This is both a review of the book "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl and a response to some of his ideas. First of all, the book is definitely worth reading. For those who don't know Viktor Frankl, he was a Jewish psychiatrist from Eastern Europe who was placed in a concentration camp during World War II. He suffered all the humiliations of anyone in a concentration camp, except being killed. And he used the experience to provide evidence for his method of therapy, “Logotherapy,” a form of existential therapy. Many of you may already be familiar with this book, as it is often required reading in high school and many other classrooms. I didn't read this work until recently. I was first introduced to Viktor Frankl's ideas when I took a course in a college course called "Theories of Counseling." Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay It was a broad overview of many of the greatest theories of therapy. Frankl has been mentioned as a major contributor to existential therapy. At the time I was not very impressed with the ideas of existential theory and considered myself more of a cognitive behavioral consultant. But although my approach was cognitive, I understood from Frankl's story (briefly presented in the text we used) that part of his thinking was in line with cognitive behavioral theory. Frankl believed that although the Nazis could impose much suffering on him, take away his family, and imprison him, they could not decide what it would be like. He had control over how he would act, react and behave. Whatever they did, he would decide their behavior and be responsible for it. This is a fundamental principle of existential therapy (as well as cognitive therapy). Existential theory proposes that the individual has power and is responsible for how he or she behaves. One of the goals of existential therapy is for the client to gain insight into themselves and what unconscious motivations contribute to decisions (especially those that are ultimately harmful) so that the individual can make conscious decisions about how to be. There is an excellent story told by Frankl in the book that highlights the importance of personal responsibility for actions. The story takes place when he and one of his peers leave the concentration camp and head towards the Allied forces. The peer was dragging Frankl across a field when he came across a new crop. Frankl stopped, not wanting to trample the new crops. When he mentioned something about it to his peer, he retorted “Don't say that! And hasn't enough been taken from us? My wife and son were gassed, not to mention everything else…” What I think Frankl is saying here is that even if a grave injustice has been done to you, it is no excuse to act in kind. Beyond that, if you decide to behave badly, you are responsible for those actions. Frankl's goal here is not to judge the misdeeds of others, but rather to discuss how you can behave differently than you may have the impulse to do. His goal was also to help those who experienced the horrors of a concentration camp (or any similar horror) overcome feelings of anger, resentment, bitterness, and disillusionment. My intention is not to shorten the book for you, nor to explain the concepts of existential therapy, so I will move on here to my review and response to Frankl's book. First I want to reiterate that this book is a great read. For anyone who hasn'tfamiliar with the atrocities of a concentration camp, the story of human triumph in the face of such atrocities alone is worth reading. It also provides a guideline for individuals to take responsibility for their lives and create meaning in it. It provides a model for living above the influence of circumstances. There is so much good in this book that it's hard to be critical in the slightest. In fact, I'm not sure I'm critical in my response as much as I offer an alternative insight or solution. Frankl devotes much of the second half of the book to suffering and its possible meaning. It also goes beyond what we can understand as meaning, to meaning we may never know (but a higher being might). He also clarifies that “suffering needlessly is masochistic rather than heroic.” (page 113). His point throughout the book is that suffering does not have to be in vain, there is always meaning in it, you just need to assign meaning to it (considering of course that you are not suffering needlessly). There is a lot in this book that relates to my philosophy of life. . I plan to add a new site soon (I will keep my readers updated and announce the launch in a blog) dedicated to short news stories (rather than long blogs or articles) that will hopefully lead to reflection and discussion. And I've already tagged this book for many of these posts. But suffering is a topic I have mixed thoughts about. As I stated above, Frankl devotes much of the second part of the book to this topic. And it provides wonderful arguments for this culture's transformation of suffering into pathology. I agree that those who have legitimate reasons for their suffering should not be considered to have pathologies. I also agree that happiness is sold, portrayed as normal, and probably overrepresented in the media. I also agree that perhaps those who are legitimately suffering may have reason to feel marginalized when they are not happy due to these above portrayals. Perhaps it is my affinity with the Buddhist doctrine that suffering can be overcome that leads me to disagree with some of Frankl's thoughts on suffering. Maybe it's my desire for everyone to find happiness in their lives that results in my difficulty. Or maybe Frankl and I aren't as far apart on this as I thought. In his book, Frankl provides many examples of legitimate suffering: both unimaginable (the concentration camp, a rabbi who lost his first wife and six children) and more common (a mother raising a disabled child, a husband who loses his wife many years and others). I would never deny people their need to suffer for legitimate reasons. These are certainly terrible events that cause pain, require mourning and should be given proper emotional due. There are two things that worry me. The first is that many suffer needlessly. It seems to me that many believe that martyrdom is a way of life. I've seen too many people who love to be martyrs, even if they would never admit it. These people believe they have to sacrifice for some reason. In short, they suffer needlessly (or for profit). The second concern is that those who suffer would benefit from recognizing that to some extent they are choosing to suffer. I'm not saying that their circumstances weren't forced on them (although one of my favorite Eckert Tolle quotes is "Acceptance of what is... as if you had chosen it to be exactly as it is."). I'm saying that to some extent they are choosing this response. This is not necessarily unhealthy, in fact, it is often the healthiest choice. But the point is that it's a choice. WhenI say that perhaps Frankl and I are not as far apart as I might think, I'm referring to two things. The first is the recognition that suffering needlessly is not heroic. Perhaps my first concern is addressed in this recognition. Frankl was obviously influenced by a period of immense suffering. He and many others (indeed many of those he addressed in his work) endured horrific suffering. It is true that many today endure horrible suffering. And I wouldn't want to minimize anyone's real suffering. But I still believe that much of today's suffering is unnecessary and would be better addressed through acceptance. The second reason that Frankl and I may not be as far apart as I might think is his existential view that everyone is responsible for their responses and behaviors. Frankl has made it clear throughout this book that individuals are responsible for their own behavior, regardless of what has been imposed on them. If suffering is considered a response or behavior, then the person chooses, to some extent, to suffer. And that would reconcile my second concern. I want to end this review with another quote from Eckert Tolle regarding suffering. I must admit that I am making these quotes second hand, as I have not read his work beyond a few passages. The quote is as follows: “Is suffering really necessary? Yes and No. If you had not suffered as you have suffered, there would be no depth in you as a human being, no humility, no compassion. You wouldn't read it now. Suffering cracks the shell of the ego and then comes to the point where it has served its purpose. Suffering is necessary until you realize that it is not necessary.” In conclusion, read the book. However, since you seem to underestimate a work as great as Viktor Frankl's, I doubt it will change your way of thinking. Thanks again. Ariful Hussain on July 31, 2014 at 11:11am PMI didn't understand Frankl's point at all. He tells the story of how he was dragged along a path with one of his Jewish companions by Nazi prison guards. After conversing with his friend, they both realize that each of them is thinking about their wives. She realizes that even on such a tough journey, immense beauty [and ultimately comfort] can come from imagining loved ones and holding them close to one's heart. All right ? but how the fuck is it possible for all this to create meaning? At best it is simply a form of self-delusion, certainly momentary [before the prison guards start whipping you again], which allows you to focus on something other than your current suffering. It's a powerful technique. I appreciate it. I would have appreciated it if it had been portrayed that way, rather than some quasi-mystical mumbo jumbo about finding meaning in your life. It's not. It's a way to relieve yourself of the immense pain present and use the energy elsewhere. Surely the point to note in the above story is that he firstly had a loving wife than imagine. What if he doesn't? What about all those kids who don't have particularly meaningful social connections with others? What do they do? Of course, they can try to find meaning [i.e. beauty] in other places. But if you don't bother to immediately diagnose what's wrong ["I'm in a damn concentration camp!"] and recognize that it's the REAL source of your pain, you end up feeding your own delusion. Which is fine, if that's what you decided to do. But there's no point in writing a 400-page book about how illusion has real meaning when it's clear that it's more of a survival technique. A kind of selective brainwashing. Keep in mind: this is just].