Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning (Reading Group notes, meeting #2)

This post is part 2 of my Philosophy Meetup reading group on Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning.  My summary from part 1 is here.

Part 2 of Man’s Search for Meaning is a summary of the main tenets of “logotherapy”.  “Logos” = meaning.  Frankl begins with a humorous story of an American doctor who asked him to summarize, in one sentence, the difference between logotherapy and psychoanalysis.  Frankl asked him to summarize the latter in just one sentence, to which the man responded “"During psychoanalysis, the patient must lie down on a couch and tell you things which sometimes are very disagreeable to tell." (p. 120).  Frankl then responded that in logotherapy the patient can remain sitting erect, but must hear things (vs tell things) that are disagreeable.  What Frankl means by this comedic summary is that psychoanalysis is primarily retrospective vs introspective. Logotherapy is future-oriented, and as such it disrupts the self-centered feedback loop typical of the neurotic.  Having the patient confront, and get reoriented towards, their meaning in life helps them break the feedback loops typical of neuroses. 

Later Frankl shares another example of the story that illustrates effectively the difference.  He recounts the time a high ranking American diplomat came to see him.  This person had previously received psychoanalysis for 5 years.  In those therapy sessions, the diplomat, who was unhappy about his career given the direction US diplomacy had taken, was told his unhappiness at work stemmed from unresolved anger towards his father (this anger was now being projected onto his superiors at work).  And thus the therapy involved digging deeply into his childhood and relationship with his father.  But Frankl responded, after a few sessions with this diplomat, that he did not in fact suffer any neurosis.  His vocation was impeding his “will to meaning”.  So the man gave up his job, thus resolving the conflict he felt. The future orientation of logotherapy, vs years of rumination and digging up memories from childhood, did the trick in this case.

Frankl contrasts logotherapy with other therapies as follows:

According to logotherapy, this striving to find a meaning in one's life is the primary motivational force in man. That is why I speak of a will to meaning in contrast to the pleasure principle (or, as we could also term it, the will to pleasure) on which Freudian psychoanalysis is centered, as well as in contrast to the will to power on which Adlerian psychology, using the term "striving for superiority," is focused. (p. 121).

So logotherapy begins from an assumption quite different than the one we may commonly begin with—that people are primarily motivated by being happy.  Of course, many people may in fact say that this is what they want out of life.  But such an aspiration is typically frustrated.  Happiness is an illusory aspiration.  Meaning is really what drives our motivations, and if we are unaware of this fact it can create many problems for our lives. 

In the example of the troubled diplomat, that person was experiencing what Frankl calls “existential frustration”.  Such existential frustration is not pathological.  A few pages later Frankl makes what I think is one of his most profound insights, that we ought not to strive to remove all existential tension. 

I consider it a dangerous misconception of mental hygiene to assume that what man needs in the first place is equilibrium or, as it is called in biology, "homeostasis," i.e., a tensionless state. What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task. (p. 127)

Rather than striving for a stress-free or tensionless life, what we need to do is re-orient ourselves towards a meaningful life.  This will no double strike many of us as a counterintuitive recommendation.  We strive to structure much of our lives in a fashion that eliminates or insulates us from different types of stresses and tensions- economic hardship, problematic relationships or people, unfulfilling work, etc.  Is Frankl suggesting we just let these hardships afflict us?  No.  But we must recognize that a fulfilled life entails striving and struggling for worthwhile goals vs a life of ease and comfort.  The primitive forms of the will to power (e.g. will to make money) and will to pleasure (e.g. sexual compensation) are mistaken orientations to take to one’s future.  And yet so much of our culture equates the good life with the amount of wealth and opportunities in the sexual market place one has.  It is not a coincidence that there is so much discontent in our contemporary consumerist culture.  

Frankl introduces the concept of the existential vacuum.   No instinct tells humans what to do, and this creates a challenge for our species.  In the 20^th century Frankl believes there is a real risk that many will just do what others do (conformism) or what they are told (totalitarianism) (p. 128).   The existential vacuum manifests itself in a state of boredom (129).  He describes what he calls “Sunday neurosis” as the kind of depression that afflicts people who “become aware of the lack of content in their lives when the rush of the busy week is over and the void within themselves becomes manifest. Not a few cases of suicide can be traced back to this existential vacuum” (129).  He also notes this occurs with pensioners and aging people. 

