Thanks -- I've read Hazlitt, but its really not even the same kind of book that this one is. This book is about how individuals deal with their lives individually and assumes that different paths to meaning can apply to different individuals, whereas that one is a "theory of everything" book that attempts to apply one theory to everyone and everything and refute various other "theories of everything".
I'll check out the other.
BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
Thanks for setting this up @Dragline. I too wondered why 'logotherapy' isn't better known.
Here is part of what I wrote:
I agree with the preface to the which book warns "If you were hoping for a book about how to feel good, how to find happiness or how to reap some reward for your goodness, I'm sorry to disappoint you: this is not that book". So I wasn't expecting a list of tips on how to be happier (nor do I really want one). However, based on the blurb ("Hugh Mackay has spent his entire working life asking Australians about their values, motivations, ambitions, hopes and fears. Now, in The Good Life, he addresses the ultimate question: What makes a life worth living"), and the fact that Mackay is a social researcher, I was expecting something more research-driven - a kind of "Millionaire Next Door", except about living well. Mackay's use of quotes and excerpts etc. was not as rigorous or academic as in Stanley's research. Rather, the book seems to be a series of points that Mackay personally thinks are important, backed up with anecdotes.
Obviously the question "What makes a life worth living?" is an important one, but probably, ultimately, unanswerable. For me, any answer to this question needs to be universal - answers like "my children" or "my partner" or "my friends" or "my family" or "my dog" or "my hobbies" are absolutely fine answers to the question "What makes your [my] life worth living", but none of them apply for everyone. You might love your dog or your kids to bits, but they are unknown to me. There's a subtle but important distinction between the questions "What makes a life worth living?" and "What makes my life worth living?", and Mackay chose the more difficult (if not impossible) question to answer in his book.
Frankl doesn't (obviously) come to a universal answer either. He argues that “Questions about the meaning of life can never be answered by sweeping statements. “Life” does not mean something vague, but something very real and concrete” (p. 77). As true as this is, we do have a definition of "life" that is intended to be universal, even though the exact details and experiences will differ from person to person, organism to organism.
1. Where have you seen Frankl’s ideas, perhaps in other forms or contexts?
I see some of these ideas in ERE-like philosophy, e.g. defining ourselves other than simply by our employment. The importance of this is raised when Frankl points out that "The majority of prisoners suffered from a kind of inferiority complex. We all had once been or had fancied ourselves to be "somebody." Now we were treated like complete nonentities" (p. 62). Similarly, I see parallels in the statement that, in the absence of instinct or tradition, the human being “either wishes to do what other people do (conformism) or he does what other people wish him to do (totalitarianism)” (p. 108), both ideas I think ERE strives to counter.
Relatedly, I see a lot of links to stoicism as well. Frankl states that “to choose ones’ attitude in any given set of circumstances” (p. 65) is the last of the human freedoms. (Frankl also pointed out that “Former prisoners… agree that the most depressing influence of all was that a prisoner could not know how long his term of imprisonment would be” p. 69).
Frankl’s findings were even referred to in the book I mentioned above (at least I think they were hisv– it was a library book which I don’t have to hand to check the citations, if there even was one): One segment of the book examines what Mackay calls "seven false leads" - 1) certainty ("Religious fundamentalists are soft targets. Because their faith has typically morphed into certainty, they hardly count as believers" p. 75), 2) the future ("people who lost their faith in the future [in concentration camps] were doomed" p. 85), 3) finding yourself, 4) intelligence, 5) power wealth status and fame, 6) the simple life, and 7) the meaning of life (I liked his comparison of this question to "What is the meaning of Thursday?")
An interesting statistic (to me, although other aspects were focused on in the book) occurred on p. 240, where Mackay cites a Finnish study which found that more young people had fears about work (40%) than about death (between 17 and 39% depending on the year), war and terrorism (11% by 2007, although it was far higher in earlier years), the environment (7%), failure (between 7 and 16%) or loneliness (between 5 and 20%). Why on earth should work cause so much worry in comparison to these much more important issues?
