The Search for Meaning: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » The Search for Meaning » The Search for Meaning

The Search for Meaning
Viktor Frankl's logotherapy

Page: 1 2

The Search for Meaning

ying
Stoned ape theorist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1155

Posted 06/15/07 - 10:24 PM:	#11
Epilogas wrote: Self is not to be found but known better. Not other self, but the same self. Yes, it is already there as a phenomenological entity, but what do we know about this phenomena and the entity. Do you not agree people feel lost often. They want to understand what is happening, to sort their lives out, to put everything in places? That will not happen if they put material things in places without knowing themselves better, changing themselves, their views. But changing ones views already implies a change in 'self'. And getting to know how trancendental mental faculties work really can't be called self-actualisation. I don't like the word "identity", as it is too sociological or useful in the world for other reasons than knowledge of self. For example: my identity is lithuanian. It doesn't say much about me, unless you are sociologue and start creating theories about what being lithuanian mean, or you have good or bad prejudise about them. Identity can be easily pinpointed, but not self. I disagree, but I have a different notion of what constitutes identity; saying your this or that nationality doesn't really say much about your self-identity, you're merely highlighting a property. What I consider self-identity is how a person regards him- or herself, not just a property of this identity. It's the stuff one identifies with, the persona's one holds up, ones likes and dislikes etc. I consider self-identity to be an important part of ones worldview, and I consider ones worldview to be a conscious dominant in the way one acts in the world. Why do you consider knowledge of self worse than other knowledge? I don't. I never said that. I don't believe knowledge exists at all. I prefer such terms as 'educated guesses' and 'paradigmatic truths'. You say meaning is created by oneself. I partly agree with you. But on the other hand, that leaves the world meaningless if it is not defined by subject as being meaningfull, what is ridiculous to me. Some nihilists really examplify what I'm talking 'bout, living in a subjectively chosen meaninglessness. Just take a look at these boards. I'm sure you'll find some nihilist talk somewhere. And if some people actually walk 'round with such ideas, and these ideas actually influence the way they act, then the existence of such mental states certainly is proven to me. And calling something 'rediculous' really doesn't have much argumentative power, btw... For example one says meaning of the world is his girlfrend. This is clearly subjective. Other says meaning of the world is reproduction. This meaning, although given by one person can be viewed as applieing to the whole world phenomena. So if we are saying anything about the world, why should we exclude meaning? I really don't know what you're trying to get across, here.
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

Epilogas
Floating Dust

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Location: Lithuania
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 236

Posted 06/16/07 - 01:22 AM:	#12
ying wrote: But changing ones views already implies a change in 'self'. And getting to know how trancendental mental faculties work really can't be called self-actualisation. OK. I don't like the expression self- actualisation aswell. So we are in agreement here. ying wrote: I disagree, but I have a different notion of what constitutes identity; saying your this or that nationality doesn't really say much about your self-identity, you're merely highlighting a property. What I consider self-identity is how a person regards him- or herself, not just a property of this identity. It's the stuff one identifies with, the persona's one holds up, ones likes and dislikes etc. I consider self-identity to be an important part of ones worldview, and I consider ones worldview to be a conscious dominant in the way one acts in the world. OK. ying wrote: Some nihilists really examplify what I'm talking 'bout, living in a subjectively chosen meaninglessness. Just take a look at these boards. I'm sure you'll find some nihilist talk somewhere. And if some people actually walk 'round with such ideas, and these ideas actually influence the way they act, then the existence of such mental states certainly is proven to me. Meaning and meaninglessness can be seen as mental states. I thought what determine them or what circumstances were needed for them to arise. And came up with long term (longer than one's own lifetime preferably) purposeful conduct of actions and behavior couses meaningfull condition of mental state. Behavior wich have seperate of it's acts disconected and with their own dead ends creates the risk of meaningless mental state arising. I ask your take on it. What circumstances are needed for mental state to be meaning-full or -less. ying wrote: And calling something 'rediculous' really doesn't have much argumentative power, btw... I know. I meant it in playfull tone. ying wrote: I really don't know what you're trying to get across, here. I see meaning not only as mental state but something that this world have, no matter how we look at it. Morality is intrinsic in meaning. Matter is not. I came up with two justifications for meaning wich is in the world and is not subjective: 1)There could be nothing the same as there is something. We ascribe properties to something, while leaving non existence of any properties to nothing. Nothing could not have property of meaningfullness, nor meaninglessness. So there is meaning. Weather there is full or less of it is secondary matter. 2)If we say anything about the world, phenomena and everything, there is no reasone why we couldn't say what is the meaning of it. Especially if we agree subject is never seperate from the world. And if subject says world is meaningfull, world says it with him.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5423