Group discussion:  Have you had experience with the existential vacuum?  For me I think I have experienced this when (a) I experienced divorce (the ending of a romantic relationship that had extended from age 18 into my mid-40s) (b) the completion of large projects I have been working on for many years (e.g. writing a book, one of which took 15 years from start to finish); (c) during sabbaticals when I do not have any teaching or administrative duties; (d) death of family members, and (e) as my children got older, transitioning from dependent children to independent adults.  I do not really think I will ever retire from my career, though perhaps that is simply a coping strategy to delay acceptance of the existential vacuum that would create for me.

What is the meaning of life? (p. 130)  Frankl contends that there is no one answer to this question, it varies from person to person, day to day, and hour to hour.  There is no abstract meaning to life.  The insight that meaning in life is constantly in flux is a profound insight I think we often overlook.  The meaning we found in life decades ago may no longer be a fruitful source of meaning today (and this can cause us significant anguish in the present context).  In such cases we really are “living in the past” vs “living in the present/future”.

Frankl contends that we have the responsibility to discover/determine the meaning of our lives (it is not something others can answer for us).  This emphasis on the responsibility to attend to our meaning is captured in the following statement which Frankl takes to be the categorical imperative of logotherapy, what I will refer to as “The Counterfactual Test (CFT)”:

Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now!"    

Group exercise:  Try imagining CFT.  You are actually living your life for a second time, up to the point today.  Is there anything you would do differently from this point on? 

What is the purpose or benefit of CFT?  Well, firstly it requires us to see the present as the past.  Furthermore, the past is construed as something that is malleable- subject to change.  This helps amplify our responsibleness.  Logotherapy is not preachy or teaching.  Frankl argues that the therapist does not tell the person how to interpret their life.  He draws the following analogy between a painter and an eye specialist.  A painter tries to convey a picture of the world as he sees it.  Logotherapy does not try to do this, the therapist is not to prescribe what a person should believe about their life.  Instead, the therapist is like an eye specialist, helping to widen and broaden the patient’s field of vision.  

Frankl stresses the point that the true meaning of life is discovered in the world vs in ourselves or our mind.  This is what he calls the “self-transcendence of human existence” (p. 132).  “The more one forgets himself - by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love - the more human he is and the more he actualizes himself” (p. 133).

Frankl identifies 3 ways we discover meaning in life:

(1)   By creating a work or doing a deed.

(2)   By experiencing something or encountering someone (e.g. beauty, truth or love).

(3)   By the attitude we take to unavoidable suffering (. (p. 133)

 A lengthy quote from Frankl on love from p. 134

THE MEANING OF LOVE

Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.

And his remarks on suffering (elaborating on 3 above):

THE MEANING OF SUFFERING

We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed. For what then matters is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to turn one's predicament into a human achievement. When we are no longer able to change a situation - just think of an incurable disease such as inoperable cancer - we are challenged to change ourselves. (p. 135)

To illustrate the case of finding meaning in suffering he recounts the story of a grieving husband who was suffering prolonged bouts of depression after his wife had died two years earlier.  Rather than tell the husband any advice on how to redress the predicament Frankl instead asked him to consider what would have happened to his wife had the husband died first vs his wife?  The grieving husband replied that if he had died first it would have caused severe torment for his wife.  So, in a way, the husband’s suffering was the price he paid to prevent his wife suffering an even more significant pain had she survived her husband.  Once he could see his suffering as a sacrifice it had a meaning, and this helped him move on.  In such a circumstance the therapist can not change the circumstances of a person’s death, but what they can help to change is the attitude towards this unalterable fate. 

Frankl goes on to note that suffering is not of course necessary for meaning, and we should try to prevent suffering and misfortune when we can.  His point is that when such suffering is inevitable, then attending to one’s attitude about interpreting that suffering can help them orient towards meaning vs neurosis.

An exercise Frankl describes on p. 140, which he used on a suicidal mother who had lost her son, is to imagine you are on your death bed in advanced life, reflecting on your life.  Let us call this the Deathbed Reflection Exercise (DRE). 

