Just What's A Canker Sore
9 years ago
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I've just finished a critical book review for a uni class. I studied a book by VIktor Frankl called "Man's Search For Meaning". It's a book on exetential psychotherapy. I know that sounds complex, but give it a chance. It's actually mostly a narrative based on a Jewish, Austrian psychologist's imprisonment in a Nazi concentration camp. His idea of "Logotherapy" is basically about our need for a purpose (meaning) outside of ourselves. He quotes Nietzsche: 'He who has a ‘why’ to live for can bear with almost any ‘how’.". I think that's a profoud quote.
It seems not only great in theory, but it also matches up with my own experience. Here is a quote from the book:
"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."
We need hope, and a purpose outside of ourselves, otherwise, what meaning do we have? Frankl says that we need meaning in order to survive. I tend to agree.
Thoughts? Comments?
57 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i haven't. and i'm no expert but sounds like it would be quite true.
I like skiing... just haven't done it in a long time!
Bottle.
Anyways, now to the topic.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think that's why there's so many teen suicides these days. It's because today's world promotes a way of life that is ultimately without meaning or purpose. And they're not even in concentration camps. Without an objective, or something solic to base our hope on, it's pretty fragile.
"People need to be connected to each other" - again, what makes you the expert? How can you know what all people need?
And I honestly believe that everyone needs to be connected to someone. No one can live happily with no connection to another person. Feel free to disagree, but that's what I believe.
So, really, am I wrong?
The world you and I live in is so far removed from the world people in poorer countries experience. Focusing on where your next meal is coming from is not exactly shallow. I think you need to be careful before you put everyone in the whole world into the same pigeon hole. Because that is not reality.
Are you wrong? I think so.
I never said it was the sole reason for said suicides, but it the majority of cases it is a large contributing factor. After all, when someone makes a decision to end their life, they have reasoned that there must not be a greater reason to the contrary. I wasn't trying to say it's all their fault, I was simply stating that in the end it's their decision, one which I was trying to say I could, to a degree, understand.
You have to stop making assumptions that I'm being all superior here, I'm simply making a comment on how meaning plays a large role in suicides in out culture.
If you have an opposing perspective, just say it with tact.
Considering that your main gripe appears to be the certainty in which I say what I believe, I don't see the issue. I was simply expressing my perspective, no one said you had to listen or agree.
My thoughts on the matter are rooted in beliefs that extend beyond this sole subject matter, so I apologise if my reasons for what I've said are not so apparent.
Still, what do you feel about the issue?
It's been fun Luke...
Don't hear me saying that I don't want to hear your opinion, coz I do, just stop telling others they have no credibility or right to their point of view. They have as much right as you do.
Heh heh, online debates are like the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
I know it's tasteless, but I read it somewhere and it stuck with me. :P
1)Sorry Guru, but i definatly don't think that having or not having a grand purpose to life plays a significant role in teen suicide. I say that because people of all faiths (and without faiths) commit it. It might be because of many diffrent reasons but i would hazard the opinion that things like depression, substance abuse, relationship breakdown/alienation and money issues have much more of a role. You can have a grand purpose, you can have a hope in something bigger than yourself but that certainly (sadly) does not make you immune (as i'm sure you'll understand). I don't think that you could say that anyone who commits suicide doesn't believe in an objective hope - maybe they are just deeply sad and can't deal with it.
2) Sorry Ludi, but assuming what Frankl says is true it is not then true to assume that this hope must be external or objective to ourselves - otherwise all the humanists would be dead, as would the hedonists and athiests, to name a few. Whether or not their hope is well or misplaced, as long as they believe in something, anything, they fulfil Frankl's criteria. Assuming he's right.
Yep, i checked my calendar, it is Disagree With The Orrins Day!
You know what, Brent, I think you're absolutely right. You bring up some good points. I suppose purpose isn't as much of a contributing factor as I previously thought. Still one of them, but not as major.
I still wonder though, when it comes to depression or a matter of something in your life falling apart, can one take their own life without a feeling of meaninglessness being a contributing factor? Or is it irrelevant?
Anyway Brent. I know that not all humanists agree, but this was Frankl's philosophy. I was making a comment on his works. He wasn't saying that everyone needs God to be ok, but that everyone needs something outside of themselves. Even if it's another person, a relationship or a task. However, he focused a bit on spiritual values. But he recognised that people functioned alright without that. Frankl was an exententialist who, after his experiences being imprisoned in a nazi camp, saw that those who survived help on to hope, they had something to focus on outside of themselves and what was immediately happening. His findings come out of his experiences. I find tremendous value in his theories.
Hooray for topic hijacking!
Instead it's philosophy central with attitude!!
Still it is a good discussion. Complex issues, meaning, purpose, depression, lonliness ... all sorts of factors are important in this sad mix.
All the comments seem valid- but anonymous, heck you do seem to be pounding the keys with a tad too much angst! why do you feel angry if you can't change another's opinion?
