Logotherapy is founded upon the belief that it is the striving to find a meaning in one's life that is the primary, most powerful motivating and driving force in humans. Through developing new approaches in logotherapy, Viktor Frankl, a holocaust survivor and psychiatrist, helped to make a significant impact in the world of psychotherapy. His book, Man's Search for Meaning, is nothing short of extraordinary; made the list of the top 100 most influential books ever written. I've read the book three times, and I come away with something new and remarkable every time. Thought some of you might find this interesting. Frankl quotes Nietzsche several times in his book, ''He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.'' http://logotherapy.univie.ac.at/e/logotherapy.html
The idea actually originated from Arthur Schopenhauer. It was him who first thought of us as individuals driven by will in the direction of purpose and meaning. This was all before psychiatry even existed. "Suffering by nature or chance never seems so painful as suffering inflicted on us by the arbitrary will of another." Arthur Schopenhauer
Really? Huh. Logotherapy takes practice, but if you commit to the process, it can change your life. We are not the sum total of our conditions; we are the sum total of our decisions and reactions to said conditions.
Instincts huh? It seems less compassion and more understanding is key to success in that manifestation.
Um...hmmm. I wouldn't say logotherapy is 'instinctive.' I would say it is far easier and perhaps 'natural,' to blame our circumstance for our lots in life. Logotherapy asks us to change the paradigm. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@wegs Have you read any of the criticism of Logotherapy? I'm a little leery of the "faith based" strategy, but that's just me... An excerpt from On The Philosophy of Recovery - Reason, Meaning and Logotherapy Yet, Frankl states: "Logotherapy is neither teaching nor preaching. It is as far removed from logical reasoning as it is from moral exhortation." In a 1997 interview with First Things, he further adds: "But it becomes a matter of believing rather than thinking, of faith rather than intellect." Thus, my first criticism of Frankl, and I don't believe it to be trivial, is that he urges us to embrace the good, the true, and the beautiful but denies that rational content, and logical distinctions are necessary to identify their constitution. One cannot "not use logic". Assuming the undeniability of logic is essential to have any intelligible discussion or meaning in the first place. For example, while in the camps Frankl had to make often very sophisticated rational distinctions between despair and hope, love and not love, etc. Whatever is good cannot be divorced from rationality. One cannot truly know the difference between good and not good without using the laws of logic. How, if we are to embrace Frankl's writings, does one know whether one has arrived at the correct meaning if he or she is so willing to surrender rational thought? Why the sacrificium intellectus? Faith without or despite reason (fideism) is, as Harvard Theologian Harold O.J. Brown puts it, "a violent affront to the integrity of one's soul". Conversely, when one is engaged in rational thought, he or she is as much participating in the character of God as any other divine grace such as acts of service. Persons (like Frankl) rejecting the nature and necessity of logic can still be good or find meaning- that is not the problem. The problem is that they have no objective grounds to pursue the good or even be able to say for sure what it is. "Meaning" can mean anything at all. Ironically, it was this same Anti-Rationalism that made Nazism possible. Frankl became of a victim of one aspect of his core philosophy. A robust program for mental health should not include such a devaluation of the intellect. It's a gift. Shippensburg University philosopher C. George Boeree rightfully reminds us that while Frankl's brand of Existentialism is not entirely like those of traditional Existentialists: "Sartre and other atheistic existentialists suggest that life is ultimately meaningless, and we must find the courage to face that meaninglessness. Sartre says we must learn to endure ultimate meaninglessness; Frankl instead says that we need to learn to endure our inability to fully comprehend ultimate meaningfulness, for "Logos is deeper than logic." It still succumbs to the harsh criticism so easily leveled against fideism: "By couching religion in the most tolerant and liberal language, he nevertheless is asking us to base our understanding of human existence on faith, on a blind acceptance of the existence of ultimate truth, without evidence other than the "feelings" and intuitions and anecdotes of those who already believe. This is, in fact, a dangerous precedent, and there is much "pop psychology" based on these ideas. The same tendency applies to the quasi-religious theories of Carl Jung and Abraham Maslow"
