The Search for Meaning

[iambiguous]

Meaning

“The ruinous abdication by philosophy of its rightful domain is the consequence of the oblivion of philosophers to a great insight first beheld clearly by Socrates and re-affirmed by Kant as by no other philosopher. Science, concerned solely and exclusively with objective existents, cannot give answers to questions about meanings and values. Only ideas engendered by the mind and to be found nowhere but in the mind (Socrates), only the pure transcendental forms supplied by reason (Kant), can secure the ideals and values and put us in touch with the realities that constitute our moral and spiritual life. Twenty-four centuries after Socrates, two centuries after Kant, we badly need to re-learn the lesson." D. R. Khashaba

Of course, this is where "I" come in, isn't it?

“Seduced by the spectacular theoretical and practical successes of the objective sciences into thinking that the methods and criteria of those sciences were the only means to truth, philosophers sought to apply those same methods and criteria to questions relating to the meaning of life and the values that give meaning to life. Philosophy, especially the Analytical species prevalent in the English-speaking world, was broken up into specialized disciplines and fragmented into particular problems, all swayed and impregnated by scientism, reductionism, and relativism. All questions of meaning and value were consigned to the rubbish heap of 'metaphysical nonsense'.” D. R. Khashaba

Of course, this is where "I" come in, isn't it?

“Religion is great at providing comfort as it attempts to describe the universe we live in, why we die, and why certain things happen. But like everything in life, we can only see and judge through our own eyes.” Rebecca Ryder

Comfort and consolation. Don't leave home without them.

“Literature is always good. Stories are particularly powerful because they support the illusion that life has direction and purpose. Where God fails to show his hand, the writer shows his. When so much around us seems meaningless, stories give meaning. Stories don’t judge, yet they teach us, nurture us and while life goes on, they do us the favour of ending.” Rebecca Ryder

So, how am I doing here?

“Reading is still both fundamental and essential. And what, above all, a teacher can communicate to you is what to read and how to read. How to read! For the art of reading is in danger of being lost.” Ludwig Lewisohn

Not counting the Bible?

“And indeed, why should we think words 'allow us to see,' when they were invented precisely to speak of what is not before our eyes and what cannot be pointed at with a finger? The most words can do (since they produce emotional effects) is to lead us to imagine.” Umberto Eco

Yeah, what about that?

[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.

[Dubious]

The search for meaning ends in advertising...whether for a god or the best pair of sneakers Adidas or Nike and everything in between. It's the American way! Even the old warlord spoke in his first commandment, you shall have no other gods before me. Advertising in those days clearly amounted to a command.

[iambiguous]

Metaphysical Skepticism
Jacob Bell argues that we can’t determine the ultimate nature of reality.

Metaphysics can be thought of as an investigation into the ultimate or fundamental nature of reality. In other words, it is the attempt to reveal and describe how and what things really are at some foundational level.

Then the part where a distinction is made between the metaphysical and the ontological. Also, the part where many objectivists among us insist there is a teleological component as well. And five will get you ten it's their own.

The most popular kind of metaphysics seems focused on determining whether the world is best described as fundamentally physical, mental, neutral, or some combination of these.

Or, as Ayn Rand interpreted it...

"For Rand, metaphysics tells us that entities have definite natures, epistemology tells us how to investigate those natures, and the special sciences then do the actual investigating." SEP

And this all revolves around her own rooted existentially in dasein assumption that to the extent mere mortals are rational, they are...metaphysically moral? Just as my own uniquely personal set of subjective assumptions has led me "here and now" to believe that moral nihilism is a reasonable frame of mind.

I have no quarrel with many of the questions that metaphysics seeks to investigate. Here I am concerned with the metaphysical doctrines which make grand claims, such as ‘everything is physical’ or ‘everything is mental’. Popular examples of these doctrines include physicalism and idealism.

Call it any Ism you want...as long as you are willing to note how, given your own day to day interactions with others, you can defend it pertaining to, among other things, conflicting goods.

Physicalism refers to the thesis that everything which exists is physical, including thoughts, numbers, minds, and consciousness (if these things exist, of course).

And if they don't?

Cue the epistemological nihilists? Or, perhaps, the metaphysical nihilists? Click, of course.

Idealism, in contrast, is the thesis that everything which exists is in some sense mental or a product of consciousness, including seemingly non-mental physical objects such as rocks, chairs, and planets.

