Logotherapy

[Xangsamhua]

A former colleague, a highly intelligent man and a PhD, is about to embark on private practice as a Logotherapist. I thought I'd better research what Logotherapists do.

Logotherapy was developed by Victor Frankl, the psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, whose 1946 book Man's Search for Meaning describes his experiences in Nazi concentration camps. He believed his beliefs, which became known as Logotherapy, helped him to survive.

In Wikipedia I read the italicized explanation below and wondered how it sits with Buddhist psychology, especially with regard to the liberative potential of suffering when viewed from a non-egocentric or altruistic perspective. The value of suffering for others is also a Christian perspective of course (my former colleague recently retired from a lifetime of work in Catholic Education), as well as central to the Bodhisattva ideal, if I understand it correctly.

The notion of Logotherapy was created with the Greek word logos ("meaning"). Frankl's concept is based on the premise that the primary motivational force of an individual is to find a meaning in life. The following list of tenets represents the basic principles of logotherapy:

• Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
• Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
• We have freedom to find meaning in what we do, and what we experience, or at least in the stand we take when faced with a situation of unchangeable suffering.

The human spirit is referred to in several of the assumptions of logotherapy, but the use of the term spirit is not "spiritual" or "religious". In Frankl's view, the spirit is the will of the human being. The emphasis, therefore, is on the search for meaning, which is not necessarily the search for God or any other supernatural being. Frankl also noted the barriers to humanity's quest for meaning in life. He warns against "...affluence, hedonism, [and] materialism..." in the search for meaning.

Discovering meaning

According to Frankl, we can discover meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a value – nature, a work of art, another person, i.e., love; (3) by suffering. On the meaning of suffering, Frankl gives the following example:

Once, an elderly general practitioner consulted me because of his severe depression. He could not overcome the loss of his wife who had died two years before and whom he had loved above all else. Now how could I help him? What should I tell him? I refrained from telling him anything, but instead confronted him with a question, "What would have happened, Doctor, if you had died first, and your wife would have had to survive you?:" "Oh," he said, "for her this would have been terrible; how she would have suffered!" Whereupon I replied, "You see, Doctor, such a suffering has been spared her, and it is you who have spared her this suffering; but now, you have to pay for it by surviving and mourning her." He said no word but shook my hand and calmly left the office.

— Viktor Frankl

Frankl emphasized that realizing the value of suffering is meaningful only when the first two creative possibilities are not available (for example, in a concentration camp) and only when such suffering is inevitable – he was not proposing that people suffer unnecessarily.

(Wikipedia:

Logotherapy

)

Edited August 11, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[sleepyjohn]

Hello Xangsamhua

I came across your old post and thought someone had pre-empted me.

I have been thinking it would be good to have a discipline called "preventive philosophy" (I first thought of "prophylactic philsophy" but it's a little unfortunate). Understanding logos as it's more normal interpretation rather than "meaning" I thought perhaps Frankl had beaten me to it. But no.....

My premise is that putting the right elements of philosophy in place will underpin one's life, support one through thick and thin, and drastically reduce not only mental disorder but more common dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

What's more to extend the medical analogy the philosophy, (the medicine or vaccine,) could be prescribed to fit the person.....in the same way the Buddha tailored his teaching to the character and abilities of the listener.

I have thought for some time that the core of Buddhism is actually beyond anyone who doesn't have some mental agility and the time to clarify and integrate it. I think your average layman would be far better served by Stoicism a marvellous practical philosophy which is far more accessible and common sense. I would make the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius required reading for all.

cheers John

[christiaan]

xangsamhua

Well that is a wonderfull contribution, thank you.

It is always a pleasure to have ' another colour of light ' shine on the subject we are looking at.

It brings more awareness.

I very muched liked to read it.

It was only the answer to the doctor that made me feel in some way uneasy: ; but now you have to pay for it by surviving and mourning her.

I probably would not have told this - ( I would think the first part of the answer was enough) - or maybe something else.

this contribution made me also think about the meeting George Ritchie had as a doctor with the polish man named by the allied troops " Wild Bill Cody " because of his moustache. He met this man at the end of the war in concentrationcamp Wuppertal in Germany. He wrote the man looked as if he was only in this camp for a short time and then it turned out he was at this center of dead and starvation for 6 years already! Placed there after his wife and 5 children where shot in front of him by the Nazi's.

[Xangsamhua]

Hello Xangsamhua

I came across your old post and thought someone had pre-empted me.

I have been thinking it would be good to have a discipline called "preventive philosophy" (I first thought of "prophylactic philsophy" but it's a little unfortunate). Understanding logos as it's more normal interpretation rather than "meaning" I thought perhaps Frankl had beaten me to it. But no.....

My premise is that putting the right elements of philosophy in place will underpin one's life, support one through thick and thin, and drastically reduce not only mental disorder but more common dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

What's more to extend the medical analogy the philosophy, (the medicine or vaccine,) could be prescribed to fit the person.....in the same way the Buddha tailored his teaching to the character and abilities of the listener.

I have thought for some time that the core of Buddhism is actually beyond anyone who doesn't have some mental agility and the time to clarify and integrate it. I think your average layman would be far better served by Stoicism a marvellous practical philosophy which is far more accessible and common sense. I would make the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius required reading for all.

cheers John

Thanks John

There are some core similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism, though the latter lacks a soteriological dimension, i.e., in Buddhism, liberation beyond the limits of samsara.

I would think they are close in regard to: (1) ignorance as the fundamental cause of suffering; (2) "desire" or "craving" as the proximate cause of suffering (though Stoics would distinguish more between appropriate and inappropriate desire, Buddhists regarding any "desire" as a form of attachment; (3) the overcoming of desire by "reason" (in Buddhist terms "awareness" and the consequent extinguishing of craving); (4) adherence to the "golden mean" or "middle path"; and (5) emphasis on mindfulness. There may be other similarities, of course.

There's some interesting stuff on the web re Buddhism and Stoicism. One short article and comments I read was at http://theguide42.bl...wo-ancient.html

The article itself is a bit questionable, but the comments are interesting.

Yes, it would be good if we all read the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius or at least extracts from them before we finish secondary school. Some countries are more attentive to the place of great writing than others in their school curricula. I expect the movers and shakers in my own country would regard the classics as sexist, patriarchal, classist and racist (after all what did Marcus Aurelius, or Confucius for that matter, say about Africans or aboriginal people?). A pity. Philistinism may be beneficial as a prophylactic against unmerited elitism, but it can also shut the door on much that is worthy.

[Xangsamhua]

Well that is a wonderfull contribution, thank you.

It is always a pleasure to have ' another colour of light ' shine on the subject we are looking at.

It brings more awareness.

I very muched liked to read it.

It was only the answer to the doctor that made me feel in some way uneasy: ; but now you have to pay for it by surviving and mourning her.

I probably would not have told this - ( I would think the first part of the answer was enough) - or maybe something else.

You're welcome, Christiaan.

I wonder if the patient in this case was feeling guilty at having outlived his wife (they'd quite probably have assumed he wouldn't, as husbands normally don't).

Victor Frankl's response may have eased his patient's mind in this regard.

[christiaan]

You are right Xangsamhua, it is possible the patient did not feel guilty and Frankl's response may have eased his patients mind. The patient himself did not reflect on this. It is possible in that conversation things said could have another power , also by gestures and eye contact, as what plain words tell just reading them.

However, it is just nice to read there is such a thing as logotherapy