The Search for Meaning

[iambiguous]

Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.

Psychiatric illnesses are on the rise around the world, weighing heavily on health systems already presenting barriers to access. Children and young people in particular face worsening mental health. Depression, self-harm, and suicide are occurring more frequently and at a younger age in adolescents than ever before. What can be done to alleviate this? And with all the suffering in the world, others are asking a different question: Why?

Well, it's hardly the only explanation, of course, but it's a big one: capitalism. On the other hand, some will suffer considerably more than others when the bottom line is the bottom line.

Then this part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Why indeed?

The psychiatrist Viktor Frankl stated in Man’s Search for Meaning that life is never made unbearable by circumstances, only by lack of purpose.

No, really, how ludicrous is this? Especially coming from a man who as a Holocaust survivor was surrounded by those who suffered terribly given the circumstances created by the Nazis. At least until their suffering ended in the gas chambers.

He argued that when we struggle to find meaning in our lives when confronted with adversity, our mental health suffers, leaving a void that contributes to depression and other conditions.

Imagine then his reaction to someone like me. Why? Because the meaning that most of us strive for is essential. In other words, why on Earth is the world around us the way it is at all? Then cue many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...for the "answer".

In fact, it's not for nothing that many will come around to accepting Harold Kushner's answer: there is a God and God is good. It's just that He's not omnipotent. Had He been there wouldn't have been Nazis, right?

A primary goal of therapy should therefore be to help patients reconnect with meaning when faced with life’s challenges. As we continue to grapple with multiple crises worldwide, the lessons from Frankl and the whole field of existential psychology deserve to be revisited.

Then the part where meaning itself becomes the goal. As though Hitler and his ilk weren't bursting at the seams with meaning. Meaning that if you weren't "one of them" watch out.

So, in a sense, the search for meaning among mere mortals has easily become the source of much suffering: my meaning...or else.

Though, sure, he no doubt did provide many with just the answer they craved. Only, from my frame of mind, logotherapy is basically just one more of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... al_schools

[iambiguous]

Book review – The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
at The Inquisitive Biologist

Here be rabbit holes.

On the other hand, rabbit holes are no less construed by mere mortals given the manner in which they have come to understand them as [you know what's coming] a manifestation of dasein rooted existentially out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

With that warning in mind, this book examines the question that has deprived philosophers of sleep since times immemorial: do we see the world as it truly is?

In other words, not just theoretically. Up in the philosophical clouds, reality often revolves solely around words defining and defending other words. Down here, however, is where the rabbit holes abound. In particular, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

Professor of Cognitive Sciences Donald D. Hoffman answers with a firm “no”. The resulting case against reality that he constructs is both speculative and thought-provoking, but I also found it a winding, confusing, and ultimately unconvincing read.

Perhaps because it is one thing to propose "a case against reality" in a book -- in an argument -- and another thing altogether to actually make it stick out in a world where from the cradle to the grave reality is, well, everywhere.

Instead, the distinction to make, in my view, is between reality in the either/or world and "reality" in the is/ought world.

[Belinda]

Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.

Psychiatric illnesses are on the rise around the world, weighing heavily on health systems already presenting barriers to access. Children and young people in particular face worsening mental health. Depression, self-harm, and suicide are occurring more frequently and at a younger age in adolescents than ever before. What can be done to alleviate this? And with all the suffering in the world, others are asking a different question: Why?

Well, it's hardly the only explanation, of course, but it's a big one: capitalism. On the other hand, some will suffer considerably more than others when the bottom line is the bottom line.

Then this part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Why indeed?

The psychiatrist Viktor Frankl stated in Man’s Search for Meaning that life is never made unbearable by circumstances, only by lack of purpose.

No, really, how ludicrous is this? Especially coming from a man who as a Holocaust survivor was surrounded by those who suffered terribly given the circumstances created by the Nazis. At least until their suffering ended in the gas chambers.

He argued that when we struggle to find meaning in our lives when confronted with adversity, our mental health suffers, leaving a void that contributes to depression and other conditions.

Imagine then his reaction to someone like me. Why? Because the meaning that most of us strive for is essential. In other words, why on Earth is the world around us the way it is at all? Then cue many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...for the "answer".

In fact, it's not for nothing that many will come around to accepting Harold Kushner's answer: there is a God and God is good. It's just that He's not omnipotent. Had He been there wouldn't have been Nazis, right?

A primary goal of therapy should therefore be to help patients reconnect with meaning when faced with life’s challenges. As we continue to grapple with multiple crises worldwide, the lessons from Frankl and the whole field of existential psychology deserve to be revisited.