On the other hand, how is demonstrating the validity of the above working out for you?

[Belinda]

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.

Yes there is! Jesus who interpreted God (and ,for Christian Trinitarians, is God)is reported in New Testament as the prophet and embodiment of love, justice, mercy, and benevolence.

"I have been subjected to GOD's wrath, the evil side of GOD."
I don't doubt the troubles and pains you had, but what you were subjected to was caused not by God 's so-called "wrath" , but by absence of God.

[MACHINE-GOD-THEORY]

1. The word "animal" comes from the Latin root meaning "to live, breathe or move on land".
2. Animals are classified into different classes based on their physical characteristics such as size, shape, color, and behavior.
3. There are over 2,000 species of mammals in the world today, with more than 100 new species being discovered every year.
4. Birds have been around for at least 150 million years, while reptiles evolved about 200 million years ago.
5. Mammals can be divided into two groups - herbivores (e.g., cows, pigs, sheep) and carnivores (e.g., lions, tigers).
6. Some animals eat plants; others hunt down prey like rodents, birds, fish, etc.; some even scavenge food that has fallen onto the ground.
7. Many animals use tools including sticks, claws, teeth, hooves, and other parts of their bodies to help them navigate through natural environments.
8. Insects play an important role in maintaining balance by eating plant material when they need it most but also consuming large amounts of insects during times of abundance.
9. In addition to hunting/eating, many animals engage in social behaviors such as mating, grooming, courtship, and parenting.
10. Humans domesticated animals long before agriculture was developed so there is still much we do not know about animal intelligence and behavior.

[iambiguous]

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

People may also seek refuge in belief systems for a sense of belonging that’s absent. Frankl argued that the loss of traditional (that is, religious) values contributed to an ‘existential vacuum’ that fuelled the twentieth century’s totalitarian political movements.

And now the 21st century's totalitarian political movements. Although, admittedly, for many, it's far less totalitarian and far more just plain old "show me the money". And, for those such as myself, a cynicism that now knows no bounds.

In the interim, however, those ghastly "acts of God" continue to pummel us, making life a virtual hell on Earth for men and women around the globe. California today but natural disasters can pop up any where at anytime. Think the Yellowstone super-volcano or the next extinction event coming down out of the clouds.

Communism and Fascism promised people both meaning and identity, as a worker or party member, in just the sort of way theology had done for the previous two millennia.

Still, aside from existing theocratic states, much of the pain and suffering these days revolves around the trials and the tribulations embedded in the autocratic state capitalist policies of those like Putin and Xi and Trump.

Totalitarian regimes can indeed in some ways resemble religions, replete as they are with their own clergy (the party), the exaltation of leaders, and the excommunication (and execution) of apostates.

More like authoritarian regimes. It's not ideology or philosophy that prevails these days so much as the quest for cheap labor, natural resources and markets. This and the "strong man" mentality of those who want to turn the govenment into their very own piggy banks.

Generally speaking, ideology readily fills man’s drive to make sense of our world and be a part of a collective. However, Frankl thought instead that it’s only by committing to intrinsically meaningful values and goals that we’re able to find authentic fulfillment, since he believed the search for meaning was the underlying motivator of life.

Right, right, "intrinsically meaningful values". In the form of, say, one or another "industrial complex"? And what about the Nazis' and the Communists' search for meaning? They don't count?

As a result, to cope with the experience of suffering, we must engage with existential realities directly and identify meaning. So where can we find meaning?

How about in sustaining the "will to power"? How about in "making American great again"? How about in one or another One True path?

Or else, say.

[iambiguous]

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

Two Images of the World

There’s no simple answer to this question. For Plato and others, the universe is imbued with inherent purpose: there’s an order to things in the world and an end (telos) to human life.

Of course, for Plato and many other "serious philosophers" down through the ages, this "inherent purpose" is embedded almost entirely in a world of words. It is basically a philosophical contraption such that if you accept the definition and the meaning of the words used to convey this purpose -- and meaning and morality -- that's what "makes" it true.

In other words, the answers tend to become simpler and simpler when the objectivists among us make it quite clear that they and only they have invented -- discovered? -- the one true purpose -- and meaning and morality -- said to be applicable to all that they insist are rational and virtuous human beings.