Group Discussion:  Try doing the Deathbed Reflection Exercise.  Imagine you are at the end of the human lifespan, but still possess the cognitive capacity to reflect upon the life you have lived.  How would you narrate the story of your life?  What were your accomplishments?  What did you contribute to life (e.g. your family, your workplace, your society, humanity, etc.)?  What did you learn and enjoy in life?

In the section on “Super-Meaning” Frankl discusses how religious beliefs can play a part in a person’s sense of meaning.  I wonder what the atheists among us thought about this section?  Are we missing out on a comforting, shorthand experience of meaning?

Life is transitory, experiences and people come into our lives and (eventually) go.  Does this make life meaningless?  Frankl answers “no”:

…the transitoriness of our existence in no way makes it meaningless. But it does constitute our responsibleness; for everything hinges upon our realizing the essentially transitory possibilities. Man constantly makes his choice concerning the mass of present potentialities; which of these will be condemned to nonbeing and which will be actualized? Which choice will be made an actuality once and forever, an immortal "footprint in the sands of time"? At any moment, man must decide, for better or for worse, what will be the monument of his existence. (p. 143) 

Another insightful passage on this same issue:

 

Logotherapy, keeping in mind the essential transitoriness of human existence, is not pessimistic but rather activistic. To express this point figuratively we might say: The pessimist resembles a man who observes with fear and sadness that his wall calendar, from which he daily tears a sheet, grows thinner with each passing day. On the other hand, the person who attacks the problems of life actively is like a man who removes each successive leaf from his calendar and files it neatly and carefully away with its predecessors, after first having jotted down a few diary notes on the back. He can reflect with pride and joy on all the richness set down in these notes, on all the life he has already lived to the fullest. What will it matter to him if he notices that he is growing old? Has he any reason to envy the young people whom he sees, or wax nostalgic over his own lost youth? What reasons has he to envy a young person? For the possibilities that a young person has, the future which is in store for him? "No, thank you," he will think. "Instead of possibilities, I have realities in my past, not only the reality of work done and of love loved, but of sufferings bravely suffered. These sufferings are even the things of which I am most proud, though these are things which cannot inspire envy." (p. 144)

With respect to overcoming fear, Frankl describes the technique of “paradoxical intention”.  He provides a few examples- a man with a fear of perspiring, another person who was obsessive with cleaning, another with sexual dysfunction, a person with writer’s cramp, a stutter, anxiety about sleeping, etc.  In each of these cases what paradoxical intention prescribes is the patient actually do the opposite of what they are anxious about.  For example, for the man with a fear of perspiring it was recommended he try his hardest to show people how much he could sweat!  Fear is replaced by a paradoxical wish.  This is often achieved through humour (e.g. “watch me sweat a quart of sweat this time!”).  This, Frankl argues, “takes the wind of the sails of the anxiety” (p. 147).  The cure in such cases is self-transcendence- not taking ourselves so seriously/ fixating and obsessing about one’s neurosis- which then helps relax the fear/anxiety response.

Frankl also addresses Collective Neurosis, something which plagues every age.  I think is very timely insight for today.  Our age suffers many persistent neuroses.  Despite the risks of disease and death being at unprecedented historically low levels, many people navigate the world with stress and anxiety levels more befitting of living through World War III.  The news and social media no doubt help stoke these anxieties, coupled with boredom and the brain’s appetite to find things to worry about, even if that means inventing /exaggerating risks to active the fear/anxiety responses.

Frankl also critiques what he calls “pan-determinism”.  And this discussion will segue nice into the Winter reading group meeting on the topic of determinism.  Frankl states his position on this debate as follows:

 

Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment. (p. 154)

We cannot predict what a person’s future actions will be because every person has the freedom to change at any instant.  He gives the example of “Dr. J”, who committed mass murder atrocities during the war but was changed after the war before we died of cancer.  Frankl claims that “a residue of freedom, however limited it may be, is left to man in neurotic and even psychotic cases.” (p. 156).  The Dr. J. example was based on hearsay, and is just one case, but the broader issue of free will is worth considering in our discussions.