Still, nice to have a robust discusson going on!
anon... come forward put a face and name to your tirade.
orrins... interesting stuff. however i think if you dig a little into Frankl's life and HIS own studies and look at who his heros were then you will see that most of them thought that life was in the eye of the beholder and that truth and spirituality were for morons. but good to see your thinking.
wire good work as always.
as for me... i do know people who have commited suicide so i guess that gives me some credence to what i say. almost, and let me streess it again, almost all of those whom i know who commited suicide had one thing in common... in thier letters and tapes they said no one would miss them or thaT THEIR LIFE WAS MEANINLESS.
after a quick chat with some mentors and colleagues (a combined 237 years of youthwork between us we agreed that a person must think very little of their life and purpose to give up so much so quickly.
enough said.
Also, as a studier of secular stuff who has been looked down upon often because my work is un-Godly, may I suggest that being more critical in our analysis of what we read is important. God can teach us things in all we hear but sometimes we need to be careful to articulate whether we would agree with their foundational propostions or whether their idea has prompted our thinking to come to a new idea.
See if you can guess who I as from this pic.
I never said that all of Frankl's contemporaries or heroes agreed with him, I'm quite aware that a lot of them thought religion was a load of crap for the weak. But Frankl certainly did not.
I think we can agree with people's ideas without having to swallow all of their foundations. We can use our Christian foundation and see that other people's ideas can fit into that framework, even if they didn't intend that. Some of Freud's work does that nicely.
Great to have you back Revvy!
I'd suggest that Freud's not the best person to back stuff up with, although great for his time the man did kill a patient because he thougt that cocaine sniffing was a cure for his patients because apparently the major sex organ is the nose. That would be why we study Freud in about 1 lecture and then move on.
I never said we shoudl take everything Freud said, but he said some great stuff, along with a whole bunch of insane stuff. And as long as our foundation is strong, then we can add to that if it's consistent with our framework. Just because someone doesn't have the same foundation as us, doesn't mean we can discard everything they say. But like you said, we do need to be careful not to swallow all their ideologies. Jesus is sufficient, for sure, but he lived in his context, we now have a different context, and Jesus didn't explicitly talk about everything. I think he gives us brains for a reason (as I'm sure you'd agree).
I'm certainly not saying that we should add to the bible or Jesus' teachings. I'm just saying that there are things we can learn from those who have different foundations to us.
I like what you said: "we should look at these kinds of people's ideas and ask God what he wants us to learn from it." We should take anything we want, but rather ask God what he wants us to take from others ideas.
As for Freud, sorry, he may have been scientifically ahead of his time but still a crack pot as far as I am concerned, but then I'd take CBT, REBT or narrative therapy way before psychoanalysis.
My point, from the beginning is not at all related to Freud but is solely about us needing to be careful in taking things from others ideologies when the very basis of their ideology is against our own beliefs. You may disagree, that's fine but I'll be looking into the base of people's ideologies before I take on what they say.
That may sound harsh but I don't seem to be able to make my points clearly understood.
I'm used to everyone thinking differently to me but I would have hoped people might stop for a second to think about what they are saying and I'm not sure that has happened. I've thought about what I am saying, I just don't agree with you.
Can you explain this:
"you don't always get to pick and choose what bits of a theory you take."
Coz I don't really understand what you mean.
You do seem to be saying that if someone's foundations are screwed then you can't take anything they say. And I'm sure that's not what you mean, but that seems to be what you are saying with Freud, so I'm confused.
as far as "doing justice to a man of Freud's intellectual stature and influence" well you are right he WAS an influence and his stature WAS quite astounding in his day... but that was because he WAS one of the leading people in his field. not any more.
today, from what I know of psychology, he is far less relevant as he falls far more into the classification of a philosopher rather than a scientist. like it or not, psychology is far more of a science than it was and if you are not using scientifically sound methods you have some questions to answer.
Psychology, Youth work, social science etc. all MUST use scientifically and ethically sound practices. if we do not then we are not work the paper we are accredited on. if counsellors were as accredited and scientifically relevant in Modern Australian Society then they would have a professional standing in the human services field... which they don't. Christian or non-Christian it is at best witch doctory in a Society that KNOWS better.
The whole second half of the book made no sense to me, just a whole bunch of big words, i'll show victor some exestensial vaccuum.
if you are so infuriated by my comments then i would look at the basis of your anger... and then i would look at your chosen proffession and how you could change my opinion of it.
if you feel personally hurt then i am sorry. but i will not stand up for a profession that thinks that it is ahead of the pack, when in fact it needs a gross overhaul of its policies and procedures.
as for a debate about philosophy that ended long ago when you and your collegues adopted the stance that you could take on board the ideas of foolish men who build their house on the sands(matt 7). if we could do that then hitler had some good policies about community development and eichmann just made the trains run on time.