Then the part where meaning itself becomes the goal. As though Hitler and his ilk weren't bursting at the seams with meaning. Meaning that if you weren't "one of them" watch out.

So, in a sense, the search for meaning among mere mortals has easily become the source of much suffering: my meaning...or else.

Though, sure, he no doubt did provide many with just the answer they craved. Only, from my frame of mind, logotherapy is basically just one more of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... al_schools

The Problem of Evil can be answered only by divesting God of omnipotence. God as Pancreator is not the God we worship when we mean to be good.

But what is good. What does 'good' mean. There are lots of prophets and seers and there is also one's own faculty of reason. Good itself is not eternal essence but is continuously being defined and redefined by actions and novel syntheses. Stopping the Hegelian dialectic is by means of intensifying the gaze on to something beautiful, such as an icon of traditional goodness, or listening to beautiful music.
True, the Nazis were "bursting at the seams with meaning", but their meanings were created by teams of influencers for political purposes. Wagner is interesting in this connection, Wagnerian music happened to fit the Nazi purpose and Wagner and his music should not be blamed. There's no need to presume that love of beauty implies unreason.

[iambiguous]

Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.

The Problem of Suffering

Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, was concerned with reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with our belief in a purpose-driven world.

Then right back to those who pursue a purpose that actually results in the suffering of others. Dozens and dozens of them historically, of course, and most of them rationalized it in the name of one or another God or ideology or Kingdom of Ends. Or they're sociopaths preoccupied always with "what's in it for me?"

The "arrogant, autocratic authoritarian" "my way or the highway" "or else" if you don't become "one of them" folks. And, in particular, when they are in positions of power. Able, in other words, to enforce any number of policies that can result in considerable suffering.

What’s particularly challenging to explain is what’s known as ‘natural suffering’ – events over which humans have no control, such as pandemics, natural disasters, birth defects, and cancer. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent higher power would, by definition, both have the ability and ostensibly want to design a world where these events don’t happen. Yet much suffering exists. Why?

Just for the record, these things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Of course, this is the part where some simply subsume all of that in one or another One True Path. All of the many, many different ways there are to explain them away.

This problem isn’t new. It has vexed theologians and philosophers for centuries, from Epicurus in ancient Greece to the Book of Job in the Old Testament to the theodicies of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

And, again, as always, the beauty of the human condition is such that what you believe about God and suffering "in your head" need be as far as it goes. Or those who subsume their own reactions to these terrible events in one or another "leap of faith".

And, of course, this part...

In the seventeenth century, Leibniz attempted to rationalize the imperfections of the world and the immensity of the suffering in it by contending that, despite its faults, this is still ‘the best of all possible worlds’.

Not counting all of those millions around the globe who, from day day to day, embody it instead as the worst of all possible worlds.

Voltaire famously satirized this idea in his novel Candide, where we find our hero subjected to a series of catastrophes, including wars, famine, shipwrecks, plague, and the 1755 Lisbon earthquake which killed about sixty thousand people. Yet while humanity has made giant strides in improving the quality of life for many since Candide was published, suffering cannot be eradicated. It is a feature of the human condition.

On the other hand, it's the world we all live in. Not only that but over and over and over again there are those who profit from that suffering. Think, say, the military industrial complex or the medical industrial complex. Or Wall Street.

Then the part where "...suffering cannot be eradicated. It is a feature of the human condition" becomes just a rationale for doing...nothing about it? Then the truly grim part where for the preponderance of men and women, that is exactly what they do: nothing.

Some just do more of it than others.

On the other hand, historically or otherwise, the cure can be worse than the disease.

[iambiguous]

Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.

Existential anxiety occurs when individuals are unable to reconcile the presence of suffering with their personal understanding of the nature of the world and our place in it.

From my frame of mind, existential anxiety revolves around far more than this. It can revolve around anything that makes you wonder about what it means to be a human being in any particular community. That we exist entails any number of things we may or may not find meaningful. Thus finding something meaningful is often far removed from actually demonstrating that others are obligated to share the same meaning.

When cultural narratives are unable to provide a sufficient rationale to existential questions, this may alter a person’s worldview in profound ways and decrease their ability to cope with anxiety.

Then the part [mine] where cultural narratives are themselves no less rooted historically in ever evolving and changing sets of circumstances and assumptions.

Actually precipitating anxiety, in other words.

As for "provid[ing] a sufficient rationale to existential questions", it's not like there aren't hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths from which to choose. Or, perhaps, "choose"?