Finally, towards the end of the book I was reminded of the Social Realist (c.f. Layder) theoretical framework by the statement that “there is a danger inherent in the teaching of man’s “nothingbutness,” the theory that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. Such a view makes him into a robot, not a human being. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free” (p. 131). Social Realism similarly acknowledges these influences, but balances the focus on structure with a recognition of human agency and maintains that reality is reducible to neither.
2. Have you run across data that would tend to refute his model? (I personally think that the Frankl model does not fit well to psychopaths, who are more accurately reflected in Adler’s “will to power” and Freud’s “will to pleasure” models – but that’s only about 4% of the population.)
I wonder if “power” or “pleasure” are the “meaning” such people have ascribed to their lives, without looking any further...?
I can't think of any specific data or observations that would refute this model. As the crux of his model appears to be philosophical/spiritual as opposed to scientific (i.e. empirically verifiable) it would appear hard to refute with evidence. The meaning of life is too ephemeral to be operationalised and tested.
I did like Frankl’s position that not everyone is a “patient” or “neurotic” though.
3. Where do you find “meaning” in life, and does it fit into one or more of Frankl’s three categories?
Frankl says in From Death Camp to Existentialism that counseling two men who were suicidal “was a question of getting them to realize that life was still expecting something from them” (p. 79). I think this is the closest Frankl comes to a ‘universal’ answer. Of course, what “something” is can differ wildly from one person to another. For one of the two men, it was his child, for the other, it was his scientific work. And Frankl acknowledges that these meanings will differ – not only is not everyone a scientist, but “procreation is not the only meaning of life, for then life in itself would become meaningless, and something which is in itself meaningless cannot be rendered meaningful merely by its perpetuation” (p. 121). This is something I have long thought but not been able to articulate.
This lack of universality is not just true of one's love for one's children, but one's love for anyone, as I pointed out above - not everyone has a dog or a partner or whatever, but this does not mean their life is meaningless. Frankl presents 3 different ways we can discover the meaning of life which "always changes, but... never ceases to exist" by (1) doing a deed, (2) experiencing a value e.g. love, (3) suffering. "Love goes very far beyond the physical person of the beloved. It finds its deepest meaning in his spiritual being, his inner self. Whether or not he is actually present, whether or not he is still alive at all, ceases somehow to be of importance" (p. 37).
Frankl tells of a man “who on his arrival in camp had tried to make a pact with Heaven that his suffering and death should save the human being he loved from a painful end. For this man, suffering and death were meaningful; his was a sacrifice of the deepest significance” (pp. 83-84). What stands out to me here is that it is his belief that his suffering is meaningful that renders it meaningful - were he to not believe in the pact he is making with 'Heaven', it would remain meaningless.
I liked Frankl's point that "people who were used to a rich intellectual life may have suffered much pain... but the damage to their inner selves was less. They were able to retreat from their terrible surroundings to a life of inner riches and spiritual freedom" (p. 35). This is something I'd like to continue developing, and similarly, "The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living" (p. 43).
I also liked “The pessimist resembles a man who observes with fear and sadness that his wall calendar, from which he daily tears a sheet, grows thinner with each passing day. On the other hand, the person who attacks the problems of life activity is like a man who removes each successive leaf from his calendar and files it neatly and carefully away with its predecessors, after first having jotted down a few diary notes on the back. He can reflect with pride and joy on all the richness set down in these notes, on all the life he has already lived to the full” (p. 123). As a current calender striker, crossing off with relish each day that brings me closer to ERE, I hope I can also (metaphorically at least) jot down a few worthwhile notes on each day.
I read a book called "The Good Life: What makes life worth living" by Hugh Mackay (and discussed it on another site).Dragline wrote:
Questions like “what is the meaning of life?” implicitly assume that the meaning must be the same for each person. Yet there is no basis for this assumption, other than a desire for a certain “foolish consistency” to apply one standard across all domains no matter how different they might be.