And this is established [for those of my ilk] by the fact that historically philosophers have never come close to concurring on the One True Path this purpose -- and meaning and morality -- actually encompasses.

Cultivating a set of virtues that are in harmony with this order of nature is necessary to achieve a meaningful and happy life.

And the good news is that there are lots and lots of disparate paths to choose from:

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

Also, once you embrace one all that is necessary to establish it as the One True Path is that you believe it is.

Or, perhaps, is that the bad news as long as particular philosophers themselves are willing to accept the "my way or the highway" objectivist mentality?

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues

In particular for Plato, human purpose is closely intertwined with moving towards an understanding of the Form of the Good – the eternal standard of goodness which is the unchanging and ultimate source of justice, truth, beauty and other values.

Now, in regard to that, let's just say "the rest is history". Frankl just happened to encounter a Purpose -- and Meaning and Morality -- that rationalized the extermination of an entire "ethnic group, religion, and culture."

[Belinda]

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.

You are right in a way. God is either omnibenevolent or omnipotent but not both.
I believe that omnibenevolence is more worthy than omnipotence. I can't worthship omnipotence but I do worthship omnibenevolence.

Jesus was not omnipotent but was omnibenevolent.

Belief in God has a history (detectable to scholars of Biblical records)that begins with the earliest monotheists in the Near East -------to 2025 when all thinking people in Europe and elsewhere are struggling to find a reasonable God that answers contemporary problems. Neither you nor I are Biblical scholars or historians of religion. But what we have is ability to learn reasonable ideas that may be new to us .

It's true that at one time there was a popular belief in Hell and Hell fire. This belief was propagated by those who wanted to control the people by threats. Among untaught people the threats worked but since most people became literate and able to think for themselves belief in Hellfire and Hell is no longer viable .

Your personal troubles had multiple causes . That you blame God for those troubles is due to your belief in an omnipotent version of God. This belief is worse than useless unless you have lost all hope. We each need to take responsibility for promoting the cause of omnibenevolence in our own small ways, such as is within our power.

[iambiguous]

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

The universe that modern science describes is ostensibly at odds with Plato’s worldview. First, the Godless cosmos doesn’t have a masterplan – things just happen, sometimes bad things, without any reason at all.

On the other hand, I'm sure that Plato had his own rebuttal directed at those who might have pointed this out to him "back then". Only the masterplan is almost entirely embedded in a set of assumptions regarding "Platonic Realism":

"Platonic realism is the theory of reality developed by Plato, and explained in his theory of forms. Platonic realism states that the visible world of particular things is a shifting exhibition, like shadows cast on a wall by the activities of their corresponding universal Ideas or Forms. Whereas the visible world of particulars is unreal, the Forms occupy the unobservable yet true reality and are real." wiki

Agree with this? Okay, pertaining to your own value judgments, how is it applicable to behaviors you'd choose as a prisoner in the cave as opposed to being a philosopher-king in the world outside the cave?

You choose the context.

There’s no natural law that works to minimize either human or animal pain.

Though there are any number natural laws that work to maximize human and animal pain and suffering.

Second, the scientific image of the world is descriptive, not prescriptive. That means it has a lot to say about the nature of the building blocks of the world, and less about meaning, morality, and ethics.

Bullshit! Right, Mr. Objectivist?

Value claims don’t fit neatly into the empirical scaffolding of science. David Hume characterized this distinction succinctly by asking whether we can get an ought from an is. He thought you could not do so because they are “entirely different” from each other, and hence morality is not derivable from any purely scientific description of the world.

No problem right? You already have yanked every possible ought from every possible is. Metaphysical morality, perhaps?

Modern neuroscience offers an elegant solution in response to Hume’s ‘is-ought’ dilemma: that value claims are emergent properties of underlying neurobiological processes. Moral decision-making is reducible to brain wiring, which through complex genetic and environmental interactions has evolved over time to favor prosocial behavior. In other words, we’ve evolved to have values and be moral.

Over and again...a philosophical assessment deemed correct if you agree with it and incorrect if you don't. And the point isn't that mere mortals evolve to acquire value judgments but the fact that there are any number of objectivists out there who insist there is but one option for all those who wish to be thought of as rational men and women.

Then the extent to which "or else" is broached. And, historically, we know all the different ways that can turn out.

