death on the horizon, you never really take or seek opportunities and chances because the "rational" thing to do, when you are immortal, is to play it safe. We are not immortal, if you play it safe, you have lost the game; the worst that can happen when taking a chance is that you die, guess what, you're going to die anyway and your time here is finite, very very finite. Essentially, science and rational thinking are good for science, but not for asking metaphysical questions; science may be good at answering tangible questions, but metaphysics is good at seeking and asking the questions and better at answering value questions in situation that are personal. Frankl then follows about the pitfalls of seeking ataraxia, a state of tranquility, without tensions. "Good" and tolerable tension or unease can be motivational to achieve something, whereas a state of ataraxia can lead to boredom, or an existential vacuum, with many of Frankl's referenced studies showing these states being associated with the reason why suicide rates are higher in many wealthy populations when compared with poorer populations; life was "too easy, boring, meaningless."
Frankl then goes on to warn not to seek happiness outright, but to seek a reason to be happy. There are a lot of warnings, the next being, don't seek means to an end [money, power], seek an end in itself; means to an end are sought by those who are existentially frustrated, and they will never really be "fulfilled of meaning." There is then some bashing of self-actualization, peak experiences, and Abraham Maslow; I don't know how I feel about this part, I particularly liked Maslow's "Toward a Psychology of Being," and "A Theory on Human Motivation," and Maslow spoke quite well of Frankl's Logotherapy in the former text.
Some time is spent elaborating the difference of "being driven" or "Being Pulled;" where driven refers to what you have to do, not your choice, and being pulled is your choice whether or not to pursue it. There is then a bit about freedom and how it is of not much value, without being responsible; which is funny because this was a big part of Maslow's self actualization.
A section about meaning then follows. Essentially, Frankl states that most people find meaning in the values, traditions and standards that are "handed" to then by society, and when values collide, there is a hierarchy of values that rest on the conscience of the individual. IF a person suppresses their conscience to "fit in" they lose themselves, conform, they are lost [in my eyes, they're dead, useful and dangerous bodies for those "in power," a banal Adolf Eichmann, though i do pity them too after reading the pleas of Herbert Marcuse, society did effectively brainwash/educate/mold them through "rational" thinking, advertising, and propaganda].
Frankl then outright parts from Sartre, stating that meaning is found not made, whereas Sartre generally states that man invents himself and makes his own meaning; makes you wonder how Frankl can call Logotherapy an existential psychology, unfortunately, I haven't read theist existentialists like Kierkegaard or Paul Tillich to know if Frankl is leaning on them. This all sounds like the Existence precedes Essence [Sartre] vs Essence precedes Existence argument to me, and Frankl starts to feel a bit deterministic here. Hints start getting dropped about properly interpreting the question being asked of you, and warning not to arbitrarily pick a goal, as if something "higher" than you has asked you the question, and he even uses the word "responsibility" for interpreting this magical question from the universe that has already been asked and is floating around out there, somewhere...yeah, I don't buy that part either, sounds like wishful thinking, sounds like church [Maria Bamford line]. There is still good information after this part, essentially saying that you cannot expect to wholeheartedly "know" your meaning, you need to feel things out, trial and error, we cannot know everything; this lines up more with the thinking of Marcuse, one shouldn't expect a perfect solution, answer, or goal - perfect solutions, or "final solutions" [I'm looking at you Hitler] tend to be created by One-Dimensional people, often simpletons or people that never thought for themselves, or were overwhelmingly indoctrinated into their culture and traditions; perfect solutions tend to only exist in in theoretical spaces like mathematics, not in reality. Next Frankl goes on to explain that meaning tends to be found in creating something [giving], experiencing something [taking], or taking a stand on something. The taking a stand on something is what Frankl values as the most meaningful meaning, especially if it changes you for the better, regardless of if your stand is "successful." Frankl then goes on to emphasize your responsibility to actualize opportunities that occur around you to create, love, experience, are take a stand; if you let opportunities pass, it is your fault and nobody else's, you chose to value somebody else's goals over your own values, they do not choose for you, you may have just chosen the "easiest" path for the circumstances rather than the "best" path for you on your journey through life, but that is your fault.
Near the end of the "portion of the book worth reading," Frankl mentions a discussion with a patient that feels their life is meaningless. Frankl asks if when they "feel" music, if that moment is meaningless to them. The reply is that those moments are meaningful to them, as it is to me.
Frankl goes on to explain that searching for meaning in intellectual terms may not be the only way for meaning; there is also emotional meaning. Art, music, beauty, emotional meanings. This struck a chord with me. Unfortunately, this section of emotional meaning, was maybe 5 paragraphs long, then the subject changed. I need more about this, but maybe I'm pursuing this the wrong way here, here I go, intellectually looking for a book on the subject. Does such a book exist? anyway...