Group Discussion:  Do you agree with Frankl we can “change at any instance”?  Or are we more hardwired/determined than actually free?  Do you agree with the following statement from Frankl:

A human being is not one thing among others; things determine each other, but man is ultimately self- determining.  What he becomes - within the limits of endowment and environment - he has made out of himself. In the concentration camps, for example, in this living laboratory and on this testing ground, we watched and witnessed some of our comrades behave like swine while others behaved like saints. Man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualized depends on decisions but not on conditions. (p. 157) 

In particular I would question Frankl’s assumption that, because people responded differently to the adversity of the concentration camp (some giving up while others found meaning and growth), this variation was caused by “attitudes they could choose to adopt” vs differences in personality arising from environmental/genetic variations.   

Tragic Optimism covered in his 1984 Postscript

This is an optimism that persists in spite of the reality of (1) pain (2) guilt and (3) death.  Frankl describes this optimism as:

an optimism in the face of tragedy and in view of the human potential which at its best always allows for: (1) turning suffering into a human achievement and accomplishment; (2) deriving from guilt the opportunity to change oneself for the better; and (3) deriving from life's transitoriness an incentive to take responsible action. (162)

He stresses that this optimism cannot be forced.  In this 1984 Postscript he expands on mass neurotic syndrome, identifying 3 facets of this syndrome which I think are very relevant to the problems of today (what are called “deaths of despair”):

(1)   “the existential vacuum”-  feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness (depression)

(2)   Aggression   

(3)   Addiction

Frankl repeats his point that suffering is not indispensable to meaning (we should try to avoid it when possible), but that meaning is possible in spite of, and through, suffering. 

Group discussion:  have you found meaning (e.g. growth and development) through suffering?

Looking forward to our discussions.

Cheers,

Colin 

End of Fall Teaching Term

Monday night I gave my final lecture of the term to my large Intro to Political Theory course (300 students).  As I was reflecting on the course content, and explaining to my students why I am so passionate about teaching the history of political thought to the majors in our program (we have 2 mandatory theory courses on the history of political thought, and I teach both those courses), I thought I would post some of those reflections/comments here.

Before we act, as both individuals and collectively as societies, we think.  We form assumptions (e.g. about human nature, about "cause and effect", about the scope and limits of government power), we form aspirations (e.g. about equality, freedom, justice, etc.), and we deliberate about the pros and cons of different courses of action.  These cognitive processes and deliberations ought to be the subject of intense study and scrutiny.  We are much more likely to make better decisions (as individuals and collectivities) when sound assumptions, aspirations, and deliberations precede our acting.  The ideas of past thinkers constitute an experimental laboratory of diagnosing societal predicaments and offering political aspirations and prescriptions to meet the perceived challenges of human societies.  By examining and engaging with these thinkers we expand our own cognitive toolbox, helping us avoid the mistakes of the past, appreciating the depth of insights and wisdom of past thinkers, and inspiring us to continue the project of striving for a better future.  

Because I teach two large mandatory undergraduate courses on the history of political thought many students form the mistaken impression that most of my research involves the past.  But most of my research involves addressing the challenges of the future, especially advances in biomedical research and the determinates of well-ordered science in an aging world.  But I pre-commit myself, as a scholar and teacher, to always ensure my intellectual development is anchored to an appreciation for the canon of the tradition, to ensure I am always learning lessons from the past when thinking about the future.  

It is so easy for an academic to be distracted by what happens to be trendy today, or consumed by the issues/concerns of those constantly posting on social media, etc.  As an scholar I consciously work at keeping my research interests and intellectual development framed in "the big picture" of humanity's plight over centuries/millennia vs what happens to make the news in 2023.  Such perspective taking" ensures our intellectual development is not overly fixated on "the immediate".  Perhaps the things we happen to be fixated upon today arise because we are asking the wrong questions, or have a constrained understanding of the potential "menu of options".  "Outside the box" thinking can be facilitated by transcending our geography and time, something that is encouraged and developed by engaging with the ideas and aspirations of thinkers that came before us and tackled the perceived problems of their day.

I finished my lecture last night by telling my students that the responsibility of scrutinizing and refining our political ideas and ideals is now the task for their generation to take on.  I hope that, through my course, they have developed an appreciate for how those that lived before them have tried to theorize about the challenges of their day- be it the potential conflict between democracy and justice (Plato), the aspirations of civil disobedience (MLK, Jr.), human nature and the state (Hobbes), limited government and property (Locke), anarchism (Kropotkin, Goldman) or criticisms of the social contract (e.g. Pateman and Mills).    