Posted 06/19/07 - 05:37 AM:	#13
...I see meaning not only as mental state but something that this world have, no matter how we look at it. Morality is intrinsic in meaning. Matter is not. I came up with two justifications for meaning wich is in the world and is not subjective: 1)There could be nothing the same as there is something. We ascribe properties to something, while leaving non existence of any properties to nothing. Nothing could not have property of meaningfullness, nor meaninglessness. So there is meaning. Weather there is full or less of it is secondary matter. 2)If we say anything about the world, phenomena and everything, there is no reasone why we couldn't say what is the meaning of it. Especially if we agree subject is never seperate from the world. And if subject says world is meaningfull, world says it with him. Your 1) leaves me unenlightened. 2) Attributes meaning to people, not to things and events. I agree that people give meanings to things and events, but not everyone in the same way. The question is "Is there a common (known to all people) meaning of a cross or a star of David or a full moon?"
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 512

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/21/07 - 02:09 AM:	#14
wolfman wrote: Frankl does not acknowledge the inherent meaninglessness of life, rather that the meaning of life is dependent upon the individual. You are right, so far (in my reading), he doesn’t quite directly express this, but he does admit that The Meaning is simply unattainable to us, “The ultimate meaning necessarily exceeds and surpasses the finite intellectual capacities of man; in logotherapy we speak in this context of a super-meaning [or the meaning that “floats in the air”, or is “a resident in an ivory tower” as he also describes it]. What is demanded of man is not, as some existential philosophers teach, to endure the meaninglessness of life, but rather to bear his incapacity to grasp its unconditional meaningfulness in rational terms.” (I am not completely certain what he means by unconditional meaningfulness; but I take it to mean that life is potentially meaningful under any conditions if one is willing to turn life’s tragedies into something positive, or as he would say, “saying ‘yes’ to life in spite of everything”). With regard to meaninglessness of life, he addresses contemporary nihilism (and its dangers) through the view of one of his colleagues: “He [George A.] himself remembered a therapist who said, ‘George, you must realize that the world is a joke. There is no justice, everything is random. Only when you realize this will you understand how silly it is to take yourself seriously. There is no grand purpose in the universe. It just is. There is no particular meaning in what decision you make today about how to act.'” rabeldin wrote: To me, the "meaning" is clear. Man is just a cog in the wheels of society. The sooner he accepts this reality, the more peaceful his life will be. Face it, we are ants and subservient to the Ant Queen. It’s interesting that you say this; I am not sure if you meant to say it in a humorous way or in a more serious, pessimistic way, but I believe Frankl can address both of these views. In Frankl’s view, contemporary nihilism (or mass/collectiveneurosis) only intensifies the noological neurosis which can be caused by the existential frustration, or a man’s will to meaning (and which he separates from normal psychological neuroses driven by drives and instincts). I also want to mention here that he doesn’t treat existential frustration as something that is pathological or pathogenic (or a mental disease) in itself; quite the opposite, he believes that the feeling of meaninglessness is a proof of one’s humanness (although he does admit that it can become pathogenic). He believes that the dogma of man’s “nothingbutness”, that is, an idea that a man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions only makes a neurotic believe what he is prone to believe (that he is simply a pawn of circumstances beyond his control). Because this can lead to neurotic fatalism he believes that a therapists’ job should be to immunize the trainee against nihilism, instead of “inoculating him with the cynicism”, as he firmly believes that “unnecessary suffering is masochistic, rather than heroic”. Humor also comes into play in logotherapy. Frankl observed that in cases of anticipatory anxieties/fears, the fear/anxiety produced exactly what the person was afraid of (or as he put it: fear brings to pass what one is afraid of). He gives an example of a person who’s afraid of blushing in public. The more a person is concerned about blushing in front of a large public, the more prone to blushing he becomes. Ironically, he observes, a forced intention (or hyper-intention, as he calls it) makes impossible what one forcibly wishes (which, he notes, is often the case in cases of sexual neuroses/anxieties). Frankl uses these phenomena in his therapy through what he calls a paradoxical intention, in which the patient is invited to intend that which he’s afraid of. The effect is a reversal of a patient’s attitude (or “dereflection”) from fear to a paradoxical wish. Such technique is easily carried out through humor, as human capacity of (necessary?) self-detachment is inherent in a sense of humor. The achieved result is that a patient is able to put himself at a distance from his neurosis. [I am just using your post as an example]. rabeldin wrote: I agree that people give meanings to things and events, but not everyone in the same way. The question is "Is there a common (known to all people) meaning of a cross or a star of David or a full moon?" Frankl asserts that the transistoriness of our human existence does not make it meaningless; it is suffering and dying that seem to take away meaning from human life. The only things that are really transitory in our life are possibilities, which constantly collapse into realities. We have freedom/choice to realize these possibilities (even if we can’t affect our circumstances, he asserts, we can always control our attitude). In Frankl’s view, the man is not determined, but determines himself, whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. The past, he believes, is where the possibilities have been realized into realities and are irrevocably stored (not lost). Everything hinges around realizing these possibilities and our responsibleness plays a key role in it. So we are free to choose, but we are also left with the responsibility to choose how it will all play out (the two go hand in hand; he even goes as far as to recommend that a Statute of Responsibility be built to supplement the Statute of Liberty). To illustrate, he gives an example of a pessimist’s and an optimist’s view on the passing of days. The pessimist looks at the wall calendar with sadness and fear, as he tears the pages off, day by day. The optimist attacks problems in his life, like a man who removes the pages of the calendar and neatly files them next to the others, after first jotting down a few diary notes on the back. In the end, the optimist looks back on his life with pride and a feeling of having lived his life to its fullest. He also gives an analogy of a movie to illustrate a life’s meaning. A movie is made up of thousands of separate pictures, each having its own individual meaning. However, the meaning of the whole movie is not known until all the pictures are played out. Frankl speculates that the final meaning of one’s life may be revealed on the verge of one’s death, just as a movie that has been played out. The perception of meaning, itself, can be boiled down to becoming aware of the possibility in relation to reality, or, in other words, becoming aware of *what can be done* about a given situation. Edited by Landlady on 06/21/07 - 02:16 AM
There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. But whether or not one can live with one's passions, whether or not one can accept their law, which is to burn the heart they simultaneously exalt--that is the whole question. � Camus.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5423

Posted 06/21/07 - 07:20 AM:	#15
rabeldin wrote: To me, the "meaning" is clear. Man is just a cog in the wheels of society. The sooner he accepts this reality, the more peaceful his life will be. Face it, we are ants and subservient to the Ant Queen. ... It’s interesting that you say this; I am not sure if you meant to say it in a humorous way or in a more serious, pessimistic way, but I believe Frankl can address both of these views. Both unjustified pessimism and unjustified optimism can be humorous. This view is only pessimistic if you are an ardent individualist. I believe that we need to come to realize our interdependencies in order to be realistic. That doesn't mean giving up our individuality, but recognizing that the attempt to isolate ourselves is doomed to be unsatisfactory.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Dichotomy
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Location: australia
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 105

Posted 06/22/07 - 05:45 AM:	#16
Epilogas wrote: Self is not to be found but known better. I agree. I've always found 'SELF' easier to explain like this - SELF is what you are born into the world with, it is there all along. EGO is what your parents, culture, environment, etc imposes upon you and you wear like a mask/persona in a unconscious or semi-conscious way. You have your angry mask, cooperative mask, happy mask, etc. Hiding under the masks is your true unconditioned and fully conscious, yet unrealised, or, pushed to the background SELF. The SELF is waiting to be known better by those who have forgotten it due to the dominance of the Ego masks/cultural masks. Think of someone who just comes out of an isolated dodgy cult to realise that their life was a lie, or at least severly limited. They get back in touch with their self, in order to attempt to completely rebuild their new cultural ego. Edited by Dichotomy on 06/24/07 - 03:44 AM
The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out. He will be wiser but less sure, happier but less self-satisfied, humbler in acknowledging his ignorance yet better equipped to understand the relationship of words to things, of systematic reasoning to the unfathomable mystery which it tries, forever vainly, to comprehend. - Aldous Huxley

Ianthe
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 25, 2007
Location: The Asylum
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 06/30/07 - 05:04 AM:	#17
I read this book a couple of years ago and was unsatisfied with it. To say that each is responsible to figure out their own meaning of life, and then to prescribe specific guidelines that this meaning must fall into (that it must be outward directed, to causes or people)...seems contradictory, to me, and stifling.

