Any thoughts on Viktor Frankl?

[bardegaulois]

I don't think it much of a secret here that I have a particular fondness for existentialism. Up to this point, though, I'd never really looked at the existentialist psychology of Frankl. He was not a Catholic, but a Jew, and an inmate of Hitler's concentration camp system during the Second World War, an experience which helped forge his views on the "will to meaning," following Kierkegaard, as the primary motivation of man's psyche. He seems one of the few psychological theorists who takes man's spiritual element into account.

Has anyone ever read Frankl? Do you have any opinions of his work?

[Era Might]

Read "Man's Search for Meaning" many years ago. Don't remember much except that his main point is to find some meaning, whatever it is, to keep going on. An understandable philosophy in the context of the Holocaust. I was listening to something by Harold Bloom the other day, a well-known literary critic who grew up in Jewish New York, and he said that for many Jews, the Holocaust was the final break of the covenant with Yahweh, that he broke the Covenant, and Bloom doesn't know if Judaism will even survive. Frankl seems to be an attempt to find meaning in a world where God is dead, not just symbolically but God as a character, a historical character, is dead, can't even be held on to as myth. I'm not sure if Frankl was still Jewish.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Era Might

[CatherineM]

My Dad met him. I absolutely agree with him that we all need to find some meaning in our lives. Without that, I’m not sure I’d still be here. 

[28yrolddiscerner]

Read his "Man's search for meaning"! One of the best books I've ever read! Changed my life.

[chrysostom]

Haven't read him, but I know of one man, in prison for a couple decades now, who credits a great moment of grace to reading Frankl's book - drawing from it the will to persist in faith and also for introducing him to St. Maximilian Kolbe.

“There is a freedom that no one can ever take from you: The freedom to choose the person you are going to be in any set of circumstances.”

http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/maximilian-and-this-mans-search-for-meaning-part-one/

 

[Era Might]

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

Haven't read him, but I know of one man, in prison for a couple decades now, who credits a great moment of grace to reading Frankl's book - drawing from it the will to persist in faith and also for introducing him to St. Maximilian Kolbe.

“There is a freedom that no one can ever take from you: The freedom to choose the person you are going to be in any set of circumstances.”

http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/maximilian-and-this-mans-search-for-meaning-part-one/

 

While I understand the sentiment, I'm not sure how much of a recipe that is for happiness. To choose who you are going to be is an act of freedom, but that doesn't resolve all the anger, hatred, resentment of being forced into a position. I think that's why a show like Breaking Bad is so popular. Walter White is forced to choose who he's going to be once he finds out he has cancer. He decides he's NOT going to be the man who goes to work every day and dies quietly and passively. He decides he's going to be an anti-hero and the villain. The way I read that quote from Frankl is in light of the Greeks, who divinized fate. Their gods were neither good nor evil. They were capricious and to be reverenced, but one's destiny is written, especially when one is most free. Freedom is the most unhappy thing in the world. It's why people get married, nobody wants to be free, they want to have a definite life, they want to be constrained by choices and obligations and relationships. Frankl's philosophy seems okay in a concentration camp, but is anyone happy in a concentration camp?

[chrysostom]

As the author of that article himself said, that book may not have affected him as it did were it any earlier or later in his experience of prison. And it wasn't about happiness per se. Happiness or sadness will always be with us as we experience life' s changing circumstances. But for Fr. Macrae, it was one of the keys to resolving the resentment - it was an act of the will, an act that also involved seeking the light and the grace of Christ.

In life we have no choice but to be constrained one way or the other. It's going to happen. But one thing we will always have is that freedom to choose how we will act, and how we will love. Frankl may have been no theist even, but he hit on something universally true. From a Christian viewpoint, God made us that way so that we can love Him more perfectly.

Also...St. Maximilian Kolbe was happy in the concentration camp.

No idea why the Greek gods have anything to do with this, to be honest.

[Era Might]

19 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

As the author of that article himself said, that book may not have affected him as it did were it any earlier or later in his experience of prison. And it wasn't about happiness per se. Happiness or sadness will always be with us as we experience life' s changing circumstances. But for Fr. Macrae, it was one of the keys to resolving the resentment - it was an act of the will, an act that also involved seeking the light and the grace of Christ.

In life we have no choice but to be constrained one way or the other. It's going to happen. But one thing we will always have is that freedom to choose how we will act, and how we will love. Frankl may have been no theist even, but he hit on something universally true. From a Christian viewpoint, God made us that way so that we can love Him more perfectly.