Cheers, 

Colin

Digital Technology and the Brains of Kids

How digital technology has changed the brains of children.  From the abstract:

The synthesis of the evidence revealed that (1) digital experience does have positive and negative impacts on children’s brains, structurally and functionally; (2) it could cause structural and functional changes in children’s frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes, brain connectivity, and brain networks; and the most vulnerable area is the prefrontal cortex and its associated executive function, and (3) early digital experience has both positive and negative impacts on children’s brain structure longitudinally. Practice or Policy: Educators and parents should be aware of the potential effects of digital experience on children’s brain development and provide appropriate guidance, mediation, and support for children’s digital use. Policymakers should establish and implement evidence-based policies and regulations to protect children’s digital well-being.

Cheers, 

Colin 

Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning (Reading Group notes, meeting #1)

 

This is the first of two posts on my summary of Frankl's Man’s Search for Meaning, a book I am reading for my Philosophy Meetup group.  I would like to begin by stating my own existential observation of the human condition, which helps to frame my interest in the topic of Frankl’s book. 

I think the following statement is a basic (but painful) truth of the human condition. 

The human condition:  Each of us will live a finite life that entails some significant, tragic losses.  All the people we love and care about will get ill and/or frail and/or suffer and die at some point in their lives.  Many of the specific goals and aspirations we deeply care about, motivating us out of bed hundreds if not thousands of times, will go unfulfilled- either because they proved to be unattainable or were revised or abandoned.  Eventually, our own health will fade. And we all die.

This “existential angst” of the human condition is sometimes expressed in the common slogan “shit happens”.  But this slogan’s attitude always struck me as promoting an excessive “acceptingness”/fatalistic mindset that borders on perpetuating despair or indifference.  Yes we all experience adversity, but there is some control we have over how we process and deal with that adversity, and the way we manage this adversity has a profound impact on both the happiness and wellbeing of our selves and those around us.

I will share a personal experience of this.  In 2018 I received a phone call from my father, he was very despondent  and shared with me the devastating news that he was diagnosed with lung cancer. My father, who competed in the Olympic games for race walking when he was age 41, never smoked or drank alcohol.   He was still biking 70 kms on bike rides into his 80s (competitive race walking had taken a toll on his knees).  I was very close with my father and he was the most avid reader of my blog!  Processing this news was very difficult for he and our family. 

At first I really struggled with what to say to him, I wanted to offer words of support and encouragement.  However the long-term prospects against this type of cancer were grim.  The probability of surviving 5 years was very low.  Simply saying “shit happens” would have been an inhumane sentiment to express (even though it is true).  The type of support/advice I offered my father was tailored to him, and predicated upon what I knew about the power of gratitude in helping us weather the adversity of life.

My father had kept a daily journal since the 1970s, and he was a very family-oriented person, and treasured his connection to his 8 grandchildren.  So I suggested to him that he write out some personal reflections on each decade of his life, sharing some details of a big event that his own children and grandchildren did not know about that would be chronicled in a document he would leave for all of us.  

I was hoping that, rather than only seeing the loss of future time with his family, this reflective/narrative exercise would help him see and appreciate:

(1) what he had accomplished over his long lifetime (I also told him he exceeded the average life expectancy for his birth cohort in Ireland by some 30 years!) and 

(2) how the connection to his children and grandchildren would extend beyond his time here (in our memories).  

He ended up writing an extensive personal history that he shared with all his children in a document after he passed.  I like to think that by diverting some of his time and energy into that project he experienced more meaning and purpose, helping him process the tragic news of his disease diagnosis better than if he did not do such an exercise.  His last months were not spent ruminating only about “loss”.

Some time during the transition from our naïve childhood into adulthood we have to come to terms with the reality of this existential angst, something that probably is an ongoing process for us over the lifespan as life doles out different types of adversity. For many religion offers a salve that helps ease the discomfort of the human condition.  But alas, I am an atheist so that has been of no help since I came to reject the theological basis of my beliefs back in my early 20s.  Somewhere between the extremes of the strategy of denying the truth of the existential angst (by creating religion) and ruminating daily on it till we are filled with despair, lies what I think is the opportunity for “integrating” the reality of the human existential predicament with our desire to find purpose and meaning in life.  And that is why I felt motivated to read Frankl’s classic book.

