Okay, I'm calling it on Man's Search for Meaning. I just don't think I'm going to finish it. I hate not finishing, but every time I try to pick it up, I just can't. I really enjoyed and was mesmerized by the first half where he described life in the concentration camps. I was totally unprepared and not expecting part two, which is really an academic treatise.
I tried to read, but it reminded me so much of reading articles on literary theory in grad school. My eyes would glaze over and I'd have no idea what I had just read. I've got mom brains now dontcha know, and that kind of thinking is almost impossible for me. It was hard enough back when I was in school and reading ten pages would take the better part of an hour.
In case anyone else is suffering from a similar inertia, I was wondering if we can just discuss what we've read and then move on. Here are a few thoughts and questions about what I read.
The whole idea is to find meaning in life, and with the example of the concentration camp - meaning in suffering. You can be the best prisoner or you can suffer well. At first, this really kind of smacked of Existentialism to me. I'm also obligated through marriage to hate Existentialism. Ryan disdains all offshoots of Post-modernism because he believes that if taken to their fullest meaning philosophically they just become nihilistic. This was made very clear before we were married.
However, I actually think the book is a rejection of Existentialism. Existentialism, as far as I understand, and I could be WAY off, doesn't seek to find meaning. It doesn't seek for anything, but just a kind of acceptance, in a way. We had to read Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" in a French class. In the end, we're supposed to recognize the absurd and accept it and Camus imagines that Sisyphus sees the absurdity of his fate and might even find happiness in pushing that rock. That was a big oversimplification, but I'm writing this during my precious nap time and I'm on the clock. I've got to finish up quick so I can sneak in an episode of Gilmore Girls and eat candy before they get up.
Anywho, Frankel's point is that we need to find meaning and having that meaning is what directs our lives. Existentialism's point is that basically there is no meaning in life so one ought to accept that and move on. So, yay for Frankel. Boo for Existentialism.
Secondly, has anyone read The Uses of Adversity by Carlfred Broderick? If not, might I suggest it as an addendum and continuation for this discussion? Broderick was the Institute director at USC when my parents went there. He was also the head of Psychology at USC for many years and was very well-known professionally. This book is taken from a Women's Conference address he gave many years ago. This book might be the LDS sequel to Frankel's book. Frankel says to find something that has meaning for you to help direct your life. This book argues that the Gospel and Jesus Christ are what give meaning and purpose to our trials on this earth. I cannot recommend this book enough. It's a short read. I read it first at my mom's house because she had several copies laying around. She keeps several handy to give away. I immediately had Ryan read it, and then we bought several copies of our own so that we could give them away. He has so many insights that have been really helpful to me in my life.
So, those are my thoughts. Anyone have a follow-up?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A transcontinental reading group for friends who refuse to grow up.
3 comments:
Okay, after discussing this a little more with Ryan, I think I might be changing my position a little. If I remember correctly, Frankel doesn't argue for any specific meaning, but just says that man must find SOME meaning that makes sense for him. Unfortunately, this is where it starts looking a lot like Existentialism to me. Ryan points out (through Wikipedia) that Kierkegaard "proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely ('authentically')."
And I just have to add that the word "authentic" is so overused and annoying now. When Ryan read that quote we both smirked a little. I'm glad that I know where it started, but when the hipsters grab onto something, dang it, they really grab on.
Frankel never mentions Existentialism in his book, but Ryan again points out that it was written during the zeitgeist of all this post-modern thought. So even if he doesn't call it that or refer to it, everyone around was having similar awakenings and theories.
I guess I'm on the fence.
Kay, so Cathryn, if this is evidence of mom brain I am so, so fried. Anything philosophical goes right in and out without doing much good in my brain. Not just now, but ever. Oh, well.
I agree, though, that the first half was engaging and insightful. I did make it through the whole book and highlighted a bit of the second half, but more because I needed to go back and figure out what he meant by the science and psychology. I'm a story person. Real experiences related in a story-like way get to me much more deeply. I appreciated that the experiences he had to relate were in no way gratuitous (as they very easily could have been described much more graphically) but never dumbed down.
I took a Holocost class one semester and boy, was that intense. I observed that--in general--the first hand accounts of those who experienced (both victims and perpetrators) were so matter of fact. The representations of events during the period done later by artists (novelists, movie makers, 2 and 3 dimensional artists, etc.) were simply saturated with so much emotion. Really overpowering. As well they should--to a degree. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I've appreciated accounts like Frankel's that are retrospective/reflective/realist without being manipulative. He isn't talking us into feeling pity or sorrow or appalled. That I do is a measuring stick of my humanity. (That's my take, anyway.)
Sorry I can't add any incredibly deep or broad context like Cathryn. I loved the story telling of the first part and will have to someday go back to the second and figure out what my notes actually mean . . .
Ok, sorry to be such a defunct book club member. I'd love to think and comment on this more thoroughly, but I have to finish up a few things for my class that ends this week. Just commenting so you know I haven't (completely) forgotten about this little blog.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Also, I'm reading Middlesex right now. Anyone read it? I'm 3/4 of the way done and it is excellent!
Post a Comment