As for Freud, the only importance of his work to mine is that is provides me witha history of where my profession has come from. It in no way guides my practice as I choose to look to more contemporary people and like all people studying any form of counselling subject I have my copy of Egan on the bookshelf. As counselling is only one facet of my work, unfortunately not an area I am able to devote much time to because of the immense needs for all areas of psychological service within the schools.
As for sounding arrogant, well it sounded like we were having a debate and you were at least listening to my perspective until someone else came into bat for your opinion and then you said 'Well said Glen!'. To me that said that you actually were only humouring my thoughts and opinions but since someone said I was wrong you could just say a little line and not really be the critic. I found that extremely infuriating and I found the post you said that in reference to to be a personal attack and felt that it basically suggested my profession was lesser than yours. No offence but get over yourselves, this is the equivilant of my 6th year of full time study towards this, we psychologists ARE more qualified and we ARE the ones who provide the research in this area. I don't think as people we are any different but just as a doctor can say they are more qualified that a 1st aider I think a psychologist can say they are more qualified than a counsellor.
On another note, but in a similiar vein, I also think that schools should provide qualified psychologist and/or councillors rather than members of the clergy...but that's just my opinion.
Jen, not once have I said anything negative about your profession. I have a huge respect for psychologists and I recognise that you do more study than counsellors. You have a different role, and it is hugely important that you know your stuff. However, I will have done 3 years of study by the time I graduate, and that's the same as most other degrees. So I'm confused as to why you think we don't do enough study. And a lot of counsellors have post grad studies under their belt too.
Aaron, you are showing your utter ignorance as to what a counsellor actually does, saying it has no value. And saying that you think it's at best 'witch doctory'.
I can't figure out why you both feel so attacked and the need to defend yourselves so vigorously. All I have done is defend what I have chosen to do with my life, not attacked what you do with yours. As you have done to me. Aaron, you're confused as to why I am angry and feel attacked? You have publically stated your distain for what I have chosen to do with my life that I see as valuable and good. How is that not offensive?!
Why have you started attacking me by the way? I haven't said anything inflamatory, but rather disagreed with you. Which anyone is in their right to do. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong. Maybe we're both wrong. You don't need to attack me.
As for saying 'well done Glen'. That had nothing to do with discrediting you Jen. It was merely that Glen has said well what I meant, so why rephrase it? Why not just say that we agree? That is not me only humouring your thoughts. I respect your opinion and your right to have it. What I don't respect is the inappropriate, overly forceful way you have gone about doing it.
if you believe that i am iggnorant as to what you do as a counsellor then enlighten me... but like i said earlier i know a heap and i wouldn't send my worst enemies to them for any mental health reasons.
what jen was saying is that to become a practicing psychologist they MUST do at least a minimum of a masters degree to become fully accredited as a practitioner. i have mates who havent even finished high school who could call themselves counsellors and there would be no reason at all that they couldn't practice. that is what we are talking about. if your job was only initial referal and group participation then i would not have an issue. but, a counsellors (not a counselling psychs) job description is supposed to be so much more. how much time in the field will you have had before you get ACCREDITED and after you get your piece of paper what follow up MUST you do? oh i forgot...
you aren't accredited and you don't have to be followed up.
"in your defence of your chosen career path you have spoken about many different things over the years. this having been said you in this last post have spoken about archain ideas and principles that have no legit following within the social services field. you have also shown your iggnorance in believing that you know what i as a youth worker and jen as a psychologist do."
and not back them up. Give me an example. I don't believe that's true. Because I think Frued had one or two good ideas even though I think he's kind of nuts?
Keep in mind I am a qualified youth worker and I worked as one for 2 years. And I did first year psych at uni (I understand that's not much, but it's something). I'm not claiming to understand all psychologists do. Not once have I attacked either profession. I think they are both great and admirable.
I have issues with your treatment of me. Not your opinions. You are entitled to think whatever you like. But you are not entitled to treat me like an ignorant moron who knows nothing about the world. It shows how little you know me and how superficial our friendship has been.
"I can't figure out why you both feel so attacked and the need to defend yourselves so vigorously". That is easy, I feel attacked because the way you have written things has been hurtful to me. You have taken every word I have said and simply told me I am wrong in a demeaning tone. I'm sorry to respond strongly to that but I can't stand people demeaning me like that. You probably didn't mean that and I didn't mean to be hurtful, so I am sorry to have hurt your feelings. You said, "I respect your opinion and your right to have it" well that didn't come accross in your blogs.
My problem with you saying "well done Glen" comes in that simply saying I agree suggests you have the same point of view, saying "well done" suggests more that you think he put me in my place down under other people. It's all semantics I know but I did find that wording very offensive.
Perhaps we all need to just stop this conversation, it is going nowhere and everyone is being hurt by it.
In Glen's defense, he never said you weren't qualified or knowledgable. Glen is a very qualified, knowledgable man and I'm sure he meant no offense.