Another powerful tidbit then finds its way. How you should question your current values. Moral values of good and bad need to be influenced by what blocks or promotes fulfillment of meaning. i.e. a steady good paying job may be bad if your meaning is to travel and experience the world's beauty, sporadic "gig jobs" that pay "enough to get by" may be better suited for you to pursue a fulfillment of meaning. And finally, it takes courage to pursue your meaning, courage to be alone and think for yourself, to take things slow and be away from society's or family's distractions from you finding your you; moving fast and taking actions without thought is the behavior of somebody that is clueless of what they are trying to accomplish, taking actions without thought will likely distract you from discovering what you really want to do, you just won't have the time, you'll never get to it, then you die, too late, forever.
[pg 99] The rest of the book is mostly boring religious stuff, or Frankl's defense of Logotherapy. A lot of situational stories with patients, if you are into that. The first 98 pages are excellent, very much recommended; if the book ended at page 98, this would easily be a 5 star book, the second half of the book was so bad [wasted so much of my time], that I almost gave an overall rating of 3 stars. I have the expanded edition, copyright 1988, I think the expanded section is part of the boring stuff in the second half, therefore, the 1st printing [copyright 1970] may be a much better book.
As for the first 98 pages that were excellent, he first spends some time on helping you to perceive your behavior from a perspective where you may not normally view yourself, referring to it as guilt or using humor [as humour often highlights truths, through "self-detachment," of which people choose to ignore or are willfully ignorant]. These tools then allows you to become conscious of where you need to change your behavior, habits [reject yourself], and question your values so that you can begin to transcend into what you want to be and do what you want to do; these ideas mesh well with Camus and Sartre. Frankl also warns against reductionist thinking, i.e. a human is like a fleshy computer, therefore a human is only a computer, only a particular kind of cog, replaceable; this meshes well with Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man," which is essentially a Manifesto against "strictly rational thinking/behavior" because being rational often leads to a drab, "cog like" life, where you play it safe and "play your allotted part" until you eventually find yourself on your deathbed, and realize you never lived when you "played it safe," and now it is too late to live, you were just somebody's obedient cog or toy, time to die, lights out, forever. "Playing it safe" is the most dangerous thing you can do, we all know there is birth, life, then death; we get to choose the life part [mostly...Foucault...], but if you play it safe and live it like there is no inevitable death on the horizon, you never really take or seek opportunities and chances because the "rational" thing to do, when you are immortal, is to play it safe. We are not immortal, if you play it safe, you have lost the game; the worst that can happen when taking a chance is that you die, guess what, you're going to die anyway and your time here is finite, very very finite. Essentially, science and rational thinking are good for science, but not for asking metaphysical questions; science may be good at answering tangible questions, but metaphysics is good at seeking and asking the questions and better at answering value questions in situation that are personal. Frankl then follows about the pitfalls of seeking ataraxia, a state of tranquility, without tensions. "Good" and tolerable tension or unease can be motivational to achieve something, whereas a state of ataraxia can lead to boredom, or an existential vacuum, with many of Frankl's referenced studies showing these states being associated with the reason why suicide rates are higher in many wealthy populations when compared with poorer populations; life was "too easy, boring, meaningless."
Frankl then goes on to warn not to seek happiness outright, but to seek a reason to be happy. There are a lot of warnings, the next being, don't seek means to an end [money, power], seek an end in itself; means to an end are sought by those who are existentially frustrated, and they will never really be "fulfilled of meaning." There is then some bashing of self-actualization, peak experiences, and Abraham Maslow; I don't know how I feel about this part, I particularly liked Maslow's "Toward a Psychology of Being," and "A Theory on Human Motivation," and Maslow spoke quite well of Frankl's Logotherapy in the former text.
Some time is spent elaborating the difference of "being driven" or "Being Pulled;" where driven refers to what you have to do, not your choice, and being pulled is your choice whether or not to pursue it. There is then a bit about freedom and how it is of not much value, without being responsible; which is funny because this was a big part of Maslow's self actualization.
A section about meaning then follows. Essentially, Frankl states that most people find meaning in the values, traditions and standards that are "handed" to then by society, and when values collide, there is a hierarchy of values that rest on the conscience of the individual. IF a person suppresses their conscience to "fit in" they lose themselves, conform, they are lost [in my eyes, they're dead, useful and dangerous bodies for those "in power," a banal Adolf Eichmann, though i do pity them too after reading the pleas of Herbert Marcuse, society did effectively brainwash/educate/mold them through "rational" thinking, advertising, and propaganda].