Usergroup: Guests
Joined:
Total Topics:
Total Posts:

Posted 08/02/07 - 01:11 PM:	#18
PART 1 I'm guessing he is talking from an existentialist point of view.. In existentialism, where in we first exist before we find meaning and essence of our lives. Because, ideally we must first exist, live and do something to have that meaning... he pointed that out by saying: "man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked." Knowing and being fully aware that you are asked means you are alive; doing something that can possibly define who you are. It's far better than asking you the direct question of defining who you are, for you lose track of the essence of the question you are trying to answer; YOUR EXISTENCE. It makes far better sense that essentialism which states that there is a meaning for us prior to our existence (most of the time, religion backs up this philosophy)... I mean seriously, would you want to be predefined by something that was never really related to who you are and everything you ever did in your life? Or would you rather take full responsibility for who you are even though you have no clue on what exactly you should do? If you ask me, I'd take the second option... at least i know that I AM HERE and I have no one else to blame for my existence but myself. If life is great then I know I've been good, if it sucks, then I know who to answer for myself (and yeah at least I know someone can do something about it) PART2 "the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it was a closed system. It denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something, or someone, other than oneself-be it meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. 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. What is called self-actualization is not an attainable aim at all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive for it, the more he would miss it. In other words, self-actualization is possible only as a side-effect of self-transcendence." I can't agree more to what he just said... These days self actualization is paired too much with the responsibility to answer to the world around him... If you think of life that way too much, I guess to a certain extent, along the way, you really lose a part of yourself or insight to where you are going. If you ask me, I’d rather be who I really am and simply affecting change around me for I know that a full life entails affecting change not having that responsibility to affect change. At least I know that’s in my good nature to do so. Its not just a hypocrite act just to show people around me that I care right?

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 512

Posted 08/03/07 - 07:35 AM:	#19
vox_populi wrote: I mean seriously, would you want to be predefined by something that was never really related to who you are and everything you ever did in your life? Yes, sometimes I wish this was the case. I think life (in existential sense) would be so much easier if we had well-defined paramenters. vox_populi wrote: If you think of life that way too much, I guess to a certain extent, along the way, you really lose a part of yourself or insight to where you are going. So many options...so little time.
There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. But whether or not one can live with one's passions, whether or not one can accept their law, which is to burn the heart they simultaneously exalt--that is the whole question. � Camus.

Usergroup: Guests
Joined:
Total Topics:
Total Posts:

Posted 08/03/07 - 12:32 PM: Subject: yeah..	#20
I guess I've always been one to think that so many options would only mean surfacing with the best possible choice... I've always been a heart person I guess so I don't get as confused as much... I get confused, yes, but I come out of confusion with the choice I pick using logic and gut feeling... For me it's all about being brave... Or maybe at least exploring your options while being scared shitless... I mean seriously, who ever fully knows what they are doing and where they really are headed right? "_and in the course of being broken and fixed all over again, we remain in control of ourselves and our lives knowing that one thing will always remain the same; its always gonna change. you might be put back together time and time again, but when you do there will always be a mark, and its always gonna be new... and there you are... once again broken... you may think its a bad thing, but if you really think about it, broken pieces will always be beautiful.. for its always gonna give you the chance to try a new pattern or at least examine each and every peice you have left.... most of the time there's even something new for you to discover... hence there's always something to look forward to when you once agian get broken... so why are we here and how did we get here? most of the time we dont even know it... we're here to re-live being displaced... coz its happened to us before and it isnt half as bad as being safe and hidden in a closet... yes there may be a lot of things that your not going to be able to anticipate... but the bottom line is, things happen... and that's why i think we're here... in a journey we may call in different terms, heading in any direction with our eyes closed... coz at least we know that its something... and its something we'll never forget and always cherish _ unraveled..." ----> i said that ;P and it still makes perfect sense to me

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.