In Gordon Allport’s Preface to the book he notes that Logotherapy, Frankl’s form of existential analysis, is made vivid by a question he would often ask the patients that came to see him:  Why not commit suicide? (p. 9). In the answer to this question we get a gleam of the sense of meaning and responsibility a person sees in their life.  It may be their relationships (love for their child or sibling or friend) or some fond memories of their past (e.g. sense of achievement).  Frankl, an Austrian psychiatrist and holocaust survivor, spent 3 years living in Nazi concentration camps.  His wife, brother and parents all died in these camps.  He wrote the book in 9 days in 1945, and initially planned to publish it anonymously.

Frankl endured many horrors during his time in these camps, but throughout the book he frequently refers to Nietzsche’s quote, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how."  Of course it is better to never have to endure preventable hardships in life, but when such hardships do occur, there is a way for the human spirit to find some way to continue on with hope and purpose.  This is what his book explores.  The ways in which, even in the face of apparently unsurmountable hardship and adversity, humans have the ability to find meaning that makes them strive for a better future.  As Allport notes in the Preface, when all of a person’s freedoms are eliminated (e.g. what you wear, the labour you spend doing all day, what you eat, when you sleep, etc.) there remains only one domain of freedom—"the ability to choose one’s attitude in a given set of circumstances” (p. 12). 

Question the group can consider:  while the hardship of surviving a concentration camp is on the extreme end of adversity and hardship, can you think of your own personal life challenges, when adverse circumstances beyond your control arose but you were able to choose the attitude with which you met the challenges presented by these circumstances?  How did you cope with these adverse circumstances?  Did you adopt different attitudes over time?  What helped you cope, or not cope, with the adverse circumstances?

Frankl notes the question to which Man’s Search for Meaning is designed to address:  How was everyday life in a concentration camp reflected in the mind of the average prisoner? (p. 21).  And the term “Capos” refers “to prisoners who acted as trustees, having special privileges - or well-known prisoners”.  The book is about the regular prisoners in the concentration camp, whom the Capos despised.  The former typically had very little or nothing to eat.  Frankl was prisoner #119,104, and most of the time he was put to work digging and laying tracks for railway lines.  He was only used as a doctor in the last few weeks of his time in the prison.

When the prisoners first arrived at camp Frankl notes that they commonly experienced what the field of psychiatry refers to as the "delusion of reprieve": the condemned, immediately before execution, gets the illusion that they might be reprieved at the very last minute (p. 28).  A similar phenomenon has been documented in other, less extreme, life circumstances.  For example, if you ask newly married couples to raise their hand if they think they will get a divorce no one is likely to do so.  And yet the stats on the divorce rate hovers around 50%.  If you ask Canadians how many believe they will get a cancer diagnosis over their life time, again only a few hands are likely to go up (but 50% will, sadly, receive such news).  No doubt there is a strong psychological defence mechanism at play that helps us go through life believing that divorces and cancer, while common outcomes for many people, are things likely to happen to others but not us.

Frankl details how, when initially arriving at the concentration camp, the passengers where separated into one of two groups- those that went on the left side passage, and those that were sent down the right side passage, after being assessed by guards.  The vast majority of passengers, he estimates 90%, were sent to the left side.  These were the people deemed “ill” or “weak” and they wee killed.  Frankl was sparred because he was healthy.  Prisoners thus had to conceal any illness or injury, for fear of it leading to their death if perceived by the guards or Capos.

As degrading as adjusting to the camp experience was for Frankl- having one's head’s shaved, all possessions taken, sleeping in cramped quarters, etc.- he describes that many adopted a strange kind of humour and curiosity about the circumstances (p. 35).  The minds of the inmates developed a kind of protection, which he describes as follows:

At that time one cultivated this state of mind as a means of protection. We were anxious to know what would happen next; and what would be the consequence, for example, of our standing in the open air, in the chill of late autumn, stark naked, and still wet from the showers. In the next few days our curiosity evolved into surprise; surprise that we did not catch cold. (35)

He notes Dostoevski's saying: "There is only one thing that I dread: not to be worthy of my sufferings”, which basically means humans can get use to anything, even horrific living conditions.  When this occurs Frankl claims persons meet “their suffering with a genuine inner achievement” (p. 87).