No, I have not seen this until just now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm sadly outraged that anyone would say that Frankl lacked ''logic.'' He believed in God, but to say he lacked logic is a fallacy. Why must critics do this? It is fine to critique a work such as this, and find opposition to the faith based side of things, but to say that Frankl's approach lacked logic, is not true. Worse yet, is to say that he REJECTED logic? What on earth? Honestly, that is untrue. And to even insinuate that Frankl lacked a true 'understanding' of Nazism, is a downright insult. (and ignorant of who Frankl even was) One doesn't 'pray their way' through logotherapy. The ability to choose mind over matter, takes willpower. You can be an atheist and still benefit greatly from logotherapy. It's not a religion. lol http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/004-viktor-frankl-at-ninety-an-interview-18 http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/god-in-viktor-frankls-logotherapy/ I'm appreciative Randwolf that you shared this, although it saddens me. Great. Now I want to go digging around for more critiques, but this will serve no purpose, and will just sadden me more. :/
Slow people bother me. Instincts are greater than logic? Was Einstein logical? Or did he feel his way through odd questions? Applying logic to reality only serves complications. Applying knowledge to instincts serves a greater experience
I've just watched this, tears rolling down my cheeks. Damn you, Trooper! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You have a beautiful heart, you know that? I hope others enjoy it as much as we did. Love can cause us to be melancholy...and the video talking about why we 'hang on' to this life...ugh, good stuff.
Death: " Humanity is such a interesting pest" Life: " Why do you call them a pest?" Death: " For wherever they go my dear your primacy is disrupted by them. They are death incarnate for lesser species and perceive other groups of themselves as pest ripe for extermination." Life: " In spite of that I still see good in them even if you cannot." Death: " You and I have watched for eons the progress your creation has made, although I've done my work slowly under the natural circumstances and under your restraint, you create a species that could very well destroy all your work at rapid speed and efficiency " Life:" They have progressed to understanding the galaxy and discover their place in this universe. They are a species on the verge of breaking away from my domain." Death: "Intelligent enough to one day colonize other worlds but dumb enough to destroy their home. I fail to see any progress in that my dear all i can see is the delay of an inevitable outcome" Life; " And what would that be?" Death:" The same outcome that 99.9 percent of all species have faced...extinction. The difference being that humanity will be bringing down this planet with them into a grave of their own design" Life:.... Death: " You see my dear you are the beautiful lie, while I am the painful truth." If Troopers's heart is beautiful than i am the antithesis. The video that Trooper posted simply reaffirmed a reality that i was well aware of: everything will die. I see love as neurological, chemical and hormone induced response to the possibility of an individual's chance to carry out a eons old objective of any species... propagation. In this light "love" for me is simply a adapted survival mechanism most systemic to our pack mentality and ability to rear future generations by successive generations. Does that mean that "love" is meaningless to me?...yes and no. Yes in that i can rationalize the feelings and understand that it is a byproduct of human evolution and No in that i still feel and cannot ignore such a primal and powerful drive. Regardless i still think before i feel and think about why or how i feel and question why i feel a certain way to certain scenarios. I truly am left-brain dominated...a trait that unfortunately for this individual is not very attractive to the opposite sex.
Don't sell yourself short, Saturnine. I follow your posts (no stalking lol) and think you have an incredibly keen and refreshing insight. I actually have similar views about love and having watched that video, what I take from it is...many of us think alike about love and death, but maybe we are too timid to talk about it in public. We keep it in and Trooper always manages to find these gems ...brief but poignant in their messages. We all share more common ground than we let on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As an aside, death too can be a refreshing idea if we view it like an end to human suffering and a beginning for the new life to follow where we left our footprints. The idea of an afterlife is worse to me because it implies that this life had less meaning than some other world ...yet to come. I don't like that idea, anymore. But, that's just me.