Psychologists Daryl and Sara Von Tongeren argue that when this happens, it threatens three different dimensions of meaning: coherence, significance, and purpose. This, they say, is “because suffering often feels senseless (challenging coherence), can cause people to question whether or not they matter (threatening significance), and might reveal the absurdity of life (undermining purpose), suffering cuts across all dimensions of meaning” (‘Finding Meaning Amidst COVID-19: An Existential Positive Psychology Model of Suffering’, Frontiers in Psychology 12, 2021).

Then the parts I throw in here: distractions, dasein, The Gap, Rummy's Rule, the Benjamin Button Syndrome and a fractured and fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

What happens when we cannot find meaning? In its absence, people attempt to fill the void in many ways, for example, with the pursuit of power or pleasure.

Of course, that's just on this side of the grave.

[iambiguous]

Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.

What happens when we cannot find meaning? In its absence, people attempt to fill the void in many ways, for example, with the pursuit of power or pleasure.

In fact, for a number of hedonists among us, gorging themselves on any number of things -- food, sex, dope, etc. -- is all the meaning they'll ever need. Then the sociopaths...?

Frankl himself argued that the ‘neurotic triad’ of depression, addiction, and aggression that afflicts society is symptomatic of a widespread inability to find purpose.

There's another rendition of this...mine. Only my focus is less on existential meaning and purpose [which is everywhere] and more on the assumption there is no essential meaning objectively applicable to everyone. Let alone immortality and salvation.

Then the part where millions are now addicted to pop culture, to mindless consumption, to the quest for their own 15 minutes of fame.

Friedrich Nietzsche held that ‘the will to power’ was the fundamental force behind human action. By contrast, Frankl argued that the drive to seek power was a masked effort to address (yet not necessarily satisfy) existential anxiety around questions of meaning. On this interpretation, individuals seek out power to fill what’s been missing in their lives when other avenues to find purpose have been obstructed.

On the other hand, it's not like the "will to power" is an entity that can actually be pinpointed in the brain.

Or in the soul?

At least not to my current knowledge. Instead, it becomes whatever you need it to become...philosophically or otherwise. And how is meaning itself really any different here? What does it mean? Well, what do you need it to mean in order to sustain your own dogmatic assessment of the human condition?

[attofishpi]

-- --

..R U searching for meaning? It's a rather average approach..

..I couldn't give a flying rats arse whether U believe in Christ, but more importantly, since this is a "philosophy" forum, Y wouldn't you?

[Belinda]

-- --

..R U searching for meaning? It's a rather average approach..

..I couldn't give a flying rats arse whether U believe in Christ, but more importantly, since this is a "philosophy" forum, Y wouldn't you?

There are two meanings of 'believe'.
One meaning is like "do you believe your table is made of wood?" and the other meaning of 'believe' is like " do you believe the man was honest who sold your table to you?"

My guess is that people who say they don't believe in Christ intend solely the first meaning.

[attofishpi]

-- --

..R U searching for meaning? It's a rather average approach..

..I couldn't give a flying rats arse whether U believe in Christ, but more importantly, since this is a "philosophy" forum, Y wouldn't you?

There are two meanings of 'believe'.
One meaning is like "do you believe your table is made of wood?" and the other meaning of 'believe' is like " do you believe the man was honest who sold your table to you?"

My guess is that people who say they don't believe in Christ intend solely the first meaning.

Perhaps its better explained like this:

When people ask me, do I believe in GOD? I could answer that in three ways that would be accurate (remain TRUE) from my POV.

I could answer NO (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe)
I could answer NO (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe) but I don't believe in GODs intentions.
I could answer YES (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe) and I do believe in GODs intentions.

I couldn't answer YES as if I believe in GODs existence, or could I?

Would I be telling a lie on that last one?

If you think I am missing something there, let me know.

[Belinda]

..R U searching for meaning? It's a rather average approach..

..I couldn't give a flying rats arse whether U believe in Christ, but more importantly, since this is a "philosophy" forum, Y wouldn't you?

There are two meanings of 'believe'.
One meaning is like "do you believe your table is made of wood?" and the other meaning of 'believe' is like " do you believe the man was honest who sold your table to you?"

My guess is that people who say they don't believe in Christ intend solely the first meaning.

Perhaps its better explained like this:

When people ask me, do I believe in GOD? I could answer that in three ways that would be accurate (remain TRUE) from my POV.

I could answer NO (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe)
I could answer NO (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe) but I don't believe in GODs intentions.
I could answer YES (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe) and I do believe in GODs intentions.

I couldn't answer YES as if I believe in GODs existence, or could I?

Would I be telling a lie on that last one?

If you think I am missing something there, let me know.

I am not sure if you align with me or not. I think you do, because your trust in God exists. You say "NO" because God does not merely exist as a thing, but as existence itself.
I think you trust God in the sense of 'to believe' that means 'to trust in', so you would answer YES to believe in meaning to trust in.