Frankl then outright parts from Sartre, stating that meaning is found not made, whereas Sartre generally states that man invents himself and makes his own meaning; makes you wonder how Frankl can call Logotherapy an existential psychology, unfortunately, I haven't read theist existentialists like Kierkegaard or Paul Tillich to know if Frankl is leaning on them. This all sounds like the Existence precedes Essence [Sartre] vs Essence precedes Existence argument to me, and Frankl starts to feel a bit deterministic here. Hints start getting dropped about properly interpreting the question being asked of you, and warning not to arbitrarily pick a goal, as if something "higher" than you has asked you the question, and he even uses the word "responsibility" for interpreting this magical question from the universe that has already been asked and is floating around out there, somewhere...yeah, I don't buy that part either, sounds like wishful thinking, sounds like church [Maria Bamford line]. There is still good information after this part, essentially saying that you cannot expect to wholeheartedly "know" your meaning, you need to feel things out, trial and error, we cannot know everything; this lines up more with the thinking of Marcuse, one shouldn't expect a perfect solution, answer, or goal - perfect solutions, or "final solutions" [I'm looking at you Hitler] tend to be created by One-Dimensional people, often simpletons or people that never thought for themselves, or were overwhelmingly indoctrinated into their culture and traditions; perfect solutions tend to only exist in in theoretical spaces like mathematics, not in reality. Next Frankl goes on to explain that meaning tends to be found in creating something [giving], experiencing something [taking], or taking a stand on something. The taking a stand on something is what Frankl values as the most meaningful meaning, especially if it changes you for the better, regardless of if your stand is "successful." Frankl then goes on to emphasize your responsibility to actualize opportunities that occur around you to create, love, experience, are take a stand; if you let opportunities pass, it is your fault and nobody else's, you chose to value somebody else's goals over your own values, they do not choose for you, you may have just chosen the "easiest" path for the circumstances rather than the "best" path for you on your journey through life, but that is your fault.
Near the end of the "portion of the book worth reading," Frankl mentions a discussion with a patient that feels their life is meaningless. Frankl asks if when they "feel" music, if that moment is meaningless to them. The reply is that those moments are meaningful to them, as it is to me.
Frankl goes on to explain that searching for meaning in intellectual terms may not be the only way for meaning; there is also emotional meaning. Art, music, beauty, emotional meanings. This struck a chord with me. Unfortunately, this section of emotional meaning, was maybe 5 paragraphs long, then the subject changed. I need more about this, but maybe I'm pursuing this the wrong way here, here I go, intellectually looking for a book on the subject. Does such a book exist? anyway...
Another powerful tidbit then finds its way. How you should question your current values. Moral values of good and bad need to be influenced by what blocks or promotes fulfillment of meaning. i.e. a steady good paying job may be bad if your meaning is to travel and experience the world's beauty, sporadic "gig jobs" that pay "enough to get by" may be better suited for you to pursue a fulfillment of meaning. And finally, it takes courage to pursue your meaning, courage to be alone and think for yourself, to take things slow and be away from society's or family's distractions from you finding your you; moving fast and taking actions without thought is the behavior of somebody that is clueless of what they are trying to accomplish, taking actions without thought will likely distract you from discovering what you really want to do, you just won't have the time, you'll never get to it, then you die, too late, forever.
[pg 99] The rest of the book is mostly boring religious stuff, or Frankl's defense of Logotherapy. A lot of situational stories with patients, if you are into that. The first 98 pages are excellent, very much recommended; if the book ended at page 98, this would easily be a 5 star book, the second half of the book was so bad [wasted so much of my time], that I almost gave an overall rating of 3 stars. I have the expanded edition, copyright 1988, I think the expanded section is part of the boring stuff in the second half, therefore, the 1st printing [copyright 1970] may be a much better book.
March 5, 2018
عالم نفس يهودي متدين
مؤسس مدرسة فيينا الثالثة
الطريقة التي شرح بها فنيات وتطبيقات العلاج بالمعنى كانت عصيىة على الفهم
لكن الفصل الذي تحدث فيه عن العلاقة بين اللاهوت وعلم النفس كانت أكثر من رائعة
مؤسس مدرسة فيينا الثالثة
الطريقة التي شرح بها فنيات وتطبيقات العلاج بالمعنى كانت عصيىة على الفهم
لكن الفصل الذي تحدث فيه عن العلاقة بين اللاهوت وعلم النفس كانت أكثر من رائعة
December 30, 2021
I would rather recommend Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning; much of what he said there in vivid terms is repeated here more dryly.
November 5, 2021
For everyone who is interested in logotherapy this is a must read
August 19, 2022
Čeprav je delo luč sveta ugledalo pred več kot petdesetimi leti, nosi pomembna sporočila za prebijanje in uspevanje v aktualnih razmerah.
Published more than 50 years ago, this book carries important messages for surviving and thriving in the current era.
Published more than 50 years ago, this book carries important messages for surviving and thriving in the current era.
January 19, 2018
سلامٌ أيها الرجاء!
March 22, 2019
pop-philo
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews