Skip to main content

Meaning in Life

Reading through Viktor Frankl’s classic work, Man’s Search for Meaning, has been quite rewarding.  When you think you know a book fairly well, the discovery is normally two-fold.  Indeed, I do know the book fairly well.  The were no rash surprises, as I read it again.  But I also inevitably find things either I never saw the first couple times I read it or I have forgotten what a great point he makes here and there.  Such was the case again.

Frankl was liberated from the concentration camp in 1945.  He lived a ripe, old age until 1997.  He continued being a therapist in his native Vienna, Austria.  He was friends with Freud and Jung, but developed his own approach to therapy.  It was the fancy work, logotherapy, to describe it.  Basically that is a combination of two Greek words which mean healing of the mind.  It is grounded in existential philosophy, if that means anything to you.  Frankl was more keen to talk about a person’s concrete situation in life and the future, rather than mining one’s past and trying to bring things up from the unconscious. 

He radically believed humans had to make choices in life and that we are responsible.  I like this focus.  He also felt like our attitude made a big difference.  He was convinced we could choose to be optimists.  That might not sound fair to some of us.  But you can’t argue with his own experience of figuring out how to be optimistic, even in a concentration camp.  Being an optimist did not always mean things turn out the way we want.  But it does mean we can figure out how to cope and remain free and responsible to the very end.

Frankl offers a wonderful summary of his approach in a one-liner, which comes at the end of my book.  He said, “The meaning of your life is to help others find the meaning of theirs.”  This is worth pondering and offer comments to grasp more deeply what he suggests.  In the first place, I can say that another one of his bedrock assumptions was that human beings are self-determining.  This means we can determine who we want to be, what we want to be, etc.  This is a corollary to saying humans have freedom.

Of course, this does not mean we are totally free.  We were born with the genetic structure our parents bequeathed to us.  We have a limited IQ.  After we have lived some years, there is a kind of destiny to our lives.  Frankl agrees this makes a difference.  I have a destiny, but it is not predestination---that is, destiny determining ahead of time everything that will be true for me.  In effect, humans balance their destiny and their freedom.  We are self-determining in that sense.

We can use something like poverty, for example.  That is not a good thing and it seems too many people are trapped by this.  Indeed, it is difficult to extract oneself from the cycle of poverty.  If I grow up in a poor neighborhood with substandard education, this is my destiny.  But it need not be my predestination.  There are still choices.  I may feel like I am bound, but I do have an element of freedom.  No one said it would be easy.  But I am self-determining.

For me the most important aspect of Frankl’s one-liner is his note for us to be what I am going to call, self-transcendent.  In the street language, we simply say when we get over ourselves, then we have a chance for some real meaning.  As long as we are focused on ourselves and our desires and pleasures, whatever happiness we get will be short term.  There is no lasting satisfaction in the new car, etc.  They are nice, to be sure, but not long-term satisfying. 

We get the greatest possibility of meaning when we help someone else find their own meaning.  Effectively Frankl is saying, why not try service.  Be there for others and you have a great chance of finding meaning and purpose in your own life.  And meaning and purpose are the only sure ways to long-term satisfaction and meaning.  This makes a great deal of sense to me now that I am older.  I can’t tell anymore whether it would have made sense to me when I was twenty years old. 

The easiest example of self-transcending our little egos is the phenomenon of love.  Of course, we may confuse love with getting what we want.  It might feel good in the short run, but love does not last when that is our deal. All we have to do is think about ourselves in love with someone else whom we hope loves us.  But in reality, she or he only loves their self and wants only what’s best for them.  This makes us feel like we have been manipulated and are only a pawn in their game.

In a summary fashion, I think this is what Jesus was all about.  If God is love, then this is the kind of loving we are called to do.  It enables me to grasp what Jesus was getting at when he tells us we should love our neighbor as ourselves.  He pushes the envelope when he admonishes us to love even our enemy.  Most of us probably feel a little too self-concerned and selfish to go this far.  But if we can’t go this far, then we are holding out on all that we could be.

I agree finding meaning in this fashion seems paradoxical.  We are called to be self-determining and then told to spend our time helping others.  It feels risky---and it is.  But to hold out is to miss out.  We wind up protecting our little selves and sacrifice any bigger story for us.  It is a trust experience with God who we count on loving us.  In turn, God says to do that kind of loving for others.

In return we get it back.  We get a life full of meaning.  Frankl inspires me to give it a go.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.             Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election.   He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!”   I think Brooks puts

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was full of sports for me.   Commitment would have been presupposed t

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate; Buddhists meditate.   And other groups practice this spiri