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

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 507

Posted 06/13/07 - 07:31 PM: Subject: The Search for Meaning	#1
I am reading Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning (Paperback, 1984), in which he introduces his concept of logotherapy; but I am confused by some of the things that he says (especially the underlined parts). He seems to acknowledge the inherent meaninglessness of life and seems to encourage the man to step up and take up the responsibility of finding his own meaning: Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible. Thus, logotherapy sees in reasonableness the very essence of human existence. Frankl, Viktor. Man's Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square Press, 1984. p. 131. But then he seems to take it a step further: By declaring that man is responsible and must actualize the potential meaning of his life I wish to stress that 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. I have termed this constitutive characteristic “the self-transcendence of human existence.” 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. (p. 133). I don’t quite understand what he means by this. Is anyone familiar with these concepts (self-actualization and self-transcendence)? Does anyone agree with this?
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.

ying
Stoned ape theorist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1150

Posted 06/13/07 - 10:38 PM:	#2
Though I'm more familiar with the term 'self-actualisation' (as employed by Jung, Maslow and Rogers), I'm guessing that with 'self-trancendence', Frankl is talking about his rather extraverted notion of the same thing. Jungian self-realisation is about encountering and integrating the unconscious, Maslow talks about his hierarchy of needs (His stuff on self-actualisation seems more like a biographical explanation, in that he explains the mental state of people who he considered to be self-actualised, lived.), and Rogers is talking about an introverted notion of those things. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/rogers.html http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/frankl.html From your quotes, it seems like Frankl is rather antithetical to the previous notions of self-actualisation, making him coin his own term, self-trancendence. Hmpf. Might work for some people, but to me, it's not as universal as the stuff Jung and Rogers where talking 'bout. Edited by ying on 06/13/07 - 10:52 PM
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

Wolfman
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 891

Posted 06/13/07 - 10:51 PM:	#3
Landlady, Frankl does not acknowledge the inherent meaninglessness of life, rather that the meaning of life is dependent upon the individual. In other words, the meaning of life for one person is not commensurate with the meaning of life for another. Frankl gives a vivid account of his life as a prisoner in the Auschwitz concentration camp during WWII. During his harrowing experience, he struggled to find reasons to live, and understand the meaning of life. Through his experience, he found his own meaning. Frankl's definition of self-actualization is not the same as Maslow's. Self-actualization is possible when the individual transcends ego-centered desires. According to Frankl, man's deepest desire is to search for meaning and purpose. He says "Ever more people today have the means to live, but no meaning to live for." The standard of life should not be measured solely by material wealth or physical health. In order to preserve a healthy physical body, one must maintain an orderly mind. The same should also be true of the converse, "Mens sana in corpore sano", that is a healthy mind in a healthy body. A man may be in good physical form, but if he has an absence of meaning, he will suffer the negative effects of the "existential vacuum". According to Frankl, "Meaning cannot be communicated to you through an intermediate. You've got to experience it directly." It can be said that each person determines his/her life's own meaning. In other words, each individual develops their own meaning of life that can be incommensurate with one another.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates "The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within." - Gandhi "Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck." - Kant "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu

Rhubarb
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 06/14/07 - 05:19 AM:	#4
I think he means that our desire to have something (self-actualisation) prevents us from experiencing it. Because self-actualisation is an active, productive orientation to the world. It lies in the development of ones reason and ability to love and through productive activity. So if self-actualisation is an experience, it is not an object we can acquire. And if we treat it as an object we will never achieve it. We just trap ourselves in a philosophical bottle. I think the self-transcendence comes in because we must give up our wanting to have in order to be. We must overcome our selfish desires in order to be productive. Productive in the sense of activity (inner and outer) that is useful to ourselves and others. I think the wellbeing he implies, is attained through this process. And that the more we do, the more we experience it. That would be my take, I've borrowed heavily from Erich Fromm. I think these concepts are difficult to put into words and hard to understand given the society and culture we find ourselves in because we are continually bombarded with ideas to the contrary i.e. the use of nominalisations and the idea that happiness lies in the possession of objects.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 06/14/07 - 06:15 AM:	#5
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.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Rhubarb
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 06/14/07 - 08:38 AM:	#6
rabeldin wrote: Face it, we are ants and subservient to the Ant Queen. Why not question that assumption?