Here is part of what I wrote:
I agree with the preface to the which book warns "If you were hoping for a book about how to feel good, how to find happiness or how to reap some reward for your goodness, I'm sorry to disappoint you: this is not that book". So I wasn't expecting a list of tips on how to be happier (nor do I really want one). However, based on the blurb ("Hugh Mackay has spent his entire working life asking Australians about their values, motivations, ambitions, hopes and fears. Now, in The Good Life, he addresses the ultimate question: What makes a life worth living"), and the fact that Mackay is a social researcher, I was expecting something more research-driven - a kind of "Millionaire Next Door", except about living well. Mackay's use of quotes and excerpts etc. was not as rigorous or academic as in Stanley's research. Rather, the book seems to be a series of points that Mackay personally thinks are important, backed up with anecdotes.
Obviously the question "What makes a life worth living?" is an important one, but probably, ultimately, unanswerable. For me, any answer to this question needs to be universal - answers like "my children" or "my partner" or "my friends" or "my family" or "my dog" or "my hobbies" are absolutely fine answers to the question "What makes your [my] life worth living", but none of them apply for everyone. You might love your dog or your kids to bits, but they are unknown to me. There's a subtle but important distinction between the questions "What makes a life worth living?" and "What makes my life worth living?", and Mackay chose the more difficult (if not impossible) question to answer in his book.
Frankl doesn't (obviously) come to a universal answer either. He argues that “Questions about the meaning of life can never be answered by sweeping statements. “Life” does not mean something vague, but something very real and concrete” (p. 77). As true as this is, we do have a definition of "life" that is intended to be universal, even though the exact details and experiences will differ from person to person, organism to organism.
1. Where have you seen Frankl’s ideas, perhaps in other forms or contexts?
I see some of these ideas in ERE-like philosophy, e.g. defining ourselves other than simply by our employment. The importance of this is raised when Frankl points out that "The majority of prisoners suffered from a kind of inferiority complex. We all had once been or had fancied ourselves to be "somebody." Now we were treated like complete nonentities" (p. 62). Similarly, I see parallels in the statement that, in the absence of instinct or tradition, the human being “either wishes to do what other people do (conformism) or he does what other people wish him to do (totalitarianism)” (p. 108), both ideas I think ERE strives to counter.
Relatedly, I see a lot of links to stoicism as well. Frankl states that “to choose ones’ attitude in any given set of circumstances” (p. 65) is the last of the human freedoms. (Frankl also pointed out that “Former prisoners… agree that the most depressing influence of all was that a prisoner could not know how long his term of imprisonment would be” p. 69).
Frankl’s findings were even referred to in the book I mentioned above (at least I think they were hisv– it was a library book which I don’t have to hand to check the citations, if there even was one): One segment of the book examines what Mackay calls "seven false leads" - 1) certainty ("Religious fundamentalists are soft targets. Because their faith has typically morphed into certainty, they hardly count as believers" p. 75), 2) the future ("people who lost their faith in the future [in concentration camps] were doomed" p. 85), 3) finding yourself, 4) intelligence, 5) power wealth status and fame, 6) the simple life, and 7) the meaning of life (I liked his comparison of this question to "What is the meaning of Thursday?")
An interesting statistic (to me, although other aspects were focused on in the book) occurred on p. 240, where Mackay cites a Finnish study which found that more young people had fears about work (40%) than about death (between 17 and 39% depending on the year), war and terrorism (11% by 2007, although it was far higher in earlier years), the environment (7%), failure (between 7 and 16%) or loneliness (between 5 and 20%). Why on earth should work cause so much worry in comparison to these much more important issues?
Finally, towards the end of the book I was reminded of the Social Realist (c.f. Layder) theoretical framework by the statement that “there is a danger inherent in the teaching of man’s “nothingbutness,” the theory that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. Such a view makes him into a robot, not a human being. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free” (p. 131). Social Realism similarly acknowledges these influences, but balances the focus on structure with a recognition of human agency and maintains that reality is reducible to neither.
2. Have you run across data that would tend to refute his model? (I personally think that the Frankl model does not fit well to psychopaths, who are more accurately reflected in Adler’s “will to power” and Freud’s “will to pleasure” models – but that’s only about 4% of the population.)
I wonder if “power” or “pleasure” are the “meaning” such people have ascribed to their lives, without looking any further...?
I can't think of any specific data or observations that would refute this model. As the crux of his model appears to be philosophical/spiritual as opposed to scientific (i.e. empirically verifiable) it would appear hard to refute with evidence. The meaning of life is too ephemeral to be operationalised and tested.
I did like Frankl’s position that not everyone is a “patient” or “neurotic” though.
3. Where do you find “meaning” in life, and does it fit into one or more of Frankl’s three categories?
Frankl says in From Death Camp to Existentialism that counseling two men who were suicidal “was a question of getting them to realize that life was still expecting something from them” (p. 79). I think this is the closest Frankl comes to a ‘universal’ answer. Of course, what “something” is can differ wildly from one person to another. For one of the two men, it was his child, for the other, it was his scientific work. And Frankl acknowledges that these meanings will differ – not only is not everyone a scientist, but “procreation is not the only meaning of life, for then life in itself would become meaningless, and something which is in itself meaningless cannot be rendered meaningful merely by its perpetuation” (p. 121). This is something I have long thought but not been able to articulate.
This lack of universality is not just true of one's love for one's children, but one's love for anyone, as I pointed out above - not everyone has a dog or a partner or whatever, but this does not mean their life is meaningless. Frankl presents 3 different ways we can discover the meaning of life which "always changes, but... never ceases to exist" by (1) doing a deed, (2) experiencing a value e.g. love, (3) suffering. "Love goes very far beyond the physical person of the beloved. It finds its deepest meaning in his spiritual being, his inner self. Whether or not he is actually present, whether or not he is still alive at all, ceases somehow to be of importance" (p. 37).
Frankl tells of a man “who on his arrival in camp had tried to make a pact with Heaven that his suffering and death should save the human being he loved from a painful end. For this man, suffering and death were meaningful; his was a sacrifice of the deepest significance” (pp. 83-84). What stands out to me here is that it is his belief that his suffering is meaningful that renders it meaningful - were he to not believe in the pact he is making with 'Heaven', it would remain meaningless.
I liked Frankl's point that "people who were used to a rich intellectual life may have suffered much pain... but the damage to their inner selves was less. They were able to retreat from their terrible surroundings to a life of inner riches and spiritual freedom" (p. 35). This is something I'd like to continue developing, and similarly, "The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living" (p. 43).
I also liked “The pessimist resembles a man who observes with fear and sadness that his wall calendar, from which he daily tears a sheet, grows thinner with each passing day. On the other hand, the person who attacks the problems of life activity is like a man who removes each successive leaf from his calendar and files it neatly and carefully away with its predecessors, after first having jotted down a few diary notes on the back. He can reflect with pride and joy on all the richness set down in these notes, on all the life he has already lived to the full” (p. 123). As a current calender striker, crossing off with relish each day that brings me closer to ERE, I hope I can also (metaphorically at least) jot down a few worthwhile notes on each day.
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
I thought this podcast that I heard yesterday kind of dovetailed with Frankl's idea that one way of finding meaning is through activity. This talks about transitioning from "job" meaning to other meanings in an early retirement scenario.
http://www.thevoluntarylife.com/
Click on the "Listen to Episode" link after the description -- its not very prominent.
http://www.thevoluntarylife.com/
Click on the "Listen to Episode" link after the description -- its not very prominent.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6853
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
Man's Search for Meaning is Audible's Deal of the Day today (8/20). It's $2.95.
http://www.audible.com/pd/Nonfiction/Ma ... s=center-2
http://www.audible.com/pd/Nonfiction/Ma ... s=center-2
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
I always find it interesting how atheistic the ERE crowd is to a large extent....Some of you have a deep neurosis around the word "God" or anything spiritual at all. I don't get it, unless you were sodomized by a Catholic priest as a kid or something. Why do atheists believe they're so superior to the Universe and others?Ego wrote:The first section of Man’s Search for Meaning is a great story about how some survived the holocaust when so many did not. Frankl’s basic premises is that you may not control everything that happens to you but, as the Buddha said in my quote above, you do control how you respond to it. That idea is very appealing. He goes on to explain that in life, suffering is inevitable and it can be used to produce meaning. Also very appealing.