[Belinda]

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

The universe that modern science describes is ostensibly at odds with Plato’s worldview. First, the Godless cosmos doesn’t have a masterplan – things just happen, sometimes bad things, without any reason at all.

On the other hand, I'm sure that Plato had his own rebuttal directed at those who might have pointed this out to him "back then". Only the masterplan is almost entirely embedded in a set of assumptions regarding "Platonic Realism":

"Platonic realism is the theory of reality developed by Plato, and explained in his theory of forms. Platonic realism states that the visible world of particular things is a shifting exhibition, like shadows cast on a wall by the activities of their corresponding universal Ideas or Forms. Whereas the visible world of particulars is unreal, the Forms occupy the unobservable yet true reality and are real." wiki

Agree with this? Okay, pertaining to your own value judgments, how is it applicable to behaviors you'd choose as a prisoner in the cave as opposed to being a philosopher-king in the world outside the cave?

You choose the context.

There’s no natural law that works to minimize either human or animal pain.

Though there are any number natural laws that work to maximize human and animal pain and suffering.

Second, the scientific image of the world is descriptive, not prescriptive. That means it has a lot to say about the nature of the building blocks of the world, and less about meaning, morality, and ethics.

Bullshit! Right, Mr. Objectivist?

Value claims don’t fit neatly into the empirical scaffolding of science. David Hume characterized this distinction succinctly by asking whether we can get an ought from an is. He thought you could not do so because they are “entirely different” from each other, and hence morality is not derivable from any purely scientific description of the world.

No problem right? You already have yanked every possible ought from every possible is. Metaphysical morality, perhaps?

Modern neuroscience offers an elegant solution in response to Hume’s ‘is-ought’ dilemma: that value claims are emergent properties of underlying neurobiological processes. Moral decision-making is reducible to brain wiring, which through complex genetic and environmental interactions has evolved over time to favor prosocial behavior. In other words, we’ve evolved to have values and be moral.

Over and again...a philosophical assessment deemed correct if you agree with it and incorrect if you don't. And the point isn't that mere mortals evolve to acquire value judgments but the fact that there are any number of objectivists out there who insist there is but one option for all those who wish to be thought of as rational men and women.

Then the extent to which "or else" is broached. And, historically, we know all the different ways that can turn out.

Philosopher kings would be superb, except that human nature would permit sheer power to depose philosopher kings and the powerful to become the elite. Democracy is our only defence against tyranny.
Meanwhile we struggle on and on to make democracy truly social.

[iambiguous]

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

Reclaiming Meaning

In Man’s Search for Meaning Frankl offers three ways to rediscover meaning in the personal, spiritual or ‘noetic’ dimension. First, we can participate in active creation. We can start a community project, write a book, or compose music. We can build something, not because of the end, but simply for the sake of creation.

I can only imagine Frankl in the death camps noting this to all the others prisoners. Imagining how they would all react to him there...noetically?

And, of course, the bottom line is that logotherapy as a psychological tool may or may not be helpful as a method of healing. Everything always comes down to the context and whether, existentially, we actually have an option to practice it.

For example, they're on their way to the gas chamber. Logotherapy then? Or suppose you go searching for meaning in your life and you find it in the SS?

Albert Camus saw creation as an ‘absurd joy par excellence’ that mimicked the ephemeral quality of existence (The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, 1946).

You tell me. For example, what this has to do with the "absurd joy par excellence" in your own life.

For example, an actor breathes life into a character for a fleeting moment, then exits the stage. The significance of an actor’s work is the performance itself and those experiencing it. The joy is in the doing.

Same thing though. You go to the theatre to watch a play. But its plot -- meaning -- revolves around a moral or political philosophy that is abhorrent to you. But not to those up on the stage and to most of the audience. They're cheering wildly.

In other words, there's the meaning we find interacting in the either/or world and our, at times, conflicting reactions to that meaning pertaining to conflicting goods. Logotherapy...and abortion? gun control? homosexuality? animal rights?

One take on it: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... tor-frankl

"But the psychology establishment turned against Frankl in the early 1960s, when Rollo May questioned the therapeutic techniques suggested by Man’s Search for Meaning. In his 1961 book Existential Psychology, May related Frankl’s survival of the concentrations camps but then concluded that "logotherapy hovers close to authoritarianism," because:

"…there seem to be clear solutions to all problems, which belies the complexity of actual life. It seems that if the patient cannot find his goal, Frankl supplies him with one. This would seem to take over the patients’ responsibility and ... diminish the patient as a person."