Also...St. Maximilian Kolbe was happy in the concentration camp.

No idea why the Greek gods have anything to do with this, to be honest.

Because the Greeks had a different viewpoint from Frankl. He wasn't Christian, so technically Christ has nothing to do with this either. But, that's the point of philosophy, to ask questions. I don't think existentialism or Frankl are "universally true." It's one way of looking at things. Which, I think is fine if you're in a concentration camp...but I think when you have a different context, your questions change. IOW, what does it mean to speak of a "context" at all. We all live in different contexts, different realities. If it's not about happiness, what's it about? Do we want to be free or happy? Are they the same? I don't think they are. Our conceptions of things like freedom or peace are not the same. Shalom for the Hebrews was not the same as the Roman Pax, and neither are the same as the American peace. Same words, very different ideas.

[Era Might]

39 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

Also...St. Maximilian Kolbe was happy in the concentration camp.

Okay, but he wasn't an existentialist. When you believe in a medieval worldview of redemption, afterlife, etc. it makes life a little easier. Maybe even a little happier. Existentialism is a modern philosophy, nothing to do with Catholicism. I think the joy of someone like St. Francis was a pure happiness, but, very few people live like St. Francis, with a reckless and free-spirited abandonment to love in the flesh for all creation. I wonder what would have become of St. Francis in the modern world. Might have crushed him. If you're unhappy in a concentration camp, are you less loving or free than someone who is? Or maybe you're realer, truer.

[chrysostom]

4 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Because the Greeks had a different viewpoint from Frankl. He wasn't Christian, so technically Christ has nothing to do with this either.

I guess I was say it does in the sense that Frankl was inspired by St. Maximilian Kolbe - and also in the sense that what he said makes sense in light of Christianity. Beyond that I'm not saying anything.

Agreed freedom and happiness are not the same in many senses, with the caveat that I believe that Christ is our freedom and our beatitude ultimately speaking.

Frankl's words have meant a lot to a lot of people despite their different...realities. Maybe it's because if Frankl could find meaning in suffering and find freedom in his soul in Auschwitz then it's possible to do so in less intensely dark realities. It's not all that complicated.

What do you value?

[Era Might]

1 minute ago, chrysostom said:

What do you value?

Freedom, love, truth, and even more, truthfulness. Frankl found meaning in suffering. Christ cried out my God, my God, why have you abandoned me. I don't think "meaning" is what the story of Christ is about, it's something more primordial. The modern world isn't concerned with primordial matters like that. Carl Jung did, but many would view him as a mystical oddball, they prefer Freud or Frankl.

[chrysostom]

1 minute ago, Era Might said:

Okay, but he wasn't an existentialist. When you believe in a medieval worldview of redemption, afterlife, etc. it makes life a little easier. Maybe even a little happier. Existentialism is a modern philosophy, nothing to do with Catholicism. I think the joy of someone like St. Francis was a pure happiness, but, very few people live like St. Francis, with a reckless and free-spirited abandonment to love in the flesh for all creation. I wonder what would have become of St. Francis in the modern world. Might have crushed him. If you're unhappy in a concentration camp, are you less loving or free than someone who is? Or maybe you're realer, truer.

I will say that having not actually read Frankl I don't know how existentialism fits into all of this, I'm mainly working from that quote - which more than just existentialists have found to be true. Which is why I'm not limiting the discussion to existentialism, but I do acknowledge I may be...imprecise.

[Era Might]

12 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

Frankl's words have meant a lot to a lot of people despite their different...realities. Maybe it's because if Frankl could find meaning in suffering and find freedom in his soul in Auschwitz then it's possible to do so in less intensely dark realities. It's not all that complicated.

I think that's fine. What do I know about being in a concentration camp. But, I think this idea of "meaning" is a modern idea. We're inventing ourselves. We are no longer members of a cosmic Whole. Our task in life is to invent ourselves, to be the authors of our own lives, not to discover the Author of Life in the medieval sense of finding a God who has written us into existence. This is something I think Thomas Merton struggled with, what does it mean to be one's self. He found himself in nothingness, yet he could never quite escape himself, he always sensed he was acting, playing the part of a monk, the part of an author, the part of a saint, the part of whatever.

