This morning I came up with a solution to something that’s been bothering me for a long time: the need to come up with something meaningful to say every day. There are always ideas floating around in my head and there is always meaning to every moment but to sense them and to articulate them clearly are two different things. Thoughts require processing, selecting what and how much to share and translating them in a way that both expresses what I am experiencing and makes that expression intelligible to you, the reader.
Thus, I’ve decided to do something new. I will read through Frankl’s first and my favorite of his books, The Doctor and the Soul, with my commentary. I will begin each post with a reference to the page numbers. Let us begin:
The Doctor and the Soul, Introduction, p. xv-xvi
Frankl remarks that doctors have been accused of attempting to carry philosophy over into medicine, yet the patients themselves are coming to the doctor (or psychologist or counselor) with problems such as, what is the meaning of their lives.
I have had many arguments with one Jewish educator in particular, claiming that God should not be brought into the therapy room. All of my protestations that God is already there and does not need me to bring him in, and also that I only respond to what the client is bringing me, have been to no avail.
Frankl continues and explains that many people assume that the spiritual distress a person displays when he or she is seeking a meaning to his or her existence is nothing but a pathological symptom. I would add that such a search is not necessarily viewed as pathological but nonetheless deserves relating to within a religious context and not a psychological one. This small disagreement I have had with my colleague relates to a much larger issue.
Generally, there is confusion about where to put Frankl’s books on the library shelf, let alone in which department of the university he should be studied. Are Frankl’s books and ideas an aspect of psychology, psychiatry, social work, philosophy, religion, existentialism or holocaust studies?
The answer is, Frankl’s books belong to all of these categories. The inclusion of philosophy in a healing approach does not constitute a foreign intrusion or “cross-pollination” but rather demonstrates the complexity of human beings and the artificiality with which these separate divisions have been kept apart.
As human beings we are seekers of meaning. When we lose our sense of meaning and sense of purpose we act out that loss and existential vacuum through materialistic excess, addictions and violence. If my life has no meaning to it, then my attitude will be why should I care and why should anyone care what I do? The world is at my disposal to exploit.
Why should I look at life any differently than I do? Why should I change my behaviors or my thoughts? Is it only so that I will get what I want? Sit quietly and you’ll get your candy bar at the end? Will I respond merely to conditioning? Is there no human motivation that is higher than the level of a child, a machine, or an animal?
If Frankl is right, and there is a higher motivation, and more to being human than feeling good, then a helping relationship must include whatever this “more” consists of.