In the New Year we are doing a reading group on determinism, so I look forward to the contrasting perspectives between what neuroscience is revealing and Frankl’s argument.  Consider, for example, the emphasis Frankl places on human agency to influence our well-being in the following passage:

 

We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.  And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity to become molded into the form of the typical inmate.  (87) 

On the next page he adds “The way in which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it entails, the way in which he takes up his cross, gives him ample opportunity - even under the most difficult circumstances - to add a deeper meaning to his life” (88).  The prisoners that lost hope for the future, he argues, were doomed.  “With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and became subject to mental and physical decay” (95). 

I finish my summary notes of this part of Man’s Search for Meaning with a few other passage that stood out to me that we can discuss:

 

What was really needed was a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life - daily and hourly.  Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual. (98)

 

When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer, he will have to accept his suffering as his task; his single and unique task. He will have to acknowledge the fact that even in suffering he is unique and alone in the universe. No one can relieve him of his suffering or suffer in his place. His unique opportunity lies in the way in which he bears his burden. For us, as prisoners, these thoughts  (99)

 

I told my comrades (who lay motionless, although occasionally a sigh could be heard) that human life, under any circumstances, never ceases to have a meaning, and that this infinite meaning of life includes suffering and dying, privation and death. (104)

            The psychology of the prisoner after liberation:

Psychologically, what was happening to the liberated prisoners could be called "depersonalization." Everything appeared unreal, unlikely, as in a dream. We could not believe it was true. How often in the past years had we been deceived by dreams! We dreamt that the day of liberation had come, that we had been set free, had returned home, greeted our friends, embraced our wives, sat down at the table and started to tell of all the things we had gone through   (110)

Looking forward to our discussions!

Cheers,

Colin

 

 

Cognitive Dissonance

The next two books for the reading group in my Philosophy Meetup are causing my some cognitive dissonance.  The first book is Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, published in 1946.  I just finished reading the first part of his book (expect some review notes to be posted soon).  And the next book for January is Determined by Robert Sapolsky.  

Consider, for example, the contrasting theses in these two passages:

“… everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.  And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity to become molded into the form of the typical inmate”.  Victor Frankl Man’s Search for Meaning (1946) 

“…when you behave in a particular way, which is to say when your brain has generated a particular behavior, it is because of the determinism that came just before, which was caused by the determinism just before that, all the way down.”   Robert Sapolsky Determined (2023)           

While these 2 claims may initially appear to be conflictual, I actually do not believe that is necessarily the case.  I haven't yet read Sapolsky's book, but I will post my tentative resolution thesis now, before doing so to see if it turns out to be compatible with this argument. 

My tentative resolution:  Our search for meaning (which we experience as the exercise of what we call "free will") is actually an evolutionary adaptation.  That is, humans that could see hope and purpose in the horrific tragic circumstances of life, by altering their attitude about living in such adverse conditions, enjoyed greater survival and reproductive success than those humans who wallowed in the despair.  Gilbert et al. refer to this ability to adapt to adversity as the "psychological immune system".  

Now of course one might retort that such a concession means that free will is not real.  My response to that is it is as real for us as any other belief or emotion (e.g. anger, lust, love, etc.) we have.   So I do not need to categorize the subjective feeling of free will as something that is "real" beyond the confines of evolutionary psychology.  Furthermore, the belief that we have responsibility over our attitudes of how to respond to life's circumstances has a real impact in the casual chain of actions (even if, in some sense, it is determined or primed).  

I look forward to reading Sapolsky's book to see if his account permits this type of response.

Cheers, 

Colin

Play and Democracy (10 years on)

 

A paper from a decade ago now.  Many might object to my analogy between democratic politics and play by contesting that the latter is serious business.  To which I would respond that I agree, but play is also serious business!  Sadly, in the decade since I published this piece I believe we have become, in many respects, even more play-impaired than we were a decade ago.  And the health of our democracies have suffered as a consequence of this.  

Cheers, 

Colin