Some problems I see in the book:
Frankl often conflates the various definitions of meaning and elevates God’s intended meaning (life’s expectation) as the highest form. We discussed this in other threads so I won’t belabor it other than to say that while reading I was never quite sure which “meaning” he was discussing, a reason to get out of bed or “The ultimate meaning necessarily exceeds and surpasses the finite intellectual capacities of man…” When he said, “Logos (meaning) is deeper than logic,” I got itchy.
Frankl focuses on becoming rather being. Meaning is the carrot toward which we should strive. Buddhists argue that suffering is directly caused by striving to change what is. I’m not sure I completely buy the Buddhist argument that pain is inevitable, suffering is a choice. But I can’t completely dismiss it either.
Despite those quibbles, I found the first section excellent while at the same time horrible. As someone who does not watch horror movies because I find they inhabit my mind for a time, I experienced the same thing with his stories of the camps. I dreamt of being crammed into the frozen shelves of sleeping prisoners. But I felt I could also understand and even feel the exhilaration he felt with the morsels of human kindness he gave and received. The speech he made that gave his fellow prisoners hope was the best part of the book.
The second section on Logotheapy was a sales pitch for his technique and was less compelling for someone like me who doesn’t believe in “The Super Meaning”. That’s not to say it is not useful. I found that if I stuck with my definition of meaning and breezed over the existential connotations, I got to delve into the mind of believers.
The story of the Rabbi who lost his children made me want to throw this book off a cliff.
“Is it not conceivable, Rabbi, that precisely this was the meaning of your surviving your children: that you may be purified through these years of suffering, so that finally you, too, though not innocent like your children, may become worthy of joining them in Heaven?
I am all for deluding myself if that delusion serves a positive purpose. Trouble is, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to anticipate that the Rabbi might just induce a little more suffering to ensure the purification was complete.
That’s the problem as I see it with the approach. People are given enough reasons to induce their own suffering. When we look around we see far too many people who use their martyrdom as a tool and do everything in their power to increase their own problems. Frankl’s approach is useful in that it encourages those who have suffered to reframe their past suffering. The problem lies in the suffering yet to come. By making suffering a virtue it might just perpetuate current suffering and increase future suffering.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15969
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
Because statistics ...tylerrr wrote: I always find it interesting how atheistic the ERE crowd is to a large extent....
The ERE crowd is largely INTJ. INTJs is the least likely type to believe in a higher power or identify themselves as religious. Note the important difference between the very common "absence of belief in higher powers" and the less common "belief in the absence of higher powers".
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
So you're saying most EREs are agnostic. I guess there's "some" humility in this crowd.jacob wrote:Because statistics ...tylerrr wrote: I always find it interesting how atheistic the ERE crowd is to a large extent....
The ERE crowd is largely INTJ. INTJs is the least likely type to believe in a higher power or identify themselves as religious. Note the important difference between the very common "absence of belief in higher powers" and the less common "belief in the absence of higher powers".