My idea of God as in 'I trust in God' does not include that God has intentions like humans have intentions . God doesn't need to have intentions. I do however trust in (believe in )Jesus Christ as a man who interpreted God to man and intended to do so.

[attofishpi]

There are two meanings of 'believe'.
One meaning is like "do you believe your table is made of wood?" and the other meaning of 'believe' is like " do you believe the man was honest who sold your table to you?"

My guess is that people who say they don't believe in Christ intend solely the first meaning.

Perhaps its better explained like this:

When people ask me, do I believe in GOD? I could answer that in three ways that would be accurate (remain TRUE) from my POV.

I could answer NO (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe)
I could answer NO (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe) but I don't believe in GODs intentions.
I could answer YES (because I know GOD does exist, I don't merely believe) and I do believe in GODs intentions.

I couldn't answer YES as if I believe in GODs existence, or could I?

Would I be telling a lie on that last one?

If you think I am missing something there, let me know.

I am not sure if you align with me or not. I think you do, because your trust in God exists.

No, I don't think we are on the same page. "Trust" is a faith value. My situation is that i KNOW GOD exists, but there are characteristics about IT and intentions suggested from IT, that I am not certain about, that is, I am not sure I TRUST GOD.

My idea of God as in 'I trust in God' does not include that God has intentions like humans have intentions . God doesn't need to have intentions. I do however trust in (believe in )Jesus Christ as a man who interpreted God to man and intended to do so.

Good 4 U Belinda.

[puto]

Truthfulness belongs to the proposition or impression on the mind, the ideas were outward objects. Truth lies in propositions or impressions of the mind. Ideas were the outward effects of sentences. Judgment operates on affirming or denying, it is in the proposition. Judgment does operate on affirming or denying. Judgment was the proposition. Anderson, Stephen. “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’,” Philosophy Now, Issue 88, January/February 2012, Digital.

[puto]

Belinda:

You collapse back to an appeal to authority, then when you believe. Appeal to authority (nothing more than second-hand knowledge,) then you believe (to credit a thing upon the authority of another.) You are appealing to authority. Just have your own knowledge, and argue from that. Logic is truthfulness, without appealing to authority. Be original in your thinking and thought. The dispositions of most this board is that of ignorance and anger because they cannot get it out intelligently and logically.

[Belinda]

Belinda:

You collapse back to an appeal to authority, then when you believe. Appeal to authority (nothing more than second-hand knowledge,) then you believe (to credit a thing upon the authority of another.) You are appealing to authority. Just have your own knowledge, and argue from that. Logic is truthfulness, without appealing to authority. Be original in your thinking and thought. The dispositions of most this board is that of ignorance and anger because they cannot get it out intelligently and logically.

I do try not to believe X because somebody important claims X is the case. However it's impossible for me to not get my concepts from a source other than myself, immersed in a culture as is everyone else. When I told Attofishpi that I trust Jesus Christ I mean that JC has a trustworthy set of ideas, and lived a life, that advance peace and civilisation and can continue to do so (if well taught). JC is not merely someone important---JC's moral code is a reasonable moral code.

If, on the other hand, you write concerning mystical knowledge then I will not agree that mystical knowledge is either true or trustworthy.

[attofishpi]

The Problem of Evil can be answered only by divesting God of omnipotence. God as Pancreator is not the God we worship when we mean to be good.

Incorrect.

It never ceases to amaze me how daft 'philosophers' especially the atheist ones are on matters concerning GOD. Although, perhaps one needs to have actually experienced GOD empirically as I have.

My site 4 anyone interested in my claim:- www.androcies.com

So.

NO - the thing you've got wrong there Belinda is that GOD IS omnipotent to our REAL IT Y. The thing that all the silly people have got wrong about GOD is the omnibenevolent aspect.

GOD is NOT omnibenevolent. I have been subjected to GOD's wrath, the evil side of GOD. And considering 'philosophers' have access to the Bible, there is plenty of material in there to confirm GOD IS NOT OMNIBENEVOLENT!!

What idiocy of "PHILOSOPHY" this continuance of this "The Problem of Evil" ...is.

I just wiped out the ridiculous "problem of evil" in how many lines?

Yet "philosophers" have probably written entire books on it and the PHN mag to this day has these wankers blabbing on as if there is some extreme paradox to deal with; SURE, if you have NEVER bothered to read the Bible or actually experience the evil side of GOD.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that states GOD is ALL good. An entity that has suggested you will burn in hell forever (just by the suggestion alone) has zero omnibenevolence.