We can similarly find joy in our work.

Or in any number of distractions available to us...respite from the horrors that "the human condition" never tires of reminding us of.

But then those particulaly fanatic -- sadistic? -- Nazis who found their "work" in the death camps to be, if not joyful, than certainly fulfilling. They only had to believe what they were ordered to believe by powers that be about the Jews.

Professor Stephen Hawking for instance stated in an interview to ABC News in 2018 that his work provided meaning, and without it, his life was empty.

Yeah, but that's because his job involved exploring the entire universe itself. And as often as not here there are no actual moral or political or spiritual quandaries/conflicts to speak of. Instead, the more heated discussions can revolve around connecting the dots between the very, very big and the very, very small.

Then the part where "I" fits in here?

Frankl coined the term ‘unemployment neurosis’ for depressive episodes triggered by lack of opportunities to work. Work and creativity give us purpose and connection beyond ourselves.

On the other hand, the part where someone is able to find work in a factory or in an office only to be ground down hour after hour and day after day doing exactly the same thing. The 'alienation of labor" let's call it.

[Belinda]

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.

How do you know your misfortunes were caused by God's wrath?
Why do your believe your particular interpretation of The Bible is the best interpretation?

[iambiguous]

Meaning

What would the world be...without money hung around our necks, hung around our very souls? Patrick deWitt

Communist?

“Dr. Hopkins told our class that we might never know what other people think and feel, but we used symbols that we generally agreed upon (language, mathematics, maps) for our meaning and purpose. We built rickety bridges over chasms of ignorance.” Bremer Acosta

Cue the clouds?

“I can’t not be who I am meant to be, can I?” H.C. Roberts

Clickless let's say.

“By extricating 'reality' from mind, materialism has sent the significance of nature into exile. With the pathetic grin of hubris stamped on our foolish faces, we carefully unwrap the package and then proceed to throw away its contents whileb proudly storing the empty box on the altar of our ontology. What a huge stash of empty boxes have we accumulated! Idols of stupidity they are; public reminders of a state of affairs that would be hilarious if it weren't tragic.” Bernardo Kastrup

Unless of course he's wrong.

“In a world where self-centered souls chase fleeting desires, dare to fight for something greater—something beyond yourself. Seek a purpose that calls you to stand for what transcends your own interests, and in doing so, you'll discover the true strength of your soul.” Blade Seventh

So, how's that working out for you?

“Things happen, and, like millions of people before me, I look for a meaning in them, because my vanity will not allow me to admit that the whole meaning of an event lies in the event itself.” Marlen Haushofer

No, really, what does that even mean "for all practical purposes?"

[iambiguous]

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

A second way Frankl believed we could find meaning is through love, whether it’s love of another person, or of art or nature.

Over and again, however, from my frame of mind, words like "love" can mean many different things to many different people. There's the dictionary definition -- "an intense feeling of deep affection" -- and there are all of the at times conflicting things that men and women actually feel deep affection for. In other words, morally, politically and spiritually what or who you love dearly others might hate dearly. The part I root existentially in dasein, but the part others root instead in one or another One True Path. The part that revolves around as the song says "love my way".

Or else.

The last way to find meaning Frankl cites is by taking a stance when faced with unavoidable suffering. He argued that human life has purpose and dignity even during the most abject suffering – it has the meaning we choose to give it.

I certainly do agree that in regard to the lives we live from day to day and our interactions with others, meaning is bursting at the seams. It's everywhere. On the other hand, what if we live in a world where there is no essential meaning -- purpose, dignity -- applicable to words like love?

Humans have a capacity to choose how we bear our burden in seemingly insurmountable conditions – and Frankl experienced some of the worst circumstances possible, living through Auschwitz and losing his father, mother, brother, and pregnant wife. Although his faith in meaning and purpose was tested, he never lost it. This tragic optimism embraces life despite its hardship.

I might be completely wrong about this but I suspect those like Frankl who have experienced great suffering or have been around it on a mass scale, find themselves in a situation where they are either able to provide themselves with something in the way of a meaningful antidote or it all collapses into an essentially meaningless world in which "shit happens".