Cae
Frankl vastly ignores how the circumstances he faced alongside others were not experienced the same across all people. To insinuate that those who couldn’t recover from illness or injury did not have enough “drive” is ridiculous. He mentions how his background as a doctor and psychotherapist lead to some of his experiences without acknowledging how it bolstered his chance of survival over others. He is grossly sympathetic towards the SS and nazi doctors, of which he seemed oddly close to at times. His passage declaring that some SS members actually were more moral than holocaust prisoners trying to survive or going out of their mind makes his character more than questionable. It’s at the point where before you even really get to the nitty gritty of what his philosophy is you already begin to question why you should listen about what supposed way life should be lived. Learning about the things he blatantly lied about or omitted and his actions that went unwritten surprises me to no degree.
Going to his philosophy, it would be tedious to mention every point i disagree with, but i have ended up mentioning several. I mostly do this to illustrate the fact that people seem to like a book if they know they agree with the general premise, rather than actually analyzing talking points or considering the true perspective/character of the author (i think about ray bradbury all the time. Man the rants i could go on!). I cant disagree on the general idea that purpose and direction help one get through life, that seems blatantly obvious, although still somewhat untrue. I’m not a person that buys into societal ideals of self-sacrifice and complete dedication/responsibility to things outside of the self as necessary or moral. I find the idea that one couldn’t lead themselves on pleasure majorly a tad silly. If one’s life is for them to determine, why all the need for something outside of the self to not “disappoint” with a current or future action? Alongside Frankl’s passage on humans lacking a real moral drive (one of the questionable points, although not disgusting as mentioning with awe a woman’s declaration of her suffering as fate for a “spoiled” life), it seems that for an existentialist he isnt very capable of deriving an individualistic sense of life. His philosophy seems to somewhat stem from a sense of insecurity, of ‘proving his place in the world’ so that he isnt “repeated” or “replaced”—a need i find stupid that we have created. Like the woman without a child who cries “my life was a failure.” What a stupid thought that everyone needs a mission, that you must push through suffering to not disappoint, that your life could ever be a failure. I find his “freedom to take a stand” example being about hair insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved. I’m not even against the idea of suffering being a part of life to face head on and learn from, but glorifying and normalizing putting yourself through enormous amounts of it as a “test” or devotion to god/whatever-figure-of-authority-or-love is simply a martyr perspective i find self-defeating. But i suppose sometimes it’s hard to hear that a lot of suffering is meaningless and to be overcome.
Frankl vastly ignores how the circumstances he faced alongside others were not experienced the same across all people. To insinuate that those who couldn’t recover from illness or injury did not have enough “drive” is ridiculous. He mentions how his background as a doctor and psychotherapist lead to some of his experiences without acknowledging how it bolstered his chance of survival over others. He is grossly sympathetic towards the SS and nazi doctors, of which he seemed oddly close to at times. His passage declaring that some SS members actually were more moral than holocaust prisoners trying to survive or going out of their mind makes his character more than questionable. It’s at the point where before you even really get to the nitty gritty of what his philosophy is you already begin to question why you should listen about what supposed way life should be lived. Learning about the things he blatantly lied about or omitted and his actions that went unwritten surprises me to no degree.
Going to his philosophy, it would be tedious to mention every point i disagree with, but i have ended up mentioning several. I mostly do this to illustrate the fact that people seem to like a book if they know they agree with the general premise, rather than actually analyzing talking points or considering the true perspective/character of the author (i think about ray bradbury all the time. Man the rants i could go on!). I cant disagree on the general idea that purpose and direction help one get through life, that seems blatantly obvious, although still somewhat untrue. I’m not a person that buys into societal ideals of self-sacrifice and complete dedication/responsibility to things outside of the self as necessary or moral. I find the idea that one couldn’t lead themselves on pleasure majorly a tad silly. If one’s life is for them to determine, why all the need for something outside of the self to not “disappoint” with a current or future action? Alongside Frankl’s passage on humans lacking a real moral drive (one of the questionable points, although not disgusting as mentioning with awe a woman’s declaration of her suffering as fate for a “spoiled” life), it seems that for an existentialist he isnt very capable of deriving an individualistic sense of life. His philosophy seems to somewhat stem from a sense of insecurity, of ‘proving his place in the world’ so that he isnt “repeated” or “replaced”—a need i find stupid that we have created. Like the woman without a child who cries “my life was a failure.” What a stupid thought that everyone needs a mission, that you must push through suffering to not disappoint, that your life could ever be a failure. I find his “freedom to take a stand” example being about hair insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved. I’m not even against the idea of suffering being a part of life to face head on and learn from, but glorifying and normalizing putting yourself through enormous amounts of it as a “test” or devotion to god/whatever-figure-of-authority-or-love is simply a martyr perspective i find self-defeating. But i suppose sometimes it’s hard to hear that a lot of suffering is meaningless and to be overcome.