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 06/14/07 - 02:33 PM:	#7
That is not an assumption, but a fact. The colony is greater than the individual and destined to become even greater.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 507

Posted 06/14/07 - 09:09 PM:	#8
Wolfman wrote: Self-actualization is possible when the individual transcends ego-centered desires. This is the part that I found perplexing. If one forgets himself (so to speak) by immersing himself in something else, then it seems like there is really no self left to actualize. rhubarb wrote: I think these concepts are difficult to put into words and hard to understand given the society and culture we find ourselves in because we are continually bombarded with ideas to the contrary i.e. the use of nominalizations and the idea that happiness lies in the possession of objects. I agree. rhubarb wrote: I think the self-transcendence comes in because we must give up our wanting to have in order to be. So if self-actualization is an experience, it is not an object we can acquire. I think it was his term “self” that threw me off a bit. It is a very unusual approach that he proposes; it is as if there are two selves.
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.

ying
Stoned ape theorist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1150

Posted 06/14/07 - 09:50 PM:	#9
Landlady wrote: I think it was his term “self” that threw me off a bit. It is a very unusual approach that he proposes; it is as if there are two selves. That's always a problem with those self-realising theories... They seem to hold that there somehow is a 'self' for one to find... I adhere to a much more zen-like approach to these things, in that I hold that we already are what and who we are. There is nothing to actualise about myself; I already am who I'm going to be, and obviously am what I was in the past. If one sets out to go and search for oneself, one dooms oneself to walk in circles, chase ones own tail, so to speak. This 'other self', what one is supposed to find, is nothing but a figment of abstraction, an abstract idea, while the self one needs to realise already is there, as a phenomenological entity, not an abstraction. It all hinges on a notion that one can actually 'find' such things as identity and meaning, and this notion is completely wrong in my eyes. Identity and meaning quitte simply can't be found, but have to be created by oneself. People imbue projects with meaning, but a project in itself is completely meaningless... To us humans anyway. What such projects mean in a metaphysical sense is completely irrelevant, since we can't even know such metaphysical attractors. And ones identity can change at the snap of a (subjective) finger, so a notion like a pinpointed identity is nothing more than a snapshot of a fluxuating part of reality.
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

Epilogas
Floating Dust

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Location: Lithuania
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 230

Posted 06/15/07 - 09:17 AM:	#10
ying wrote: That's always a problem with those self-realising theories... They seem to hold that there somehow is a 'self' for one to find... I adhere to a much more zen-like approach to these things, in that I hold that we already are what and who we are. There is nothing to actualise about myself; I already am who I'm going to be, and obviously am what I was in the past. If one sets out to go and search for oneself, one dooms oneself to walk in circles, chase ones own tail, so to speak. This 'other self', what one is supposed to find, is nothing but a figment of abstraction, an abstract idea, while the self one needs to realise already is there, as a phenomenological entity, not an abstraction. It all hinges on a notion that one can actually 'find' such things as identity and meaning, and this notion is completely wrong in my eyes. Identity and meaning quitte simply can't be found, but have to be created by oneself. People imbue projects with meaning, but a project in itself is completely meaningless... To us humans anyway. What such projects mean in a metaphysical sense is completely irrelevant, since we can't even know such metaphysical attractors. And ones identity can change at the snap of a (subjective) finger, so a notion like a pinpointed identity is nothing more than a snapshot of a fluxuating part of reality. 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. Transcendent world can be the same all the time, immanent world we live in changes all the time. So if you are saying self is not worth our knowladge becouse it is always the same, than what isn't the same for zen? 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. Why do you consider knowledge of self worse than other knowledge? 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. 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?

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.