[chrysostom]

13 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Freedom, love, truth, and even more, truthfulness. Frankl found meaning in suffering. Christ cried out my God, my God, why have you abandoned me. I don't think "meaning" is what the story of Christ is about, it's something more primordial. The modern world isn't concerned with primordial matters like that. Carl Jung did, but many would view him as a mystical oddball, they prefer Freud or Frankl.

I read "primordial" - and I think that word absolutely can be used about Christ in a correct manner - but I hope you forgive me if I find that word is also capable of describing a reading that in the pursuit of getting to what Christ (and his story) were really about, imposes on it meanings foreign to the actual account. Not sure if I expressed that well enough...  And probably getting off topic. :/

3 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I think that's fine. What do I know about being in a concentration camp. But, I think this idea of "meaning" is a modern idea. We're inventing ourselves. We are no longer members of a cosmic Whole. Our task in life is to invent ourselves, to be the authors of our own lives, not to discover the Author of Life in the medieval sense of finding a God who has written us into existence. This is something I think Thomas Merton struggled with, what does it mean to be one's self. He found himself in nothingness, yet he could never quite escape himself, he always sensed he was acting, playing the part of a monk, the part of an author, the part of a saint, the part of whatever.

I guess I'm just saying that people like the author of the post I cited have taken that quote - about the freedom to choose the kind of person you will be, no matter the circumstances - and applied it to their lives in an entirely Catholic (and, sure, medieval) way.

You wondered about whether the modern world would have crushed St. Francis. I will also say that there are modern saints with that same childlike abandonment to love. I have no doubt about it. I may know one or two living ones too.

Edited November 27, 2017 by chrysostom

[Era Might]

32 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

I read "primordial" - and I think that word absolutely can be used about Christ in a correct manner - but I hope you forgive me if I find that word is also capable of describing a reading that in the pursuit of getting to what Christ (and his story) were really about, imposes on it meanings foreign to the actual account. Not sure if I expressed that well enough...  And probably getting off topic. :/

I guess I'm just saying that people like the author of the post I cited have taken that quote - about the freedom to choose the kind of person you will be, no matter the circumstances - and applied it to their lives in an entirely Catholic (and, sure, medieval) way.

You wondered about whether the modern world would have crushed St. Francis. I will also say that there are modern saints with that same childlike abandonment to love. I have no doubt about it. I may know one or two living ones too.

I don't mind getting off topic if you don't. Ha!

Yes, I agree with your point about "primordial" but I think the opposite is true: your point about the "actual account" is a very modern way of looking at the Gospels, as though there is the "real text" and that our task in reading them is to figure out the historical writers.

I'm not interested in the "historical Jesus." I'm guessing you aren't either, but we probably differ on what conclusions we draw. I think Jesus is a character in a story. And I read the Gospels as a story. Not as the writings of authors, but also not as scripture as such. Because I think the story, like all stories that matter, are primordial. They are about the only subject we know: man.

I read the Gospels more as a pilgrimage. I don't look at the Gospels as texts written 2,000 years ago but as spiritual stories. Whether they are true or not, to me, is irrelevant. They are true, even if they are fiction, just as Shakespeare's Falstaff to me is as true and real as any human being I've ever met. But I think the same about all great literature. I believe in Homer as much as I believe in the Gospels, because they reveal man to himself. That's not the only way to read, of course, but I'm not an academic reader. That's not why I read the Gospels. There is a deeper truth, I think, then the idea of truth of a religion, whether it's the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or Sophocles. Christ is an archetypal figure. Even in the Gospels, I think the only way to understand the character of Jesus is as a man who assumed the role in a story of an idea that had been gestating for a long time, the Hebrew idea of the "Christ." But the Hebrew Christ isn't the only Christ-figure, it's found in other myths. But the Gospels, to me, are the revelation or the fruit of the Hebrew prophets, who denounced Israel and turned man back to his heart. "Go and learn what this means, I would have mercy and not sacrifice." I don't believe the Gospels are a religion, they are part of the truth about man.

When I say primordial, I am saying that this was the main revelation of Christ: he did not come to lead us to some evolution, some consummation. He came to bring us to our source, which is God, which the heart of man. You are dust, man, and to dust you shall return. To be in God is to be nothing, because Christ is the perfect idea of man, greater than any idea man has ever come up with on his own. The idea of Christ is simply this: man who loves perfectly, not in abstractions but in stories, in the woman forgiven for her adultery, in the leper who is embraced, in the poor man who is fed, and in the sinner who is loved greater than the saint. That's Christ, IMO.