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15969
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
Haha, no humility ain't the right word and ERE != INTJ although the correlation is strong. Perhaps the typical INTJ's approach is best illustrated by this [disputed!?] quote from Laplace
Regardless of whether the quote is real, that explains the typical INTJ sentiment of questioning and seeking pragmatic explanations of everything quite accurately. Alternatively, one could say that INTJs are being quite humble by not presuming the existence of anything beyond what they require for explaining what they observeNapoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
I'm as inquisitive as the next person. I love science and just watched a great documentary on Einstein free on Youtube from the History Channel. Even Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts" and he admitted there had to be something more intelligent and vast , which could explain a functioning universe. The atheistic view seems very self-centered and arrogant by most I've talked to and I agree, but agnostics do leave the possibility open to some kind of higher power. I know many agnostics who pray and meditate, they're just not sure what they are praying to.....I don't claim to know either. I just know the exercise improves my life compared to when I don't.jacob wrote:Haha, no humility ain't the right word and ERE != INTJ although the correlation is strong. Perhaps the typical INTJ's approach is best illustrated by this [disputed!?] quote from Laplace
Regardless of whether the quote is real, that explains the typical INTJ sentiment of questioning and seeking pragmatic explanations of everything quite accurately. Alternatively, one could say that INTJs are being quite humble by not presuming the existence of anything beyond what they require for explaining what they observeNapoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
This book has been on my "want to read someday" list for a while, so I picked it up after encountering it at a thrift store. Most of the other passages that I highlighted have already been mentioned by Dragline above, but here's one of my favorite quotes of the book which provoked a "you're doing it wrong, Fish"-moment.
The 1984 and later editions include an essay called "The case for a tragic optimism" which I liked even though much of the material is similar to Part 2. What follows is from the opening passage (somewhat edited for space). Not sure I fully agree with #1 but it is an interesting take.
Also, since @jennypenny observes that I tend to come across as a "cranky" parent , after reading this book I resolve to try harder to bear my responsibility in an honorable manner and perhaps even find a greater meaning in the process. I had time to read this book this past weekend, life is actually rather good!
Lastly, I almost didn't want to bring this up, but after reading this book I started having dreams of being a prisoner in a concentration camp... am I the only one?
This occurs near the start of Part 2 ("Logotherapy in a nutshell") and until I encountered that quote I was on the verge of putting the book down for good because VF was getting very theoretical and philosophical. Very glad I didn't, because the 2nd part of the book is actually quite profound (to me as a person who devotes far too little attention to the very big picture). This quote kind of crystallizes my own realization from personal experience that an absence of struggle and suffering in itself does not bring happiness and fulfillment.I consider it a dangerous misconception of mental hygiene to assume that what a man needs in the first place is equilibrium, or as it is called in biology, "homeostasis," i.e. a tensionless state. What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task.
The 1984 and later editions include an essay called "The case for a tragic optimism" which I liked even though much of the material is similar to Part 2. What follows is from the opening passage (somewhat edited for space). Not sure I fully agree with #1 but it is an interesting take.
This last quote is relevant to personal finance and the FIRE movement:What is meant by "tragic optimism?" In brief, it means that one is, and remains optimistic in spite of the "tragic triad:" (1) pain, (2) guilt, and (3) death. How is it possible to say yes to life in spite of all that? What matters is to make the best of any given situation. The human potential at its best always allows for: (1) turning suffering into a human achievement and accomplishment, (2) deriving from guilt the opportunity to change oneself for the better, and (3) deriving from life's transitoriness an incentive to take responsible action.
The parallel I see between this book and personal finance is that many equate work with suffering, and pursue FI/RE in an effort to avoid it. To the extent that one's attitude or vocation cannot be changed such that "work is not so bad", that is a reasonable approach. It's interesting to note that in these cases where "work is suffering and FI/RE is my way out," the prospect of early retirement assigns a purpose and meaning to the suffering that is work.In no way is suffering necessary to find meaning. I only insist that meaning is possible even in spite of suffering---provided, certainly, that the suffering is unavoidable. If it were avoidable, however, the meaningful thing to do would be to remove its cause.
Also, since @jennypenny observes that I tend to come across as a "cranky" parent
, after reading this book I resolve to try harder to bear my responsibility in an honorable manner and perhaps even find a greater meaning in the process. I had time to read this book this past weekend, life is actually rather good! Lastly, I almost didn't want to bring this up, but after reading this book I started having dreams of being a prisoner in a concentration camp... am I the only one?
Re: BC #12: "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
Great to hear. This book is also on my list. I seem to have gotten the same realization from looking at some of Jordan Peterson's stuff (viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9633) as you got from this book.